South Korea first to launch ballistic missiles from AIP submarine

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
Interesting.

To me the real deal is not that a SSK fired a SLBM - it has happened before.

France first atempt at a nuclear sub - Q-244 - was a miserable failure but the hull wasn't lost. Someone paradoxically, it was turned into a SLBM test submarine... without nuclear propulsion. The Gymnote that test fired every single French SLBM until the M-4 and its retirement.


More to the point - does South Korea has nukes to put on the SLBM ? Otherwise, what's the point ?
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
16,999
Reaction score
6,636
Via CDR Salamander:
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
169
Reaction score
317
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYxKNf8Ij8M&ab_channel=YTNnews


Not only SLBM but a lot has been revealed today. The supersonic ASM, which was only rumored that such program exist for more than a decade (since 90s~mid 2000s to be exact), has also been revealed, alongside KEPD-350 equivalent ALCM for KF-21 and Hyunmoo 4-1 bunker-buster BM, which is known to have 2.5+ tons warhead.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
169
Reaction score
317
From the video :

slbm1.png
SLBM (commonly known as Hyunmoo 4-4)

ktbm3.png
ktbm1.png ktbm2.png
Theater bunkerbuster BM (commonly known as Hyunmoo 4-1)

kasm2.png kasm11.png
Supersonic ASM (could notice the similarities with Yakhont as this program originated from Korean-Russian cooperation in mid 2000s)

Btw the Supersonic ASM will not have any air-launched derivative since they are developing a different, ASM-3 esque missile with ducted ramjet for KF-21, separate to this missile.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
169
Reaction score
317
Interesting.

To me the real deal is not that a SSK fired a SLBM - it has happened before.

France first atempt at a nuclear sub - Q-244 - was a miserable failure but the hull wasn't lost. Someone paradoxically, it was turned into a SLBM test submarine... without nuclear propulsion. The Gymnote that test fired every single French SLBM until the M-4 and its retirement.


More to the point - does South Korea has nukes to put on the SLBM ? Otherwise, what's the point ?
Something that is often looked over is the airspace control and free airspace for operation. Air space over Korean Peninsula, especially that over FEBA, will get extremely packed once the war breaks out. Not only fighters but hundreds of BM and CM, even artillery shells, will take up their own airspace for the first few days after the D-Day while there will be bunch of pre-ATO targets and TSTs to strike.

SLBM that could launch from SoJ, east to the congested air space over land could thereby free up a lot of opportunities. This is also one of the reason (among others) the ROKA is pushing for a CV as well.

Apart from that, having a more secure means of launch than a TEL always help. Considering the fact that a lot of US/Russian nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs were and are allocated to strike the enemy ICBM silos, if the Korean SLBM could strike NK TEL or silos in which their nuclear warheads could potentially be, I don't think it's that pointless as some people are making it out to be.
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
617
Reaction score
678
I wonder about the 'fringe' logic floating around where much of South Korea's military spending is actually for countering Japan, with the contradictions between the two only kept down due to the US centric world order.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
I thought nobody wanted to fire ballistic missiles even without nukes - for fear of being mistaken for nuclear ones and blow the planet ?

(caricaturing a little of course, but you get the point)
 

Fluff

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 9, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
645
I thought nobody wanted to fire ballistic missiles even without nukes - for fear of being mistaken for nuclear ones and blow the planet ?

(caricaturing a little of course, but you get the point)
I assume Korea is a unique situation, so many guns, missiles etc, and I guess SK got some form of special agreement, at least from USA, to go ahead. Again I'm assuming that a non-nuclear BM is not very worthwhile elsewhere, as a low and possible slower flying non-nuclear Cruise missile has more of a 'surprise' factor. Assuming you have a decent radar, you can calculate both the target and the launch location for the BM.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
1,716
Plenty of non-nuclear ballistic missiles out there, every GMLRS for a start, Scuds, any Frogs still in inventory, Tochka, Iskander etc. And they've been used in the Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, and Nagorno-Karabakh in recent years. North Korea has 600+ Scud derivatives (Hwasong 5 to 9) and the Tochka derivative Hwasong 11 , so in any hostilities on the Korean peninsula there will be plenty of ballistic missiles flying.

