Jump to content

Polish Armoured Vehicles And Their Modernizations.


Damian

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

17 hours ago, Huba said:

Just lovely:

 

That's a lot of popcorn though.

Where is their infantry? Or they are far enough behind the lines they don't need to worry? I mean, I'm not seeing any APCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

KOREAN K2 TANK Why is it so critical to have a MWR FCS. Surely a passive sensor surveillance would be more desirable to avoid detection for as long as possible.

While a turret based ammo bunker/combined with auto-loader sounds like a good work around to prevent "jack in the box" detonation but ALSO maintaining fast reliable rate of fire..How is hull based ammo , not going to detonate? How does LEO avoid this problem?

THE ARMOR LOOKS GOOD ENOUGH ....850mm KE frontal + 300 mm side.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/06/k2-south-koreas-tank-might-be-the-best-there-is/

Quote

Armor wise it’s frontal arc could survive an APFSDS hit from it’s own 120mm 55 calibre gun from about 1,000 meters. Back during testing (late 90’s) the K2’s APFSDS round had a about 700 kinetic energy rha penetration value, so it’s frontal arc is probably about 800 to 850 rha (1,400 – 1,600mm rha HEAT round protection) kinetic energy protection. Side protection is admittedly rather modest, probably 200-300 kinetic rha / 400-450 HEAT rha, about the same as an early model Leclerc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, P Lakowski said:

...How does LEO avoid this problem?...

It does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bojan said:

It does not.

So doesn’t the K2.  The off the shelf batch of 180 Poland intends to buy will be in this standard configuration. The locally produced K2PL was supposed to have different setup, with driver in the middle, and ammo in two magazines on his sides, fully separated with blow off panels etc. It is not clear though how this version will be configured exactly, we’ll see in a few years. K2PL was also supposed to be up-armored to reduce side vulnerability, and sport a Korean hard kill APS. Fingers crossed this plan will come to fruition.

As a side note, there is talk that Polish national military holding PGZ will buy Cegielski factory in Poznań ( famous for starting the anti communist uprising in 1956) and set up K2 production there. Cegielski made an offer for this a few years ago actually, but it was ignored by MoD then. Seems they are coming around now. My 85 years old granddad worked there his whole life, and is a veteran of 1956 - I mentioned this plans when we spoke today, made the guy really happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Huba said:

So doesn’t the K2.  The off the shelf batch of 180 Poland intends to buy will be in this standard configuration. The locally produced K2PL was supposed to have different setup, with driver in the middle, and ammo in two magazines on his sides, fully separated with blow off panels etc. It is not clear though how this version will be configured exactly, we’ll see in a few years. K2PL was also supposed to be up-armored to reduce side vulnerability, and sport a Korean hard kill APS. Fingers crossed this plan will come to fruition.

As a side note, there is talk that Polish national military holding PGZ will buy Cegielski factory in Poznań ( famous for starting the anti communist uprising in 1956) and set up K2 production there. Cegielski made an offer for this a few years ago actually, but it was ignored by MoD then. Seems they are coming around now. My 85 years old granddad worked there his whole life, and is a veteran of 1956 - I mentioned this plans when we spoke today, made the guy really happy.

Recently I wrote that K2PL might have development based on phases. So for example initial production batch (phase 1) might not have fully isolated hull ammo storage. However next batches might have, like Altay for example, where Altay T1 does not have isolated hull ammo storage, while Altay T2 will have hull ammo storage isolated. I gave a hint to Colonel Płatek about this, and perhaps he will mention this idea to higher ups. We will see.

I know that in MoD and Army, magazine I wrote to, Nowa Technika Wojskowa is being read by various people, so we will see. I talked with some high ranking officers, it seems there is some desiger for wider discussion between MoD, Army and civilian experts, at least within some Army circles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Damian said:

Recently I wrote that K2PL might have development based on phases. So for example initial production batch (phase 1) might not have fully isolated hull ammo storage. However next batches might have, like Altay for example, where Altay T1 does not have isolated hull ammo storage, while Altay T2 will have hull ammo storage isolated. I gave a hint to Colonel Płatek about this, and perhaps he will mention this idea to higher ups. We will see.

