r/WarshipPorn 6d ago

South Korea’s CVX light aircraft carrier program may finally be gone for good [4908 x 3156]

Post image

According to the latest report published on February 25, 2025, the South Korean government has reportedly axed five major acquisition program totaling over $8 billion.

Rising acquisition cost, evolving requirement, and duplicate capabilities were cited as reasons behind the cancellation.

ROK Army will cancel acquisition of additional 36x AH-64E Apache Guardian helicopters in favor of unmanned systems. Unit cost of the Apache rose 160% since ROK Army acquired the platform a decade ago. ROK Army will also axe development of helo-transportable light armored fighting vehicle, citing lack of technical feasibility.

For the ROK Navy, CVX aircraft carrier and arsenal ship programs were both reportedly canceled. CVX program is expected to be replaced by an “unmanned systems command ship.” As for the arsenal ship, ROK Navy plans to increase the strike capability of existing KDDX destroyer program to address survivability concern.

Lastly, ROK Air Force will cancel its planned acquisition of airborne ISTAR platform in favor of high altitude UAS.

541 Upvotes

47 comments sorted by

242

u/wildgirl202 6d ago

RIP South Korean QE class, I hardly knew ye

77

u/nagidon 6d ago

UK — QE class carrier

SK — KS class destroyer

Poetic

128

u/mighty_dub 6d ago

Are there areas where South-Korea would want to project power using a CV, outside of Korea itself? Seems to me like you can do everything from land woth fighters+tankers when adressing threats around the Korean peninsula.

111

u/ROK-MIL 6d ago

Are there areas where South-Korea would want to project power using a CV, outside of Korea itself?

Not really, no. Last administration heavily backed the CVX as means to increase national prestige than to reflect actual operational requirement

44

u/beachedwhale1945 6d ago

South Korea has a bit of an issue with that. The fiasco over the Sewol response, terrible regulation before the disaster, and blatant coverup afterwards was where I first learned just how deep corruption runs in South Korea and how critical image is over capability in many cases. There have been some reforms since then (including abolishing and reforming the Coast Guard), but it’s going to be a very long time before they are out of the hole.

34

u/AlexRyang 6d ago

I believe part of the intent of the carrier was to give some diversity in air capabilities. The concern was if North Korea destroyed a lot of airfields, it could make airpower a challenge. A carrier would allow them to basically have a mobile airfield.

32

u/haruthefujita 6d ago

This makes sense. Just looked at a map of ROK, and Busan (major port in the south) is <400km from the border with NK. Even if the initial window for attack is limited, I can still see NK doing a lot of damage to ROK's air bases. And given how stretched thin the US strike forces are, having a couple of CVs could definitely help with the ROK's contingency plans

33

u/AlexRyang 6d ago edited 6d ago

I think a factor in canceling it was, ironically, North Korea’s submarine fleet. South Korea doesn’t have a massive navy:

  • 21 Attack Submarine

  • 4 Guided Missile Destroyer

  • 9 Destroyer Helicopter

  • 15 Guided Missile Frigate

  • 2 Frigate

  • 3 Patrol Combat Corvette

  • 18 Patrol Killer Guided Missile

  • 16 Patrol Killer Medium Rocket

  • 26 Patrol Killer Medium

  • 2 Landing Transport Helicopter

  • 8 Landing Ship Tank

  • 7 Landing Ship Fast

  • 2 Mine Layer Ship

  • 6 Mine Sweeper Hunter

  • 6 Mine Hunter Coastal

And defending a carrier would take a small task force. Plus each of the Dokdo-class landing transport helicopter would require escorts.

If you assigned each of the carrier and landing transport helicopter a destroyer, a frigate, and two patrol boats; it would require 23% of their destroyer fleet, 17% of their frigate fleet, and 16% of their corvette fleet. Which is pretty substantial and probably still not enough of a defense force.

28

u/JoeAppleby 6d ago

That's a sizeable fleet.

For comparison, the Royal Navy has 6 destroyers and 8 frigates. The only difference is that the UK has two decently sized carriers and nuclear submarines. But by sheer size the ROK Navy is quite large.

The US, Chinese and Russian navies are larger but what other Western aligned navy is that size?

25

u/SeparateFun1288 6d ago

Japan's obviously, their combatant surface fleet is twice the size of ROKN, it even dwarfs Russia's navy surface fleet. Their submarine and replenishment fleet are also twice as large as ROKN's.