It's when you get up to MRBM/IRBM range they start to become a bit rarer, and optionally nuclear, but there's the Israeli Jericho II, Saudi DF-3s, the Iranian Shahabs, the longer ranged bits of the North Korean Hwasong series, and the Chinese DF-3 and DF-26.

Hyunmoo 4 is supposedly a development of Hyunmoo 2C, which at 800km range falls into the SRBM category. Reportedly any limits on missile development agreed with the US were dropped when Trump visited in 2017. While North Korea might believe it could neutralise land-based Hyunmoo 2s with conventional or special forces attacks, it's much more difficult to do that if they're at sea, or under it. And of course South Korea believes it could become a nuclear power with about six months worth of development, and the platform will already be there, which has to give Kim Jong-Un something to think about.
 

Maro.Kyo

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
169
Reaction score
317
I thought nobody wanted to fire ballistic missiles even without nukes - for fear of being mistaken for nuclear ones and blow the planet ?

(caricaturing a little of course, but you get the point)
I assume Korea is a unique situation, so many guns, missiles etc, and I guess SK got some form of special agreement, at least from USA, to go ahead. Again I'm assuming that a non-nuclear BM is not very worthwhile elsewhere, as a low and possible slower flying non-nuclear Cruise missile has more of a 'surprise' factor. Assuming you have a decent radar, you can calculate both the target and the launch location for the BM.
It's not that simple really. Modern BM strike in an all out war would always be accompanied with CM rush to overwhelm the defense. BMs in Asia are deemed as a serious threat against airfields and harbours and that ain't much different elsewhere around the globe. BMs are otherwise the best choice to strike TSTs, especially considering the accuracy of modern day BMs and on top of that could work as a great bunker busters. That's not what the CMs could do.
 

Sineva

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
102
Reaction score
241
Would this also be the smallest sub to launch an SLBM?
No,that honor would probably go to the soviet B-62/Project 611A - ZULU IV ballistic missile submarine.This had a submerged displacement of around 2400 tonnes,and carried a single R-11FM/SS-N-1 missile,with the first launch taking place waaay back in sept 1955,tho this was a surfaced launch.
Another possibility would be the dprk sinpo/gorae class ballistic missile sub,tho theres really no reliable info on that when it comes to size/displacement etc...
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,743
Reaction score
3,715

supergaleb

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
51
Reaction score
20
North Korea is in process of replacing liquid fuel missiles with solid fuel types as it has own equivalent to 9K720 Iskander and Hyunmoo-2 series designated by USFK as KN-23 that they successfully launched 10 of them without single failure along 2 more successfully that had longer missile body and heavier warhead to compete against Hyunmoo-4 whose initial test was one failure and success.

KN-23 demonstrated 800 kilometer range and heavier variant 600 kilometer range with 2.5 ton heavy warhead hence heavier variant with payload weight reduced by half would be an MRBM and not SRBM that could replace both Hwasong-7 and Pukguksong-2.

TELs dedicated to carrying Pukguksong-2 will likely get land based variant of Pukguksong-3 at very least as simple upgrade or considering performance of heavier KN-23 variant, an IRBM utilizing advanced airframe and solid fuel that can fit inside canister and reach Guam.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,946
Via CDR Salamander:
Why we should double or triple our Columbia purchase
 

UpForce

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
224
Why we should double or triple our Columbia purchase

A slightly odd take from CDR Salamander there; South Korea has basically built its own triad, the only thing that's missing is a nuclear warhead. While undeniably "conventional" ballistic missiles do go "boom" their utility is still debatable at best and, as stated above, in certain contexts (none more so than the Korean peninsula) disambiguation is a huge issue. Also, the Nork leadership in its bid to secure their power is quite obviously building a nuclear arsenal to be used from day one of an unrestricted conflict, probably to deny external lines of supply and enforcements initially.