I know that in MoD and Army, magazine I wrote to, Nowa Technika Wojskowa is being read by various people, so we will see. I talked with some high ranking officers, it seems there is some desiger for wider discussion between MoD, Army and civilian experts, at least within some Army circles.

Fingers crossed then. Not doing these upgrades while we have to set up the whole production from scratch anyway would be the biggest missed oportunity ever… I’d think Korean side should be interested in this too, it would increase the export potential significantly I’d think. OTOH MON has a tradition of screwing up upgrades/ ignoring advanced version research, as we know unfortunately…

Soo, if You spilled the beans already, is there going to be a nice big article about K2 in next issue of NTW? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Huba said:

Fingers crossed then. Not doing these upgrades while we have to set up the whole production from scratch anyway would be the biggest missed oportunity ever… I’d think Korean side should be interested in this too, it would increase the export potential significantly I’d think. OTOH MON has a tradition of screwing up upgrades/ ignoring advanced version research, as we know unfortunately…

Soo, if You spilled the beans already, is there going to be a nice big article about K2 in next issue of NTW? :)

I must disappoint you, for now I am focusing on more historic oriented articles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello folks, been following the forum for quite a while but this time I've got a few questions I'd like to ask and a few things to contribute and decided to join.

On 8/7/2022 at 2:42 AM, Huba said:

As a side note, there is talk that Polish national military holding PGZ will buy Cegielski factory in Poznań ( famous for starting the anti communist uprising in 1956) and set up K2 production there. Cegielski made an offer for this a few years ago actually, but it was ignored by MoD then. Seems they are coming around now. My 85 years old granddad worked there his whole life, and is a veteran of 1956 - I mentioned this plans when we spoke today, made the guy really happy.

I've read quite a few articles regarding Bumar-Łabędy's position in this deal, including an opinion piece from Solidarności representative of Bumar-Łabędy. From my understanding, Bumar-Łabędy has been the premier tank manufacturer of Poland for the past few decades but recent news suggests that PGZ are planning to acquire Cegielski and manufacture the new armored vehicles in their plants instead of BŁ's, just like the post by Huba writes. What are the motifs behind such move? I know that BŁ is already in charge of Leopard 2PL program but considering the outcome of the project, especially when BŁ are insisting that the slow progresses and debacles are to blame the German side not them, I've gotta scratch my head in PGZ's intentions since I'm quite ignorant in these matters. Wouldn't the change to Cegielski effectively mean shutting down BŁ in the long term? Or are there plans to keep them working?

 

On 8/7/2022 at 2:42 AM, Huba said:

sport a Korean hard kill APS. Fingers crossed this plan will come to fruition.

Poland would probably wait for the Korean APS for the next few years. Since the current HK APS is developed almost a decade ago, it's become a bit obsolete in terms of the newest APS standards, such as the minimum distance, reaction speed and method employed to defeat hostile warhead(current one uses blast fragmentation). There's a newer version of the APS in development for mid 2020s. I'd expect that if Poland acquires Korean APS, it would be the newer system.

Edited by Maro.kyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maro.kyo said:

Hello folks, been following the forum for quite a while but this time I've got a few questions I'd like to ask and a few things to contribute and decided to join.

I've read quite a few articles regarding Bumar-Łabędy's position in this deal, including an opinion piece from Solidarności representative of Bumar-Łabędy. From my understanding, Bumar-Łabędy has been the premier tank manufacturer of Poland for the past few decades but recent news suggests that PGZ are planning to acquire Cegielski and manufacture the new armored vehicles in their plants instead of BŁ's, just like the post by Huba writes. What are the motifs behind such move? I know that BŁ is already in charge of Leopard 2PL program but considering the outcome of the project, especially when BŁ are insisting that the slow progresses and debacles are to blame the German side not them, I've gotta scratch my head in PGZ's intentions since I'm quite ignorant in these matters. Wouldn't the change to Cegielski effectively mean shutting down BŁ in the long term? Or are there plans to keep them working?

