UPDATE: The Chosun Ilbo discusses Seoul’s sub plans, although it doesn’t mention anything about nuclear propulsion.
ORIGINAL POST: South Korea may acquire nuclear-powered attack subs by 2015, reports the Dong-A Ilbo.
Citing material turned over by the Defense Ministry to the newly launched Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), the paper said the Defense Ministry is pushing a program to upgrade the Navy’s submarine fleet. Key to this initiative is the SSX project–a W3.744 trillion (around US$3.75 billion) program to develop and deploy three next-generation subs between 2010 and 2022. This is the first time the Defense Ministry has acknowledged the program, having denied it after it was leaked to the press in 2004.
Experts say that when one considers that each boat will cost in excess of W1 trillion, the project ultimately meant the development of nuclear-powered attack subs. One expert who chose to remain nameless said, "Considering how the production costs of nuclear attack subs like France’s 4,500-ton Barracuda-class and Britain’s Astute-class are roughly W1 trillion, I’m certain [the SSX] is a nuclear-powered submarine."
The fact that the South Korean boat will reportedly be armed with sub-to-surface missiles gives greater credence to claims the boat will ultimately be nuclear-powered. Ballistic missiles need to be launched from boats of more than 10,000 tons, such as the U.S. Ohio class or Russian Typhoon-class boomers, but sub-to-surface cruise missiles can be launched from attack boats of 4,000-5,000 tons, like the U.S. Los Angeles class and Chinese Han class.
The Defense Ministry and DAPA are strongly denying the nation is developing nuclear-powered subs. They claim the project is nothing more than a continuation of its KSS project. Korea currently possesses German-designed Type 209 boats (KSS I), and Hyundai Heavy Industries is now building German-designed Type 214 boats (KSS II) that are scheduled for deployment in 2010. The Defense Ministry explained that the "KSS III" would be a diesel boat of 3,000 tons, but left itself some wiggle room by saying that neither the propulsion system nor displacement of the new sub has been decided.
In fact, a nameless Defense Ministry official said that given how some 15 years were still left before the project was completed, plans might very well change along the way, seemingly stressing the need for nuclear-powered subs.
According to the Dong-A, experts say that considering the inventories of neighboring states, Korea would push to acquire nuclear-powered subs within the next 10 years. The Type 209 boats, launched in 1993, will be 30 years old by 2022, and the security environment around the peninsula was likely to change by then. Seoul may also be afraid that with nine Type 214s and three KSS IIIs, it would fall behind in the intensifying submarine rivalry in the East Sea.
North Korea currently has around 26 Romeo-class diesel subs that are roughly similar to Seoul’s soon-to-be acquired Type 214s. Japan has 16 diesel boats of 2,000-3,000 ton displacement, while China has some 60 subs, including its 5,500-ton nuclear-powered Han-class attack boats. And then, of course, the U.S. and Russia possess dozens of nuclear subs, some of which can be found cruising the depths surrounding the Korean Peninsula.
9 Comments
Couldn’t the money going to these subs be better spent bribing Kim Jongil to have a summit with Roh Moo-hyun
“…And then, of course, there are the dozens of American and Russian subs that cruise the depths of the waters around the Korean Peninsula….”
Dozens? I don’t know the figures offhand and can’t provide a link, but I suspect that if somebody knowledgeable about the details of current US and Russian sub deployments “came up on the net” here, we would see from his info that US & Russian worldwide sub deployments are considerably reduced from the Cold War era.
At least by half and I suspect maybe even more (60%?). I’m going to guess that the Russians aren’t even able to sustain, currently, more than 25% of their oceangoing Cold War era deployment; I think what submarine resources they do have in the Pacific are mainly now devoted to operating (and protecting) their sub-launched ICBM missile “protected area” behind the Kamchatka Penisula (Sea of Okhotsk?)
US operational subs (nuclear powered “boomer”, and attack) are down 50%(?) from their Cold War height. Those things are expensive and so Uncle Sam hasn’t replaced a lot of them as they reach the end of their service life.
You do realize, Marmot, that the US has absolutely no (zippo, none) non-nuclear powered subs? They’ve all been gone since the 60’s. I think it’s the continued long reach of Admiral Rickover’s influence, now from beyond the grave. (I’m sure where ever he is now, he’s fuming about something related to US subs).
The lack of this capability seems shortsighted to me but I’m not a Navy man, perhaps somebody here will articulate the USN point of view on this subject.
On all this I’m just going by vague memory of general reading. If somebody can factually support (or refute) perhaps that would be of interest to others here.
“…And then, of course, there are the dozens of American and Russian subs that cruise the depths of the waters around the Korean Peninsula….”
Actually, that was a sloppy translation on my part. What it actually said is that the U.S. and Russia possess dozens of nuke subs, some of which patrol around the Korean Peninsula. I’ve made the correction above.
Maybe I’m misreading the situation, but it really seems that East Asia is heading for full nuclearization in the next 10-20 years. If South Korea gets nuke subs, won’t Japan soon be pushing for their own? And since it’s highly unlikely the North will actually give up theirs (no matter what piece of paper they sign with the US), the only one in the region to add will be Taiwan, which I expect would follow suit before long.
Snow–just to clarify, the North (as far as we know) doesn’t have nuclear-powered subs to give up. Their boats are all diesel. And a further clarification–just because a sub is powered by a nuclear reactor doesn’t mean its armed with nuclear weapons. No one is talking about arming South Korean subs with nuclear-tipped missiles, although that would certainly make things interesting.
Yes, sorry Marmot, I didn’t mean to imply that the Norks had subs, I just wrote it poorly.
And thanks for clarifying about the subs being nuclear-powered versus nuclear-armed (my bad for skimming too quickly). So does having nuclear-powered subs make it easier to arm them with nukes? If so, then I think this is a step in that direction.
Having a nuclear-powered sub does not directly make is easier to arm them with nukes, its just a different way of obtaining power for sub locomotion. Of course nuclear-power opens up wider strategic options for a sub, but coming to the conclusion that the development of the nuclear-power sub will lead to nuclear armament is leaping to conclusions.
Korea is littoral so why the nuke push? The only reason you’d want a nuclear sub is to have a blue water capability. Nuke subs are noisier than their diesel counterparts. Think of a flashlight underwater. No reactor coolant pump “chug chug”… Diesel boats are a far better choice for Korea (ROK) than nuke boats. And the non-nuke tech is only getting better. Fuels cells and what not are moving the bar. When I worked with the Koreans at MND, they echoed the line that Korea had no program for nuclear (propulsion) navy development. But you always have guys stirring the pot. Any nuke sub effort would be all personality and testosterone driven I think. I recall attending a presentation at a defense conference by Dr. Kim Tae-woo (“Nuclear Kim”) of KIDA citing the need for nuclear subs and aircraft carriers. Even the MND folks were rolling their eyes and wondered how he got permission to present such a paper in a public forum. I wonder if he is not a source for the article.
I guess the information on the subs was part of that MoD-released statement saying all that recent info on the future of the ROK military was all apparently posted on the internet inadvertently and was actually classified?
http://joongangdaily.joins.com.....09041.html