https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/04/south-koreas-hd-hhi-progresses-towards-us-defense-market-entry/
>>61484002No they aren't, K-poster.
>>61484011> Since 2005, HD Hyundai has been supplying blueprints and materials to Philly Shipyard for merchant ships. With today’s agreement, they plan to extend their cooperation to include naval and official vessels of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Maritime Administration.> Meanwhile, HD HHI has recently established strategic partnerships with a number of U.S. defense companies such as GE Aerospace and L3Harris for the development of ship propulsion systems, MRO for U.S. warships, and to secure contracts for naval projects in Australia and Canada.> Additionally, the company has agreed to jointly develop Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) with Palantir Technologies, which are expected to be game changers in future naval warfare.So is Canada (submarines) and Australia (submarines and frigates)
>>61484067You are reading off a literal press release from Hyundai. I don't know if you're being retarded, or retarded on purpose.
>>61484002>Additionally, KDDX will be the first surface combatant in the ROK’s Navy to use Integrated Electric Propulsion (IEP). IEP is a new type of propulsion where gas turbines and diesel engines work as generators only, powering all systems of the ship, including electric engines, radars, and weapons.LAZORZ!
There is no point in having a navy now that sea drones destroy any ship
>>61484347Someone should tell China that.
>>61484347https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2024/2024/04/hhi-to-develop-usv-in-collaboration-with-palantir-technologies/
>>61484561
>>61484347I think you'd be surprised how easily countered sea drones are when your CIWS isn't just Igor balancing a PKM on the rail
>>61484002>US Navy is buying theseFor target practice?And if they were going to buy Korean ships, they'd still be 100% built in the US, that's the law. And yet in reality they're still building Flight III burkes and working on DDG(X).
>>61484002Not impossible but very unlikely. The US Navy is very specific about its ship designs, largely for damage control reasons. It regards the ships built by many other allied and enemy nations as essentially very well armed tin cans with completely insufficient redundancy and and survivability for actual combat. It really is worth stressing just how autistic the US navy is about survivability and damage control after its WW2 experiences. It's very deeply embedded and fundamental. This is the reason US Navy ships manage to survive getting blown up by mines, suicide boats, exocets, and getting rammed by tankers while ships from other allied nations seem to have a lot more trouble staying afloat. See the British and Norwegians.If you want an example of this autism in action, the Constellations started out having something like 85% commonality with FREMM but are now down to like 15% and that number is only going to shrink. I can't imagine how many changes the Koreans would need to make to accommodate US Navy requirements for a cruiser sized ship but it might just be faster to build something entirely new at that point.
>>61484759But in modern naval warfare, if your damage control saves you from hits that otherwise sinks you, you're damaged enough to be useless in battle anyways. The only thing you're saving is the crew and a useless hulk that'll be repaired in months at best. So why bother with it?
>>61484595> r&d lead by ROK, production build lead by ROK, built in ROK co-owned shipyards in the US and wholly-owned in ROKGet it now?https://www.businessinsider.com/us-navy-secretary-floored-by-ally-south-koreas-shipbuilding-2024-4>>61484759South Korean shipbuilders take naval autism to an extreme makes the US look sloppy in comparison
>>61484002> South Korea fully integrated into US MIC to include several high profile acquisitions of US aerospace defense companies> The US won't even let Japan buy a shitty steel company, dog whistle to the entire republican and democrat voting population in bi-partisan support against JapanAmong the few free trade agreements that the US has its only South Korea in Asia, other firsties are Australia, Canada and Israel, why won't the US enter into an FTA with Japan or China?Nipsisters how do we respond without sounding mad?
>>61484067>Australia (submarines and frigates)Australia is getting AUKUS subs with Virginia class subs as an interim. This is public knowledge.
>>61484881Russian or Chinese?
