Fincantieri ITALY 🇮🇹💪

An british-Italian-korean aircraft carrier? Cool

@alistairbolden6340

3 жыл бұрын

Brits and Italians have been working together extremely well the last few years, missiles, jets, APC's and even the new gen of mobile arty. Leonardo is an amazing company a very good fit for BEA and Babcock.

@Atlantis-tx2mv

2 жыл бұрын

And it will be a perfect design for a future Australian carrier aircraft and the future replacement for the Italian Cavour...

@piersp38

2 жыл бұрын

@@alistairbolden6340 Leonardo and Fincantieri are Our diamonds . That's why the French were scared about doing an alliance with STX .... On the other hand working with UK It's excellent , as each Country has complementary companies , the new Tempest after the older Panavia Tornado and the Eurofighter Typhoon are others nice examples of cooperation .

@YaMomsOyster

2 жыл бұрын

@@Atlantis-tx2mv Australia is not looking to buy a Carrier so get that idea out of your head. We have Air to Air refuelling for strike missions and very long rang hypersonic somewhere in the outback. Wink , wink! Not to mention we could whip up a nuclear weapon in under twelve months if we applied our industries.

@henrikbragge

2 жыл бұрын

Synergie effects 👍🏻 for big powers

Hyundai & Babcock VS Daewoo & Fincantierri

Korea will have such the giant aircraft carrier! Dreams come true!!!!

@thelastredsquirrels3787

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah the Korean design looks incredible 👌

@kirakamu9246

3 жыл бұрын

South Korea is China's ally. South Korean will transfer all UK technology to China.

@user-ok2qc2qg3p

3 жыл бұрын

@@kirakamu9246For what purpose are you disseminating this nonsense? South Korea is the best anti-Communist country in the world, and China, along with North Korea, is one of the most important countries It's an obvious enemy country.

@kirakamu9246

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-ok2qc2qg3p You are lying. South Korea already has a military treaty with China. In 2015, a South Korean attacked the US ambassador to South Korea with a kitchen knife and slashed his face. The ambassador had to undergo 20 hour surgery. The South Korean attacker confessed he did it in protest to the US military presence in South Korea saying that US is blocking the unification of North Korea and South Korea. There are many South Korean students protesting at the US Embassy every day yelling yankee go home at Americans there.

@ohhappyday4868

3 жыл бұрын

@@kirakamu9246 Are you crazy? China is the enemy of South Korea. South Korea is the only ally with the United States. You're either Chinese or Japanese.

The first Korean design is very beautiful..👍

@bestamerica

3 жыл бұрын

hi A A... ' north korea is the afraid of south korea navy

@jorahtheandal243

3 жыл бұрын

however the most unrealistic.

@JohnKickboxing

3 жыл бұрын

But it's so wrong to build ski-jump carriers these days, the jets would burn much of the fuel when taking off.

@mpgnz73

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnKickboxing "Ski-jump" take offs from carriers burns less fuel - that the point of them.

@DanielFlood94

2 жыл бұрын

@@JohnKickboxing Sortie speeds for ski jumps faster than CATOBAR carriers. Sure the aircraft required less modifications but the aircraft can be launched in at least half the time.

clearly HHIs design looks better and more effective . looks very modern and cost effective . can launch and recover planes and helicopters at the same time . if south korea builds this . they will be really one of the most powerful navies . they have a very powerful surface fleet now already . imagine adding a carrier .

@Arltratlo

3 жыл бұрын

it will become the main target for every nuke warhead in this area..

@The_Kaiser.

3 жыл бұрын

@@Arltratlo eeeeh.. noup

@gogogogoogh

3 жыл бұрын

@@Arltratlo So, South Korea has at least 5000 missiles with a range of 3000 km. South Korea is a semi-nuclear weapon that can produce 40 nuclear warheads in two months.

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

@@Arltratlo same goes to Liaoning and Shandong.

@archerry6457

2 жыл бұрын

"...looks better and more effective" than what?

It's a love child between Q.E. (65,000 t, with no amphibious ) and Trieste amphibious LHD (33,000 t) ...actually one more is supposedly planned for 2030 for about 45000 tons to replace remaining "conventional" destroyers, so it makes sense to work with Korea, since it made no sense to replace the San Giorgio and San Marco (about 8000 t) with three new but "smallish" LHD but a single much more capable master ship of 40,000 tons.

@guaschetto

2 жыл бұрын

#####qq8

@guaschetto

2 жыл бұрын

8⃣ q Q de qqqqqqqaciAo

@valerianocuomo996

Жыл бұрын

Trieste is giant 255mt 38k TON

The Royal Navy could do with a couple of those 19,000tn helicopter dock ships, but also capable of amphibious warfare, Carrying Royal Marines, attack helicopters, Commando helicopters, defensive Wildcats with 20 Martlets each, some with Brimstone, and more.

@nathd1748

3 жыл бұрын

We actually had a 21k tonne helicopter carrier called HMS Ocean. Built in 1998 and at only 20 years old sold to Brazil because of budget constraints.

