@@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife Try figs, or prune juice. It's the TH-cam equivalent of "premium." They weren't getting shit either, out of all of us "non clickers," so they simply dropped the ads, called it "premium" and got us to do other things for them.
@@Veldtian1 well yes it really literally deapite of her small size im 100% the ship is deadly not only becuase it carry f35 if ever well the ship alone and her weapon she's deadly and i love that the ship is multicapable😍💪
@@davepanganiban571 Which is its biggest problem as well. Experience shows that trying to have one vehicle do everything simply doesn't work out. The Bradley and F-35 can attest to that. Actually, the Russian carriers are a simple demonstration of why having VLS on a carrier is very complex and possibly just not worth it. The wet deck gives it more capability, that can't really be used at the same time as the flight deck under combat conditions. The drone deck is possibly dangerous to flight operations or at least can't be operated while aircraft are being recovered. It's ambitious, risky and opponents can make comparisons to design disasters without much research. The DMSE design is solid, propped up by experience from a navy with existing carrier tradition (so can avoid some of the myriad issues that plague any new ship design) but nothing truly new or different.
@@Starjumper2821 well if you will ask me we will never know unless we try we should not only stay traditional sometime we should explore new styles just forget about the physics becuase sometime it did not work logicaly hahaha
I agree. I do think they're selling to much on to small though. I dont see the hanger being that big (high) I also dont see them actually launching and recovering at the same time, that kind of thing has been ad advertised before on larger ships but operationally it doesnt work out. Also the value of having a well deck is honestly questionable on an "aircraft carrier." On an amphibious assault ship yes, on a carrier no. To many restrictions on using it. Also while I find the idea of a drone platform novel it dont think it will be operationally useful. Past experience shows just launch them off the longer flightdeck. I also dont like the pointy bow. That's lost parking space while recovering aircraft. Square it off and push the ski-jump to one side. I know it sounds like I'm dogging on it but I'm not. I'm just saying dont try to do everything on 35000 tons. Push the ski jump to the port of a squared off bow, drop the well deck and platform, run the hanger and flight deck to the stern and *be* an aircraft carrier.
@@navyreviewer I do prefer the second ship DSME is building, but I feel like HHI will still win overall. HHI has lots of lobbying power, and the ROKN specifically want an Aircraft Carrier. The one DSME is building is a "glorified" Amphibious Assault Ship, like the Wasp and America Class, considering it can only carry 16 F-35s. On top of that they already have a helicopter carrier/Amphibious Assault Ship which is ROKS Dokdo
@@navyreviewer the pointy bow could still be useful if korea used the arresting gear that is similar to the is nimizt carrier. And also the pointy bow looks very slim it isn't very suitable for faster deployment compared to the vikramaditya or kuznetzov which has a wider pointy bow
@@halzan7467 and also those dokdo class ships can be converted to carry VTOL/STOVL fixed-wing aircraft so they would really want an aircraft carrier shaped for their fleet
@@navyreviewer I see your many points 'navyreviewer'. I do also think that they 'wet-deck' is a bit much...maybe Much much!!! As far as the 'independent' drone deck.... I think that is an interesting idea!! As a former Operation Specialists onboard Navy FF/FFGs it would be a Ton of work and coordination to operate helos, planes, drones, and plan for SpecOps on That ship design!!!
The flight deck layout of the Hyundai design definitely seems superior. Though displacement of only 30,000 tons seems optimistic for a ship of that size.
Very Exciting ROK!!!! The Hyundai design is Quite Extraordinary!! With F-35B and Helo ability to launch/recover at Same Time ( you have a wide enough deck to do it )!! And to add onto that a shorten wet-deck for small boats/submersibles/SpecOps ( ?? ), AND a drone deck ( W O W ), that is a Lot for one ship!! The DSME concept design is also Great due to the fact that you have the Italians assisting in development ( although I'm not sure about being 'combat' experience since they Just received their F-35B early this year 2021P....but anyways, I'm sure the Italians are training very hard with their F-35Bs )!! A similiar type of layout as an American WASP-class flight deck with QE-class carrier dual island design. Both seem Quite Interesting..... Look forward to more info on combat capabilities, engineering.... How many ships ( hands rubbing together ).... to be honest two (2) I think should be All that ROKN would need.
@@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming It does????? I haven't heard anything about that..... do you have a reference, I would be Quite curious!!! Thanks for the comment. :)
@@davidhouseman4328 it’s a huge misconception, but the Americans did test it out, the Hawkeyes can take off with a ski jump with 260meters 859ft of space and half a load of fuel. After take off it needs an immediate air refuel. The problem is all naval aircraft have a “safety” zone around it. Once on deck, except those personnel or equips that are needed, the rest MUST stay out of that “safety zone”! This is pretty much obvious…The E-2C, with its wings spread, has the largest zone of all aircraft on deck at 96ft around the aircraft, or 29 meters!!!! This is why even on a Nimitz, that wing is not allowed to spread unless under two conditions, 1. The aircraft is on the cat, ready to take-off, or 2. It’s under going maintenance and need to spread a wing for it. Otherwise, it’s NOT allowed to unfurl that under ANY circumstances! This is the biggest reason why the E-2C can’t operate off of the British QE, not because it can’t take off or land, but once those wings unfurl, it just took up over 75% of the deck space! Same reason why the Hawkeye is the first plane to take-off and last to land, not just to provide early warning, but just to get that BIiiiiiG bastard out of everyone’s way!
@@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming the problem is with drones, it still needs to be big to carry the radar and if it can loiter for 18 hours, then it’s gonna have a serious long wingspan to hold the gas. If it comes to that, then once again, the plane’s safety distance on deck will come into play. And if the drone takes up over 60% of deck space during take off and land, then it won’t do well on deck here. Hence why the RN is also looking into the MV-22 with a retractable radome to solve this problem.
This Italian admiral is such a good salesman that I now want to buy this light aircraft carrier and become partner and friends. Thing is I don't have anywhere to park it, but I will figure it out.
Here's why HHI should win. They can build CVX's at a rate of two per year if they needed to. Their design is first class even the drone launching/recovery platforms. Just like the helicopters, drones can be recovered as necessary while F35's orbit the carrier.
@@ndyaarthurmartha8748 i don't speak spaghetti O's what're they saying lol j/k Korean hard AF to learn. My English isn't much better. It sounds like Engrish.
The two tower design is to accommodate two engine rooms, so basically what they're saying is they won't sink easily, carrier killer missiles or torpedoes be damned. Or to put it more bluntly, "f&ck you China, and f$ck your supposedly silent diesel electric subs." Also, it is possible to track and kill hypsersonic missiles travelling at Mach 16. This is a month ago. NATO - News: NATO warships start major air and missile defence exercise, 15-May.-2021
Personally, I got a sort of "this phone has and can do everything" vibe from HHI. I mean VLS, Laser, AND amphibious assault on a carrier? It's Pentagon Wars Bradley vs just a dedicated carrier.
Starjumper2821 thats what they plan the Gerald r Ford to do. Vls for anti ship, anti air, and anti missile (anti missile like searam) and will replace the all phalanx and SeaRAM CIWS with lasers (because lasers can melt objects like munitions from main guns from other ships, drone swarms, missiles etc. much quicker than a GAU mini gun)
Potentially could be the most well-rounded carrier if it gets built. Affordable ✅ Modern ✅ STOVL, STOBAR or CATOBAR ✅ Conventionally powered ✅ Cost effective operation expenses ✅ Twin Islands ✅ Decent aircraft carrying potential ✅ Good size (as large as the French carrier) ✅ Looks pretty ✅ Having smaller ships allows greater deployment flexibility. 3 carriers with 40 aircraft capacity are better than 2 carriers with 70 aircraft capacity (Elizabeth class) because you can choose to bundle them into one fleet or split and concentrate efforts on multiple fronts. Better for crew training and less risk if your carrier is struck and you always have a carrier in reserve whilst 2 are conducting operations.
Shipbuilders are wise to copy the British "twin island" design for their aircraft carrier. I wasn't sure about it at first but after learning that both islands can function interchangeably, it should be a no-brainer for future designers.
