South Korea plans to build 3,500-tonne submarines(nuke-powered?)

AFP via Yahoo! News ^ | 01/26/04

[TigerLikesRooster]

South Korea plans to build 3,500-tonne submarines

Mon Jan 26, 1:56 AM ET

SEOUL (AFP) - South Korea (news - web sites) has formed a research team to build 3,500-tonne new submarines as part of efforts to reduce its reliance on US firepower, military officials said.

Some 1.7 billion won (1.4 million dollars) has been set aside for a two-year study to develop the new submarines but no decision has been made yet on how they will be powered, the defense ministry said.

The navy plans to deploy the new submarines from 2010, it said.

The plan was unveiled after the newspaper Chosun Ilbo reported that South Korea was considering the deployment of nuclear-powered submarines from 2012.

Won Jang-Hwan, head of the ministry's arms procurement bureau, said diesel engines were being considered to power 3,500-tonne submarines.

"There is no need to develop nuclear-powered submarines," Won told reporters.

South Korea has nine 1,200-tonne submarines and plans to deploy three 1,800-tonne vessels worth 2.27 trillion won from 2007, all with diesel or diesel-electric engines designed by a German firm.

Under a military alliance with the United States, American nuclear-powered submarines patrol the Korean peninsula.

[TigerLikesRooster]

I suppose these submarines, if built, would reach quite far from the S. Korean shore, possibly thousands of miles away. There is some debate among experts if S. Korea can indeed have all necessary know-how to build them.

Local daily Chosun Ilbo broke the story about the plan to develop nuclear-powered submarines(not the one armed with nuke-missiles.) Then came this official "clarification." Is this a saber-rattling aimed at someone, say Japan, which again repeated her long-held claim on a disputed island in East Sea(Sea of Japan)? Or the election year gambit to make current government look more pro-defense?

[CasearianDaoist]

Or the election year gambit to make current government look more pro-defense?

More like a election year gambit to look anti-american.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Actually it can be both.:)

[TigerLikesRooster]

Ping!

[PAR35]

Sounds like they are about the size of the new conventional Australian boats. France does have a smaller nuclear powered sub, but the conventional boats are quieter and would have advantages.

[PAR35]

More like a election year gambit to look anti-american.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Americans were behind this. This is about the size of boat that the Americans promised to the Republic of China but has been so far unable to deliver.

[MediaMole]

These will certainly be conventional diesel/electric boats. S. Korea needs subs for coastal patrols, not long-term deep ocean patrols. Diesel/electric boats are much less expensive and quieter.

If S. Korea needed nuclear subs, I have no doubt they could build them, but it is an unnecessary expense.

[CasearianDaoist]

and more pro-korean.

Actually maintiaing a creditable submarine force involves a lot more than building boats, something that a lot of these countries do not really realize (and the Chinese are just starting to learn.) I have often marveled at the US and Russian capacity in this area.

People always tout the submarine as the naval platform of the future - I wonder if that is really true given the advances in long range sonar and the speedy delivery of smart weapons.

Still it is a loud saber to rattle and not as problematic as building up a Nuclear arsenal.

On the other hand, I see where the US Navy is spending big bucks on ASW these days. We either need a lot ess submarines or a lot more.

[ZULU]

When I saw the headlines I thought they were building it for the U.S. Navy - we can't build anything for ourselves these days.

[dagar]

Excuse me. We CAN build ships. It's just that a destroyer now costs $1.5B. Gotta keep those unions imployed SLOWWWWlllyyyyy building at all times. So much for capitalism or common sense.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I think brotherly Korean Peninsular blood, as communist as it may be, is none the less thicker than Nipponse blood, (for many South Koreans).

[HRoarke]

We need to spend more on ASW...a P-3C replacement needs to happen in a hurry. It's scary how many nations have good diesel electrics now. Hopefully it won't take losing a carrier to wake people up.

[flamefront]

Seen this?:

COMMUNIST CLAIMS HISTORICAL TIES TO KOREAN KINGDOM

Communist China is claiming that the ancient Korean/Manchurian Kingdom of Goguryeo was "an ethnic kingdom of ancient China" (Washington Post). With the seemingly academic claim, the Communists could "laying the groundwork to dispute the current border with North Korea and, if they find it to be in their interest, claim more territory."

Maybe there is more to this picture.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #13 China has been doing it quietly for years. Now that they have some international clout and prestige, they became more blatant. Goguryeo was the ancient Korean kingdom which dealt the two most humiliating blows to China.

The crushing defeat of 1.3million army of Sui emperor Yang-di, and the 260K army of Tang emperor DaiZhong. Now they claim that Goguryeo was a Chinese country all along. Incidentally, the site for the battle against DaiZhong's army, Anshi(Korean name) Fortress, which is in Liaoliang province of China, is off limit to civilians for some reason.

[OahuBreeze]

kind of off the subject of the nuke subs, but maybe not so far. An interesting field of study is to compare both the North and South Korean official reactions to this recent China claim to the stamp skirmishes with the Japanese over Tokdo island.

[Askel5]

INteresting find.

(and my best regards, btw)