@Ezekiel903

2 жыл бұрын

italy has a similar ship, the Triest, it can carry F35, Choppers, and ATV vehicles! it seems Italy and the UK have a lot to do, with the Tempest and other projects, now with south korea

@Steven-sy7lr

2 жыл бұрын

We could do with 2 lpds like Spain and Australia have upscaled to 45000 tonne. Given the choice id take 3 of them over the 2 queen Elizabeth class atleast they can do amphibious too.

@Ezekiel903

11 ай бұрын

i like this type of carrier, like the Italian or Korean, having planes but also being capable of amphibious warfare, carrying vehicles and troops make sense!!

The two islands is a great idea. It seems so simple you have to ask why no one thought of it before!

@t.bunker2511

3 жыл бұрын

The two islands reflect the use of 4 gas turbines for power. Two exhaust uptakes per island.

@tinman3586

Жыл бұрын

A single island is a much better use of deck space if it's feasible.

@Ezekiel903

10 ай бұрын

for smaller countries like Italy or S. Korea it makes more sense to build this half carrier half amphibious capable ships, so on ship can carry planes and troops near an island, like UK did in the Falklands!

So they are not working toghether. They are two competitive projects. One loosely based on the QE carrier, one more closely based on the Trieste amphibious assault ship.

Australia……..this should be interesting to you!

@gazza7uk646

2 жыл бұрын

i agree Australia should have at least one carrier being an island nation

@robertbohn5536

2 жыл бұрын

Australia could have the UK build two aircraft carriers for the RAN……and Australia could build two LHD type vessels for the RN.

@robertbohn5536

2 жыл бұрын

Australia could have the UK build two aircraft carriers for the RAN……and Australia could build two LHD type vessels for the RN.

Makes sense to have ships of allied countries being able to house same type of jets . F35B current sea plane of choice. Type 26 ,45 with subs and some Type 31/32 multi role designs would give S.Korea a significant shipbuilding and task force project.

@williamjordan5554

2 жыл бұрын

That was one of the goals of building the F-35B.

@twocansams6335

Жыл бұрын

F35B is the only jet they can fly, unless they install a magnetic catapult and apparently the U.S was going to charge the U.K 2 billion to install it on their carriers, its why they opted to go with the skiramp and F35B.

@Ezekiel903

11 ай бұрын

personally, ii don't think Korea needs air carrier, they defend their country very well with air crafts starting from mainland or missile system, maybe later to control the south china sea!

@paulgee1952

11 ай бұрын

@@Ezekiel903 South Korea has a strong ship building and export economy requiring a strong Navy to protect it's trade rights . Navy is the best way to project globally and ensure those wanting to disrupt that, has more than diplomatic threat to deal with . It is also a burden shared among its allied partners to ensure security in the sea of Japan and main shiping lanes.

@Ezekiel903

11 ай бұрын

@@paulgee1952 agree, but i was more thinking in case of a war, Korea can reach Chinese mainland without need of a carrier, but otherwise you have absolutely right, they need a strong navy, as a peninsula this is a must!

Hope it's bigger than the other two. Our adversaries can take off and land quicker with a higher volume of craft.

Awesome. Go NAVY.

@lolipopgym

3 жыл бұрын

Our country will train for a year and a half when we are 20 or 21, and I will help you when your country is in a war.

Is GB capable of building a massive carrier like building some of the futuristic carrier concept art instead but building them at Rothsyth or Lieth dockyards? Love the dreadnought 2050 ship design too.

@Ezekiel903

11 ай бұрын

Italy is the biggest ship builder in Europe, UK has an impressive knowledge with Italy, South Korea has the needed Shipyards!

The UK should build these as well to act as auxiliary fleet carriers

I believe that South Kore is interested in Interoperability, Home Production, Input from RN, Future Combined Operations and a joint approach to counter China Aggression.

@keith6371

3 жыл бұрын

No, Korean carrier is meant to counter Japanese Izumo. China and S Korea has very little maritime disputes. In Korean mind, and Chinese for that matter, Japan is always enemy No.1.

@keith6371

3 жыл бұрын

@중국똥국 why? Japan only tried to invade Korea for what? The past 700 years? And successes multiple times too. Forced Korean women into sexual slavery, buried hundreds of thousands of Korean alive, Ever Heard of comfort women?

@christophervasques1322

3 жыл бұрын

@@keith6371 hahah so do you think that japanese is trying to invade korea another time? Maybe the Izumo class has been commissioned to counter chinese threat? MAYBE. When PLAN will become real huge and a real threat than you will change your perspective. Korea and China are so friendly that when US stationed THAAD system in Korea, China used its "friendly" economic cohercition to deter Korean government. Instead of creating fake enemies it would be better counter the real threats

@christophervasques1322

3 жыл бұрын

@@keith6371 Ever heard of chinese empires treating Korea as a vassal state? Maybe you should re-open school books

@junb.7725

3 жыл бұрын

@@keith6371 It's basically the same reasons why pretty much the rest of the world hates them + alpha.