CZseventyfive I honestly have no idea. I don’t remember the purpose of the twin islands bit it’s something like 1 island is for the bridge and 1 is for flight control (still doesn’t clear up why two islands are needed, but if the US don’t need to operate 2 islands then I’m pretty sure the two island scheme is for cost)
The forward island is for ship control functions and the aft (FLYCO) island is for flying control. The reason for two islands is, simply put, due to the gas turbine exhausts. The design would have either had two small islands or one large, long island. And the U.S Navy used a twin island layout on the Lexington class fleet carriers of WW2. The follow on class of Essex carriers reverted to 1 large island, with the cold War era Forrestal and Kitty Hawk Cinventional carriers utilizing 1 large Island with integrated canted exhaust funnels.
Italy only has Two. The Japanese have 3. The Japanese "helicopter destroyers" are all new, and they are building more. Italy may get a new one soon. Even so, they will have to purchase F35Bs from the U.S.
I don't think Korea will work because Korea doesn't have heat resistant deck technology. I don't know if there is a country that can provide technology.
Many thanks to NAVAL NEWS and especially to u XAVIER Ji. U have done an AWESOME job of covering one of the largest Def expo amid this pandemic Thanks again Love from BHARAT. JAI HIND.
There is a big difference between light displacement and full load displacement. The displacement that Hyundai's descriptor says is light displacement. An aircraft carrier with a light displacement of 40,000 tons can have a full load displacement of more than 60,000 tons. The Korean government is planning an aircraft carrier with a light displacement of around 40,000 tons. With full load displacement, more than 60,000 tons, a size similar to that of Queen Elizabeth can be expected.
@@sungwonryu5925 true, but it’s also concerning it has a well deck, but promises almost the same, and if not the same capabilities and (more or less) the capacity of the Queen Elizabeth Class (QE class). Because the QE class doesn’t have a well deck so it can accommodate the aircraft, and space, but if HHI is adding a well deck, does it still promise the same capabilities? Because if it’s based of the QE class then the length, width, and beam should be the same. So how does a carrier based on the QE class have more capabilities?
i love this design realy great to see ROK navy get stronger ( i prefere the Hyundai model ). An example for my country xD which only knows how to do budget cuts...
south korea might look small, but its economy rank in the top 10, there economy rank higher than russia and there military is one of the best trained and best equipped in the world, they are like the u.k of asia, they small but they punch above there weight.
@@lagrangewei It is vastly better and nothing to do with having GTs as such although having two islands makes positioning them easier (they are in the sponsons) both could vent out of one island. The benefits are: * More internal spaces for very little loss of area on the flight deck * Vastly improved Flying control * Battle redundancy: If the Ship's Bridge is out of action it can be operated from either island as can Flyco. * Reduces cross deck air sweep.
@@protestantwarrior1516 You follow global GDP? Oz has the 12th largest defence budget in the world, behind Japan, South Korea and Italy. look up the two Canberra Class Landing Helicopter Dock assault ships operated by the Royal Australian Navy. Even the British Royal Navy doesn’t yet have that amphibious capability, not that they couldn’t afford it, they choose two pretty darned impressive aircraft carriers instead.
@@protestantwarrior1516 HMAS Choules is up for replacement soon there is a lot of talk in government and defence of the replacement being a 3rd flat top it will be interesting to see what happens
DSME's design seems to have been designed within extremely conservative and realistic categories, considering the conservative military position. HHI' design is characterized by the application of a number of future innovative technologies and advanced designs that are somewhat distant from conservative military requirements, considering the characteristics of the carrier that must be built and operated for decades to come. However, DSME seems to have come up with such a suppressed design considering the budget issue, and HHI's design is already beyond the simple light aircraft category, so I think the comprehensive budget, including construction costs, may be significantly exceeded. HHI's aircraft carrier design, no matter how hard or full, will never come from 30,000 tons, and it will already reach 50,000 tons. As a result, the original construction budget of 2.8 trillion won will be difficult.
@@kjseo84 너무 보수적으로만 설계해도 문제인게 저 CVX는 나오는게 2033년이고 나오고나서 최소 40년+ 정도를 운용해야 할 물건이니, 만들면 골수까지 푹 우려먹는 아해군 특성상 21세기 말까지 떠다녀야 할지도 모름. 그런데 너무 보수적인 설계로만 진행해버리면 근미래 전장환경에서의 적응력을 높여줄 혁신성과 기술적 부문에서 너무 떨어지게 됨. 대우의 설계안은 안정적이지만 그 만큼 보수적 설계(기존 경항모 컨셉에서 살짝 다듬고 항공기 운용 등에 있어서 좀 더 현실적인 범주내로 제시한 정도) 라 미래를 염두해둔 확장성 부분에선 현대의 설계안에 비해 뒤처진다는 게 단점. 반면 현대의 설계는 추후 여유가 된다면 모듈식 스키점프대를 들어내고 평갑판으로 변경한 뒤 앵글덱을 위한 보조적인 작업과 사출기 설치를 하면 바로 CATOBAR로 운용가능함. 물론 현대도 문제인게 엘리베이터나 VLS 위치가 이상해서 설계 수정이 필요하다는 것과 혁신적인건 좋은데 드론 주기공간을 하필 갑판후미에 따로 설치하는 바람에 항공기 주기 공간을 낭비할 수 있다는게 심히 불-편한 부분임. 만약 현대 항모를 CATOBAR로 변경할 경우 저 후미의 드론덱은 없느니만도 못한 걸림돌이 되버려서 차라리 없애는게 낫다고 봄. CVX가 사실상 북한보다는 중국이나 일본 같은 대 주변국을 염두해둔 정치적 성격이 강한 무기라지만 엄연히 해군을 넘어 육해공 3군의 합동 전략자산인 만큼 그 전략적 가치도 계산해보았을때 좀 리스크를 짊어지더라도 혁신적인 설계로 가는 것도 상당히 의미가 크다고 봄. 물론 첫걸음부터 모험이 될 수 있다는 데엔 충분히 동의하며 그 부분에 있어서 앞으로 현대중공업이 어떻게 설계를 더 다듬고 소요군인 해군에게 자신들의 설계안을 어필할 수 있을 것인가가 관건일듯.
>HHI' design is characterized by the application of a number of future innovative technologies and advanced designs that are somewhat distant from conservative military requirements That's just asking for trouble especially if this is your first carrier.
There are small misunderstanding of the displacement of Korean warships. Korea always announce its ship displacement in standard not full displacement For example the Korean KD-3 Aegis destroyer is officially 7200 tons but its full load is more than 10,000 tons It is bigger than Russian Slava class cruiser. I compared it when the russian ship came in 2008 fleet review in Busan Korea HHI says the first carrier is less than 40,000 tons but its actual size is more than 50,000 tons(just assumption but very possitively true) Korea has many hostile countries like china, japan and russia. So it is not smart to announce its actual capability that can sitmulate those countries. Somebody says 30,000 ton carrier is too small for to do that, so I add some more details to clear it
2:39 -- I am curious how they managed that, this is only slightly smaller than the Queen Elizabeth Class but Almost Half the weight... Its beautiful Ship though looks very modern and has great lines.
The placement of drone ports in the aft of the ship is too risky for any competent naval pilot to tolerate. I suggest placing them on the starboard or port sides of the ship, or even using the rear tower by using a bastion or landing pad. Much safer than the most dangerous part of an aircraft carrier.
Destroyers and Frigates are for killing subs, killing corvettes, and killing patrol boats. Aircraft, especially jet fighters, and kill all those targets with missiles. A Marine UH-60 with a door gunner firing a .30 or .50n cal machine gun could kill patrol boats.
With the well deck and Ski-jump already integrated into the design, this should be reclassified as "Assault Carrier", a fusion between amphibious assault ship and light carrier. Hope the ROK integrates with advanced chemical processing units (to make hydrogen, oxygen, sodium, chlorine) and hydrogen fuel cell engines to power the ship with "water batteries", making a more environmentally friendly ship and loosen logistics schedules.
Those things only make sense for submarines, since they are incredibly expensive and the things they produce are not needed in a surface warship. After all, there is plenty of oxygen in the air.
Such a Hybrid propulsion system would make this ship extremely expensive, take up an extraordinary amount of space and make it very vulnerable to fires. Stored liquid oxygen and hydrogen = Extreme fire hazard,, Even small amounts of liquid hydrogen can be explosive when combined with air, and only a small amount of energy is required to ignite it. Both its explosiveness and the extremely low temperatures involved make handling it safely a challenge. Whereas High Flash Point Kerosene (JP 5) fuel has a Flashpoint of 66 Celsius, and is easy to store and transfer. So the ROKN, will go as the Royal Navy and Italian Navy have done, CODOG scheme + electric engines with two Rolls-Royce Marine 36 MW MT30 gas turbine.