They seem to be betting that the U.S. in such a case might hesitate to escalate. The calculation might be different if South Korea had more sovereign options when faced with such dire circumstances. Not that I'd be happy with proliferation but the policy of striving for a "nuclear free Korean peninsula" is delusional, the only context in which the Kim dynasty refers to that prospect is in the U.S. withdrawing all its forces and not providing any kind of security guarantees anymore.
 

supergaleb

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
51
Reaction score
20
I can't take seriously at all that say nork and kim dynasty involving matter of Korean peninsula.
 

UpForce

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
224
I can't take seriously at all that say nork and kim dynasty involving matter of Korean peninsula.

Interesting post is interesting. You do seem to have a North Korean focus; challenging subject as reliable information is hard to come by.

Anyway, in the "signaling capabilities by testing" competition South Korea seems to be quite reliably ahead in the category of SLBMs, designing and producing the necessary submarines themselves. Quite an impressive streak of successes in fact once they became convinced that they should set their minds at that; while these efforts are perhaps focused more on a singular threat than other democratic states in the area, I can't help but think what they could contribute to projects such as Australia's new attack submarines under the new auspices of AUKUS. The rather vague (apart from transfer of HEU reactor tech) designs could profit from South Korea's experience in expediting time sensitive defense projects.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
7,347
Reaction score
6,341
Plenty of non-nuclear ballistic missiles out there, every GMLRS for a start, Scuds, any Frogs still in inventory, Tochka, Iskander etc. And they've been used in the Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, and Nagorno-Karabakh in recent years. North Korea has 600+ Scud derivatives (Hwasong 5 to 9) and the Tochka derivative Hwasong 11 , so in any hostilities on the Korean peninsula there will be plenty of ballistic missiles flying.

It's when you get up to MRBM/IRBM range they start to become a bit rarer, and optionally nuclear, but there's the Israeli Jericho II, Saudi DF-3s, the Iranian Shahabs, the longer ranged bits of the North Korean Hwasong series, and the Chinese DF-3 and DF-26.

Hyunmoo 4 is supposedly a development of Hyunmoo 2C, which at 800km range falls into the SRBM category. Reportedly any limits on missile development agreed with the US were dropped when Trump visited in 2017. While North Korea might believe it could neutralise land-based Hyunmoo 2s with conventional or special forces attacks, it's much more difficult to do that if they're at sea, or under it. And of course South Korea believes it could become a nuclear power with about six months worth of development, and the platform will already be there, which has to give Kim Jong-Un something to think about.

Ah yes of course. In the case of South Korea vs North, the distances are so small, the missiles can only be tactical - Pershing / Pluton / Hades: 200 to 400 miles range at most.

The "rule" I mentionned mostly applies to IRBM / ICBM and 500 miles range+

No risk a major nuclear power mistake a non-nuclear, tactical missile for an nuclear-loaded-ICBM.
 

supergaleb

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
51
Reaction score
20

Interesting post is interesting. You do seem to have a North Korean focus; challenging subject as reliable information is hard to come by.

Anyway, in the "signaling capabilities by testing" competition South Korea seems to be quite reliably ahead in the category of SLBMs, designing and producing the necessary submarines themselves. Quite an impressive streak of successes in fact once they became convinced that they should set their minds at that; while these efforts are perhaps focused more on a singular threat than other democratic states in the area, I can't help but think what they could contribute to projects such as Australia's new attack submarines under the new auspices of AUKUS. The rather vague (apart from transfer of HEU reactor tech) designs could profit from South Korea's experience in expediting time sensitive defense projects.
Because Australia switched from France to the United States, instead of 2030 they will get new submarines in 2040 because Australia wants to be one of big boys while Americans effectively undermined their relationship with France and rest of European democracies when they look at treatment of a fellow European country they in union with.

I would not assert that South Korea as being ahead in SLBMs when launch process is similar to Indian K-13 and size and range of the missile being much shorter than first SLBM that North Korea tested all the way back in 2016.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
245
Reaction score
199

Interesting post is interesting. You do seem to have a North Korean focus; challenging subject as reliable information is hard to come by.