Excellent💯 video🎥👍

The skinnier design seems cheaper and easier to produce. A couple can be made from that, versus the bigger and more labor intensive design. Now I'm fine if SK goes the cheap route, given the govt atm. Since they don't need to copy America in size.

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

Not many moving parts like catapults and arrestor cables and being not nuclear powered made it cheaper to maintained.

@AntagonizingPotato

3 жыл бұрын

@@Joshua_N-A actually having a nuclear reactor as a fuel source for an aircraft carrier means it can be used for 20 years straight before needing to be refueled, so it’s more reliable to have a nuclear reactor, not only is it more strategic, because the SK aircraft carrier will need to go back for refueling which will make it less convenient, that is if it’s diesel.

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

@@AntagonizingPotato refueling the reactor will take the ship out of action for a long while. France will not have its carrier in action for a year or two and will not have any carrier available due to built only one. So far, no other countries outside US could operate more than one nuclear carrier let alone build one. Plus, the US never export its reactor technology due sensitive information. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refueling_and_overhaul

@originalkk882

3 жыл бұрын

@@AntagonizingPotato The aircraft still need fuel. Plus normal provisions for the carrier.

my latest designed is no Island.. the top is all operational as you like. imagine the capabilities ... all are possible.

It's so interesting. Like a mix between HMS Queen Elizabeth and the Izumo Class. Still, quite an attractive boat.

cool design👍👍

How did Thales' partnership with Hanwha go? Good luck to BAE.

huh i always thought the south korean ones are pretty similar in design and specs to the UK carrier.

The most important Aircraft on an American Carrier is the E2 Hawkeye. Any carrier that can't operate that plane is just a glorified "Sea Control Ship" and not a front line, fully combat capable ship. The French went so far as to lengthen their carrier flight deck, just to be able to operate the E2 Hawkeye, as they "Get it". I guess the rest of the world still doesn't understand the advantages of having catapults and arrested landings.

@a.b.6233

3 жыл бұрын

That's because most countries don't need to deploy their carriers to the other side of the globe but just need "local" projection of power launching their E2 equivalent from land bases. Take Italy for example, 2 small carriers and one more under construction (to replace one of the other 2), that are only needed in the Mediterranean and Red See regions. Flying radars can take off from Sicily using the carriers as "fighter launchers" at a fraction of the cost of a big ship. The new Trieste only cost €1.1 bln, it's an assault ship but will also will be able to carry helicopters and F35s. If need be it can also be used as a hospital for humanitarian reasons (this is the trick the Italian Navy used to get it financed by the leftists in Parliament). The US of course have different needs and the US Navy doesn't need to play games with the Congress to get financed, or at least not to the same extent.

@jager6863

3 жыл бұрын

@@a.b.6233 History has illustrated the folly of navies relying on landbased air support

@a.b.6233

3 жыл бұрын

@@jager6863 What do you mean by air support?

@GowthamNatarajanAI

3 жыл бұрын

@@a.b.6233 He says one cannot rely on land based aircraft to help naval carriers. The carriers have to be independent.

@a.b.6233

3 жыл бұрын

@@GowthamNatarajanAI Indeed, but only if you operate far away from base, for that you need supercarriers. In my example I mentioned Italy which only operates in the Mediterranean See, therefore only needs a couple of small carriers with the support of land based aircraft for electronic warfare. Two different scenarios.

it looks similar to the Italian carrier Triest, only bigger!

bow - as in wow!!!

It's going to work..

Its more a landing helicopter dock a la Type 075 and America-class than a carrier

Jumping deck is kind of......maybe either right or left is fine, but middle is bit....hm.. not so applicable in these day🤔🤔

what are the aircraft models they used on the carrier diarama?

Why does SK feel the need for a carrier? Seems their primary naval concern is control of local waters not power projection.

no catapults: no AEW, no tankers, just short-range jump-jets and helos - have fun getting pounded from shore

nice aircraft carrier

Australia needs an aircraft carrier like this and should join in with the project. South Korea has the tech expertise to implement high bandwidth that can support thousands of multi-role drones along with F35Bs. They may also want to include one of South Korea's big tech giants like Samsung in on the project. Nice screens, swarms of drones, F35Bs, amphibious units, all in a small aircraft carrier strike group. Something that many small countries could integrate together to project peace and stability in their region.

@Coxman

Жыл бұрын

In fact, Australia needs to 2. One to be at sea and the other in maintenance as back up. Remember, Australia is part of AUKUS. Once the Aussies get their nuclear subs, AUKUS has the naval power to take on the Chinese.