The Italian Admiral must be misinformed I am Currently working on the Trieste in La Spezia. The ship is nowhere near ready for sea trials. Basic things like insulation in walls and lighting fixtures are not even installed this ship is at least 2 years from seatrials And the ship is 3 years over schedule as it is. And the Trieste is an LHD not an aircraft carrier. I hope the ROK navy does not go with this proposal it would be a great limiting factor and most likely have significant delays in production.
It technically has three, the main flight deck, helicopter flight deck, and a uav flight deck. It is a very interesting and unique concept for the modern light carrier. Also incorporated vertical misslie launchers I am an very interested in Hyundai's carrier proposal.
Plenty of F-35 nay sayers are saying its a failed prject but with multiple countries adopting it i say its improving my only gripe is that they should have focused more and specialized the design around the B variant and built a seperate Plane for the A and C Variant
Go forward, South-Korea! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! We will be allies and friends forever! Best wishes from Germany!
HHI's design definitely has the "wow" factor going for it, but does not seem to be the most practical or realistic. DSME's, on the other hand, seems to be a more mature & thought-out design which accurately reflects ROC set by the ROKN. Ongoing cooperation with Babcock International (builder of QE-class) and upcoming cooperation with Fincantieri likely mean DSME's design will be more robust than HHI's.
I agree. HHI looks awesome but it may be a bust for Korea's economy. That carrier looks extremely expensive to put out, even with a powerful design. The DSME looks more practical for putting at sea, but it may lack a few knicks here and there in terms of military power. It may be primarily for speed and accuracy in strategic support however, which is a big deal for us Koreans since we built the geobukseon, which was one of the fastest ships at the time. DSME aircraft carrier even has a medical ward underneath and a missile hull. That's crazy! Honestly, well done HHI and DSME.
@@brandonpak2445 Bigger the better, love to see what they come up with. I thought it was gonna be along the lines of say the Mistral class that Spain and a few other countries operate
South Korea has shown a lot of wisdom and restraint by choosing off-the-shelf technology that is already proven. Italy has a long Bluewater tradition, and has operated powerful surface navies in the past. South Korea will license a design that is already in its second generation. The only thing that I’m not sure about is building a single larger carrier, instead of severall smaller ones like Japan’s multiple aircraft carrying destroyers, to deal with North Korea’s vast but primitive submarine forces.
Remember - Japan did not build an aircraft carrier but a helicopter carrier. I understand that it can be dual purpose - but the initial scope was anti-submarine rather than anti-air/multi-role. Depending on how China moves - they may build a larger fleet carrier in the future like Korea is thinking about now.
I would choose the HHI design rather than DSME, HHI shows very innovative and impresive one with british co-up but the DSME's one is too conservative It is more wise choice to make a deal with the British navy which has made a world strongest navy history and tradition, but the Italy? They always played by the british navy since world war 1. British navy is not the strongest anymore but they have succeeded the gene from their ancestors I believe that they still know how to play on the water
The DSMI design is very conservative compared to the HHI one. It will probably be a lot cheaper too which is probably its biggest advantage. It also depends if Korea see themselves as a Blue water navy or only interesting in patrolling the Korean peninsula
@@Weakeyedominant Korean navy is relatively futuristic and reasonable than its army and airforce. That is why they have a plan to have the KD3 AEGIS destroyer from 1980s. In 1980, Korea was just developing country like all the other 3rd world countries. It was very big ambition which could ended up just a dream but they are now world 9th biggest economy with higher personal income than Italy. So the ambition came out to the real world. I believe Korean navy will choose the HHI CVX, only in condition they made it by the Korean navy ROC.
@@xroadcedarhill9224 the future is definitly in Asia. Their navies of Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia will soon dwarf European navies I just hope things remain peaceful in the region as things seem to be heating up in the South China Sea.
@@Weakeyedominant If only China behaves, we can live peacefully but China is acting like world war 2 era Germany with their very very weird Sinocentrism. They will do anything whatever they want, if they want to have somthing from other countries, they will take it By Any Means Neccessary. If world war 3 starts in the future, China will trigger it
@@xroadcedarhill9224 what are you talking about? China has not been in any war for over 30 years. whereas US and her allies has been invading and murdering muslim for oil all this time. it is a joke that the west pretend it is peaceloving when murdering 10000 civilian with their drone strike.
I mean if they get good enough performance out of it to be Carrier capable that would open up the door to put in on the QE carriers as well, which would be sick
The DSME design is more conventional. But the HHI design is much more cutting edge and forward looking. The ROK Navy, and government, have been presented with two radically different paths for the future. But, considering their past naval developments, would not be surprised if they went with the HHI proposal.
현대 디자인 너무 진취적이라 좋네요. 대우의 보수적인 디자인도 신뢰가 갑니다. 살짝 현대의 여러 시도들에 마음이 더 끌리긴 합니다. 다만 고정익기의 소티라는 본연의 목적을 저해 할 수 있지 않겠냐는 우려의 목소리도 검토할 필요가 있지 않나 싶습니다. 그렇다고 여러 가능성을 포기해서는 안되겠죠. CVX계획이 성공해서 대양해군의 비젼에 한발짝 더 다가갈 수 있기를 응원하겠습니다
Trieste is a great ship. It is a pity that has to rely on F35B to be a carrier. The plane is just not up to the task. Pratically Trieste is a LHD where H means helicopters. The ship is very good to support anfibious operations (and in many other situation based on helicopter use), but not to achieve air superiority. For that Italy or Korea should get into a project like the PANG a future CATOBAR carrier for the French Navy and provide whatever aircraft is needed for air superiority (Rafal, Typhon, Tempest). If France can do it Italy also can.
@@falcondmp Because since DPRK and China work close together it is entirely possible for China to join a fight against South Korea. Having an aircraft carrier allows it a better chance of stopping any invading naval forces from China, as well as giving them a harder to hit airbase for the land war.
S Korea need 60,000 ton carrier to use KF21. In long run, money spent on it will stay within S Korea for jobs for maintenance which cost more than buying fighter and ship. Also bigger deck is safer to operate thus even UK didn't want to go back to small carrier with VSTOL type aircraft after operating 3 VSTOL small aircraft carriers. Larger carrier with catapult system will have more fire power than 3 Chinese aircraft carrier with ski jump which their fighters can't fly with anti ship missiles due to weight. Also ski jump carriers have to go full speed for lift off fighters thus if their engine has problem, their aircraft can't fly.
So what kind of saber rattling is this? Hyundai builds a couple of models, some CGI, charts out some investment figures that domestic productivity might, somehow, possibly support, in what might possibly be called, a credible threat? In some sort of diplomacy negotiation? Because I can barely understand the guy, I doubt people in Beijing, or Pyongyang can any better, but we can all clearly see the extremely evocative twin islands, as well as the coveted curves of F-35, implying US allegiance, at least as strongly, as air superiority.
Some guys in the navy says that we need a light carrier some say that we need middle sized carrier like the QE and some say that carriers are uselss in korea that's whats happening in the korean navy
Does ROK Navy really needs aircraft carrier? Or will it become a capability which would of no use in future conflict and may become the primary target for others?
F-35B Carrier like the HMS Queen Elizabeth and across sea of Japan the Izumo. For the South Korean Navy they might as well modify the Dokdo to Carry F-35Bs
There is a big difference between light displacement and full load displacement. The displacement that Hyundai's descriptor says is light displacement. An aircraft carrier with a light displacement of 40,000 tons can have a full load displacement of more than 60,000 tons. The Korean government is planning an aircraft carrier with a light displacement of around 40,000 tons. With full load displacement, more than 60,000 tons, a size similar to that of Queen Elizabeth can be expected.
I thought the gentleman said it was 270 meters long, which would make it shorter than the QE class which is 284m in length. The displacement weight could be explained by the width, A QE class is 70m wide if this carrier is about 40m in width, It would be approximately 25,000 tones lighter, which would put it at the stated 40,000 tones displacement..🤔
@@sungwonryu5925 Except the QE class's 65,000 tones in also a light displacement weight. I have heard that the QE class could be as much as 72,000 tones in full loading conditions 🤔..