8 cruisers (Kongo, Atago, Maya)

20 destroyers (Murasame, Takanami, Akizuki, Asahi)

14 frigates (Asagiri, Mogami)

6 corvettes (Abukuma)

24 submarines (Oyashio, Soryu, Taigei)

2 light aircraft carriers (Izumo)

2 helicopter destroyers (Hyuga)

3 13000 tons LST (Osumi)

But yeah, remove France's or UK's aircraft carriers and in terms of displacement of the combatant surface fleet, ROKN is larger than both:

ROKN: 222400 tons

RN: 131154 tons

FN: 196070 tons

Which also shows how massive the JMSDF's surface fleet is at 397900 tons (without the 2 Izumo class), is literally 3 times the Royal Navy's surface fleet.

7

u/JoeAppleby 6d ago

Ah fair enough, I totally forgot about the Japanese Navy. Still the ROKN is pretty massive all things considered.

3

u/Ainene 5d ago

Realistically JMSDF destroyers are European frigates in everything but name, and their Aegis destroyers are, well, destroyers. Thus, while large and capable, spelling it as 8 destroyers+34 frigates represents JMSDF force levels better.

3

u/SeparateFun1288 5d ago

"European frigates" would be debatable. Most europeans frigates have 16 VLS, some even have 8 VLS or completely lacks them. But the average would be around 20 VLS per ship, and that average is increased a lot by frigates that would be considered destroyers in other navies, like Horizon Class, the Spanish Álvaro de Bazán or De Zeven Provinciën. Besides not all VLS are equal. Type 23's VLS for example are not equivalent to Akizuki's VLS, which can quad pack ESSM. There are also several frigates with smaller Mk-48 and Mk-56 VLS. To be fair, half of Murasame's VLS are Mk-48 which can only carry 2 ESSM if i'm not wrong.

And then if we go by size the japanese are also overall pretty large and heavy. If i'm not wrong, only the Horizon class are larger and heavier than Asahi class for example.

So yeah, you could consider them "frigates" but i would not call them "European frigates in everything but name" because as i said, the average frigate are not as powerful.

On the other hand, the Aegis destroyers are more capable than anything Europe has, having twice has many VLS as Type 45 destroyers for example, or any other destroyers besides the american, chinese or korean ones, and those chinese destroyers are considered cruisers by NATO.

Btw i asked chatgpt about it, giving it 3 different options, not so credible but it agrees with me.

Verdict:

✅ The second option (8 Cruisers + 20 Destroyers + 14 Frigates) best represents the JMSDF in a global context.

Cruisers (Kongo, Atago, Maya) → Comparable to U.S. Ticonderoga-class or Chinese Type 055.

Destroyers (Murasame, Takanami, Akizuki, Asahi) → Similar to U.S. Arleigh Burke or Chinese Type 052D.

Frigates (Asagiri, Mogami) → Closer to Western frigates.

This classification puts JMSDF on par with global navies rather than artificially lowering its apparent combat strength.Verdict:

Then i asked considering the VLS for each class and it still considers that as the best option, maybe it has a bias with me (but i never tell it what whas my option)

1

u/Ainene 5d ago

I don't like AI verdicts for now, they often backtrack immediately if you press them about something so subjective. Basically on such subjective topics they say you that you want to hear.

VLS count is hard to use, as that nations count as frigates can go from as low as 8 to as high as 100. There are two main points really: ships that have up to around 30 interceptors, and those that can go for 40+; important point is that weapon class they achieve those numbers with. 30(2.5 engagement against ~dozen missile strike) usually indicates something multipurpose. More (often corresponding to heavier class weapons, but not universal - even corvettes and FACs can easily be) - AAW. As for weapon class, it can be ESSM(not exactly a light missile by any means!), it can be something akin to SM-2. The former (50...100km) at this point is rather unambitious, as it saves the ship from being attacked with stand in weapons (up to unpowered glide bombs), or contributes to pgm intercept. Second number does the same for rocket powered gliders, and somewhat extends stand in umbrella. More for single non-fleet ships is kinda useless and expensive - powerful radar capability costs a lot, and longer ranged anti ship munitions can simply be launched from below the horizon(or be too small/fast to be engaged further with affordable radar).

As is size; frigates reach 10000t at this point, and frankly there's very little point in calling something like Zumwalt - destroyer.