 

Poland would probably wait for the Korean APS for the next few years. Since the current HK APS is developed almost a decade ago, it's become a bit obsolete in terms of the newest APS standards, such as the minimum distance, reaction speed and method employed to defeat hostile warhead(current one uses blast fragmentation). There's a newer version of the APS in development for mid 2020s. I'd expect that if Poland acquires Korean APS, it would be the newer system.

1. Zakłady Mechaniczne Bumar-Łabędy have some internal problems. However it seems that PGZ plans are to keep all plants working and spread work between them to increase productivity and number of vehicles produced per year.

2. KAPS is meant to be procured with K2PL tanks, not standard K2 tanks. K2PL production and procurement is planned for 2026.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Maro.kyo said:

Poland would probably wait for the Korean APS for the next few years. Since the current HK APS is developed almost a decade ago, it's become a bit obsolete in terms of the newest APS standards, such as the minimum distance, reaction speed and method employed to defeat hostile warhead(current one uses blast fragmentation). There's a newer version of the APS in development for mid 2020s. I'd expect that if Poland acquires Korean APS, it would be the newer system.

There are more mature systems in the west, at least judging by available information. Korea simply doesn't really share the world with its progress in the KAPS program, so it's an unknown.

If you are referring to Trophy, you're showing quite a few misconceptions:

1. Trophy doesn't exist for much longer than other systems. It simply was the only one that entered service, while others have remained in development or were mothballed. KAPS development started in 2006, making it as old as Trophy.

2. Trophy has accumulated millions of operational hours, giving it a huge maturity advantage which is translated to improvements during its life. The Trophy that is produced today is very much different from the one of 10 or 15 years ago. Other than improved interceptors and launcher design, one point of visual distinction is the addition of optical sensors to the existing radar suite.

3. Trophy's MEFP does not predate the grenade interceptor. It coexisted with it, and is actually a newer design. Grenade-based Iron Fist was developed in parallel to it, and Drozd materially predates both. The MEFP has a single distinct flaw versus the grenade in that it cannot be used against kinetic projectiles. But it has many distinct advantages, like its light weight which enables short reaction times, or its smaller size which enables more stowed munitions, or its single stage action which reduces necessary calculations thus decreasing reaction time and also decreasing cost per munition.

As for anyone's ability to defeat KE projectiles, the Iron Fist is certainly advertised as being capable of that. And I'm certain that in a test environment they can and have already demonstrated well over a decade ago. But detecting a 30mm metal rod flying at 1,700m/s for a mmW is a serious task, one that even global industry leaders say is not really doable. And IR sensors are filling the niche of very accurate but generally unreliable, and thus entirely auxiliary.

4. The current method for grenades is fragment-free blast, not blast fragmentation. The way it works is the blast is very directional and applies force in a ring, and strives to reduce fragments as much as possible to reduce fratricide. This ring of pressure is supposedly enough to either push an APFSDS at a certain point to tilt it, or cut through the relatively soft skin of a missile/RPG.

5. Factually, in spite of quite a few grenade based systems existing on the market, the US and Germany recently opted for Trophy, at least in part due to its maturity and through-life improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

There are more mature systems in the west, at least judging by available information. Korea simply doesn't really share the world with its progress in the KAPS program, so it's an unknown.

If you are referring to Trophy, you're showing quite a few misconceptions:

1. Trophy doesn't exist for much longer than other systems. It simply was the only one that entered service, while others have remained in development or were mothballed. KAPS development started in 2006, making it as old as Trophy.

