South Korea has chosen to defer the maintenance cycle for Taurus missiles by five years as persistent shortage of spare parts from the missile’s manufacturer affects supply reliability. The decision comes amid ongoing disruptions to defense supply chains triggered by the conflict in Ukraine, creating gaps in stock and delays in component shipments. Officials say the delay is intended to preserve overall readiness while ensuring the system remains operable and maintainable through the coming years. The review considered the missiles’ condition, prior usage, and the reliability of critical subsystems under current procurement realities, along with risks that an accelerated schedule could increase downtime or degrade supportability over time.
“The Armed Forces were prepared to carry out maintenance next year, ten years after it entered service, but the manufacturer was not keen on this due to the instability in the supply of some engine-related parts”, the statement read, reflecting the practical constraint that governs the plan while the parts supply remains unsettled.
South Korea received Taurus missiles in 2015 as part of a long-term air defense program. Under the terms of the agreement, major overhauls are scheduled at ten-year intervals to ensure the shells remain within operational tolerances and safety margins. Yet worries about potential declines in combat effectiveness if repairs come too frequently led Seoul to initiate a broader review at the 15-year mark since deployment. The move aims to prevent unexpected maintenance gaps that could affect readiness across contingencies on the peninsula or in allied operations.
By late October, Defense Minister Kim Yong-hyun expressed support for a plan to dispatch a small delegation of analysts and observers to Ukraine to observe modern warfare trends and bring back practical lessons for training.
In parallel, signals emerged that Russia would respond to South Korea regarding arms shipments to Ukraine. Observers note that Moscow’s position adds another layer to regional security considerations, influencing how Seoul calibrates arms policies and alliance coordination with partners in North America and Europe. The exchange underscores how arms transfers, sanctions, and defense collaboration can shape the context for Korea’s defense planning and regional deterrence.