@@Markus117d According to the specifications given by Hyundai's descriptor, the carrier looks smaller than Queen Elizabeth, but the difference is not significant. There is a difference of about 10 meters in length and width. Although the exact light displacement of Queen Elizabeth is not known, it is known that the light displacement of Sejong the Great-class destroyer is 8,500 tons and the full load displacement is over 11,000 tons. Queen Elizabeth is known to have a standard displacement of 65,000 tons, not a light displacement. Unlike light displacement, standard displacement and full load displacement are usually not significantly different. Note that light displacement is defined as the weight of the ship excluding cargo, fuel, water, ballast, stores, passengers, crew, but with water in boilers to steaming level and standard displacement is the displacement of the ship complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores, and implements of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but without fuel or reserve boiler feed water on board.
@@sungwonryu5925I Watched the beginning bit again, it sure does sound like the gentleman says the width is 50m to me, but maybe my hearing isn't what it used to be lol...
@@Dweller415 the F35i is quite different from the F35B and they are used mainly as attack aircraft not superiority fighters. They also already had been heavily retrofitted to update the ECM suite. The fact that the F35 is awfully expensive (to buy, to fly or to clean!) and not up to the requirements isn't a secret (the congress reports are quite explicite). The fact the Lightning II doesn't like Thunderstorms is quite public too 😁 Being the only VSTOL aircraft available is worrisome and all the eggs shouldn't go in the same basket.
@Mac’s Jack! I think France doesn't have to rely on US industry to design and build jets plus they can catapult their Rafale without any problem from their nuclear carrier 🤔
I like HHI design that is multi purpose but number F35, 20 would be tight fit for that size carrier as Australia LHD Canberra class was be fitted for 35 the number of carry would be squadron size of 12. I reckon DSME will win contract especially with Italian help.
@대한민국 South Korea I see infact. I'm glad that Italy cooperate with other countries in the region, other than China with his questionable CCP. I hope that this project will bring to a great cooperation within our countries
Ok, the HHI design wants to be a Jack of all trades, a carrier, UAV launcher and a USV mother ship with a wet well deck.. that is too many task for a ship that's supposed to be a carrier, and I don't believe that a $$ Billion Dollar carrier, will slow down to 5-10 knots to recover USV'S.
Hoping the DSME design will be the one chosen! A smaller but sizeable vessel nonetheless, still capable of carrying a great number of F-35B and based on an already tested hull with the support of an industry giant like Fincantieri! Plus, with the possible implementation of a ski-jump, it'll still be possible to park aircrafts on the right side, something that can't be said of the HHI proposal which wastes a great deal of space both on bow and stern.
They will probably do what the British did, send their deck crews to the U.S. to work alongside U.S. Navy/Marines to learn how to handle aircraft aboard ship, then modify what they learned to suit their needs.
I like how I got an ad for a Hyundai SUV before this
I didn't get shit cause Im on premium
@@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife Try figs, or prune juice.
It's the TH-cam equivalent of "premium." They weren't getting shit either, out of all of us "non clickers," so they simply dropped the ads, called it "premium" and got us to do other things for them.
@@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife Bro why tf are you using premium? Just add a ad blocker or something for free lol
Great to see our allies getting stronger 🇬🇧🤝🇰🇷
Thank you for your support!!!
🇰🇷🇬🇧🇰🇷🇬🇧
Yes
I love the HHI aircraft carrier concept, i like its specification and its full capability and the design is realy futuristic
It looks way more deadly, which is extremely important aesthetically speaking people like to look cool while doing dangerous things - I hope they win.
@@Veldtian1 well yes it really literally deapite of her small size im 100% the ship is deadly not only becuase it carry f35 if ever well the ship alone and her weapon she's deadly and i love that the ship is multicapable😍💪
@@davepanganiban571 Which is its biggest problem as well. Experience shows that trying to have one vehicle do everything simply doesn't work out. The Bradley and F-35 can attest to that. Actually, the Russian carriers are a simple demonstration of why having VLS on a carrier is very complex and possibly just not worth it. The wet deck gives it more capability, that can't really be used at the same time as the flight deck under combat conditions. The drone deck is possibly dangerous to flight operations or at least can't be operated while aircraft are being recovered.
It's ambitious, risky and opponents can make comparisons to design disasters without much research.
The DMSE design is solid, propped up by experience from a navy with existing carrier tradition (so can avoid some of the myriad issues that plague any new ship design) but nothing truly new or different.
@@Starjumper2821 well if you will ask me we will never know unless we try we should not only stay traditional sometime we should explore new styles just forget about the physics becuase sometime it did not work logicaly hahaha
@@Starjumper2821 Ehm no.
Great factual interview, love getting my news from you guys !
Dammit man; that first carrier design is amazing! Great video
I agree. I do think they're selling to much on to small though. I dont see the hanger being that big (high) I also dont see them actually launching and recovering at the same time, that kind of thing has been ad advertised before on larger ships but operationally it doesnt work out.
Also the value of having a well deck is honestly questionable on an "aircraft carrier." On an amphibious assault ship yes, on a carrier no. To many restrictions on using it.
Also while I find the idea of a drone platform novel it dont think it will be operationally useful. Past experience shows just launch them off the longer flightdeck.
I also dont like the pointy bow. That's lost parking space while recovering aircraft. Square it off and push the ski-jump to one side.
I know it sounds like I'm dogging on it but I'm not. I'm just saying dont try to do everything on 35000 tons. Push the ski jump to the port of a squared off bow, drop the well deck and platform, run the hanger and flight deck to the stern and *be* an aircraft carrier.
@@navyreviewer I do prefer the second ship DSME is building, but I feel like HHI will still win overall. HHI has lots of lobbying power, and the ROKN specifically want an Aircraft Carrier. The one DSME is building is a "glorified" Amphibious Assault Ship, like the Wasp and America Class, considering it can only carry 16 F-35s. On top of that they already have a helicopter carrier/Amphibious Assault Ship which is ROKS Dokdo
@@navyreviewer the pointy bow could still be useful if korea used the arresting gear that is similar to the is nimizt carrier. And also the pointy bow looks very slim it isn't very suitable for faster deployment compared to the vikramaditya or kuznetzov which has a wider pointy bow
@@halzan7467 and also those dokdo class ships can be converted to carry VTOL/STOVL fixed-wing aircraft so they would really want an aircraft carrier shaped for their fleet
@@navyreviewer I see your many points 'navyreviewer'. I do also think that they 'wet-deck' is a bit much...maybe Much much!!! As far as the 'independent' drone deck.... I think that is an interesting idea!! As a former Operation Specialists onboard Navy FF/FFGs it would be a Ton of work and coordination to operate helos, planes, drones, and plan for SpecOps on That ship design!!!
I really like the Hyundai design more than the DSME one.
Same!
The flight deck layout of the Hyundai design definitely seems superior. Though displacement of only 30,000 tons seems optimistic for a ship of that size.
DSME seems more practical, Hyundai is really loading in features to a point where I wonder about the reality.
The ramp is easily swappable le for the catobar.
No far from it.
Very Exciting ROK!!!!
The Hyundai design is Quite Extraordinary!! With F-35B and Helo ability to launch/recover at Same Time ( you have a wide enough deck to do it )!! And to add onto that a shorten wet-deck for small boats/submersibles/SpecOps ( ?? ), AND a drone deck ( W O W ), that is a Lot for one ship!!
The DSME concept design is also Great due to the fact that you have the Italians assisting in development ( although I'm not sure about being 'combat' experience since they Just received their F-35B early this year 2021P....but anyways, I'm sure the Italians are training very hard with their F-35Bs )!! A similiar type of layout as an American WASP-class flight deck with QE-class carrier dual island design.
Both seem Quite Interesting..... Look forward to more info on combat capabilities, engineering.... How many ships ( hands rubbing together ).... to be honest two (2) I think should be All that ROKN would need.
wonder if the hyundai model is capable of supporting E-2s... i hope it does. unless we can get a smaller plane for similar roles on either models.
Won't be, E2s use cats, smaller carrier use helicopters.
The E2 is most likely replaced by a drone. The Royal Navy has a drone EWA under development that can loiter for 18 hours at a time.
@@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming It does????? I haven't heard anything about that..... do you have a reference, I would be Quite curious!!! Thanks for the comment. :)
@@davidhouseman4328 it’s a huge misconception, but the Americans did test it out, the Hawkeyes can take off with a ski jump with 260meters 859ft of space and half a load of fuel. After take off it needs an immediate air refuel. The problem is all naval aircraft have a “safety” zone around it. Once on deck, except those personnel or equips that are needed, the rest MUST stay out of that “safety zone”! This is pretty much obvious…The E-2C, with its wings spread, has the largest zone of all aircraft on deck at 96ft around the aircraft, or 29 meters!!!! This is why even on a Nimitz, that wing is not allowed to spread unless under two conditions, 1. The aircraft is on the cat, ready to take-off, or 2. It’s under going maintenance and need to spread a wing for it. Otherwise, it’s NOT allowed to unfurl that under ANY circumstances!