>>61484916>South Korean shipbuilders take naval autism to an extreme makes the US look sloppy in comparisonNot the correct type of autism, at least by US Navy standards. At least that was my impression after talking to some naval engineers. Correct or not, I think the US Navy regards Korean shipbuilders as having learned too much from their commercial shipbuilding divisions and not enough from the history of ships getting blown up. There were some significant grumblings about the impact of changes made to expedite and simplify the construction of the Sejongs compared to their parent ships. This was also a complaint for the Japanese Burke derivatives. Issues included but were not limited to:-larger internal voids due to wider spacing between bulkheads-replacing many remaining bulkheads with ones which would not actually be watertight under battle damage conditions-reduced redundancy of critical mechanical and electrical systems-not properly spacing out the those remaining systems so they can't all be taken out by a single hit-increased use of materials which could easily catch fire That is all before getting into issues regarding integration of different combat systems which is less than stellar.
>>61485006>> South Korea fully integrated into US MIC to include several high profile acquisitions of US aerospace defense companiesWhat companies?
>>61485006Hello gookshill
>>61485154If you have to ask you have no business knowing
>>61485207If you can't source your claims just say it, no need to pretend you have some secret information
>>61484881>hurr durr if your body armor saves you from a round you are basically useless in battleThere are endless historical examples that prove you are the absolute dumbest nigger
>>61485232Its top secret sensitive compartmented information to specifically exclude incel weeb basement dwellers, all others have full access
>>61485257Does that information exist outside your head?
>>61485032Aussies need a solution before 2050+, looks like they are going to move forward with the kss3
>>61485667>looks like they are going to move forward with the kss3Can you provide a single source to back that up? They're receiving Virginia's in 8 years for context. Australia is moving up to the big leagues they're not going to want or need diesel subs anymore.
>>61485180Nipshill weeb tranny like clockwork 24/7/365Never change my animal std infested incel degenerate, never change
>>61485701>Can you provide a single source to back that up?Of course he can't, he's just shitposting.
>>61485715remember when you spent 18+ hours two days in a row in your shill thread desperately samefagging, gookshill?
>>61485849> youLmfao
>immediate, unprompted seething about Japanget a new gimmick
>>61484002prob with USN ship building is wages are shockingly low, like sub McDs when you factor in all or even most Factors.
>>61484002>a grook tranny online shill army thread appears
>>61484881>The only thing you're saving is the crew
>>61487006Thirdies don't consider crew loss to be significant because they know the worth of their lives
>>61484002How does South Korea keep winning?
>>61484759>>61485134Where can I read up on this?
Another nonsense Korea-shill thread based on zero facts.
>>61487685as is tradition
>>61484881>The only thing you're saving is the crew Yes Ivan, that's how it works.
>>61484916>South Korean shipbuilders take naval autism to an extreme makes the US look sloppy in comparisonYou mean like when the retrofitted KVLS on their destroyers causing massive structural cracks?
>>61484002honestly nothing wrong with the US buying foreign ships. Aren't they doing that with the constellation class frigate too? We should be buying more off the shelf stuff if anything, whoever is in charge of current US ship design fucking sucks ass at designing ships that are built on time and on budget
>>61487769The issue with buying Korean though is they went all proprietary with their shit which has almost no compatibility with US systems. Korea got all buddy buddy with Russia in the 90s and 2000s and even after Crimea which caused them to get denied a lot of US weapons systems. Anything Korean would have to go through massive redesigns. There is also the problem where they just steal any weapons designs that are integrated on their hulls such as when they bought and reverse engineered OTO Melara 76mms and then came up with their "entirely developed by Hyundai" 76mmhttps://en.hyundai-wia.com/business/defense_maritime_02.aspThis isn't new behavior at all eitherhttps://web.archive.org/web/20150723053837/https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/10/28/is-south-korea-stealing-u-s-military-secrets/
>>61485701> [Australian criminals are] receiving Virginia's in 8 years.Not unless they steal them. Which admittedly is a possibility. The Navy is maxed out at building 1.2 Virginias per year and has a current backlog of 13 subs. Congress will probably toss another 2 on the line this year. That means Australian subs can't be put in the schedule until a mid.2030s start. And that is optimistic, because there are some plan changes to the boats that will inevitably cause delays.The US could transfer over US spec subs, but the Aussies probably want some customization that can't be supported in close.
>>61487870>but the Aussies probably want some customizationThey are not the senior partner. They will get their Turbo Astutes when they get them, in the meantime they'll get some gently used Block III Virginias.
