The chief of South Korea's state arms procurement agency cited legality as the main reason for changing the bidding process on a multi-trillion-won contract to build advanced homegrown destroyers. The Defense Project Promotion Committee unanimously decided to select the winner for the estimated 7 trillion-won ($5 billion) project to build six destroyers through competitive bidding. The landmark initiative, delayed by a legal feud between rival shipbuilders, aims for delivery to the Navy by the end of 2032.
On Wednesday, December 24, 2025, Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) Minister Lee Yong-cheol highlighted legality as the primary factor in altering the bidding process for a multi-trillion-won contract to construct advanced homegrown destroyers.
This follows the Defense Project Promotion Committee's unanimous decision on Monday to select the winner for the estimated 7 trillion-won ($5 billion) bid to build six destroyers via competitive bidding. The meeting was also attended by Defense Minister Ahn Gyu-back.
The project, aimed at producing 6,000-ton-class Aegis destroyers equipped with mostly indigenous weapons systems, has been significantly delayed due to intensifying rivalry and a legal dispute between Hanwha Ocean Co. and HD Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Hanwha Ocean handled the concept design, while HD Hyundai Heavy Industries managed the basic design.
Originally, HD Hyundai Heavy Industries was poised to secure the sole-source contract for the lead ship, but Hanwha Ocean protested over an alleged security breach involving HD Hyundai employees in the design phase, leading to postponement of the bidding.
Minister Lee emphasized that the government will prioritize preventing further delays in delivering the destroyers to the Navy. DAPA plans to complete deployment by the end of 2032, positioning these vessels as the Navy's key future strategic assets.
The shift to competitive bidding is expected to foster fair competition in South Korea's shipbuilding sector and bolster national defense capabilities. However, lingering tensions between the two firms may challenge the process's transparency.