This is the biggest reason why the E-2C can’t operate off of the British QE, not because it can’t take off or land, but once those wings unfurl, it just took up over 75% of the deck space! Same reason why the Hawkeye is the first plane to take-off and last to land, not just to provide early warning, but just to get that BIiiiiiG bastard out of everyone’s way!
@@Cdr_Mansfield_Cumming the problem is with drones, it still needs to be big to carry the radar and if it can loiter for 18 hours, then it’s gonna have a serious long wingspan to hold the gas. If it comes to that, then once again, the plane’s safety distance on deck will come into play. And if the drone takes up over 60% of deck space during take off and land, then it won’t do well on deck here. Hence why the RN is also looking into the MV-22 with a retractable radome to solve this problem.
잠수함에 취약 한데.. 그건 어떻게 대처 할건지 궁금 하네요.. 최신형 소나 장비를 탑재 해도..항공모함이 잠수함을 공격 할수 는 없고..
구축함하고 대잠헬기가 해야죠 뭐. 대잠용으로 미해군 쓰는걸 쌍발기 가져오기엔 무리니까요.
This Italian admiral is such a good salesman that I now want to buy this light aircraft carrier and become partner and friends. Thing is I don't have anywhere to park it, but I will figure it out.
There's a bunch of old naval bases (mostly for subs) that you might be able to buy.
@@Starjumper2821 Do you own one to sell me? will that make us friends and partners? and finally are you an adorable Italian admiral?
@@vsimoul No, unfortunately my stealth SWATH carrier is still under construction. Finally, Switzerland doesn't have Admirals.
Big love to Korea from an Australian Yonsei Alumni
Here's why HHI should win.
They can build CVX's at a rate of two per year if they needed to.
Their design is first class even the drone launching/recovery platforms.
Just like the helicopters, drones can be recovered as necessary while F35's orbit the carrier.
No catapult,mean it can not launch e2c type awacs.still has to rely ground base awacs.
hyundai's cvx carrier's ski jump is modular meaning it can be replaced with catobar in the future if need be.
You guys not sleeping in 1am :D
thx for review and good night 🌙
BTS biot
Haha 😹 that's right Naval News team never sleeps 💪
@@khailsolivio9868 Wut
현대 직원분 영어는 사투리 같은 억양이 있긴 하지만 발음과 문장은 상당히 확실합니다. 좋아요. 제일 나쁜 한국식 영어는 반기문씨 하는 영어. 집중을 하지 않으면 도대체 무슨말은 하는지 알수가 없는 영어.
Yes. accent but I can understand them perfectly. Their English is very good.
@@ndyaarthurmartha8748 i don't speak spaghetti O's what're they saying lol j/k Korean hard AF to learn. My English isn't much better. It sounds like Engrish.
Basically America class amphibious carrier (with twin tower) VS Elizabeth class carriers
Basically like the new Italian Helicopter carrier "Trieste"
@@francescoboselli6033 Basically like none of them can operate without U.S. made F35Bs.
The two tower design is to accommodate two engine rooms, so basically what they're saying is they won't sink easily, carrier killer missiles or torpedoes be damned. Or to put it more bluntly, "f&ck you China, and f$ck your supposedly silent diesel electric subs." Also, it is possible to track and kill hypsersonic missiles travelling at Mach 16. This is a month ago. NATO - News: NATO warships start major air and missile defence exercise, 15-May.-2021
Personally, I got a sort of "this phone has and can do everything" vibe from HHI. I mean VLS, Laser, AND amphibious assault on a carrier?
It's Pentagon Wars Bradley vs just a dedicated carrier.
Starjumper2821 thats what they plan the Gerald r Ford to do. Vls for anti ship, anti air, and anti missile (anti missile like searam) and will replace the all phalanx and SeaRAM CIWS with lasers (because lasers can melt objects like munitions from main guns from other ships, drone swarms, missiles etc. much quicker than a GAU mini gun)
Potentially could be the most well-rounded carrier if it gets built.
Affordable ✅
Modern ✅
STOVL, STOBAR or CATOBAR ✅
Conventionally powered ✅
Cost effective operation expenses ✅
Twin Islands ✅
Decent aircraft carrying potential ✅
Good size (as large as the French carrier) ✅
Looks pretty ✅
Having smaller ships allows greater deployment flexibility. 3 carriers with 40 aircraft capacity are better than 2 carriers with 70 aircraft capacity (Elizabeth class) because you can choose to bundle them into one fleet or split and concentrate efforts on multiple fronts.
Better for crew training and less risk if your carrier is struck and you always have a carrier in reserve whilst 2 are conducting operations.
PA2 for France would have been even better 😟
Shipbuilders are wise to copy the British "twin island" design for their aircraft carrier. I wasn't sure about it at first but after learning that both islands can function interchangeably, it should be a no-brainer for future designers.
Interesting. Is the twin island design an improvement to American aircraft carrier island design/placement?
CZseventyfive I honestly have no idea. I don’t remember the purpose of the twin islands bit it’s something like 1 island is for the bridge and 1 is for flight control (still doesn’t clear up why two islands are needed, but if the US don’t need to operate 2 islands then I’m pretty sure the two island scheme is for cost)
@@halzan7467 its for redundancy, say if one bridge was lost then the other can take over its full operations.
The forward island is for ship control functions and the aft (FLYCO) island is for flying control.
The reason for two islands is, simply put, due to the gas turbine exhausts. The design would have either had two small islands or one large, long island.
And the U.S Navy used a twin island layout on the Lexington class fleet carriers of WW2. The follow on class of Essex carriers reverted to 1 large island, with the cold War era Forrestal and Kitty Hawk Cinventional carriers utilizing 1 large Island with integrated canted exhaust funnels.
italian navy is one of the best..cost effective ang long lasting designs
Italy only has Two. The Japanese have 3. The Japanese "helicopter destroyers" are all new, and they are building more. Italy may get a new one soon. Even so, they will have to purchase F35Bs from the U.S.
@Luke Wilson
Oh, really? Ironic, considering how the largest military force has currently committed more war crimes than anyone.
@Luke Wilson aw you should ask china instead not poking the japanese government.
현대중공업이 제안한 CVX 모델로 확정해서 만들었으면 좋을듯.. 대우중공업이 제안한 CVX 모델은 크기도 작고 확장성도 없고 별로다
저도 현대에 한표.
현대 모델이 엄청나는것 같군요, 대우 모델은 그냥 마지 못해 하는 느낌?
@@juankim6927 who cars
해군이 워낙 보수적이라서 대우조선 항모가 채택될듯
대우가 현실적이지 않음??
I don't think Korea will work because Korea doesn't have heat resistant deck technology. I don't know if there is a country that can provide technology.
Nah we got that when we took the soviet kiev classes at the 90's and scrapped them
We literally have the tech since 90s dude, thanks to russia
Many thanks to NAVAL NEWS and especially to u XAVIER Ji.
U have done an AWESOME job of covering one of the largest Def expo amid this pandemic
Thanks again
Love from BHARAT.
JAI HIND.
Awesome Korea 🇰🇷
Amazing CVX concept 👏
QE: 280x70m, 75000t
CVX: 270x60m, 30000t
??????
진짜 이게 경항모 맞나...ㅋㅋㅋ
Maximize flight deck without maximizing displacement.
sh....
I don’t think that the Hyundai design’s going to be all it’s advertised, too much for 30,000 tons, more like 40,000
Agreed, its dimensions were bigger than the queen elizabeth class at 65 thousand tons.
may be 39999t
There is a big difference between light displacement and full load displacement. The displacement that Hyundai's descriptor says is light displacement.
An aircraft carrier with a light displacement of 40,000 tons can have a full load displacement of more than 60,000 tons. The Korean government is planning an aircraft carrier with a light displacement of around 40,000 tons. With full load displacement, more than 60,000 tons, a size similar to that of Queen Elizabeth can be expected.
