Photos Republic of (South) Korea Military
- Thread starter BravoZulu
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2017
- Messages
- 1,531
- Points
- 169
Ambassador,4/11/2011 16:47,mp.net from 'ROK(South Korea) Armed Forces pics and videos'
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
How strong are our naval forces in the world? We should be around the 6th largest/strongest navy correct??
---End Quote---
That's a complex question to answer. The reason for this because very few navies in the world have evolved in the way the ROKN has to - ROKN has to simultaneously counter both immense littoral/regional threats (NK, China) and a wide range of global threats, while being compromised by a relatively small budget (huge ground force requirement, comparable air force requirement). For similar budget reasons most navies of comparative size are either dedicated to littoral or blue-water, whichever capability is more important. Well, if we stil dare to compare our navy with foreign navies in what's potentially a very unreliable comparison, in the littoral aspect, only the USN and PLAN can reliably be said to display an overall better capability than our navy, at least on paper. Other navies do not appear to have the number of sophisticated littoral combat ships to sustain prolonged littoral combat, at least not against the littoral navies of the size that ROKN is armed to f!
ight against. Our navy and PLAN have acquired strong littoral capabilities because of the close proximity of our main foes, NK and Taiwan, and also each other to a lesser degree. The USN acquired strong littoral capabilities because, well, it's the USN. Other blue-water navies don't have strong littoral capabilities because they have no need to acquire such capabilities.
Our blue-water navy is currently unbalanced in favor of destroyers heavily armed with anti-ship missiles and air/missile defense missiles. The number of our logistics and support ships and amphibious ships isn't as big as comparably sized navies yet, and we don't have deployable aircraft carriers. I think we are giving more importance to the capability to sink enemy ships and prevent enemy ships or aircraft from sinking our own ships, which is a capability that is useful in both littoral and blue-water operations, than the capability to transport ground troops long-range to global locations and provide them with air coverage. At least, that was our previous preference considering our preoccupation with NK ground threats, wherein it was not advantageous to us bother ourselves with ground operations in far away battlefields. European navies provide a good comparative example to explain this point; is ROKN, at this moment, equipped with sufficient blue-water capabi!
lities to support our ground troops' operations in Afghanistan, Libya, or in similar places compared to these aircraft carrier/LPH-equipped navies? Nope, and we supposedly don't even have to yet. But if you ask which navy stands a better chance in sinking Chinese ships and protecting an airspace from Chinese aircraft, our navy will probably excel more, because we have to. As for ASW, our navy is still admittedly deficient in ASW capabilities compared to the severity of submarine threats our ships are exposed to, but most blue-water navies are similarly deficient in that area except for the unique examples of USN and JMSDF. Submarines of most countries with advanced navy will be sinking each others' blue-water surface vessels with impunity if they all perform as they are advertised. ;-)
Overall, all I can say is that our navy is being sufficiently designed to properly meet our own current and near-future needs in naval strategy. Our navy is not designed to satisfy the strategic needs of many other nations who prepare for radically different kinds of conflict (are they even likely to face battle in their own territory or in an immediately neighboring one? perhaps not). Likewise, other foreign navies cannot satisfy our defense needs in our navy's stead except for one which already provides defense for many foreign countries.
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
33.1 trillion won O.O.. is alot i never expected that much wow. Has there been a substantial increase last year due to the bombing of yeonpyeong and cheonan sinking???
---End Quote---
Aside from some $100 million emergency fund to quickly reinforce our military installations and assets in the western sea border as a preparation against suspected NK repeat aggression in the short-term, no, there had not been any substantial increase in our military budget from last year to this year as a consequence of those two incidents. The 6.2% increase in this year's budget (which excludes the $100 million) was largely due to our proportional 6.1% increase in GDP. But it did help us suddenly realize that any further decrease in defense budget growth citing greater emphasis on more economic investment may not be in the best interest of our national security, and made us consider changing our budget plans accordingly for the next year and the years after that. Our defense budget will now increase at an average of 5.5% for the next five years while our economic growth will hover somewhere between 4 and 5%. My raw calculation tells me that our military budget!