>>61487870The aussies are getting two USED block IV virginia-class subs.> The first in-service United States Navy Block IV Virginia-class boat is planned to be sold to the RAN in 2032 and the second in-service Block IV in 2035. The third boat to be sold to the RAN in 2038 will be a new Block VII without the Virginia Payload Module.
>>61487887block IV actually as it's closer to what they'll operate on the SSN-AUKUS.
>>61487897Ah my bad.
>>61485134One of the big issues with LCS in the early days was its use of modified commercial damage control standards rather than full USN standards (in order to "save money"). This has been largely overshadowed by issues with the hull, powerplant, weapons, modules, and manning, but it added extra time and cost when the USN belatedly required "some" damage hardening after the first ships had already entered production, and would rapidly become an issue if one ever got hit.This is a bigger deal than most people care to admit, and it doesn't mean layering up in armor; simple things, like properly-spaced bulkheads, redundant power/data/water lines that never bottleneck so that one lucky hit won't wipe everything out, etc. You'd think a lot of this would be cheaper and easier to implement now that we have CAD everywhere, but apparently not.
>>61487892"Authorized" by Congress, meaning the President then can but doesn't have to, and he has to certify blah blah blah and Congress can pull back that authority. It's a soft commit.And the Aussies can always change their mind too.
>>61487955I doubt the aussies will change their minds, they've already handed like $2-3B to both the US and UK shipbuilding industry. You don't give a $2-3B gift without expecting SOMETHING in return, and from the US that's being able to buy 3 Virginia-class boats in the 2030s and from the UK that's getting them to help the aussies build SSN-AUKUS in the 2040s.
>>61487955Korea isn't going to turn Australia into a sub customer. "The tyranny of distance" is an animating notion in Australian security policy, and the whole reason AUKUS was conceived is because diesel boats suffer really fucking bad from that tyranny when your bases of operation are Sydney and Perth.
>>61487892What a fucking scam lmfaoUnleast someone is getting paid
>>61487955>>61488082And kek, if you want an idea of how committed the RAN already is to SSNs, look no further than their website: https://www.navy.gov.au/capabilities/ships-boats-and-submarines?keyword=&function=47>inb4 phonefag
>>61488104why would the RAN give a shit about posting about a sub they'll operate in 8-10 years on their public website?>>61488096The idea is to cut their teeth on the Block IVs, have a new Block VII to get them prepped for SSN-AUKUS which is expected to have a lot of commonality with the Block VII virginias.
>>61488082Nothing is set in stone but seems there is a lot of dissatisfaction with aussie circles with the la classThe kss3 batch 1 has a range of 12,000 miles, this is enough to get around near the entire aussie coast and can be operated with a crew of 30, 4000 tons and can submerged 900m, batch 2 will have 10 vls cells, batch 3 will be nuclear propulsion, the la class needs a crew of 150, 6000 tons can only submerged 450m to 650m and 12 vls cellsIts close enough in performance but the crew requirement + ability to get within a few years versus 2050s is leading to kss3 getting a lot of support in australia…also, look at the austal takeover bid, the board initially declined because of approval from us concerns, but the recent developments + rok officials all over australia on this these days looks like this could be a small part of a much bigger plan, aussie naval chief was at the launch or the final kss3 batch1 a few days ago too, with the us representatives…
>>61488235>dissatisfaction with aussie circles with the la classWhy would they care about the LA class?They're getting Block IV Virginia's.
>>61488235>>The kss3 batch 1 has a range of 12,000 miles, this is enough to get around near the entire aussie coastThe Attack-class they were getting from France had an estimated range of 21,000 miles and Australia still didn't think that was good enough for their future strategic needs.Korean subs aren't going to satisfy anyone in the Australian government.
>>61484002>US navy buying KoreanIf i ever needed a sign that Korean stuff is shit it'd be this, the Navy is fucking retarded about procurement of ships
>>61488235>muh LA classLA is irrelevant to the conversation and the subs they were planned to receive already blew KSS-III out of the water. The fact they already passed that up in favor of Virginia and AUKUS class subs should be illustrative enough that it wasn't sufficient for their needs. >get within a few years versus 2050sAustralia is receiving it's first Virginia sub in 2032, only 8 years away. While AUKUS subs will be operational in the late 2030s (UK service) and early 2040s (Australian service), with the option to acquire more Virginia's if delays arise. You're being retarded on purpose.
