US Navy Sends RFIs to Korean Yards for Warships, Tankers

Korean Shipyards Respond to US Navy Requests

According to a report by the Maritime Executive, citing Korean news agency Yonhap, the U.S. Navy has issued formal requests for information (RFIs) to South Korea’s major shipbuilders, seeking details on their ability to rapidly construct destroyers and oilers for the U.S. fleet. This marks the first such formal request since Seoul launched its shipbuilding cooperation pledge with Washington, sometimes referred to as “Make American Shipbuilding Great Again.”

The RFIs reportedly followed a direct question from President Trump to South Korean President Lee Jae Myung at the G7 summit in France in June, asking whether Korea could quickly deliver ten U.S. warships. Trump and Lee later met again at the NATO summit and agreed to open working-level talks on the proposal.

Scope of the Requests

HD Hyundai Heavy Industries and Hanwha Ocean were asked to provide information covering eight proposed destroyers, while Samsung Heavy Industries joined the other two yards in submitting details for medium-sized naval tankers. The U.S. side is reportedly gathering data on design capability, shipyard capacity, pricing, and delivery schedules. An industry source told Yonhap that the shipyards responded with an overview of their build track record, engineering workforce, and annual output capacity.

A Numbers-Driven Expansion Plan

Korean estimates cited in the report suggest the U.S. Navy needs to add roughly 12 ships a year to meet the Trump administration’s target of growing the fleet from about 300 vessels to 381 by 2054 — implying construction of 364 ships over the next three decades. That target sits behind South Korea’s broader $150 billion shipbuilding investment commitment, part of a larger $350 billion package tied to trade negotiations. South Korean policy banks have reportedly already begun formalizing financing arrangements to support the plan.

Legal Hurdles Remain

A key obstacle is the Byrnes-Tollefson Act, a decades-old U.S. law requiring Navy combatant ships to be built in domestic yards. The House Armed Services Committee reportedly reaffirmed this requirement during recent debate on the Defense Authorization Act. One workaround floated in the reporting would have Korean yards handle design and project planning while U.S.-based partners carry out construction. Hanwha Ocean has been pursuing U.S. approval to build destroyers at its Philadelphia shipyard, which it has announced plans to expand, and HD Hyundai and Samsung have partnered respectively with Huntington Ingalls Industries and General Dynamics NASSCO. Korean yards are already performing maintenance and overhaul work on U.S. Military Sealift Command vessels.

What This Means for Fleet Operators and Surveyors

While this story centers on naval procurement rather than commercial shipping, it signals a period of intense industrial realignment across Korean shipbuilding capacity that commercial owners and managers should watch closely. If Korean yards divert design teams, steel allocation, and berth availability toward naval RFIs and eventual contracts, commercial newbuild slots and repair scheduling at these same yards could tighten or shift timelines — a consideration for owners planning drydockings, conversions, or newbuild condition surveys at Korean facilities in the coming years. It also underscores how naval-commercial yard partnerships (as with Hanwha’s Philadelphia acquisition) are increasingly blurring lines between defense and merchant shipbuilding capacity. For technical managers relying on independent condition and pre-delivery surveys, any surge in yard workload driven by government contracts is a reminder to build in extra lead time and rigorous inspection scheduling, since production pressure at busy yards has historically correlated with quality control risks that a thorough survey program is designed to catch.

Outlook

The RFIs represent an early, non-binding step. Whether Korean yards ultimately build hulls for the U.S. Navy, or simply contribute design and planning work under a U.S.-flagged build model, will depend on how Washington navigates the Byrnes-Tollefson restriction and how quickly the working-level consultations agreed at NATO progress. For now, the requests confirm that Seoul’s shipbuilding pledge to Washington is moving from political commitment toward concrete procurement engagement.

Reviewed by Ibrahim Halil Ceylan, Marine Surveyor at Apeks Marine.