The rise of South Korea’s weapons business • Hacker News Board

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#41

Post by ReptileMan » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 1:04 AM UTC

thephyber wrote: post #39

ReptileMan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of military hardware costs are bribes, kickbacks and margins. Nobody thinks that they will fight a real war in which they will need a lot of hardware. If the US or Germany get in situation they need thousands of those - I guess their cost will fall to under 1M.

Do you have any evidence of this? Also “and margins” seems like a stupid thing to add. Margins are high during peacetime and wartime alike. And it’s not parallel to bribes / kickbacks which are corrupt and illegal. Margins are the natural outcome of capitalism + monopoly. Having S Korean competition means those margins would likely drop over time.

>Do you have any evidence of this?

I have been advisor to some people signing the deals. I would say that depending on the project in my slice of the industry at least 25-30% were outright redistributed to various stakeholders.

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#42

Post by digdugdirk » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 1:30 AM UTC

joe_mamba wrote: post #26

dredmorbius wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost is a factor, and a significant factor, but not the only one. Flip-side of cost is effectiveness , and it would be interesting to see real-world data on the accuracy, reliability, and longevity of Korean weapons systems in active combat. I suspect the Koreans are also anxious to see this given their own geopolitical situation and northern neighbour. The article doesn't go here either. It does, correctly IMO, focu…

>Cost is a factor, and a significant factor, but not the only one. The REAL significant factor is that Korean arms companies are not just sealing weapons, but also willing to sell IP to their allies for you to manufacture their weapons domestically, something very rare in the arms business. It's why Poland chose to license and manufacture Korean weapons domestically rather than buy superior weapon systems from their…

Ding ding ding! This is a huge reason. Being able to bootstrap a domestic weapons manufacturing base is a massive win for any country these days. South Korea is one of the few countries that are both willing and able to do so with high quality modern materiel.

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#43

Post by Danox » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 1:38 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #6

Other countries with rising weapons businesses are Ukraine and Iran. The best endorsement for a weapons manufacturer is winning a war against a tough opponent.

[dead]

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#44

Post by Danox » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 1:52 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #21

energy123 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US, Russia and China all took turns losing wars to Afghanistan and Vietnam but nobody lines up to buy weapons from them because strategic victory (denying the enemy their war objectives) due to a lack of political will in the opponent or superior geography isn't the same thing as tactical victory due to better weapons.

Afghanistan and Vietnam didn't beat their adversaries through advanced military technology, but by the shear capacity to absorb unholy amounts of damage and injury. Arguably Iran is in a similar position, though its Shahed drones and ballistic missiles did prove capable of reaching out and touching others within the theatre (1,000 -- 2,000 km range), and that these systems were resilient against attempts by its adver…

The USA proceeded to ignore any advice that the Ukraine could give them when it came to drones being operated in the field under duress, where in many cases you had to ad lib, reconfigure, iterate on the spot, probably too proud to ask.

The North Vietnamese were famous for ad libbing, adapting on the spot, but in the end biggest weapon is the willingness to fight.

Russia and the United States never learn it isn’t about the best weapon or how much money you can spend…

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#45

Post by zuzululu » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 2:46 AM UTC

beloch wrote: post #37

"South Koreans are hoping to change that with a $60 billion submarine deal Hanwha Ocean is trying to sign with Canada; it would be the largest military procurement deal in Ottawa’s history. But the peninsula faces a formidable opponent in Germany’s ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems, which has a long track record of producing submarines for NATO countries. Canada is expected to announce the winning company later in June — w…

The Dutch/German submarine isn't even in production and unproven. Meanwhile the KSS are in service and production is guaranteed. I think the risk profiles are completely different between these two and that more or less seems to be the edge that Korea uses as leverage ex) Poland

