South Korean Navy

[Musashi_kenshin]

Question is, are they are joining AUKUS? Trump's statement on US built subs seems to point to this.

Currently no. AUKUS is a trilateral agreement that involves sharing every country's technology. Trump can't by virtue of a handshake bring South Korea in. He can seek to get an agreement from the UK and Australia, but that hasn't happened yet. I don't think that South Korea brings anything to the table for the UK or Australia if the submarines are being built in the US with US technology, so they'd have no reason to agree.

AUKUS also required a lot of legislation to authorise the release of technology. Even without UK and Australian involvemennt, I don't think even Trump can sign an executive order to do all that, so it will take a while to get the necessary congressional approval. South Korea will also need to design the largest submarine it has ever built by some degree.

Realistically this is the start of a very long process. The first boat will probably not be in service until the late 2040s, especially given that US shipyards are very busy.

 

[John Fedup]

Yes, any nuclear boats for SKorea will be a long way off due to needed Congressional approval and actual design requirements. Could be an additional reason to buy into KSS-II instead of the 212CD.

 

[Ananda]

The mystery of South Korea’s nuclear-powered submarines | Lowy Institute

Another Trump statement that poses a whole lot of unanswered questions.

www.lowyinstitute.org

This assessment on Trump offer to build nuclear submarine in US, seems not in line with what ROK want. ROK want tech support on building submarine reactor and nuclear fuel. Something that rumours Russia Will provide to DPRK.

Personally with US also have long list already on their own SSN/SSBN building, involvement with AUKUS, and ROK own submarine industry, I have big doubt why ROK need to build their Submarine in US.

The pattern already set by French and Brazil with French nuclear tech support, and Brazil own Reactor. If Brazil can do it, ROK and Japan certaintly can also. ROK need nuclear fuel as it is above the level of their own fuel enrinchment. Unless they like Brazil want to try French tech on lower level nuclear fuel.

 

[ADMk2]

Interesting there is very little “hue and cry” over concerns about “proliferation” with this deal?

I do note there were quite a lot of concerns raised about “proliferation” when AUKUS was signed though…

Hmmmm…

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Question is, are they are joining AUKUS? Trump's statement on US built subs seems to point to this.

If it was an local design (boat + reactor), it can be done in Korea. However if they are using a US reactor or a US design, building at an American yard would make sense

He also said "Philadelphia" which would mean Hanwha Philly Shipyard (Korean owned) which is a commercial yard. Pretty sure the only US government contract they've built there in decades is the National Security Multi-Mission Vessels for the US Maritime Administration for maritime academy(s) training vessels

I would also add that I don't believe the US president can sign Korea into the AUKUS SSN pact on his own as the AUKUS SSN is primarily going to be a British designed sub