On March 17, 2025, a military Heron unmanned aerial vehicle attempting to land at an Army aviation battalion in Yangju, Gyeonggi Province, collided with a domestically built Surion (KUHC-1) multipurpose helicopter parked on the ground. The fire on the helicopter was extinguished in about 30 minutes, with no casualties. However, both the helicopter and the drone were destroyed.
The Heron is an operational command-level (four-star) reconnaissance UAV. The South Korean military has operated three units in the field since importing them from Israel in 2016. The aircraft measures 8.5 meters long and 16.6 meters wide. With a detection range of 20 to 30 kilometers, it monitors North Korean coastal artillery in Hwanghae Province north of the West Sea's five islands and long-range artillery north of Gyeonggi Province. The problem is that all three units have now been rendered inoperable due to crashes and collisions, including this latest incident.
So how did the Army discipline those involved in an accident that destroyed a key strategic asset for monitoring North Korea and caused tens of billions of won in damages? According to the Army, no disciplinary or personnel actions were taken against the commanders, pilots, or maintenance personnel involved. Nor were they ordered to make any partial compensation.
An Army official said, "Immediately after the accident, we formed a Central Accident Investigation Committee and thoroughly investigated the cause. The investigation concluded that the accident was caused by environmental factors such as gusts of wind, and no negligence was found on the part of commanders, pilots, or maintenance personnel, so no separate disciplinary or personnel actions were taken."
According to military authorities, the Army formed an accident investigation committee led by the Army Headquarters' deputy chief of intelligence (brigadier general) and including about 20 researchers from the Agency for Defense Development. The committee concluded that the collision between the UAV and the helicopter was caused by a wind gust rather than a mechanical defect. The Army wrapped up the case by introducing a gust warning system and installing a net to prevent UAVs from entering helicopter parking areas.
What is drawing controversy is the concern that the accident has created an unavoidable gap in surveillance of North Korea, particularly over the northwestern islands and frontline areas of the greater Seoul region. Immediately after the accident, the Army ordered a suspension of UAV flights under the Ground Operations Command. According to Rep. Kang Sun-young's office, the collision is estimated to have cost taxpayers about 50 billion won.
With two Heron units rendered unusable by the collision, the Army is reportedly accelerating the introduction of next-generation operational command-level reconnaissance UAVs to avoid disruptions in North Korea surveillance. One unit each is expected to be introduced as early as 2027 and 2028. In 2016, the Army acquired three Heron units and a Ground Control System (GCS) for about 40 billion won, or roughly 3 billion won per unit.
Some argue that, in the absence of disciplinary or personnel measures, a system should be established to assign partial liability for the loss of hundreds of billions of won in taxpayer money. For instance, similar to a Board of Audit and Inspection ruling ordering an Air Force pilot to compensate for a mid-air collision, partial reimbursement should be required to prevent lapses in military discipline and raise awareness about accidents.
On April 23, the Board of Audit and Inspection ordered Maj. A, a former Air Force pilot, to pay about 87.87 million won — one-tenth of the roughly 878.7 million won in repair costs — for an accident in which the tail wing of his fighter jet collided with the left wing of another fighter in the same formation while he was attempting to take commemorative photos on his final flight before a transfer.
Rep. Kang Sun-young's office said, "In a closed-door briefing to the National Assembly, the Army expressed concerns about flight safety risks due to insufficient maintenance time, and those concerns materialized just four months later. Blaming the accident on a natural disaster to gloss it over, failing to apologize to the public, and taking no disciplinary or personnel action against those involved is irresponsible behavior aimed at hushing up the case."