@valerianocuomo996

Жыл бұрын

Australia korea Uk they are pathetic s, they have not problem with china, only business, but THE AMERICAN S ORDering they of buy nuclear submarine s,now,are enemy of china,because USA has they have given ordering...😂

Hyundai not only making decent cars, but also aircraft carrier.. that's insane

@ShPlum

3 жыл бұрын

Well search the world's shipbuilding companies ranking

@jaydenmackenzie9670

3 жыл бұрын

They construct buildings just like Samsung built burj khalifa

This futuristic CVX aircraft carrier design look similar to LHD Trieste that Italy Navy launched 2 years ago and do see trial

I immediately saw a huge flaw with the second carrier,with the right intelligence an enemy could concentrate missile attacks on the one side where both aircraft lifts are situated thus knocking out the resupply of jets and other aircraft to the deck

@nikkotan2840

2 жыл бұрын

U forget to mentioned the added complexity, reliability and redundancy of that Carrier! The Bow Thrusters. I mean it will be the first carrier to ever employ such weakness on a warships.

@kingdedede1066

Жыл бұрын

Dude if a modern anti ship missile hits a carrier then aircraft operations will stop no matter what side the lifts are on. If the carrier gets hit with anything something has gone very, very wrong in the strike group.

@Ezekiel903

10 ай бұрын

if today a missile can hit a carrier at that point, then even a US nuke air carrier would stop operate!

@remario3542

7 ай бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

hey wha thappen to that Russian submarine carrier?

CONGRATULATIONS UK GOVERNMENT PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING. UK GOVERNMENT NEEDS ANOTHER AIR CRAFT CARRIES

@nathd1748

3 жыл бұрын

Why? We have 2 and they are far from fully operational.

@nathd1748

3 жыл бұрын

@LewisThatPlayer I'm not sure I buy that suggestion as it would totally decimate the current defence budget. I think the answer was that the shipyard COULD churn out another 2 by that date should the Aussies or another NATO ally want to buy one.

@tunaconsuma

3 жыл бұрын

@@nathd1748 they are sailing right now. As far as I know one is undertaking combat missions in the Mediterranean

@alistairbolden6340

3 жыл бұрын

The British needs more support ships the Type 83 is lookin amazing as is the type 26 and 32. A focus on these vessles is more important right now than extra carriers.

@tunaconsuma

3 жыл бұрын

@@alistairbolden6340 yes, the british fleet lacks proper anti-ballistic missile protection right now unfortunately

Japan is not a rival, it is an Allie !!!! Semper Fi

Queen Elizabeth class carriers will have catapults in the future (2023) for drones and maybe even Tempest in 2035

@andrewdeacon8315

3 жыл бұрын

Tempest will definitely not be carrier capable , the catapults they are looking at are only designed to launch drones , they won’t be powerful enough to launch manned aircraft

@Joshua_N-A

3 жыл бұрын

Problem is, the Tempest is conventional.

@jt5765

2 жыл бұрын

@@Joshua_N-A Tempest is in the planning/design phase. It is currently planned to be stealth & unmanned capable.

everyones building carriers, japan, south korea, UK, china, India, russia, Italy, turkey, the nations are building more than double the number of currently existing carriers.

@fukushimaisrevelation2817

2 жыл бұрын

​@UCclN9Jjw6LicJ9zmKLsR1yg yep turkey kinda screwed itself it allocated funds in 2015 for a carrier TCG Anadolu it completed the light carrier TCG Anadolu this year in 2021 planning to buy the f35, but in 2017 turkey procured the russian s400 air defense system so if turkey had f35 they could have fine tuned the s400 to detect the f35 probable or russian maintenance personal on turkeys s400's might have gathered the radar sensor data, which is why its unlikely turkey will get to have f35 anytime soon, and nato stealth aircraft probable wont be operating around turkey anytime soon, also turkey took the nato friend or foe electronics out of their conventional nato aircraft and put their own friend or foe indigenous electronic in their aircraft a few years ago so turkey can fire upon anyone they wish too. If turkey had f35 they could have easily had a capable light carrier as it is now the TCG Anadolu is a helicopter carrier. Its not that hard to build small aircraft carriers, I saw a video the other day of an paddle wheel boat America had on the great lakes that America converted into a light carrier for training purposes in world war 2, but building the short takeoff aircraft with performance characteristics to compete with other aircraft carrier aircraft or surface based aircraft is very difficult, I mean america has spent hundreds of billions on the f35 and other stealth aircraft only to have turkey try to compromise those secrets with the russian s400, it seems like turkey isnt sure if it wants to stay in nato or join brics. However, with the syrian s400 and Israeli f35s flying in and out of syria to strike iranians in syria every day, its likely russia probable already has all the radar sensor data, russia could have ever wanted about the Israel f35s, so my guess is turkey will eventually get the f35's sooner if Israel keeps compromising stealth technology secrets by continuing to striking Iranian targets in Syria with f35's while Russian s400 radar sensors monitor it over and over and over again. It was dumb of Congress to trust the Israel's giving Israel squadrons of f35's and expecting Israel to care about protecting the hundreds of billions America spent on stealth technology secrets, its like the Israelis are swatting flies with a trillion dollar hammer its so dumb its hard to believe. Even without stealth f35s seems like a capable long range carrier based aircraft.

These aircraft carriers with a ramp are so antiquated...if your jet are capable, you don't need this antique design

UK should have 4 of these and the 2 QE class.