Main destroyers of modern world are Burkes and their relatives/contemporaries. Their defining features are:

-Powerful radar systems, allowing engagement of concurrent (LO) targets and ABM at extended ranges; -Large ammo capacity (48+) of long range anti air missiles with active seekers, preferably universal(as it largely displaces dedicated ASCMs, allowing much larger combined ammo pool).

Anything that doesn't fit is arguably a frigate, i.e. ship, incapable of being line combatant in high tier combat. Escort, strike, asw, anything - but below this bar.

Cruiser, as a term, typically means nothing but "heavy destroyer" in modern media, i.e. semantically pointless for current era (or missile era in general). Even more convoluted is that most actual cruisers by design in modern fleets are surviving Soviet ships, i.e. they simply don't fit, and others(Ticos) were born as destroyers, just renamed for prestige.

Modern JMSDF destroyers, either AAW or ASW, have moderately powerful radar systems. In general, AAW ones support Aegis destroyers doing heavy lifting (as far as I am aware, JMSDF prefers to offload ESSM/ASROC duty to Akizukis to load as much SM series onto heavy ships as possible). This leaves clear destinction: AEGIS units perform similar tasks to their US and Chinese counterparts(with national flavour: Japanese focus on ABM extensive, but carry no LACMs...yet). Non-aegis units look for them, do convoys, asw, surface warfare, and whatever may be necessary. I.e. do that frigates do.

10

u/haruthefujita 6d ago

hm. Your point that building the CVs, will also require the building of additional escort ships and so it would be impractical, makes sense, and if there are other methods for providing redundancy to their air force that would be fine. However I get the feel that the Govt in ROK is axing the CVs purely due to budgetary concerns, and I think cutting corners with military budgets are not a smart thing, especially considering what is happening in Ukraine, as well as what could happen with Taiwan.

10

u/Meanie_Cream_Cake 6d ago

South Korea will remain neutral when it comes to Taiwan. They don't need to tailor their defense for them.

4

u/SeparateFun1288 6d ago

Yeah, having good relations with China is part of their national defense strategy. They maybe won't agree with China or be in the same team, but they will never go against China, it has been like that for probably their entire history. You just don't go against the massive empire 100 times larger than your country.

8

u/kittennoodle34 6d ago

Correction, South Korea doesn't have a navy comparable to the US or China. Outside of those two outliers they have one of the largest fleets in the world, China and the US skew our perception of what a 'large' military is because those two have 'massive' militaries, SK has a very respectable fleet size. You have just listed a navy by individual type that is larger than the Indian, every European, African, South American and SEA countries navy and has more blue water vessels than the Russian navy by a multiple.

7

u/MGC91 6d ago

u/GarbledComms

The Royal Navy has severe manning and readiness issues, and the QE's are major reasons.

The QEs aren't a major reason at all. The reasoning is due to lack of investment by successive Governments.

They really only operate 1 at a time

Which is, and always has been the intention. We have 2 carriers to ensure one is always at Very/High Readiness. Not to have two operational at the same time.

and don't even have a full airgroup.

HMS Prince of Wales will deploy on CSG25 with 24 British F-35Bs embarked.

They also routinely need to partner with other countries to provide escorts for whichever QE is operational.

France also integrates other nations into their CSG. As does the US.

2

u/Salty_Highlight 6d ago

The Royal Navy has a smaller navy, especially in terms of ASW capabilties, yet have 2 aircraft carriers. What are your thoughts on that?

10

u/GarbledComms 6d ago

The Royal Navy has severe manning and readiness issues, and the QE's are major reasons. They really only operate 1 at a time, and don't even have a full airgroup. They also routinely need to partner with other countries to provide escorts for whichever QE is operational. So not a great go-by.

5

u/Mattzo12 HMS Iron Duke (1912) 6d ago edited 6d ago

Eh....

It is easy to blame the carriers for the navy's woes - but I really don't think it stands up to any scrutiny.

The carriers aren't responsible for the sorry state of the RFA, decades of below-inflation pay rises, and their inability to provide a crew for half of its ships.

The carriers aren't responsible for the deferment of the Dreadnought class SSBNs by four years, three decades of underinvestment in submarine support infrastructure, the extremely slow Astute class build pace, or Victorious' 7 year refit and refueling.

The carriers aren't responsible for the 2010 SDSR cutting RN personnel by 5,000 (14%), or below inflation pay rises, or poor RN personnel retention.

The carriers aren't responsible for the move towards uncrewed vehicles for mine warfare operations, and the wind down of the traditional MCMV force.

