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 Chunmoo Rocket Artillery (MLRS) system runs $2.0M/unit; M142 HIMARS runs $4.5M/unit. 155mm artillery shells are $2k/shell from Korea vs $3.5k/shell from the United States. Korean Cheongung II SAM interceptors cost ~$1.1M/unit, US Patriot missiles cost $4.0M/unit.
Buying South Korean weapons systems means you can procure twice as much at the same cost. It's a no brainer why Korea is winning military contracts.
[0] https://militarymachine.com/k9-thunder-howitzer-most-exporte...
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, focus on the reliability of the US as arms supplier, given the increasing control over access as a political weapon of retribution and reward, potential "kill switches" in US arms, the limited total production capacity of the US, and particularly in light of the latter, stocks depletion and unavailability on the basis of capricious gallivanting into ill-conceived conflicts with little gain if not actually worsening its subsequent position, strength, and status.
The Koreas both have an extensive reliance on artillery. Seoul is within range of PRK batteries, Pyonyang not so much from ROK, but any invading forces would be. 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.
Antiballistic missile systems would also be useful for ROK. I know nothing of this, but find that there is a Wikipedia article on the topic: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_and_Missile_Defense>.
>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 EU and NATO allies and neighbors France and Germany, since those two typically only sell weapons but never IP, as they see IP as valuable trade secrets and leverage.
Sovereign supply chain and manufacturing for arms is more important for your national security than price and having the most bleeding edge systems if those imported systems can be withheld against you if your ally wants to squeeze something out of you at some point in the future over petty political squabbles, and Poland has less chances of having beef with Korea on the other side of the planet than with neighboring France and Germany. So it's the most sane decision politically. A lot of countries got bit by this dependence that it's a valuable lesson every country should heethe.
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.
> 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
> I mean the obvious problem here is that they are completely untested in combat
The article mentions interceptors deployed to the UAE that recently successfully hit 29 Iranian drones out of 30.
Meta: this entire comment-chain accuses the article of not focusing on "the real reason" for success, but the article touches on everything mentioned: cost, IP sharing, IRL performance, and more (fast turn-around) are all mentioned in the article.
The thread head (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48612438>) makes the accusation of omission, but specifically as regards cost.
In my own initial response, I explicitly note "It does, correctly IMO, focus on..." and continue to list several of the issues raised, in addition to expanding both on those and adding others. Subsequent discussion seems to evolve from there, no longer anchored to the root.
Overall, the article isn't great insofar as it omits or demphasises some factors; but no, it's not obtusely bad or incomplete either. And your own characterisation of the discussion as a whole is itself inaccurate.
This is also the case for things like nuclear reactor construction, except South Korea is cheaper by a far higher margin there.
Add in the US's latest antics about controlling the use of they weapons they sell, and in addition trying to bully and demean allies, and it's a mystery as to why anybody would ever use US suppliers these days.
Although the article is more positive
Emerging Trends in the Trump Approach to Security Cooperation: https://www.stimson.org/2026/emerging-trends-in-the-trump-ap...
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.
If the US is ever in that situation again we won't be measuring cost of any manufacturable thing in dollars
Correct it’ll be in Yen
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.
Confirmed. The second industry with such redistribution is oil and gas, 5-15%.
My figures are from ~2005.
Fun stories of hearing about key equipment gets caught up in Libyan customs. Weeks and weeks of meeting various officials, learning about each others families, drinking tea, etc, before 'the cost of compliance' is finally raised.
> Margins are high during peacetime and wartime alike
Countries with high margins during wartime don't typically win wars against peer powers. Cf nazi germany vs the soviet union. This is typically a luxury you see when rich countries fight poor ones (in absolute terms, including capital in the form of production capacity and tech IP/know-how)
> Margins are high during peacetime and wartime alike.
Perhaps when fighting foreign jaunts against a minnow. Preserving high margins in an grinding, existential war against a peer would be considered anything from unpatriotic, to outright illegal war profiteering, and carries a real risk of the shareholders losing control and/or ownership of the organization through various war-time instruments.
> 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.
They also tend to license IP or subsystems to and from the US as well, similar to Israeli firms like Elbit so there is an incentive for the US to continue supporting Korean sales as they have a downstream positive impact on American suppliers (eg. Borame and GE Aviation as well as Lockheed Martin).