2. Trophy has accumulated millions of operational hours, giving it a huge maturity advantage which is translated to improvements during its life. The Trophy that is produced today is very much different from the one of 10 or 15 years ago. Other than improved interceptors and launcher design, one point of visual distinction is the addition of optical sensors to the existing radar suite.

3. Trophy's MEFP does not predate the grenade interceptor. It coexisted with it, and is actually a newer design. Grenade-based Iron Fist was developed in parallel to it, and Drozd materially predates both. The MEFP has a single distinct flaw versus the grenade in that it cannot be used against kinetic projectiles. But it has many distinct advantages, like its light weight which enables short reaction times, or its smaller size which enables more stowed munitions, or its single stage action which reduces necessary calculations thus decreasing reaction time and also decreasing cost per munition.

As for anyone's ability to defeat KE projectiles, the Iron Fist is certainly advertised as being capable of that. And I'm certain that in a test environment they can and have already demonstrated well over a decade ago. But detecting a 30mm metal rod flying at 1,700m/s for a mmW is a serious task, one that even global industry leaders say is not really doable. And IR sensors are filling the niche of very accurate but generally unreliable, and thus entirely auxiliary.

4. The current method for grenades is fragment-free blast, not blast fragmentation. The way it works is the blast is very directional and applies force in a ring, and strives to reduce fragments as much as possible to reduce fratricide. This ring of pressure is supposedly enough to either push an APFSDS at a certain point to tilt it, or cut through the relatively soft skin of a missile/RPG.

5. Factually, in spite of quite a few grenade based systems existing on the market, the US and Germany recently opted for Trophy, at least in part due to its maturity and through-life improvements.

Polish Army is interested in procurement of Trophy for our M1A2SEPv3's. APS for K2PL is not choosen yet. In my opinion it will be either Trophy or KAPS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For KAPS Poland will have to invest the R&D money and then it'll still be a risky program. South Korea still imports radar technology, so the scope of what's really replaced here with an alternative is very unclear.

Trophy is NATO-compliant, certified by US and others, and can be produced in the US as well.

If this is about getting ITAR-free items, I think this is a lost cause. Industries are so integrated, there's almost no escape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

For KAPS Poland will have to invest the R&D money and then it'll still be a risky program. South Korea still imports radar technology, so the scope of what's really replaced here with an alternative is very unclear.

Trophy is NATO-compliant, certified by US and others, and can be produced in the US as well.

If this is about getting ITAR-free items, I think this is a lost cause. Industries are so integrated, there's almost no escape.

I dont know what MoD and Army thinks. I only know that they want that at least MBT's will have APS in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Damian said:

1. Zakłady Mechaniczne Bumar-Łabędy have some internal problems. However it seems that PGZ plans are to keep all plants working and spread work between them to increase productivity and number of vehicles produced per year.

2. KAPS is meant to be procured with K2PL tanks, not standard K2 tanks. K2PL production and procurement is planned for 2026.

Thank you for the info.

 

6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

There are more mature systems in the west, at least judging by available information. Korea simply doesn't really share the world with its progress in the KAPS program, so it's an unknown.

If you are referring to Trophy, you're showing quite a few misconceptions:

1. Trophy doesn't exist for much longer than other systems. It simply was the only one that entered service, while others have remained in development or were mothballed. KAPS development started in 2006, making it as old as Trophy.

2. Trophy has accumulated millions of operational hours, giving it a huge maturity advantage which is translated to improvements during its life. The Trophy that is produced today is very much different from the one of 10 or 15 years ago. Other than improved interceptors and launcher design, one point of visual distinction is the addition of optical sensors to the existing radar suite.

3. Trophy's MEFP does not predate the grenade interceptor. It coexisted with it, and is actually a newer design. Grenade-based Iron Fist was developed in parallel to it, and Drozd materially predates both. The MEFP has a single distinct flaw versus the grenade in that it cannot be used against kinetic projectiles. But it has many distinct advantages, like its light weight which enables short reaction times, or its smaller size which enables more stowed munitions, or its single stage action which reduces necessary calculations thus decreasing reaction time and also decreasing cost per munition.