Anyway, in the "signaling capabilities by testing" competition South Korea seems to be quite reliably ahead in the category of SLBMs, designing and producing the necessary submarines themselves. Quite an impressive streak of successes in fact once they became convinced that they should set their minds at that; while these efforts are perhaps focused more on a singular threat than other democratic states in the area, I can't help but think what they could contribute to projects such as Australia's new attack submarines under the new auspices of AUKUS. The rather vague (apart from transfer of HEU reactor tech) designs could profit from South Korea's experience in expediting time sensitive defense projects.
Because Australia switched from France to the United States, instead of 2030 they will get new submarines in 2040 because Australia wants to be one of big boys while Americans effectively undermined their relationship with France and rest of European democracies when they look at treatment of a fellow European country they in union with.

I would not assert that South Korea as being ahead in SLBMs when launch process is similar to Indian K-13 and size and range of the missile being much shorter than first SLBM that North Korea tested all the way back in 2016.
Most European countries are exasperated with France in the current submarine hoopla, not with Australia. If France's response had been more measured, maybe that would have been different, but as it stands now there's a feeling that France was behaving a bit like a toddler.

Also LOL at expecting the Short-Fin Barracuda in 2030. The way the program was going 2030 would be when the drawings were finalized...
 

supergaleb

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
51
Reaction score
20
Most European countries are exasperated with France in the current submarine hoopla, not with Australia. If France's response had been more measured, maybe that would have been different, but as it stands now there's a feeling that France was behaving a bit like a toddler.

Also LOL at expecting the Short-Fin Barracuda in 2030. The way the program was going 2030 would be when the drawings were finalized...
Remember that Australia repeteadly changed parameters for specifications and capabilities of submarine they want hence delays and slow progress while France reactions is justifiable as deal is a deal as just outright changing mind without any negotiations and formal cancellation is actually childish behavior simply because someone else offered something more potent.

Australia could have asked France for nuclear power if they were made aware that United States is willing to provide and for France to provide counteroffer.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
245
Reaction score
199
Most European countries are exasperated with France in the current submarine hoopla, not with Australia. If France's response had been more measured, maybe that would have been different, but as it stands now there's a feeling that France was behaving a bit like a toddler.

Also LOL at expecting the Short-Fin Barracuda in 2030. The way the program was going 2030 would be when the drawings were finalized...
Remember that Australia repeteadly changed parameters for specifications and capabilities of submarine they want hence delays and slow progress while France reactions is justifiable as deal is a deal as just outright changing mind without any negotiations and formal cancellation is actually childish behavior simply because someone else offered something more potent.

Australia could have asked France for nuclear power if they were made aware that United States is willing to provide and for France to provide counteroffer.
In how far Australia is to blame for the delays there can be argument. What's not up for debate is the notion that they could ask France for nuke subs.

The answer is no. Well, technically yes, but the practicalities make it a non-starter.

French nuke subs must be refueled repeatedly during their lifetime. This means that Australia would either have to develop it's own nuclear industry to produce enriched uranium, or it would have to regularly send it's subs to France for fuel.

There is no political will or desire in Australia to start a nuclear industry, and to rely on another nation for refueling your SSNs is strategically untenable.

The US and the UK, however, build reactor cores which will last the life of the submarine.
 

supergaleb

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
51
Reaction score
20
Australia does not have any notable arms industry, it already relies on others and this excuse of them having to send nuclear submarine to France if they choose to stay with France and have LEU reactors is just utterly disingenuous nonsense that justifies absolutely nothing.
 

