South Korean Navy

koxinga said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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…

koxinga said:

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

Click to expand...

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

TWZ has a good summary of the intended program and I found this KEPCO presentation at IAEA in April 2025 on their maritime nuclear ambitions.

I am by no means a nuclear propulsion expert but the BANDI SMR reactor with 200 megawatt thermal output seems close to a number of pressurised nuclear reactor used on submarines and could be a starting point.

South-Korea launched the first four of the second batch of the PKX-B patrolvessels. The 230-ton patrolboats have the hullnumbers 231, 232,233 and 235 and the plan is to commission them in 2026.

Hanwha shown the production prototype of KAAV II, which aim to replace ROK Marines AAV7. Will this going to attract other Marines ?

TNI seems more interested in retired USMC's AAV7s.

I'm thinking more on USMC themselves. The AAV7 replacement now is wheeled ACV, and the tracked replacement being shelved. If they see Korean KAAV II able to get to job done, will USMC interested ?

As TNI Marinir, the interest on USMC AAV7 surplus is simply because it's free and the package number also substantial enough to replace all BTR50. From my understanding also being supported by stock' of parts from USMC inventories.

Ananda said:

I'm thinking more on USMC themselves. The AAV7 replacement now is wheeled ACV, and the tracked replacement being shelved. If they see Korean KAAV II able to get to job done, will USMC interested ?

Click to expand...

USMC and US military in general is driven by doctrine. They do not necessarily go for a like-for-like equipment replacement. Wheeled seems to be preferred now for mobility reasons and why they divested their M1A1 armour. That and being Korean means low low chance. They don't even seem interested in ex-US Army M10 Bookers, despite many suggestions to take them.

It is a good deal for Marinir, since they have been very happy with their LVTP. Don't think it will be free though. The Taiwanese and Japanese all paid for their ex-USMC AAV7.

koxinga said:

USMC and US military in general is driven by doctrine. They do not necessarily go for a like-for-like equipment replacement. Wheeled seems to be preferred now for mobility reasons and why they divested their M1A1 armour. That and being Korean means low low chance. They don't even seem interested in ex-US Army M10 Bookers, despite many suggestions to take them.

It is a good deal for Marinir, since they have been very happy with their LVTP. Don't think it will be free though. The Taiwanese and Japanese all paid for their ex-USMC AAV7.

Click to expand...

Wasn't aware there were M10 Bookers available, surely there couldn't very many?

Based on the report to Congress

• As of May 1, 2025, 26 of 38 M-10 Bookers contracted under LRIP had been delivered to the Army.
• As of May 1, 2025, 18 M-10 Bookers had been issued to the 82nd Airborne Division for Operational Testing.

These are what has been delivered, while there should be more under the LRIP or at late stages of completion when the program was cancelled.

The difficulty, I suppose, is with such small numbers, sustainment would be near impossible unless USMC commits sustain the program. The M1A1 made some sense because there is an entire support infrastructure in place with the US Army as the primary users. For the M10, nah dah.