@grimtermite191

3 жыл бұрын

They need to get enough planes to carry and escorts before they can even think about more carriers

nice

By the way, nice one Korea, good proposal. If we can do something together, just call. We are always open to new collaborations. After all Koreans are the most reliable and loyal Asian Allies we have. 👍

Whats with all the double Islands.

dont cheap out on conventional armor.

That Bow Thruster will be the top weakness and reliability on that carrier because an Aircraft Carrier are warships that is meant to last for a long time without redundancy and warships are built to last even hit by torpedoes and bombs multiple timesz they are built to stay afloat long enough to reach the safety of the harbour and they are a blue water ship's that doesn't dock every so often on harbours. The only advantage of Bow Thrusters are for tight turns and maneuver for docking in a populated harbour but Carrier's are sea fearing ship's unlike Cruise Ships and Ferry Ships that needs to dock after every so often after every journey to load and unload passengers and cargos. On the other hand Military ship's have tug boats to help them dock on tight squeeze on harbours, China would certainly take note of that as a complex redundancy. That's the first Carrier on the history of Carriers to ever employ a Bow Thrusters, a certainly added complexity that sacrifice simplicity that would cost that multi billion dollars ship and thus adding a primary weakness to its hull integrity of the ship during wartime. Warships hull are designed and meant to be simplistic, realiable, easy to repair if damage, and would last long after engagement to turn back home to port for repairs, this is not simplicity and well be a reliability for any warships on combat.

Would be a better use of deck space without having two islands.

Why are Aircraft superstructures all ways on the right of Aircraft carriers why never on the left?

@thelastredsquirrels3787

3 жыл бұрын

I think it had something to do with single propeller planes back in the day because the torque made them naturally turn to the left and it just stuck so when jets replaced props there's no good reason to change the design.

@jammiedodger7040

3 жыл бұрын

@@thelastredsquirrels3787 thanks

@thelastredsquirrels3787

3 жыл бұрын

@@j.4354 👍

@petermallia558

3 жыл бұрын

Because of airflow over the deck, it always seems to come port side affecting the landings of aircraft especially because of the shape of the angled deck and airflow over it but more how airflow affected the deck and piston driven aircraft because of the Engines' torque always spinning to port,(Left). There should be videos on KZread showing why this happens and why they put the islands on the starboard side. And now it's mostly because of tradition, tradition coming from the age of piston powered aircraft, aircraft that always swing to the left because of the engines direction of rotation, which is anticlockwise from the pilots position, causing a piston powered aircraft to Always swing to the left following the rotation of the propeller/engine(s). I hope that Answers your question mate. Look it up on Google, because I more than think I'm right.

@nomercynodragonforyou9688

3 жыл бұрын

Blame the British

444 is not good number for Korean. Do I make it 445

I hope HHI design is chosen by ROK Navy, instead of DSME conservative uninnovative design

@RedXlV

3 жыл бұрын

The HHI design definitely looks like the better ship.

@curious5887

3 жыл бұрын

@@RedXlV yeah it is, and more futuristic in design, DSME design is to conservative and ugly

@johnave4545

3 жыл бұрын

The problem is hhi design can only carry 8 aircraft on its hanger while the other one can carry 12, yeah hhi design is modern but korea need more capable

Korea may be looking to go from the original STOVL carrier design into a STOBAR or CATOBAR design as KAI announced they are planning to create a Carrier Variant of the KF-21, The new president seems less interested in perusing the Carrier right away and more interested in Land and Air Systems, however if the new Ship can accommodate the KF-21 then it would get a higher priority, while it might be more expensive long term it might be better especially if the US shares EMALS with Korea, it would not only allow them to launch air craft with a longer range and larger weapons payload, but the EMALS is less stressful on the airframe than the traditional steam catapult, also it would mean Korea could work more frequently with the US navy as the Korean carriers could launch and recover US aircraft, in a Pinch Korea could also use US carrier, were as all STOVL carriers can only utilize F-35B. Also if they create a carrier variant of the KF-21 there is the possibility the US may eventually look to add some to its fleet to augment the f-18's, especially once the Full gen 5 version is available.

...there has been a new peace treaty between all this partners But why are they building a newer fleet ? 🧐

@paulk3681

3 жыл бұрын

The answer is simple North Korea, and China

@HongBuhmDoh

3 жыл бұрын

Look and see where SK. is located on the map. It is the only country surrounded by 4 superpowers in the world. "if you want peace, prepare for war" - Vegetius -

You can Look RF Storm from Russian.

Wow! Looking forward to the South Korean navy shifting up a gear in its power

@20somthingdrifter11

2 жыл бұрын

Its in a neighborhood that is heating up and is heavily dependent on the sea for exporting and importing goods, The ROK navy needs to be capable of projecting power far out to sea.

@jamesshen7066

2 жыл бұрын

@@20somthingdrifter11 What's the point? This piece of Junk can't really face up to the big threats of China's type 003. While for the small threats like pirates, it would not be cost effective. I have no idea why did they make a CATOBAR carrier. Why STOVL?

