{"id":2196772,"date":"2022-06-13T19:02:49","date_gmt":"2022-06-13T10:02:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.nknews.org\/pro\/?p=2196772"},"modified":"2023-04-05T16:12:17","modified_gmt":"2023-04-05T07:12:17","slug":"why-iron-dome-and-one-aircraft-carrier-provide-limited-benefits-for-south-korea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koreapro.org\/2022\/06\/why-iron-dome-and-one-aircraft-carrier-provide-limited-benefits-for-south-korea\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Iron Dome and an aircraft carrier provide limited benefits for South Korea"},"content":{"rendered":"
An aircraft carrier will provide limited military benefits for South Korea, while an indigenous Iron Dome-like system is unlikely to provide comprehensive defense against North Korean threats, the military specialist Bruce Bennett told <\/span>Korea Pro<\/span><\/i>.<\/span><\/p>\n But Bennett said South Korea\u2019s decision to develop a solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile fits with its practice of pursuing technologies with dual-use applications that can provide Seoul with both civil and military benefits.<\/span><\/p>\n In a wide-ranging interview with <\/span>Korea Pro,<\/span><\/i> Bennett \u2014 a defense researcher at RAND Corporation \u2014 also shared his thoughts on South Korea\u2019s strengths as an exporter of military equipment and its ability to undercut U.S. competition with less expensive conventional arms.<\/span><\/p>\n The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.<\/span><\/i> Korea Pro: Do you think pursuing the development of an indigenous South Korean aircraft carrier is a realistic goal for the new administration?<\/b><\/p>\n Bennett:<\/b> I don’t know for sure with the Yoon administration. But the real question is: What does a carrier buy you? Because one carrier buys you a carrier that’s on station maybe a third of the time or a little bit more because it’s in the region.<\/span><\/p>\n So you’ve got to be thinking about what you really get by getting just one. You look at the U.S. and we buy enough carriers so that we’ve always got about a third of the force out, but two-thirds of the force are either in maintenance, sometimes deep maintenance, and in training.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n So what do you buy with one carrier? Well, you buy some political capabilities. You might buy some military capabilities.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n And here’s one of the problems the South Koreans have. They have 12 fighter airfields, 12 combat airfields. That’s it. They don’t have a significant dispersal system. Now you think of the Cold War in Europe in the 80s, both Soviets and the NATO forces. We had dispersal airfields for all of our fighter bases. It was just the way we went. <\/span> There was a sense that they didn’t face a serious threat, and the economics were such that if you could sell that land for development, you were going to make some bucks. But there were 10 highway landing strips. We’re getting very close to there being zero, and it really should be working the other way around.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n
\n
\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>South Korea used to have 10 highway landing strips 20 years ago: the toll road headed south from Seoul — that big toll road on the southern end of it — had control towers, pull-offs for maintenance of aircraft. They literally landed aircraft there regularly for training purposes. But it’s all gone now.<\/span><\/p>\n