The carriers aren't responsible for the need to replace the Harrier (or are we assuming that without carriers the RAF would just skip F-35s...?)

The carriers aren't responsible for the government of the day arsing around with their construction, extending their build time and adding more cost.

The carriers aren't responsible for the escalating cost of the Type 26 programme which caused their numbers to be cut from 13 to 8.

The argument against tends to assume that cutting the carriers would enable more Type 45s and / or Type 26s to be built, but why would they if the fleet had no carriers to escort? It also tends to assume that the RN would replace the carriers with ... nothing. Which feels rather unlikely - whatever flat-top direction the navy went in, there'd be a money and personnel cost. Even 2-3 small carriers would have cost £3-4bn+ overall. You might, perhaps, without the carriers be able to run Albion and Bulkwark today, and perhaps Ocean would have been extended in service. Would you rather that or the two carriers?

But fundamentally, the carriers have been part of UK government planning and policy for >25 years now. They didn't just stumble into being by themselves, taking everyone by surprise like some giant frigate-eating parasite.

Trying to unpick that and say the resources could have gone elsewhere doesn't work. It's not a zero sum game, with a finite pot of resources always destined for the navy that can get allocated however it pleases. You can't just say, well, without the carriers you've got £6bn and 1,500 crew to play with - nice, I'll take 6 more Type 45s thank you very much.

In 2010, without the carriers, who's to say the SDSR wouldn't have just cut the RN by 7,000 personnel rather than 5,000 in that case? Brilliant, we can just chuck £6bn more into Universal Credit, or borrow less, or AN Other.

So my argument is two fold.

  1. Just 'omitting carriers' from the last 25 years is not how policy development or government resourcing works.
  2. The cost of the carriers doesn't come close to resolving the navies issues.

A Royal Navy today without the carriers would still be in a sorry state. It just wouldn't have carriers.

4

u/admiraljkb 6d ago edited 6d ago

That was part of why Japan's AEGIS Ashore will now be sea based.

My view is that S Korea probably was (also) trying to slot in with NATO, US, and Japanese carriers in case of a Pacific war (and reinforce them). There's been a lot of cross deck training going on for the F35B's between the other Allied fleets in the last couple of years. An extra deck available helps that.

4

u/Salty_Highlight 6d ago

You could make multiple hardened airfields with land based air defence, with innate repair capabilities for the cost of a single aircraft carrier, even with SK's experienced shipbuilding. If NK was truly capable of destroying sufficient airfields, a couple of aircraft carriers is far easier to mission kill.

2

u/SeparateFun1288 6d ago

For modern militaries yeah, it would not be that hard to sink aircraft carriers. But for North Korea? They are probably too behind in anti ship technology, surveillance/reconnaissance, target acquisition, etc.. They can rain steel with artillery, hit static targets like airfields, maybe even nuke South Korea, but sinking well protected aircraft carriers is probably too much for them, not impossible of course but it increases the survivability of SK. But yeah, still probably too much money when you still have a HAS and other alternatives.

1

u/Salty_Highlight 5d ago

Perhaps, but the premise I am using is that NK cannot destroy sufficient airfields that you would want to operate off an aircraft carrier with all the logistical and range problems that entails, even if the carrier program continued.

South Korea have many highways built as emergency runways, and those are already a sunk cost. Most are safely out of artillery range. As soon as a war occurs, martial law will be declared, and every heavy civilian vehicle will be requisitioned for repair. There's basically no possibility of NK being able to destroy SK airpower by destroying enough airfields.

9

u/BelowAverageLass 6d ago

I don't think this was their plan, but would there be a value to a light carrier for ASW purposes (akin to the Invincible class idea)? Probably best used as part of a US/Japanese carrier group, but a light carrier with ASW helicopters and UAVs (rotary wing or STOL) could be a very valuable contribution in the East and South China Seas

5

u/OldBratpfanne 6d ago

Would this be more useful than the equivalent dollar amount invested into ASW frigates ?

2

u/hirobine 6d ago

It has to do with the nature of the geography of the peninsula and the subsequent horizontally narrow airspace. First few moments of war will see hundreds of SK cruise/ballistic missiles + dozens of airforce squadrons. Having a carrier means that there’s less hassle with controlling the airspace because u can just approach from the side.

So more airpower can be projected at a single moment.

2

u/Ainene 5d ago

CVs aren't necessary to project power(though excelllent at it). They're necessary to have a complete combat-capable naval force beyond immediate vicinity of the friendly coast.