The good desine

yes

THAT is a light carrier? It’s looks like a nuclear super carrier to me. O.o

@-spudman2.054

3 жыл бұрын

It looks very narrow, but it's great for more countrys to get involved with carrier capabilities.

Dear Sir and Madame. I am a german ret navy officer. I know many poor men from Thailand, that would love to work in your lovly country ! If anybody knows an employer or a job in Korea please please let me know. I can garanty their integrity. Thank you very much. Salut.

I still prefer the catapult than ski jump launching

@alistairbolden6340

3 жыл бұрын

The Cata is better for some jets but also has several issues such as damaging the jet and taxing the ships power reserves. A ski jump is basic, has no moving parts and just works, its also much better in rough weather. Ski jump has many advantages but it also limits the types of jet that can be used and more importly the types of drone. I don't think there is a clear winner. The British stoped using catapults because they render the ship not able to launch aircraft in a storm, this was a big problem during the Falklands war. The carrier has serious issues launching jets in the rough seas of the south atlantic and as such the Brits lost more frigates than they should have.

@rjcarillo1414

3 жыл бұрын

@@alistairbolden6340 thanks for an insight but it still does not change my opinion

@yumyumlol-o7r

2 жыл бұрын

catapult is more efficient in nuclear powered carriers.

@palacete

Жыл бұрын

@@alistairbolden6340 ski jump sucks.

Ah yes, Twin Tower again

so the UK can cancel the contract as soon they want, if they have to pay money for their part, because the UK is to special to pay money for a royal yacht with an helicopter deck...

visti i commenti e visto il momento ,difficile fare previsioni suoi nuovi progetti....ma suppongo che sia Gb,sia Corea ....e anche l italia ( con fincantieri ) possono fare da soli! l italia ha un cantieristica navale di eccellenza ( sia civile che militare) ma le grandi portaerei hanno fatto il suo tempo.....ci vogliono navi multifunzione,non troppo grandi,veloci,e tecnicamente avanzate ........! quindi.....che tutti diano il massimo....e che vinca il migliore,naturalmente tra ....amici!😊

QE Class

Cooperation with the UK is a good idea for a STOBAR carrier, but if South Korea ever wants a catobar carrier, we french (and most likely the americans too) would greatly enjoy helping you out :) Actually, I wish the british had joined the PANG project (and perhaps other allies), it would have allowed to manufacture those carriers at a cheaper price and it would have been a good idea to cooperate with the british on the 6th gen fighter instead of cooperating with the germans.

@alistairbolden6340

3 жыл бұрын

I do agree that the French should have joined in for the Tempest with the Italians and Sweads but the French needs of a jet have always been alittle different to the British needs. The French needs a jet that can srike targets over Africa and come home in one trip so require far better range, the Brits are not happy to give up maneuverability and signature radius for that, hench two different jets but its a shame. As for Cataput assisted I agree. The biggest thing with Email is the very high power drain it really requires the ship use nuclear power. Korea would need a nuclear commercial industry to really make use of nuclear subs or super caps. I think the best thing would be for Australia, to take up nuclear power and then agree to service Korea and Japans subs. But Australia produces so much coal that I don't see that happening in the next 20 years sadly. Rolls Royce is building 16 mini nuclear stations across the UK right now and some 80 across North America in the future, they are much cleaner, cheaper and faster to build than the old conventional power station and so we may see Korea or Japan swap over to nuclear energy as it becomes more accessible. We Brits currently make use of the US and French nuclear engineers and have spent years building a massive nuclear dump site in Finnland. Servicing your own nuclear powered subs is very expensive without a robust nuclear power industry. Or some neighbours to help you out.

It is highly possible for South Korea to buy the America/Elizabeth hybrid carrier cause. Cause the HDI design looks too much for a starter aircraft carrier design. But depends on what they want. A part of me wants South Korea to buy the HDI version

It's stupid to build a single massive carrier with all your important assets (airplanes, crew) on just a single ship in the 21st century. That worked in the last era when we didn't have hypersonic missles, dedicated anti-carrier missles, suicide drones all of which are a fraction of the cost of a super carrier and can wipe out most of your fleet in a single hit.

KOREA FTW!

good I hope the USA can save some money it is expensive operating 11-12 carriers

The UK Royal Navy could really do with a third flight deck to maximise the deployment capacity of the carrier force, its support fleet and aircraft. They cant afford a third Elizabeth class, but sharing development and procurement costs across a bigger number of ships might be possible. Perhaps a third ship crewed by Australian Navy personnel. after all the potential is that carrier force is going to part of the response to increased Chinese naval presence.

@stanielsoncoochiesmellehsm6114

3 жыл бұрын

Of course they can afford it but whats the POINT Where not at war the only time you will see the UK producing alot is during WAR like in ww2

@andrewhead6267

3 жыл бұрын

@@stanielsoncoochiesmellehsm6114 I third flight deck enables you to maintain one at sea at all times. you cant with two. That’s why there were three members of the Invincible class.