@@sungwonryu5925 true, but it’s also concerning it has a well deck, but promises almost the same, and if not the same capabilities and (more or less) the capacity of the Queen Elizabeth Class (QE class). Because the QE class doesn’t have a well deck so it can accommodate the aircraft, and space, but if HHI is adding a well deck, does it still promise the same capabilities? Because if it’s based of the QE class then the length, width, and beam should be the same. So how does a carrier based on the QE class have more capabilities?
@@davec5153 at 270m long it would be shorter and thinner the the QE carriers, but would definitely still have a displacement higher than 30 000 tonnes
i love this design realy great to see ROK navy get stronger ( i prefere the Hyundai model ). An example for my country xD which only knows how to do budget cuts...
Congratulations to you that you able to travel again.
This some sick engineering for a country this small
I'm impressed
south korea might look small, but its economy rank in the top 10, there economy rank higher than russia and there military is one of the best trained and best equipped in the world, they are like the u.k of asia, they small but they punch above there weight.
@@jemzbundzdobo7310 Their ship building industry is pretty large and skilled too
ROC : 30,000t class
HHI design : light-displacement 39,999t(full load 60,000t)
ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
저기요. 왜 이렇게 눈치가 없어요? ㅋㅋㅋ아놔. 쉿.ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
Funny how a couple of years ago everyone scoffed at the UK's idea of two islands on a carrier .....
British ingenuity are awesome
2 island design is not because it is better, it because of the powerplant.
@@lagrangewei It is vastly better and nothing to do with having GTs as such although having two islands makes positioning them easier (they are in the sponsons) both could vent out of one island.
The benefits are:
* More internal spaces for very little loss of area on the flight deck
* Vastly improved Flying control
* Battle redundancy: If the Ship's Bridge is out of action it can be operated from either island as can Flyco.
* Reduces cross deck air sweep.
Babcock had a hand in designing hence why it looks like the QE class
The best part is that UK's idea of two islands actually stemmed back from a (Post-)World War II's Malta-class, which never got off the drawing boards
When it will be completed
2 islands like QE-class CV.... (or maybe all CV has them)
Great looking aircraft carrier design. The Royal Australian Navy will take two please.
Sincerely I'm surprised that Australia hasn't already some light aircraft carrier. I mean that ramp on the Canberra class isn't utilized 😂
can Aussies afford this? lol
@@protestantwarrior1516 You follow global GDP? Oz has the 12th largest defence budget in the world, behind Japan, South Korea and Italy. look up the two Canberra Class Landing Helicopter Dock assault ships operated by the Royal Australian Navy. Even the British Royal Navy doesn’t yet have that amphibious capability, not that they couldn’t afford it, they choose two pretty darned impressive aircraft carriers instead.
@@protestantwarrior1516 HMAS Choules is up for replacement soon there is a lot of talk in government and defence of the replacement being a 3rd flat top it will be interesting to see what happens
@@wattlebough lol better buy from the British. Korea probs won't build it.
DSME's design seems to have been designed within extremely conservative and realistic categories, considering the conservative military position.
HHI' design is characterized by the application of a number of future innovative technologies and advanced designs that are somewhat distant from conservative military requirements, considering the characteristics of the carrier that must be built and operated for decades to come.
However, DSME seems to have come up with such a suppressed design considering the budget issue, and HHI's design is already beyond the simple light aircraft category, so I think the comprehensive budget, including construction costs, may be significantly exceeded.
HHI's aircraft carrier design, no matter how hard or full, will never come from 30,000 tons, and it will already reach 50,000 tons.
As a result, the original construction budget of 2.8 trillion won will be difficult.
아무래도 현대중공업 설계는 현재 한국 사정에 좀 무리가 있을거 같음 생각임...아직 현재도 담보할 수 없는 상황에서 너무 먼 미래까지 염두에 둔 설계라 여러가지 부작용이 생길 가능성이 큼...항모 건조만 해도 모험인데...거기서 더 리스크를 키울 필요가 있을까 싶음
@@kjseo84 너무 보수적으로만 설계해도 문제인게 저 CVX는 나오는게 2033년이고 나오고나서 최소 40년+ 정도를 운용해야 할 물건이니, 만들면 골수까지 푹 우려먹는 아해군 특성상 21세기 말까지 떠다녀야 할지도 모름.
그런데 너무 보수적인 설계로만 진행해버리면 근미래 전장환경에서의 적응력을 높여줄 혁신성과 기술적 부문에서 너무 떨어지게 됨.
대우의 설계안은 안정적이지만 그 만큼 보수적 설계(기존 경항모 컨셉에서 살짝 다듬고 항공기 운용 등에 있어서 좀 더 현실적인 범주내로 제시한 정도) 라 미래를 염두해둔 확장성 부분에선 현대의 설계안에 비해 뒤처진다는 게 단점.
반면 현대의 설계는 추후 여유가 된다면 모듈식 스키점프대를 들어내고 평갑판으로 변경한 뒤 앵글덱을 위한 보조적인 작업과 사출기 설치를 하면 바로 CATOBAR로 운용가능함.
물론 현대도 문제인게 엘리베이터나 VLS 위치가 이상해서 설계 수정이 필요하다는 것과 혁신적인건 좋은데 드론 주기공간을 하필 갑판후미에 따로 설치하는 바람에 항공기 주기 공간을 낭비할 수 있다는게 심히 불-편한 부분임.
만약 현대 항모를 CATOBAR로 변경할 경우 저 후미의 드론덱은 없느니만도 못한 걸림돌이 되버려서 차라리 없애는게 낫다고 봄.
CVX가 사실상 북한보다는 중국이나 일본 같은 대 주변국을 염두해둔 정치적 성격이 강한 무기라지만 엄연히 해군을 넘어 육해공 3군의 합동 전략자산인 만큼 그 전략적 가치도 계산해보았을때 좀 리스크를 짊어지더라도 혁신적인 설계로 가는 것도 상당히 의미가 크다고 봄.
물론 첫걸음부터 모험이 될 수 있다는 데엔 충분히 동의하며 그 부분에 있어서 앞으로 현대중공업이 어떻게 설계를 더 다듬고 소요군인 해군에게 자신들의 설계안을 어필할 수 있을 것인가가 관건일듯.
>HHI' design is characterized by the application of a number of future innovative technologies and advanced designs that are somewhat distant from conservative military requirements
That's just asking for trouble especially if this is your first carrier.
There are small misunderstanding of the displacement of Korean warships. Korea always announce its ship displacement in standard not full displacement
For example the Korean KD-3 Aegis destroyer is officially 7200 tons but its full load is more than 10,000 tons
It is bigger than Russian Slava class cruiser. I compared it when the russian ship came in 2008 fleet review in Busan Korea
HHI says the first carrier is less than 40,000 tons but its actual size is more than 50,000 tons(just assumption but very possitively true)
Korea has many hostile countries like china, japan and russia. So it is not smart to announce its actual capability that can sitmulate those countries.
Somebody says 30,000 ton carrier is too small for to do that, so I add some more details to clear it
2:39 -- I am curious how they managed that, this is only slightly smaller than the Queen Elizabeth Class but Almost Half the weight... Its beautiful Ship though looks very modern and has great lines.
Not gonna lie, that two island design is pretty clever.
Very nice designs. I hope the South Koreans end up building it.
The placement of drone ports in the aft of the ship is too risky for any competent naval pilot to tolerate. I suggest placing them on the starboard or port sides of the ship, or even using the rear tower by using a bastion or landing pad. Much safer than the most dangerous part of an aircraft carrier.
Drones aren't afraid of heights so a mast dock is a pretty novel idea that takes advantage of that well I think. Nice.
무조건 현대중공업 제안형으로 가야지.
사출기도 달고 조기경보기도 운영하고 35C/KF-21 함재기로 쓰고
Looking forward for More coverage of frigates and destroyers👌🏼
Destroyers and Frigates are for killing subs, killing corvettes, and killing patrol boats. Aircraft, especially jet fighters, and kill all those targets with missiles. A Marine UH-60 with a door gunner firing a .30 or .50n cal machine gun could kill patrol boats.
@@knoahbody69 What?
With the well deck and Ski-jump already integrated into the design, this should be reclassified as "Assault Carrier", a fusion between amphibious assault ship and light carrier. Hope the ROK integrates with advanced chemical processing units (to make hydrogen, oxygen, sodium, chlorine) and hydrogen fuel cell engines to power the ship with "water batteries", making a more environmentally friendly ship and loosen logistics schedules.
Those things only make sense for submarines, since they are incredibly expensive and the things they produce are not needed in a surface warship. After all, there is plenty of oxygen in the air.