Desertfox

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
270
Reaction score
120
Via CDR Salamander:
Why we should double or triple our Columbia purchase
The South Korean sub is basically a smaller conventional Virginia. That is no where near a valid argument for more Columbias. Now if you want to use it to argue for more Virginias or a non-nuclear Virginia, then sure. The US already has a non-nuclear "SLBM" in the works with the sub launched HGV program.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,946
Via CDR Salamander:
Why we should double or triple our Columbia purchase
The South Korean sub is basically a smaller conventional Virginia. That is no where near a valid argument for more Columbias. Now if you want to use it to argue for more Virginias or a non-nuclear Virginia, then sure. The US already has a non-nuclear "SLBM" in the works with the sub launched HGV program.
SSN(X) could very well be a conventionally armed Columbia
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
245
Reaction score
199
Australia does not have any notable arms industry, it already relies on others and this excuse of them having to send nuclear submarine to France if they choose to stay with France and have LEU reactors is just utterly disingenuous nonsense that justifies absolutely nothing.
Not quoting someone when you reply to them is... Impolite. Yes, let's go with impolite.

Furthermore, we ARE talking about the Australia which build it's previous submarines, it's latest destroyers, it's LPD, and the coming frigates? Which has an electronics industry capable enough for good radars?

Yes, they're going about it back-asswards, but they ARE trying to become less dependant on others as far as arms go.

And your little rant about the LEU reactors assumes that the relation with France would stay hunky-dory for decades. As we have just seen, international relations can freeze and thaw in days. Meanwhile with a UK/US boat, refueling will never be a worry.

You might not like it, but that's a serious strategic consideration.
 

supergaleb

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
51
Reaction score
20
Not quoting someone when you reply to them is... Impolite. Yes, let's go with impolite.

Furthermore, we ARE talking about the Australia which build it's previous submarines, it's latest destroyers, it's LPD, and the coming frigates? Which has an electronics industry capable enough for good radars?

Yes, they're going about it back-asswards, but they ARE trying to become less dependant on others as far as arms go.

And your little rant about the LEU reactors assumes that the relation with France would stay hunky-dory for decades. As we have just seen, international relations can freeze and thaw in days. Meanwhile with a UK/US boat, refueling will never be a worry.

You might not like it, but that's a serious strategic consideration.
Do not talk about assuming when you're doing it and I don't care that I didn't quote you as my reply was prompt along I dislike that quote of a quote is being quoted endlessly that are pointless unless it was to be quoted in some other thread as reference point of some debate.

It doesn't change fact that Australia relies on others as it seeks others to design submarines and technology for those and what there is something of note in Australia, it is always owned by a foreign company or if something domestic, it is licensing with limitations on it.
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,504
Reaction score
1,716
Remember that Australia repeteadly changed parameters for specifications and capabilities of submarine they want hence delays and slow progress while France reactions is justifiable as deal is a deal
1) Show me a major defence project that didn't include multiple changes in specifications. My experience is that getting the final specs before the original delivery date is basically unheard of.
2) Deals with contracted exit options are still deals, even when you invoke the exit option.
 

supergaleb

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
51
Reaction score
20
1) Show me a major defence project that didn't include multiple changes in specifications. My experience is that getting the final specs before the original delivery date is basically unheard of.
2) Deals with contracted exit options are still deals, even when you invoke the exit option.
Australia invoked it on day it agreed to have a deal with United States...

Not good looks at all for Australia for any current and future armament acquisition.
 

UpForce

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
290
Reaction score
224
Anyway, while the operational requirements and environments between the Shortfin Barracuda and KSS-III are obviously somewhat different they are not too dissimilar as far as basics go.

KSS-III understandably somewhat smaller (certainly not definite numbers, correct if wrong but 3358 vs 4500 t, 83.5 vs 97 m long, 8.8 vs 9.6 m beam, both diesel electric but lead acid batteries vs lithium ion, both at least 20 kn submerged, 18 000 vs 10 000 NM range, 80 vs 50 day missions, 60 vs 50 complement). I can't imagine South Korea having many conflicts of interests here with Australia/AUKUS and presumably now as the KSS-III program is fairly mature program some of the design and production talent might be available with some very up to date knowledge.

Hasn't anyone posted H I Sutton's chat on the KSS-III yet (hi there, covert_shores)? Sorry if this is a repost.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzgbWFoFX94
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top