-to-GDP ratio will be around 2.8% by 2016 compared to this year's 2.6%, if we follow that new plan. This will still be a low level, but at least not as bad as now... though a more ideal level can (and perhaps should) still be sought than this.
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
I was wondering also how the budget is distributed also ? I know the navy receives 7 billion dollars as you mentioned do you know much the Airforce and Ground forces get? Im assuming most of the budget goes towards the ground forces correct??
---End Quote---
In my best knowledge the budget distribution has a ratio of roughly 50-25-25 for Army, Air Force, and Navy (Marine Corps included in the Navy). If our military budget is currently $28 billion this is $14 billion, $7 billion, and $7 billion for the branches. The Navy will spend some $1.5 billion for the Marines which is about one-tenth the size of the Army. So I guess budget for purely Navy's use will be a bit short of $6 billion next year.
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
I don't think the North Korean military has a chance against the ROK now since the airforce, naval and ground force equipment is advancing so rapidly. I can't wait for the airforce to replace those f-4s. Also can't wait for the navy to become blue water XD...
---End Quote---
We don't underestimate our foes. NK knows our conventional military is stronger than theirs and will certainly have deviced a way to make our advantage less relevant. There is no sure way to defeat NK military without suffering at least modest damage to our national infrastructure without causing rapid and wanton destruction of NK with WMDs (surely, we don't want to subject NK citizens to this) or instigating internal collapse.
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
Lol i only realised the ROK had a coastal guard force after watching 'poseidon' drama rofl... It's great!! ROK is definetly are strong military!!
---End Quote---
Which is fortunate if you consider where we are and who we face. Our nation cannot survive without a strong military.
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
I still don't understand why we need the Americans to be on our land still when we are very capable indeed.
---End Quote---
We need American support for far more important reasons than busting NK ships or aircraft. The American troops are here to show America's commitment that they'll help us reunify as they've helped us rebuild our country, helping us protect ourselves against more menacing foes while we are in that process of reunification, perhaps even beyond. In my opinion, we should be looking for not ways to kick US presence out of our country by reasoning that we now have a strong military force but rather how to return the US the favor with that strong military force.
***************
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
How strong are our naval forces in the world? We should be around the 6th largest/strongest navy correct??
---End Quote---
That's a complex question to answer. The reason for this because very few navies in the world have evolved in the way the ROKN has to - ROKN has to simultaneously counter both immense littoral/regional threats (NK, China) and a wide range of global threats, while being compromised by a relatively small budget (huge ground force requirement, comparable air force requirement). For similar budget reasons most navies of comparative size are either dedicated to littoral or blue-water, whichever capability is more important. Well, if we stil dare to compare our navy with foreign navies in what's potentially a very unreliable comparison, in the littoral aspect, only the USN and PLAN can reliably be said to display an overall better capability than our navy, at least on paper. Other navies do not appear to have the number of sophisticated littoral combat ships to sustain prolonged littoral combat, at least not against the littoral navies of the size that ROKN is armed to f!
ight against. Our navy and PLAN have acquired strong littoral capabilities because of the close proximity of our main foes, NK and Taiwan, and also each other to a lesser degree. The USN acquired strong littoral capabilities because, well, it's the USN. Other blue-water navies don't have strong littoral capabilities because they have no need to acquire such capabilities.
Our blue-water navy is currently unbalanced in favor of destroyers heavily armed with anti-ship missiles and air/missile defense missiles. The number of our logistics and support ships and amphibious ships isn't as big as comparably sized navies yet, and we don't have deployable aircraft carriers. I think we are giving more importance to the capability to sink enemy ships and prevent enemy ships or aircraft from sinking our own ships, which is a capability that is useful in both littoral and blue-water operations, than the capability to transport ground troops long-range to global locations and provide them with air coverage. At least, that was our previous preference considering our preoccupation with NK ground threats, wherein it was not advantageous to us bother ourselves with ground operations in far away battlefields. European navies provide a good comparative example to explain this point; is ROKN, at this moment, equipped with sufficient blue-water capabi!
