Korean Media: U.S. Shipbuilding Revival Plan "Leverages South Korea" … But Production Base Remains in America

The U.S. government and maritime experts have repeatedly emphasized that revitalizing the American shipbuilding industry requires actively utilizing South Korea’s capital, technology, and production capabilities—but the core of ship manufacturing must remain within the United States. Although some have proposed building certain vessels initially at South Korean shipyards, this is only seen as a temporary “transition strategy” to bridge the gap until domestic U.S. capacity recovers.

On the 23rd local time, the Stimson Center, Center for Maritime Strategy (CMS), and Korea-U.S. Economic Institute (KEI) jointly held a seminar titled “The Future Path of Korea-U.S. Shipbuilding Cooperation” in Washington D.C. Senior researcher and moderator Kelly Grice explained: “We need to revive American shipyards, but we need ships now.” He added, “Our plan involves having allied countries like South Korea build some of the initial vessels in their own shipyards while simultaneously investing in the U.S., with American shipyards taking over construction afterward.”

Ronald O’Rourke, a former naval analyst who spent 42 years at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) analyzing naval power, proposed a Korea-U.S. shipbuilding cooperation framework including: sharing production techniques; South Korean companies investing in U.S. shipyards; South Korean yards performing maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) on U.S. warships; and using South Korean facilities to build short-term vessels. He stated: “If the U.S. wants to quickly receive additional ships beyond its current capacity, there’s no alternative but to consider overseas shipyards,” adding, “To acquire ships faster than expanding domestic U.S. capacity, turning to foreign shipyards is necessary—and South Korea is one country capable of doing so.” However, he stressed this is merely a temporary solution to fill the immediate gap in domestic production.

CMS naval expert Stephen Wells also suggested emulating Finland’s icebreaker collaboration model: “Build the first vessel overseas, then subsequent ones in the U.S.” He further emphasized the need for South Korean firms like Hanwha to invest in U.S. shipyards to enhance production capacity.

Senior fellow Brent Sadler from the Heritage Foundation cautioned: “Building warships overseas isn’t a cure-all.” He noted that adopting South Korean-designed warships would introduce design and maintenance systems unfamiliar to U.S. Navy personnel and American shipyards. From a practical standpoint, he suggested starting with cooperation on military support vessels such as tankers and destroyer supply ships—more feasible options than full warship integration.

O’Rourke pointed out that if ships are designed using South Korean blueprints and built in South Korean yards, they can be produced faster and cheaper—but rely heavily on South Korean supply chains for spare parts and maintenance. Conversely, if U.S.-designed ships are built by South Korean yards, while maintenance becomes easier, construction speed slows down and costs rise. He proposed that the two nations consider co-designing the next-generation destroyers with long-term strategic goals in mind.

During the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Korea-U.S. Shipbuilding Cooperation Center held at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington D.C. that morning, the U.S. underscored the priority of domestic investment and production over building ships in South Korea. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated: “Producing ships domestically is crucial for the U.S.” He emphasized that both warships and all types of commercial vessels must be built in America. He noted that South Korea’s promised $150 billion investment in the shipbuilding sector will be directed toward “marine production within the United States.” South Korea’s Minister of Trade, Industry, and Energy, Kim Jeong-gwan, also affirmed: “We will build warships and LNG carriers—these will all be constructed in the United States.”

During the day’s two events, both sides reached consensus on leveraging South Korea’s capital, technology, and manufacturing strength to rebuild the U.S. shipbuilding industry. However, constructing American vessels in South Korean shipyards was defined as a temporary “transition strategy” prior to expanding domestic U.S. capacity—a vision far from what many in South Korea had hoped for. Both governments clearly identified investing in U.S. shipyards, expanding production, and rebuilding supply chains as central pillars of their cooperation.

Source: Chosun Ilbo

Original article: toutiao.com/article/1871586851921948/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.