Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Kimchi armoured vehicles: K1, K2, K21 and other AFVs from Worse Korea


Zadlo
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Lord_James said:

What is it “vismod’ing”, other than a K21-105? 

 

Going to go out on a limb an assume just a generic "tank". Don't think they are trying to go for any specific vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recent article about Hyundai Rotem’s efforts to secure the contract for the next Norwegian MBT.

 

A brief summary:

Spoiler

The contract is set to be awarded in late 2022. There will be trials in Norway the coming winter.

 

There are more industrial incentives on the table compared to a year ago. Apart from driveline, main gun, sights, auto-loader and suspension, which will be shipped in from South Korea, the production of the tanks and its components will take place in Norway.

 

Norwegian partnership in the K2 upgrade program and the  K3 program is also a possibility.

 

There are some details on how future K2NO could look like. Some of these are obvious, like Kongsberg RWS, Integrated Combat Solution and programmable ammunition from NAMMO. It also mentions an APU and a more powerful heating system. Lastly, it says that an APS, either Iron Fist or Trophy, is on the table if Norway wants this option.

 

The article also mentions that there could be possible synergies between a Norwegian K2 fleet and Polish one, e.g. production of spares.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this more as disadvantages. New stuff like APS, APU and GSE (RWS, ICS etc.) is already part of Leopard 2 design (no risk) but NOR would be first user if they go with K2 in that direction getting to know the child sicknesses.

Biggest advantage is still lower weight for heavy snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is something that the army may be concerned about, but they’re not the only ones who can influence the decision makers. Getting the industry on their side is also the best play Hyundai Rotem can make IMO, as it’s almost certainly going to be more decisive to the outcome of this process than the K2 possibly being more mobile in the deep snow than the Leo 2A7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

That is something that the army may be concerned about, but they’re not the only ones who can influence the decision makers. Getting the industry on their side is also the best play Hyundai Rotem can make IMO, as it’s almost certainly going to be more decisive to the outcome of this process than the K2 possibly being more mobile in the deep snow than the Leo 2A7.

 

Industry reasons are relevant if you can produce all spare parts in Norway.

As Hyundai says they will still produce the core components in Korea which means you can wait a lifetime for spares while waiting to get your powerpack maintained whereas you can do the same for your Leopard 2 engine at dozens of companies or ask your neighbors to borrow some spares.

I think it is smart to push KMW into a position to do local work and involve local companies for assembly, cables and stuff like that.

But in the end military reasons should be more important than industry support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From statements that have been made by various Norwegian politicians, I’m very much left with the impression that getting the best possible deal for the industry is number one priority for a lot of them.

 

That doesn’t mean that the K2 is guaranteed to win as long as Hyundai Rotem make sure that their industrial incentives are better than KMW’s. There are more factors at play here, and some of them are working against the K2. Chief among these is the fact that South Korea is not a NATO member and that Norway risks ending up as the sole European user since a Polish K2 order is not a certain deal yet.

 

But if there is a route to victory for the K2, I strongly believe it’s through the support of the Norwegian industry, and for that you need to put as many Norwegian components as possible into the tank, even if it entails more risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard to say anything in that context except that I don't get it.

 

As far as I know Poland will aquire Leo 1 and Leo 2 vehicles this year with no sign of K1/K2. Maybe there will be a K2PL but it won't be fast. 

 

Even the Brits noticed that having their own single tank is not too smart and moved as close towards Leo 2 as they could (without doing political suicide). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Laser Shark said:

Chief among these is the fact that South Korea is not a NATO member and that Norway risks ending up as the sole European user since a Polish K2 order is not a certain deal yet.


But if one of them were to choose the K2, it would make it an easier decision for the other. I wonder if there have been any talks between Poland and Norway regarding their next MBT, considering they have essentially the same choices. 
 

I prefer Hyundai Rotem mainly because KMW already has a practical monopoly over most NATO member tanks (Leclerc is expensive, Challenger is a piece of shit, and Ariete has yet to leave Italy). Would be nice to shake that up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO the Polish deal is the only chance for K2 to break into EU because it is itself large enough to justify building a factory there. Once such factory exists more European customers will definitely join but without Poland the other possible deals for K2 are too small in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lord_James

 

I think it would, but more so for Norway than Poland since they plan on acquiring about ten times as many tanks as us. So, I’d be very surprised if we haven’t reached out to them to get a feel of how serious they are about going through with this order.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rico said:

 

Industry reasons are relevant if you can produce all spare parts in Norway.

As Hyundai says they will still produce the core components in Korea which means you can wait a lifetime for spares while waiting to get your powerpack maintained whereas you can do the same for your Leopard 2 engine at dozens of companies or ask your neighbors to borrow some spares.

I think it is smart to push KMW into a position to do local work and involve local companies for assembly, cables and stuff like that.

But in the end military reasons should be more important than industry support.

 

This is not a real issue, you just have a bigger spare stockpile in-nation, sufficient to last a month or two.

 

In case of non-WW3 emergencies, air cargo exists. And in a WW3 situation, the Norwegians have far worse things to worry about than how long their local spare K2 parts stockpile would last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's wait and see then. I have been told that FFG is including lots of weight reduction measures and I guess that Leo 2 will do some sports to loose weight as well. 


Looking forward to hear the outcome of upcoming vintertests. 
So if K2 outperforms Leo 2 I will appologize for my critic but don't blame me for being the one joking if Norway is the only one operating a orphant tank in 2030.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DIADES said:

Really???  Leopard 1??

 

Hungary also purchased a number of Leopard 1 variants (such as the Bergepanzer 2 Büffel) as interim solution until their Wisent 2s will be delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Büffel is a Bergepanzer 3 (Leo2 chassis) but they got some Bergepanzer 2 (Leo1 chassis) for their Leo 2A4 (leasing to train Leo2 until Leo 2A7 arrive).

 

Poland got 28 Bergepanzer 2 when they got Leo2A4 and 2A5 from Germany. Seems like they need some more power for those and upgrade them.

 

Hungary indends to use Buffel for Lynx and Wisent 2 for Leopard 2A7.

No idea why since Lynx has much lesser weight than Buffel/Wisent2.

 

Assume they got the Buffels for free in the Lynx deal since Wisent 2 was ordered a year upfront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DIADES said:

Really???  Leopard 1??

Nothing strange about it. NATO is still using a lot of them - not MBTs but ARVs, BARV, AEVs, AVLBs etc.

 

Denmark, Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latwia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands and Germany have hundreds still in service (just to name a few countries I am certain about).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By delfosisyu
      6
       
      I found a series of images describing development history of K1 88-Tank at some blog. But the post didn't note on its original source.
       
      Would you please help me out to find out the name of the book?
    • By Mighty_Zuk
      Here we will discuss all topics related to the LAND program, including, but not limited to, LAND 400 which is the flagship project of the entire program.
    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×
×
  • Create New...