lities to support our ground troops' operations in Afghanistan, Libya, or in similar places compared to these aircraft carrier/LPH-equipped navies? Nope, and we supposedly don't even have to yet. But if you ask which navy stands a better chance in sinking Chinese ships and protecting an airspace from Chinese aircraft, our navy will probably excel more, because we have to. As for ASW, our navy is still admittedly deficient in ASW capabilities compared to the severity of submarine threats our ships are exposed to, but most blue-water navies are similarly deficient in that area except for the unique examples of USN and JMSDF. Submarines of most countries with advanced navy will be sinking each others' blue-water surface vessels with impunity if they all perform as they are advertised. ;-)
Overall, all I can say is that our navy is being sufficiently designed to properly meet our own current and near-future needs in naval strategy. Our navy is not designed to satisfy the strategic needs of many other nations who prepare for radically different kinds of conflict (are they even likely to face battle in their own territory or in an immediately neighboring one? perhaps not). Likewise, other foreign navies cannot satisfy our defense needs in our navy's stead except for one which already provides defense for many foreign countries.
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
33.1 trillion won O.O.. is alot i never expected that much wow. Has there been a substantial increase last year due to the bombing of yeonpyeong and cheonan sinking???
---End Quote---
Aside from some $100 million emergency fund to quickly reinforce our military installations and assets in the western sea border as a preparation against suspected NK repeat aggression in the short-term, no, there had not been any substantial increase in our military budget from last year to this year as a consequence of those two incidents. The 6.2% increase in this year's budget (which excludes the $100 million) was largely due to our proportional 6.1% increase in GDP. But it did help us suddenly realize that any further decrease in defense budget growth citing greater emphasis on more economic investment may not be in the best interest of our national security, and made us consider changing our budget plans accordingly for the next year and the years after that. Our defense budget will now increase at an average of 5.5% for the next five years while our economic growth will hover somewhere between 4 and 5%. My raw calculation tells me that our military budget!
-to-GDP ratio will be around 2.8% by 2016 compared to this year's 2.6%, if we follow that new plan. This will still be a low level, but at least not as bad as now... though a more ideal level can (and perhaps should) still be sought than this.
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
I was wondering also how the budget is distributed also ? I know the navy receives 7 billion dollars as you mentioned do you know much the Airforce and Ground forces get? Im assuming most of the budget goes towards the ground forces correct??
---End Quote---
In my best knowledge the budget distribution has a ratio of roughly 50-25-25 for Army, Air Force, and Navy (Marine Corps included in the Navy). If our military budget is currently $28 billion this is $14 billion, $7 billion, and $7 billion for the branches. The Navy will spend some $1.5 billion for the Marines which is about one-tenth the size of the Army. So I guess budget for purely Navy's use will be a bit short of $6 billion next year.
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
I don't think the North Korean military has a chance against the ROK now since the airforce, naval and ground force equipment is advancing so rapidly. I can't wait for the airforce to replace those f-4s. Also can't wait for the navy to become blue water XD...
---End Quote---
We don't underestimate our foes. NK knows our conventional military is stronger than theirs and will certainly have deviced a way to make our advantage less relevant. There is no sure way to defeat NK military without suffering at least modest damage to our national infrastructure without causing rapid and wanton destruction of NK with WMDs (surely, we don't want to subject NK citizens to this) or instigating internal collapse.
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
Lol i only realised the ROK had a coastal guard force after watching 'poseidon' drama rofl... It's great!! ROK is definetly are strong military!!
---End Quote---
Which is fortunate if you consider where we are and who we face. Our nation cannot survive without a strong military.
---Quote (Originally by krnofdrg69)---
I still don't understand why we need the Americans to be on our land still when we are very capable indeed.
---End Quote---
We need American support for far more important reasons than busting NK ships or aircraft. The American troops are here to show America's commitment that they'll help us reunify as they've helped us rebuild our country, helping us protect ourselves against more menacing foes while we are in that process of reunification, perhaps even beyond. In my opinion, we should be looking for not ways to kick US presence out of our country by reasoning that we now have a strong military force but rather how to return the US the favor with that strong military force.
***************
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2017
- Messages
- 1,531
- Points
- 169
green unifrom and oldest helmets,this pics from before 2000's?