Such a Hybrid propulsion system would make this ship extremely expensive, take up an extraordinary amount of space and make it very vulnerable to fires. Stored liquid oxygen and hydrogen = Extreme fire hazard,, Even small amounts of liquid hydrogen can be explosive when combined with air, and only a small amount of energy is required to ignite it. Both its explosiveness and the extremely low temperatures involved make handling it safely a challenge. Whereas High Flash Point Kerosene (JP 5) fuel has a Flashpoint of 66 Celsius, and is easy to store and transfer. So the ROKN, will go as the Royal Navy and Italian Navy have done, CODOG scheme + electric engines with two Rolls-Royce Marine 36 MW MT30 gas turbine.
The only thing missing is long range patrol aircraft. Is that not a requirement today?
It should be
THE DIECAST MODEL OF AICRAFT CARRIER IS VERY NICE !!!
I WANT THE SAME !!!
현대중공업 관계자분 영어도 사투리 억양으로 구사하시네 ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
경상도 사투리 나오네요
리포터는 어디 사투리인가요?
@@getsix10 파리사투리
ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
설명 듣다가 내용은 웃긴게 없는데 엄청 웃었네.
The Italian Admiral must be misinformed I am Currently working on the Trieste in La Spezia. The ship is nowhere near ready for sea trials. Basic things like insulation in walls and lighting fixtures are not even installed this ship is at least 2 years from seatrials And the ship is 3 years over schedule as it is. And the Trieste is an LHD not an aircraft carrier. I hope the ROK navy does not go with this proposal it would be a great limiting factor and most likely have significant delays in production.
First time anyone has added a secondary flight deck since the 1920s.
It technically has three, the main flight deck, helicopter flight deck, and a uav flight deck. It is a very interesting and unique concept for the modern light carrier. Also incorporated vertical misslie launchers I am an very interested in Hyundai's carrier proposal.
Looking Good ROK that carrier..
Wow good job South Korea!👍
Greating from Italy 🇮🇹!
Plenty of F-35 nay sayers are saying its a failed prject but with multiple countries adopting it i say its improving my only gripe is that they should have focused more and specialized the design around the B variant and built a seperate Plane for the A and C Variant
hyundai alway had a slick design
I liked the one with the ski jump
현중안이 정말 항모보는 것 같다 ㅎ
오늘 여기 갑니다 저는 히히
Go forward, South-Korea! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! We will be allies and friends forever! Best wishes from Germany!
HHI's design definitely has the "wow" factor going for it, but does not seem to be the most practical or realistic. DSME's, on the other hand, seems to be a more mature & thought-out design which accurately reflects ROC set by the ROKN. Ongoing cooperation with Babcock International (builder of QE-class) and upcoming cooperation with Fincantieri likely mean DSME's design will be more robust than HHI's.
I agree. HHI looks awesome but it may be a bust for Korea's economy. That carrier looks extremely expensive to put out, even with a powerful design. The DSME looks more practical for putting at sea, but it may lack a few knicks here and there in terms of military power. It may be primarily for speed and accuracy in strategic support however, which is a big deal for us Koreans since we built the geobukseon, which was one of the fastest ships at the time. DSME aircraft carrier even has a medical ward underneath and a missile hull. That's crazy! Honestly, well done HHI and DSME.
so has a carrier been approved by the Korean govt? are they actually going to put 1 or 2 in service? That would be awesome
South Korea has the 8th Largest Navy in the world, larger than Italy and the Taiwanese.
@@brandonpak2445 is that a typo? 80000 tons? or 8,000 tons? thats great for the Korean navy!
@@brandonpak2445 Bigger the better, love to see what they come up with. I thought it was gonna be along the lines of say the Mistral class that Spain and a few other countries operate
South Korea has shown a lot of wisdom and restraint by choosing off-the-shelf technology that is already proven. Italy has a long Bluewater tradition, and has operated powerful surface navies in the past. South Korea will license a design that is already in its second generation. The only thing that I’m not sure about is building a single larger carrier, instead of severall smaller ones like Japan’s multiple aircraft carrying destroyers, to deal with North Korea’s vast but primitive submarine forces.
Remember - Japan did not build an aircraft carrier but a helicopter carrier.
I understand that it can be dual purpose - but the initial scope was anti-submarine rather than anti-air/multi-role.
Depending on how China moves - they may build a larger fleet carrier in the future like Korea is thinking about now.
@@existentialvoid izumo is "helicopter destroyer" de facto aircraft carriers...
Light...?
I would choose the HHI design rather than DSME, HHI shows very innovative and impresive one with british co-up but the DSME's one is too conservative
It is more wise choice to make a deal with the British navy which has made a world strongest navy history and tradition, but the Italy?
They always played by the british navy since world war 1. British navy is not the strongest anymore but they have succeeded the gene from their ancestors
I believe that they still know how to play on the water
The DSMI design is very conservative compared to the HHI one. It will probably be a lot cheaper too which is probably its biggest advantage. It also depends if Korea see themselves as a Blue water navy or only interesting in patrolling the Korean peninsula
@@Weakeyedominant
Korean navy is relatively futuristic and reasonable than its army and airforce. That is why they have a plan to have the KD3 AEGIS destroyer from 1980s. In 1980, Korea was just developing country like all the other 3rd world countries. It was very big ambition which could ended up just a dream but they are now world 9th biggest economy with higher personal income than Italy.
So the ambition came out to the real world.
I believe Korean navy will choose the HHI CVX, only in condition they made it by the Korean navy ROC.
@@xroadcedarhill9224 the future is definitly in Asia. Their navies of Japan, Korea, India, Indonesia will soon dwarf European navies I just hope things remain peaceful in the region as things seem to be heating up in the South China Sea.
@@Weakeyedominant If only China behaves, we can live peacefully but China is acting like world war 2 era Germany with their very very weird Sinocentrism.
They will do anything whatever they want, if they want to have somthing from other countries, they will take it By Any Means Neccessary.
If world war 3 starts in the future, China will trigger it
@@xroadcedarhill9224 what are you talking about? China has not been in any war for over 30 years. whereas US and her allies has been invading and murdering muslim for oil all this time. it is a joke that the west pretend it is peaceloving when murdering 10000 civilian with their drone strike.
Looking forward to more coverage! Wonder if KAI is going to lobby for naval kf-21?
I mean if they get good enough performance out of it to be Carrier capable that would open up the door to put in on the QE carriers as well, which would be sick
@@Ry_TSG the Royal Navy isn't going to be flying a Korean aircraft anytime soon.
Quick answer would be no. There buying the STOVL F35B and that what they are looking to design ships for. KF-21 can't do that job.
that model is longer than 270 meters, it should be at least 950 feet
Wow! This is the battleship of the future......
I like the first design the best!
Thinking if civilian can buy this
Lots of love from India keep the good work up south Korea respect
The DSME design is more conventional. But the HHI design is much more cutting edge and forward looking. The ROK Navy, and government, have been presented with two radically different paths for the future. But, considering their past naval developments, would not be surprised if they went with the HHI proposal.
현대 디자인 너무 진취적이라 좋네요. 대우의 보수적인 디자인도 신뢰가 갑니다. 살짝 현대의 여러 시도들에 마음이 더 끌리긴 합니다.
다만 고정익기의 소티라는 본연의 목적을 저해 할 수 있지 않겠냐는 우려의 목소리도 검토할 필요가 있지 않나 싶습니다.
그렇다고 여러 가능성을 포기해서는 안되겠죠. CVX계획이 성공해서 대양해군의 비젼에 한발짝 더 다가갈 수 있기를 응원하겠습니다
Was there nobody else can speak with better English pronunciation in whole Korea?
Trieste is a great ship. It is a pity that has to rely on F35B to be a carrier. The plane is just not up to the task. Pratically Trieste is a LHD where H means helicopters. The ship is very good to support anfibious operations (and in many other situation based on helicopter use), but not to achieve air superiority. For that Italy or Korea should get into a project like the PANG a future CATOBAR carrier for the French Navy and provide whatever aircraft is needed for air superiority (Rafal, Typhon, Tempest). If France can do it Italy also can.
Italy renounced nuclear technology in a referendum 35 years ago.
wow South Korea if only my country is rich enough to afford these big boys including the latest fighter jets
60 000 tons?
I guess it's a [light aircraft] Carrier and not [light] aircraft carrier.
