UK, Italy and South Korea to work together for CVX future aircraft carrier for South Korean Navy 

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.

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

@@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 .

@@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.

Synergie effects 👍🏻 for big powers

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

however the most unrealistic.

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

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

@@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.

Yeah the Korean design looks incredible 👌

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

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

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

@@Arltratlo eeeeh.. noup

@@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.

@@Arltratlo same goes to Liaoning and Shandong.

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

#####qq8

8⃣ q Q de qqqqqqqaciAo

Trieste is giant 255mt 38k TON

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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!!

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

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.

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!

@@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.

@@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!

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

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

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

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.

@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?

@@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

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

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

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

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

@@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.

@@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

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

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.

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

@@jager6863 What do you mean by air support?

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

@@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.

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.

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...😂

Well search the world's shipbuilding companies ranking

They construct buildings just like Samsung built burj khalifa

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.

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.

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

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

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

@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.

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

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.

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

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

​@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.

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

Problem is, the Tempest is conventional.

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

The HHI design definitely looks like the better ship.

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

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

Volle Zustimmung 👍👍👍

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

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.

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

catapult is more efficient in nuclear powered carriers.

@@alistairbolden6340 ski jump sucks.

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

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.

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.

@@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 answer is simple North Korea, and China

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 -

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.. :)))

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

@@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.

@@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.

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

@@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.

@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

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..

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

@@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 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.

@@thelastredsquirrels3787 thanks

@@j.4354 👍

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 RU-vid 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.

Blame the British

Hahaha good!

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?

The twin islands?

@@christianwhittall5889 yes

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

@@alistairbolden6340 but in new ones after poor ark royal

Well, at least build a CATOBAR CV instead of STOVL one. Pitting this 45,000 ton STOVL toy against China's 85,000 ton CATOBAR Type 003, would be a suicide mission. STOVL design can't even launch an E-2D. The very reason these countries chooses STOVL instead of CATOBAR, is because they are cheap, and they don't want to get involved with the US-China rivalry.

@@jamesshen7066 Chinese hahahaha

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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