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2017
- Messages
- 38,181
- Points
- 463
Naval 1st Fleet Command frigate Gangwon (FFG, 2,500 tons) conducted naval fire drills during the New Year's first naval sea drill on Friday, January 10 (Friday).
This training is conducted to establish military readiness and to strengthen the soldiers' will to protect the ocean.
https://militaryimages.net/threads/navies-of-all-nations.8692/page-58
This training is conducted to establish military readiness and to strengthen the soldiers' will to protect the ocean.
https://militaryimages.net/threads/navies-of-all-nations.8692/page-58
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2019
- Messages
- 124
- Points
- 93
This is the rooftop Korean people talking aboutSeoul rooftop KM167A3 VADS
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2018
- Messages
- 415
- Points
- 158
Some photos of the ROKAF's Special Warfare Command soldiers undergoing training.
post.naver.com
Source:
세계 최정예 대체불가 그들... 위기일수록 더욱 강해진다
[BY 국방일보] 육군특수전사령부 영내 교육훈련실내사격장·시가지 훈련장·고공센터… 총면적 32만㎡ 권역화...
post.naver.com
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2017
- Messages
- 38,181
- Points
- 463
On this day, 10 years ago, ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) was sunk by a North Korean submarine, resulting in the loss of 46 sailors.
ROKS Cheonan was a Pohang-class corvette, which was designed primarily as an ASuW corvette intended to counter North Korean infiltration boats and gun boats. As such, it lacked sufficient anti-submarine warfare capability.
She was ambushed and sunk by a North Korean midget submarine on the night of March 26, 2010 with the loss of 46 of her crew.
A veteran UDT/SEAL Warrant Officer Han Joo-Ho , who insisted on continued operation despite the harsh condition, was also lost during the subsequent recovery operation. He was memorialized along with the crew (46+1).
The following photos show Cheonan's final refueling mission prior to its loss and the subsequent recovery operation.
Cheonan's hull was salvaged and now rests at a dedicated museum.
Last known photos and recovery operation:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/roknavyhq/albums/72157623711906821
ROKS Cheonan was a Pohang-class corvette, which was designed primarily as an ASuW corvette intended to counter North Korean infiltration boats and gun boats. As such, it lacked sufficient anti-submarine warfare capability.
She was ambushed and sunk by a North Korean midget submarine on the night of March 26, 2010 with the loss of 46 of her crew.
A veteran UDT/SEAL Warrant Officer Han Joo-Ho , who insisted on continued operation despite the harsh condition, was also lost during the subsequent recovery operation. He was memorialized along with the crew (46+1).
The following photos show Cheonan's final refueling mission prior to its loss and the subsequent recovery operation.
Cheonan's hull was salvaged and now rests at a dedicated museum.
Last known photos and recovery operation:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/roknavyhq/albums/72157623711906821
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2015
- Messages
- 1,783
- Points
- 249
On this day, 10 years ago, ROKS Cheonan (PCC-772) was sunk by a North Korean submarine, resulting in the loss of 46 sailors.
ROKS Cheonan was a Pohang-class corvette, which was designed primarily as an ASuW corvette intended to counter North Korean infiltration boats and gun boats. As such, it lacked sufficient anti-submarine warfare capability.
She was ambushed and sunk by a North Korean midget submarine on the night of March 26, 2010 with the loss of 46 of her crew.
A veteran UDT/SEAL Warrant Officer Han Joo-Ho , who insisted on continued operation despite the harsh condition, was also lost during the subsequent recovery operation. He was memorialized along with the crew (46+1).
The following photos show Cheonan's final refueling mission prior to its loss and the subsequent recovery operation.
Cheonan's hull was salvaged and now rests at a dedicated museum.
Last known photos and recovery operation:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/roknavyhq/albums/72157623711906821
Okay, somebody please tell us what we're looking at here....this is interesting for sure!! Any close up pics of the signs in the lower right??
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2017
- Messages
- 38,181
- Points
- 463
ROKS Cheonan was salvaged and is now on permanent museum display, I haven't been able to isolate the signs to see what they say mate
Similar threads