Actually aircraft carriers can easily top 100,000 tons, so 60,000 tons is fairly light in carrier terms.
Another italian masterclass
Unless Hyundai build their CVs like their cars, that thing will weigh WAYYYYY more than 40,000 tons
Ngl the HHI proposal for the CVX looks very promising
왜 경항모에 빠져서..
Typical Korean English is good, no problem. He can enough explain about that product even though his pronunciation has korean style but good speaker.
Not korean style. But very southeast style. 😄
Your casual racism is awesome
considering he is a engineer, his english is really good.
why would Korea need an aircraft carrier?
@A Perpetual Guardsman with a flashlight yeah right ..dream on
Because China is building its own carriers
@@captaincapitalis1205 so what? please explain why Korea should do the same?
@@falcondmp Because since DPRK and China work close together it is entirely possible for China to join a fight against South Korea. Having an aircraft carrier allows it a better chance of stopping any invading naval forces from China, as well as giving them a harder to hit airbase for the land war.
S Korea need 60,000 ton carrier to use KF21. In long run, money spent on it will stay within S Korea for jobs for maintenance which cost more than buying fighter and ship. Also bigger deck is safer to operate thus even UK didn't want to go back to small carrier with VSTOL type aircraft after operating 3 VSTOL small aircraft carriers. Larger carrier with catapult system will have more fire power than 3 Chinese aircraft carrier with ski jump which their fighters can't fly with anti ship missiles due to weight. Also ski jump carriers have to go full speed for lift off fighters thus if their engine has problem, their aircraft can't fly.
현중 관계자분 영어 ㅠ.ㅠ
중요한건 잘 설명했네요 영어는 발음의 현지화 보다는 말의 늬양스가 중요하죠.
하아...그래도 열심히 노력하는 모습이...
엔지니어가 저정도면 굿!
문제 없어 보입니다. 언어는 뜻 전달이 중요하고 문장 틀린것도 없으니까요. 호주영어나 미국영어 발음이 잘못된게 아닌거니까요.
대우조선 해양:경항모입니다
한국:오~
현대중공업:경항모임 아무튼 경항모임
한국:어.......어............어.........
ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ
So what kind of saber rattling is this? Hyundai builds a couple of models, some CGI, charts out some investment figures that domestic productivity might, somehow, possibly support, in what might possibly be called, a credible threat? In some sort of diplomacy negotiation?
Because I can barely understand the guy, I doubt people in Beijing, or Pyongyang can any better, but we can all clearly see the extremely evocative twin islands, as well as the coveted curves of F-35, implying US allegiance, at least as strongly, as air superiority.
Some guys in the navy says that we need a light carrier some say that we need middle sized carrier like the QE and some say that carriers are uselss in korea that's whats happening in the korean navy
He says it's 30,000 tons.... seriously
It looks at least 80,000 tons.
i think its just a marketting ploy to make it fit required specs. most definitely that looks way bigger.
혁신이 없는 대우조선해양과 달리 현대중공업은 각성했네
항모의 디자인이나 사이즈도 그렇고 현대중공업 설계안에서 한국형 항모의 비전이 보여 뿌듯
Pa order nga ,mga apat, Tig-dalawa HHI at DSME .
Tapos anim na Combat Corvette Fighters.
Does ROK Navy really needs aircraft carrier? Or will it become a capability which would of no use in future conflict and may become the primary target for others?
Other countries' aircraft carriers do not become enemy's primary targets but only ROK's one becomes? LOL why?
@@jclulu3942 www.aspistrategist.org.au/south-korea-pushes-ahead-with-aircraft-carrier-only-its-admirals-want/
@@insomniac5113 what a great unbiased reference that you brought there kiddo
F-35B Carrier like the HMS Queen Elizabeth and across sea of Japan the Izumo. For the South Korean Navy they might as well modify the Dokdo to Carry F-35Bs
good idea for you
The first carrier was bigger than the 65 thousand ton queen elizabeth, so there's no way its 30 thousand tons.
There is a big difference between light displacement and full load displacement. The displacement that Hyundai's descriptor says is light displacement.
An aircraft carrier with a light displacement of 40,000 tons can have a full load displacement of more than 60,000 tons. The Korean government is planning an aircraft carrier with a light displacement of around 40,000 tons. With full load displacement, more than 60,000 tons, a size similar to that of Queen Elizabeth can be expected.
I thought the gentleman said it was 270 meters long, which would make it shorter than the QE class which is 284m in length. The displacement weight could be explained by the width, A QE class is 70m wide if this carrier is about 40m in width, It would be approximately 25,000 tones lighter, which would put it at the stated 40,000 tones displacement..🤔
@@sungwonryu5925 Except the QE class's 65,000 tones in also a light displacement weight. I have heard that the QE class could be as much as 72,000 tones in full loading conditions 🤔..
@@Markus117d According to the specifications given by Hyundai's descriptor, the carrier looks smaller than Queen Elizabeth, but the difference is not significant. There is a difference of about 10 meters in length and width.
Although the exact light displacement of Queen Elizabeth is not known, it is known that the light displacement of Sejong the Great-class destroyer is 8,500 tons and the full load displacement is over 11,000 tons.
Queen Elizabeth is known to have a standard displacement of 65,000 tons, not a light displacement. Unlike light displacement, standard displacement and full load displacement are usually not significantly different.
Note that light displacement is defined as the weight of the ship excluding cargo, fuel, water, ballast, stores, passengers, crew, but with water in boilers to steaming level and standard displacement is the displacement of the ship complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores, and implements of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but without fuel or reserve boiler feed water on board.
@@sungwonryu5925I Watched the beginning bit again, it sure does sound like the gentleman says the width is 50m to me, but maybe my hearing isn't what it used to be lol...
I hope the koreans will implant catapults on their carrier because depending on the F35B may be a liability
The F 35 is already battle proven with the Israeli Air Force.
@@Dweller415 the F35i is quite different from the F35B and they are used mainly as attack aircraft not superiority fighters. They also already had been heavily retrofitted to update the ECM suite.
The fact that the F35 is awfully expensive (to buy, to fly or to clean!) and not up to the requirements isn't a secret (the congress reports are quite explicite). The fact the Lightning II doesn't like Thunderstorms is quite public too 😁 Being the only VSTOL aircraft available is worrisome and all the eggs shouldn't go in the same basket.
@Mac’s Jack! I think France doesn't have to rely on US industry to design and build jets plus they can catapult their Rafale without any problem from their nuclear carrier 🤔
why would south korea need aircraft carrier is beyond me.
I like HHI design that is multi purpose but number F35, 20 would be tight fit for that size carrier as Australia LHD Canberra class was be fitted for 35 the number of carry would be squadron size of 12. I reckon DSME will win contract especially with Italian help.
They probably will, but I won't be disappointed if HHI wins.
45000 is not a light carrier anymore.
The islands are to far to the rear
4:55 me an Italian: why look the Korean cousin of the Trieste!
@대한민국 South Korea I see infact. I'm glad that Italy cooperate with other countries in the region, other than China with his questionable CCP.
I hope that this project will bring to a great cooperation within our countries
I prefer the HHI Variant
If the Republic of Korea is building aircraft carriers and flying F35s, is the large US military presence still needed on the peninsula?
Bit overpowered for facing north kor yes, but ultimate enemy is China so US should be stationed in sk in my opinion
Ok, the HHI design wants to be a Jack of all trades, a carrier, UAV launcher and a USV mother ship with a wet well deck.. that is too many task for a ship that's supposed to be a carrier, and I don't believe that a $$ Billion Dollar carrier, will slow down to 5-10 knots to recover USV'S.
Hoping the DSME design will be the one chosen! A smaller but sizeable vessel nonetheless, still capable of carrying a great number of F-35B and based on an already tested hull with the support of an industry giant like Fincantieri!
Plus, with the possible implementation of a ski-jump, it'll still be possible to park aircrafts on the right side, something that can't be said of the HHI proposal which wastes a great deal of space both on bow and stern.
Hey, I gotta say, the DSME one looks badass
현대에서 만든 항모 옆라인이 너무 섹시함
다리도 자동차도 섹시하던데 배마저...
@@FLASHkor 자동차는 요즘 ㅈ같음
The South Koreans could learn a lot on how the UK operate the F35B off their carriers.... 😎👍👍👍
They will probably do what the British did, send their deck crews to the U.S. to work alongside U.S. Navy/Marines to learn how to handle aircraft aboard ship, then modify what they learned to suit their needs.
Good