@BroadHobbyProjects

3 жыл бұрын

@@stanielsoncoochiesmellehsm6114 Big different. WW2 it took a short time to build tanks, aircraft an ships. Modern ones it takes much much longer. A modern force would take a couple of years to replace say 40% losses at the quickest.

@stanielsoncoochiesmellehsm6114

3 жыл бұрын

@@BroadHobbyProjects yes true but my point is if war breaks out we will have way more than what we have now

@BroadHobbyProjects

3 жыл бұрын

@@stanielsoncoochiesmellehsm6114 Depends. Against some tinpot third world sh1thoke yes, but against another power even the likes of Germany or France, nevermind Russia or China then we got no chance. Ideally filling out the navy and airforce by an extra 20/30% in numbers over the next decade would go a long way.

Ah yes, the new design. I can already see which part UK has designed

@christianwhittall5889

3 жыл бұрын

The twin islands?

@tsloo1620

3 жыл бұрын

@@christianwhittall5889 yes

@alistairbolden6340

3 жыл бұрын

Its more todo with the inside, its not just Twin Islands the British like to have twin engines.

@vert2552

3 жыл бұрын

@@alistairbolden6340 but in new ones after poor ark royal

HuynDai Indsustry build this ship? :)

@Moon.J.I

3 жыл бұрын

It is not difficult to build the world's No. 1 shipyard by Hyundai Heavy Industries, but in order to achieve perfection in the initial stage, we only cooperate in design with countries with operational know-how

@Moon.J.I

3 жыл бұрын

It takes a lot of money & time, and since it is an early version, it is to cooperate with a country with operating experience to minimize mistakes. The ship can be built easily in 3 years.

It’s not “haiun-dai”. It’s “hyun-dae”.

' beautifully europeans / south koreans navy ships services

F-35Bs are best way forward

@jamesshen7066

2 жыл бұрын

No, it's not! If F-35B are the best, why would the USA still commission the CATOBAR F-35C as the bulk of the Navy and Marine F-35 fleets?

That's not how you pronounce 'bow'

Why they are not nuclear powered??

Tuyệt vời 💯👍Lắm🇻🇳🌏

Excellent! We love South Korea!

Bow rhymes with cow, in this instance.

Why no angled flight deck?

@Benjd0

3 жыл бұрын

It'll likely be using the F-35B like UK and Italian carriers, so they will be performing vertical landings.

@craigkdillon

3 жыл бұрын

@@Benjd0 Then stop referring to it as an aircraft carrier -- its a LHA --- not the same thing. If it doesn't have CATOBAR, it is not a real fleet carrier, IMO.

@Benjd0

3 жыл бұрын

@@craigkdillon LHA is more of a US designation, it does also imply more of a focus on helicopters and an amphibious assault role which makes sense for something like USS America which lacks a Ski-Jump in favour of more space for helicopters. A more general term would be STOVL carrier, pretty much all carriers outside of the US today are either STOVL or STOBAR and are generally referred to as aircraft carriers.

@craigkdillon

3 жыл бұрын

@@Benjd0 LHA or STOVL carrier, they are not fleet carriers. Their purpose if to support amphibious and littoral operations. A pet peeve of mine is the media's lack of knowledge, and referring to other countries STOVL ships as carriers. People get confused and think they are somewhat like one of the American carriers. IMO, only the Charles De Gaulle of France is of the same type -- a CATOBAR carrier. Thus, it can project power onto the open blue ocean.

@Benjd0

3 жыл бұрын

@@craigkdillon Again that depends on the country, yes for the US their LHA and LHDs are mainly to support amphibious and littoral operations as they have their CATOBAR carriers to perform a carrier strike role. For many countries STOVL carriers are their only sea based air power, so they do fill in a similar role to a US carrier for those countries. The Queen Elizabeth class is probably the best example of this, she was designed with the potential to fill in gaps if a US carrier was unavailable, one of the reasons she was built to the size she is was so she could achieve a specific sortie rate relatively close to the Nimitz class for a period of time. The UK have a separate littoral response group usually lead by an Albion class ship, where the QE class serves in the carrier strike role for them in the same capacity as the Nimitz/Ford class and Frances Charles De Gaulle.

Go forward, Great-Britain! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! Best wishes from Germany!

@reneegiese6315

3 жыл бұрын

Volle Zustimmung 👍👍👍

@MultiBurger1

2 жыл бұрын

@Frank Mueller Vielen dank aus England Ich mag auch Deutsche Patrioten 🤝🏻

Seems S. Korea is entering thermos trade by also supplying Australia with a new IFV with very durable rubber tracks. S. Korea: NOTE TO SELF-> Don't buy F-35 B planes until they get the bugs worked out. You know, bugs like cracked engine fan blades. jus' sayin'

If it is not a CATOBAR it is not a real aircraft carrier. At most it could be a big LHD with STOVL (eg. Trieste, Queen Elizabeth). CATOBAR ops are superior to STOVL because of the type and load of the aircraft. CATOBAR ships can give air superirority, STOVL ships at most can be used for air support, anphibious ops, ASW, but prevent the use of aircraft capable of air superiority. I strongly recomend a CATOBAR version with at least 2 EMALS (better 3), 2-3 elevators and AAG. Despite some benefit of twin island, I sill prefer 1 island with the smallest footprint because of the value of deck space.

