Policy implications for third-tier countries considering ACTD programs: South Korea as a case study

• To draw ACTD policies for TTCs, four perspectives have been approached as threats, technologies, budgets, and transitions.
• Case analyses reveal that prioritization and reification of threats should be a starting point of the policy.
• Once threats that would be countered by ACTDs, then other two factors, bounded technologies and budgets should be considered.
• Comprehensive technology transition plan covering other R&D projects would matter in determining the success of the process.

As a certain society's military strength depends on its technological capabilities, decision makers that do not retain the capacity to produce a full spectrum of defense systems to meet the country's requirement (herein Third Tier Countries, or TTCs), need to administer different acquisition policies than countries that furnish a complete range of arms. South Korea, with its limited defense industrial base, has implemented Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) programs since 2007. Provided that other TTCs are considering the ACTD process, analogous cases should be instructive. Thus, this paper is a comparative analysis of Korean ACTDs vis-a-vis those of the United States to draw distinctive ACTD policy implications for TTCs. For a review of 32 programs, four perspectives are suggested: imminent threats, technological capabilities, budgetary constraints, and transition plans. Examined from these dimensions, prioritization and reification of imminent threats should be a beginning point. If there are some identified threats that can be countered by ACTDs, then boundaries in technological capabilities and budgetary constraints ought to be taken into account. Finally, an effective technology transition plan for ACTDs in accordance with other non-military-led defense R&D projects would help in determining the success of the open acquisition process.