>>61484759>The US Navy is very specific about its ship designs, largely for damage control reasons. It regards the ships built by many other allied and enemy nations as essentially very well armed tin cans with completely insufficient redundancy and and survivability for actual combat. It really is worth stressing just how autistic the US navy is about survivability and damage control after its WW2 experiences. It's very deeply embedded and fundamental. This is the reason US Navy ships manage to survive getting blown up by mines, suicide boats, exocets, and getting rammed by tankers while ships from other allied nations seem to have a lot more trouble staying afloat. See the British and Norwegians.Question: Who *does* build survivable warships that are up to US standards?
>>61488342The US.That's about it we are very safety concious since the only real threat the US faces is public opinion domestically so minimizing the chance our soldiers have of getting hurt is paramount.
>>61488327Can the aussies fill a crew of 135 competent sailors inside a va class boat let alone three of them? Also isnt aukus having some issues with the us concerned about getting the uk and aussies up to proper security levels?
>>61488423Given eight years lead time? Yes, absolutely.
>>61488423They're already doing some officer training on virginias, so they're gonna try.
>>61488423Australia wants a larger number of smaller subs with a smaller crew, which is why the long term plan is AUKUS. The smaller number of higher-crew virginia subs is a stepping stone to that, and should average out in the long run.They consider nuclear subs the most important strategic asset they can have, they will find a way to crew those subs no matter what.I'm guessing they'll start to scale down the collins class fleet at the same time, which will free up some resources and manpower.
>>61488023>I doubt the aussies will change their mindsSome of us remember when Canada was also buying a fleet of nuclear submarines to control their "3 Oceans".
>>61490864Key fucking difference> Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome
>>61484595WrongUSN already bought a bunch of FREMM'sfrom Italy and is building them over there
>>61490903It's got less than 15% commonality with the FREMMs, that's an American ship baby.
>>61490915Built in Italian Shipyards in Italy
>>61490925Nope, built in american shipyardsFincantieri Marinette Marine is an american company with an Italian parent company (Fincantieri S.p.A.). The ships are being built in in Marinette, Wisconsin, off of lake Michigan.
>>61490933You're right my bad
>>61490982It's literally US law, it takes annoying waivers that need to be re-done every 12-18 months to buy shit from a non-domestic company for the US military.If a domestic supplier is available the military MUST use them over a foreign supplier. By law.
>>61490933I actually really like the way that contract played out. It should be the new meta. >USN/USMIC focuses on large surface combatant R&D>just contract out for Frigates and workboats Euro's are subject-matter experts on Frigates, Corvettes and Minesweeps. Should just snap up their mature technologies to fast-track fleet reforms. >the Dutch have a very, very sexy minesweeper that I've had my eye on
>>61490890The Presidents and Congress from here to then are free to alter the deal at whim.
>>61491094It's highly unlikely to change, if you haven't noticed most of the western world is aligning to confront a looming Chinese threat, Australia sees that coming and is happy to load up on nuke subs, I don't see that changing, if anything they'll want more, not less.
>>61491128>It's highly unlikely to changeOh Summer Child, if you only knew the number of military programs these wintry eyes have seen downsized and cancelled over the years.
>>61484916>South Korean shipbuilders take naval autism to an extreme makes the US look sloppy in comparisonRight, definitely better to buy from a dead-end colony of other asian nations rather than the greatest navy in the world. I'm sure SK has just tons of experience fighting other navies.They can't even make ferries that don't fucking sink.
>>61491685> the future of naval warfare is South Korea + USFerry disasters # killed post ww2:Russia: 1787US: 1683China: 1432Japan: 1339South Korea: 1150The waters around eastern South Korea and western Japan are known to be the most difficult to navigate in the world, but even still the safety records are not even closeDon't forget to dilatehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters_in_the_20th_centuryhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_maritime_disasters_in_the_21st_century
>>61484881>So why bother with it?Well suppose you get hit 1000 km from the nearest shore, how much better is it to survive in a floating shit vs floating on a raft?