Japan, Australia and Canada also need at least one

@mikeneufield2855

3 жыл бұрын

@Yu Kaythat was 80 yrs ago , & have been staunch Western allies for 60 or more yrs .. they learned their lesson, what is proper int'l behavior, having had the crap beat out of them

@mikeneufield2855

3 жыл бұрын

Actually Japan has is converting the 2 Ise class ships to carriers , to operate F 35s tho yes a purpose built ship like this would be nice. Australia was considering converting its Canberra class , decided against it last I heard ,but ,who knows..

@christiancampbell5465

3 жыл бұрын

I believe the reason Australia is reticent to convert it's amphibious landing ships to jump carriers is that they believe it would take too much away from the ships intended purpose of amphibious landing vessels all just to have a very mediocre light carrier. The benefit offered by the ships as they are would not necessarily be outweighed by having a shitty carrier. Better to keep the ships and have a light carrier built for purpose. Ya know what I mean

@jaydenmackenzie9670

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikeneufield2855 WW2 wasnt Japan's first invasion so.. who knows. Plus victims are still alive and unless prev generations give proper educations, nobody can predict the future. This is how history works

I noticed on the model, it has F-35B aircraft. Is ROK going to buy F-35 jets?

@arzenkr481

3 жыл бұрын

@임태오 Type A and type B are completely different.

@craigkdillon

3 жыл бұрын

@임태오 Did they buy F-35A's? or B's?

@jaydenmackenzie9670

3 жыл бұрын

@@craigkdillon 40+ A fighters in my memory. Some predict KF21 to be developed as navy jets but may take some time

@kmsg816

3 жыл бұрын

we have 40 f35A and plan to plus 20 more f35A and 20 f35B until 2025.

@kmsg816

3 жыл бұрын

Currently, the F35B takes off and landing performance is worse than expected from U.S. and Britain data, so we are considering increasing the size of the aircraft carrier from the current light aircraft carrier to the middle aircraft carrier and also considered to develop the Kf-21 (Korean fighter jet currently under development) as a carrier fighter, but it is unlikely to develop the Kf-21 carrier fighter because it is difficult to change the size of the aircraft carrier. Therefore, we are considering introducing f35c instead of f35b.

MASHAALLAH khub valo video.......

North Korea: sweats intensifies*

@graemewilson1400

3 жыл бұрын

Hahaha good!

If the U.S. helped there will be a catapult system installed

@alistairbolden6340

3 жыл бұрын

The problem with that is it deals damage to the jets using it. Even on US carriers most of the time it is not used where possible. It is required for bigger unmanned drones however so its a useful feature to have. I think the biggest thing with the current email systems are they right now they are far from perfected and also require huge amount of power to run. Using them on a non nuclear ship is taxing. The UK makes far by the best non nuclear engines so were a clear choice for Korean and also future Japanse navy vessles. I would expect the future Indian super carriers to be made with the help of the USA tho.

@lisaroberts8556

Жыл бұрын

If they changed to a CAT System. Those nations would have to buy more Jets from the US. Like the F-35C. (A longer range version of the F-35) or Super Hornets. More money and more training. Better for Deep Sea Operations however.

With Italy this Carrier Will be surely an aesthetic beautyfull masterpiece. Like our Trieste LHD, in a even more futuristic way 👏 although all this project of interoperability Is not in the interest of Italy .. we wont do war to china.. let US solve their problems alone...

This design is just a concept and just a few days ago, ROK's aircraft carrier plan was changed from a light aircraft carrier to a medium-sized aircraft carrier similar in size to Britain's Elizabeth class and will be equipped with a KF-21N instead of an F-35B. And Korea has the world's No. 1 shipbuilding industry. We don't need the help of Britain and Italy. Britain cannot even develop armored vehicles on its own, but Korea is one of the world's top five industrial countrys

@abelederon855

Жыл бұрын

Therefore? Watch out for the Chinese. And also to the Japs. Who come to visit you at your home. then you explain to them that you are in the top five.. :)))

1 island 20x

No EMALS so it fighters cant be fully loaded.

quanto ci date? 😅 scherzo, sono contento che i nostri popoli collaborino.

Bow rhymes with cow not tow how can you make military videos without using the correct naval terminology.

South korea could convert its helicopter carriers into aircraft carriers, like Japan is currently doing.

@donaldlee8249

3 жыл бұрын

No, it’s too small to fit for modifications.

@justdoit3333

2 жыл бұрын

Japan can’t make aircraft carriers because they’re war crimimal

@gazza7uk646

2 жыл бұрын

@@justdoit3333 they have already have,both Izuma class have been converted

What a strange trio