October 11, 2017

October 2017 Donor Report: South Korea’s Next Submarine Class Dilemma

Hi Donors

I've just emailed you the 
October 2017 Donor Report: South Korea’s Next Submarine Class Dilemma



Please check your spam bin if you don't see it in your IN box.

Regards

Pete
Director

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hiden motive for SSN is rivalry to Japan.

MHalblaub said...

Dear Pete,
I can’t see a reason for a South Korean SSN or even a 3,000 t submarine. South Korea needs many submarines for defense not a few like the UK.

Only reason for an SSN is to hunt SSBN. Even a North Korean SSBK would be no reason for an SSN.


Guess there is a reason why Japan has no obvious plans for an SSN.

Regards,
MHalblaub

Peter Coates said...

Hi MHalblaub

Yes the usefulness of future South Korean SSNs seem obscure.

As I suggested in the article I think South Korea has been leaking alleged SSN intentions as far back as 2004. This is to worry surrounding countries (especially China and Japan) but also the US, that South Korea is going down the nuclear road - first a submarine reactor then nuclear weapons.

South Korea's leaking objective is to ensure continuing US nuclear protection of South Korea as well as a continuing US military presence in South Korea.

More recently South Korea is happy that Trump is making hardline, but effective, statements, that the US will destroy North Korea. Also US SSNs and SSGNs are making unusually highly publicised visits to South Korea,

Regards

Pete

Tri-ring said...

Auuugh, SK doesn't have the capability nor experience to develop a portable nuke reactor and they are certainly not capable of designing a 4000t sub on their own.
They don't even have the capability of constructing a sub under license considering how poorly they constructed their present sub fleet that is/was moth balled for months and the Germans were called into solve the problem.

To be blunt they have an inferiority complex and to make things worse they don't have the industrial/man power to solve the problem, making things worse.
If you do not believe me dig deeper into their rocket project, K2 MTB power train project, NG frigate project, etc and see what you find.

Anonymous said...

An inferiority complex and no industrial power leads ROK shipbuilding to have 3 out of 5 world leading companies in terms of gross tonnage orders. 5 of the 10 best selling smartphones in the world are Koreans. Here in the US, 5 Korean cars rank among the best selling 20 cars.
There is little doubts that any one, South Koreans included, will make mistakes when you try to design and manufacture something new, but that comes with the turf when you try to push boundaries of science and technology. The ROK want to become self sufficient in defense systems, and that is a worthy goal not to depend on any strategic ally because it is only a matter of time before strategic national interests will diverge.
Sure we can debate on the how to get there, whether this or that is necessary or not, but for anything to begin, they do have a dream. they are willing to take risks and they are willing to learn, and that is already more than can be said about many others.
KQN

Anonymous said...

People generally underestimate how hard it is to build a sub. Design a modern sub of any military ocean going size is really, really hard. The number of components is very high & the failure of any of vast number of components can mean complete loss of life to all on board. There are only a handful of countries in the world capable of designing & building a military sub that has any chance on the world Stage. My list would be Tier 1: USA, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, China, Japan (current recognised designer/builders), Tier 2: Australia, Netherlands, India, Spain (countries that either have or are capable of designing & building a submarine if their govt wants to spend the money - Spain may yet succeed), Tier 3 : South Korea, North Korea, Brazil, Italy (countries capable of building but would struggle somewhat on the design side). Others will have their own lists, but the only question mark I have would be N. Korea who are best known for mini subs (which is I suspect, their real limit). Otherwise I can't see anyone else at the moment. Canada could, but they just can't seem to get past being - well, Canadian.

Regards

Peter Coates said...

Hi KQN [at 16/10/17 7:29 AM]

Yes South Korea (ROK) is probably the most efficient and successful builder of large ships worldwide. ROK even worked out efficient licence building of TKMS designed subs.

It will be interesting how indigenous in design ROK's 3,000 ton KSS-III and/or KSS-Nuclear (N) will be.

Regards

Pete

Peter Coates said...

Hi Anonymous [at 27/10/17 12:07 AM]

I agree the following are the only countries capable of designing & building a military sub "Tier 1" USA, UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia, China and Japan.

I would say Spain, with a lot of US help, especially Lockheed Martin and some German help, may produce a viable sub in the next 5 years. South Korea and Italy considerable German (TKMS) help. North Korea may build SSKs and SLBM firing SSBs with less Russian and Chinese help.

I don't think Australia, Turkey or the Netherlands, can produce SSKs without major design and production management help from Tier 1 countries.

Canada, Poland, Norway, Brazil and Taiwan (never having built modern SSKs or (for Brazil) SSNs) will need great help from Tier 1 countries.

Regards

Pete