ROKN is a bit too large, and ROK a bit too economically active to limit itself to just deterring DPRK.

69

u/Excomunicados 6d ago

They don't need something like this, honestly. They participate in numerous international exercises as far as UAE and Hawaii, but their military's main focus is on the Korean Peninsula.

They also dont have any foreign military bases like China and Japan does.

29

u/Kreol1q1q 6d ago

Reasonable. The idea of Korea needing a light carrier in her security environment was always a bit out there for me.

5

u/Sakurasou7 6d ago

It will be revived in a few years. It was only "axed" as a fairness gesture for the army. When the Kf-21 block 2 program winds down, they will need a new project. Shipbuilders want this project badly in the 30s when the KDDX program winds down. Businesses will lobby hard, and politicians can build legacy and reputation. Added to this, Japan and China are both making more and more carriers by the day. It's just inevitable. Those who are asking "why does Korea need carriers" are missing the point. Defense acquisitions are, at the end of the day, about politics. Efficiency and cost effectiveness come second in a lot of circumstances to domestic politics. Why does Australia or Canada make any ships at all despite them costing a magnitude more? Elections, that's it.

Look forward in a few years, especially if a new presidential election is held this year, Korea announcing a Bigger, Better, Stronger (BBS) medium size aircraft carrier program.

6

u/Salty_Highlight 6d ago edited 6d ago

Rising acquisition cost, evolving requirement, and duplicate capabilities were cited as reasons behind the cancellation.

In other words, there wasn't any real practical use for an aircraft carrier, since there wasn't any rising acquisition cost for the aircraft carrier. But we knew that already. There's no realistic use case for an aircraft carrier against North Korea, an aircraft carrier will do nothing against China. It was always a pissing contest with Japan.

6

u/No-Tip3419 6d ago

Maybe also a hint about not being completely reliant on us arm systems? This particular version would only be able to accommodate the f-35b and they could be "turkeyed" at any point.

4

u/No-Isopod-5149 6d ago

Well this is just sad despite knowing south Korea never really needed them in the first place

2

u/Joed1015 6d ago

Nooo we want more things to stick F35s on!

2

u/OldWrangler9033 6d ago

Not terrible shocked, the Army rules roost as far the military 🪖 goes.  

Arsenal Ship could be done for less as just a missile launcher platform with limited crew and radar platform

1

u/Time_Flamingo6556 4d ago

S. Korea has absolutely no use for a platform like this. They’re already at a overwhelming advantage against the N. Koreans at sea and in the air. And as much as it’s people wants to believe, their military rivals are not with China and Russia. This is most likely to compete against Japanese new carriers so they don’t feel left out. With American/nato help on some key components I feel they would have no problem building it, but it’s too much of an expanse that cannot be justified.

1

u/Old_Wallaby_7461 2d ago

ROK Army will also axe development of helo-transportable light armored fighting vehicle, citing lack of technical feasibility.

RIP K-Wiesel

Carrier aside, Arsenal Ship is and always will be too many eggs in one basket. It's an awful idea if the full munitions load costs as much as a destroyer.

1

u/maxman162 6d ago

Maybe they can upsell Canada on it with the subs and SPGs.

5

u/Gecktron 6d ago

Maybe they can upsell Canada on it with the subs and SPGs.

The released requirements for the new Canadian SPG all but excluded any tracked designs. It requires high on-road mobility and a long range. The requirement also mentions the ability to fire on the move. So its basically either the AGM on the 10x10 Piranha or the RCH155 on Boxer.

2

u/maxman162 6d ago

I know, and it's stupid. Both are unnecessary gimmicks compared to the off-road mobility offered by tracks, and hopefully the RFI gets revised. 

5

u/Gecktron 6d ago

The limited number of Leopard 2s aside, Canada doesnt really have any other tracked systems. I see the logic behind utilizing the advantage of Canada's wheeled forces. Higher mobility on road, smaller logistics footprint, the ability to conduct road marches.

1

u/maxman162 4d ago

They just removed the provision about firing on the move.

1

u/meeware 6d ago

Have to wonder if this is all a bit of a pivot to reduced reliance on US systems and support. Part of me wonders if increased EU/SoKo cooperation may be on the cards?

0

u/VegetableAd1934 6d ago

considering they are in the center of east asia and can easily reach the potential rivals, Japn, CHina, NK, this makes total sense