Hanwha launches new website for CPSP + answering some questions

Shoutout to my boy Mason for this one. Hanwha has launched a new website dedicated to promoting the KSS-III for CPSP. They are the first company to do this, which is surprising, as even for minor projects we tend to see a few websites pop up.

Oh well…

A lot of people have been asking me about CPSP and its status, which is sadly going to bore you when I say it's still the same timeline as far as I know. Unless someone argues hard, the plan is for an award next year, with the first delivered in 2031/2032.

On the KSS-III, people have asked me about the exportability of Korean missile systems thanks to the MCTR. Here's the thing: the MCTR isn't really legally binding. It definitely has a tight honour system, and the Koreans have been adherents to it in the past, but your big issue is going to be Korea's own export restrictions.

Korea has also slowly been opening up their own restrictions, recently amending them to allow for the export of longer-range missile systems beyond 300km for the Chunmoo rocket system. These are separate from something like Hyunmoo, as the Koreans label them a different category, but it is a sign of changing mentalities on the Korean side.

Basically, it's up to the Koreans. If they want to export to us, they will. They will make the conditions to do so. Now, are we promised the Korean versions of the missiles? No, there is always a chance we will see some restrictions on payload/range. You can't remove that factor.

I do believe that we are one of the few who could likely break that mould and potentially get the full capabilities out of this system. The Koreans are courting us very hard for a number of different reasons. This is also one of the largest single submarine contracts at play in decades.

I've spoken before on this, but let me reiterate. We have to use our negotiating power to its full advantage. We have leverage. We have lots to offer, both in terms of the initial order and what we could contribute to the wider platform. We have to stop pretending we don't have anything to negotiate with.

That is a different conversation, though, one I've already discussed at length on here. So I won't bore everyone with it for a fifth time. The web page is very informative and a great place if you don't know too much about the KSS-III or need a refresh of the major suppliers. I commend them for taking the time to do it.

The KSS-III is designed around the Korea Massive Punishment and Retaliation strategy, one part of South Korea’s ‘Three-Axis’ strategy against North Korea. This makes the KSS-III fairly beefy compared to other similar submarines of its class, including the unique inclusion of a vertical launch system.

I get a lot of questions about this, along with what KSS-III could carry. The information on it can be hard to get and oftentimes is mixed in a layer of confusion thanks to misidentification of similar-sounding systems.

As of right now, only the Hyunmoo IV-IV SLBM can be launched from the VLS. While the Koreans have advertised and said they could fit the Hyunmoo-III SLCM, they have never done so and elect to fire it from the torpedo tube.

The Koreans have also developed a dedicated anti-ship cruise missile that can reportedly be launched from the KSS-III. There aren't many details on it, but we do know it exists. This missile is based off the Russian P-800 Oniks/Yakhont ASCM, similar to Brahmos.

There are people who call it a copy, but that isn't factual. It is loosely based, with some specific technology taken. This isn't uncommon for Korean missile development, a large part of which is based off either given Russian assets or partnerships in the early 2000s.

Nevertheless, we know it exists, we have heard some rumours of capabilities, and we can infer based off the ancestral design as to what it is capable of. To make it a bit easier to compare, I've included a very makeshift chart for your viewing pleasure comparing the three missiles.

As you can tell, the KSS-III packs quite the punch if we go for the potential VLS capability. I will also note that, despite what people say, the Koreans do not use C-STAR in their subs.

They have decided instead to stick to Harpoon for the time being, given the difficulty in modifying C-STAR to fire from the tube. It's likely that either the Hyunmoo-III or the K-ASCM has or will supplement it in this role.

We could likely elect to integrate NSM if we desired. A fun fact is that both the Victoria-class and KSS-III use a version of Babcock's Weapons Handling System. This same system is also used by Royal Navy submarines, the S-80, and the Collins class.

For torpedoes, if we stick to OTS solutions, then we are likely to jump on the new Tiger Shark, since I know someone will ask. We could go with just about any NATO-compatible torpedo. Nothing truly limits us.

I also can't answer on Tomahawk. It likely would not be able to ever be fitted into the VLS without extensive work, which makes it impractical, and Tubehawk has been out of production for, I believe, almost fifteen years, over a decade at the least.

So no, it's Korean missiles or bust here, folks. You can fit NSM in, sure, but beyond that there aren't really any practical options. Anything else is just impractical.

Of course VLS isn't a guarantee, and neither are the very nice systems that come with them. We should always remember that. There is no promise that we will get it. Yes, it was in the RFI, but it's best to remember that RFIs are not a final list of requirements, nor will everything in them be guaranteed to carry over into future RFPs/ITQs.

It's a want. The desire to have a long-range strike capability is baked into the current plans across all branches and our defence policies. That doesn't necessarily mean VLS.

However… it is an effective deterrent, one that forces our adversaries to drastically change their calculations and risk assessments beyond being a potential capability at our disposal.

Submarines are killers, and adding on top a host of capabilities, as the KSS-III does, even if not in an active conflict, makes our waters just that much more dangerous, just that much more risky to anyone wishing to prowl or test our sovereignty.

Of course that's a conversation for another time, because diving deep into that stuff is far more academic and will turn this into a completely different article than I want. We're here to talk about KSS-III.

Case in point, the Koreans have come into CPSP hard, with a submarine that's beefy enough to capture the hearts and minds of those in charge and an ITB package that would make even ISED blush.

Is it trustworthy for them to deliver on all their promises? Likely not, but it is far more than anyone else in the competition has yet to produce. I will continue to criticize the likes of TKMS over their handling of this. They really could have put in a much better effort, but it feels like they've handed this off to Hanwha.

I digress. I highly recommend checking out the website. It is quite informative and well done! It also likely offers answers to any questions you have that I haven't answered.