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#46

Post by zuzululu » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 2:54 AM UTC

alephnerd wrote: post #17

zuzululu wrote: post #16

South Korea's self-reliance on weapons came straight out of vietnam war, where they were initially sending soldiers with WW2 weapons and became frustrated with the fragile American rifle that were provided, President Park directly launched Korea's own DOD (Agency for Defense Development aka ADD) which has been successful at repurposing soviet and american designs at a time where both countries were unsupportive. The…

> I think that this is the particular threat that America sees from its own ally and there will likely be some efforts to curb or limit South Korea I disagree with that. The Korean defense manufacturers like Hanwha work hard to also build production capacity within the US and share or license IP from American firms (eg. Boramae and GE Aviation plus Lockheed Martin). SK's industry will continue to coexist and thrive w…

I'm extrapolating here but Gulf states are very much questioning the US-Israel shield and will likely use Korean weapons acquisition to demand greater security guarantees.

I absolutely think Korea can pose a major threat to the petrodollar arrangement if left unchecked so its in the interest of US to see they not lose anymore trust with gulf states.

It's not beyond the pale to think Korea can offer significant security guarantees but I will concede that is more of a post-unification type of scenario.

But the opportunity is opening and if Korea doesn't take it, Japan might or both countries might offer what gulf states look for : being honorable and without any territorial ambitions and for both countries it might be the ultimate dream to have sovereignty over their own energy resources without petrodollar breathing down their neck since WW2

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#47

Post by jessinra98 » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 5:13 AM UTC

The speed at which Korea has supplied tanks, artillery, munitions, and even set up local production faster than traditional arms procurement.

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#48

Post by sofixa » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 5:44 AM UTC

Danox wrote: post #40

Sounds good, but they won’t be able to sell them to anyone without the United States giving permission and butting in at every potential sale.

That's not true, they even sell in direct competition with the US (MLRS systems or tanks to Poland)

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#49

Post by petesergeant » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 6:12 AM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #20

tristanj wrote: post #10

This article uses so many words to focus on the political reasons, but completely ignores the primary driver: Cost. Korean weapons systems are 40-60% cheaper than their American counterparts. The Korean K9 Thunder 155mm self-propelled howitzer costs $3.5 to $4 million per unit. For comparison, the American M109A7 Paladin costs around $8 million. The German PzH 2000 runs approximately $7 to $8 million. The K239 Chunmo…

Cost is a factor, and a significant factor, but not the only one. Flip-side of cost is effectiveness , and it would be interesting to see real-world data on the accuracy, reliability, and longevity of Korean weapons systems in active combat. I suspect the Koreans are also anxious to see this given their own geopolitical situation and northern neighbour. The article doesn't go here either. It does, correctly IMO, focu…

> I suspect ROK counterartillery systems are well developed, and that given the effectiveness of drones in recent years and the likelihood PRK might rely on these that there are, or soon will be, effective countermeasures against them.

I mean the obvious problem here is that they are completely untested in combat. Surprised there haven’t been some sweetheart deals to get these into Ukrainian hands

Re: The rise of South Korea’s weapons business

#50

Post by watwut » Sun, Jun 21, 2026, 6:12 AM UTC

ReptileMan wrote: post #19

tristanj wrote: post #10

This article uses so many words to focus on the political reasons, but completely ignores the primary driver: Cost. Korean weapons systems are 40-60% cheaper than their American counterparts. The Korean K9 Thunder 155mm self-propelled howitzer costs $3.5 to $4 million per unit. For comparison, the American M109A7 Paladin costs around $8 million. The German PzH 2000 runs approximately $7 to $8 million. The K239 Chunmo…

The majority of military hardware costs are bribes, kickbacks and margins. Nobody thinks that they will fight a real war in which they will need a lot of hardware. If the US or Germany get in situation they need thousands of those - I guess their cost will fall to under 1M.

> Nobody thinks that they will fight a real war in which they will need a lot of hardware.

Germany is literally thinking there will be war and getting ready for it. The war is more likely then 4 years ago.