As for anyone's ability to defeat KE projectiles, the Iron Fist is certainly advertised as being capable of that. And I'm certain that in a test environment they can and have already demonstrated well over a decade ago. But detecting a 30mm metal rod flying at 1,700m/s for a mmW is a serious task, one that even global industry leaders say is not really doable. And IR sensors are filling the niche of very accurate but generally unreliable, and thus entirely auxiliary.

4. The current method for grenades is fragment-free blast, not blast fragmentation. The way it works is the blast is very directional and applies force in a ring, and strives to reduce fragments as much as possible to reduce fratricide. This ring of pressure is supposedly enough to either push an APFSDS at a certain point to tilt it, or cut through the relatively soft skin of a missile/RPG.

5. Factually, in spite of quite a few grenade based systems existing on the market, the US and Germany recently opted for Trophy, at least in part due to its maturity and through-life improvements.

2 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

For KAPS Poland will have to invest the R&D money and then it'll still be a risky program. South Korea still imports radar technology, so the scope of what's really replaced here with an alternative is very unclear.

Trophy is NATO-compliant, certified by US and others, and can be produced in the US as well.

If this is about getting ITAR-free items, I think this is a lost cause. Industries are so integrated, there's almost no escape.

On some points I've learnt a few things, on others I'd gotta say that you're saying the same thing as what I'm saying or I've got to correct you.

Firstly, regarding the information about KAPS, I've posted a few information about its sensor suite on the Armor of SK thread so take a look if you're interested. I can answer a few more specific questions, although I can't guarantee.

Regarding the point that there are more mature Western systems on the market or Trophy's incremental improvements, that is exactly what I'm saying by "it's become a bit obsolete in terms of the newest APS standards". So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Like I've said KAPS currently falls behind its Israeli counterparts in terms of reaction speed and minimum launch distance between the adversary and KAPS in which it can retain its effectiveness. Hence the development of 2nd gen KAPS.

Also, I've never said anything like the MEFP warhead predates the grenade, so I don't really understand why you're trying to hit a strawman here. If anything, my post implies that Trophy employs a more advanced thread defeating mechanism than fragmentation of current KAPS. You give valid points about its characteristics compared to grenades and its strengths and weaknesses but don't take into account that the Koreans are more keen on reducing collateral damage to nearby infantries than defeating KE rounds. That's why they are developing their own version of HK(I've meant hard-kill by HK) APS rounds with less fragmentation. As you've described, so-called fragment-free is not exactly "fragment-free". I was wrong to use the word "blast fragmentation" in an exact sense; should have said controlled/directional fragmentation instead.

Your following post is rather on the wrong side of the things. Poland would not be required to invest in R&D since the current KAPS is a fully developed system and next gen is being developed with Korean MoD funding. Naming it "risky" is far-fetched in same sense. Koreans do import some radars for some of their foreign systems, but that has zero implication here when the KAPS radars were developed in Korea by ADD; it's just outright wrong assumption if you ask me.

Edited by Maro.kyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Maro.kyo said:

Regarding the point that there are more mature Western systems on the market or Trophy's incremental improvements, that is exactly what I'm saying by "it's become a bit obsolete in terms of the newest APS standards". So I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Like I've said KAPS currently falls behind its Israeli counterparts in terms of reaction speed and minimum launch distance between the adversary and KAPS in which it can retain its effectiveness. Hence the development of 2nd gen KAPS.

Okay. You said "HK APS" so it was up for interpretation. I didn't interpret it as KAPS, rather as Trophy.

54 minutes ago, Maro.kyo said:

my post implies that Trophy employs a more advanced thread defeating mechanism than fragmentation of current KAPS

Yes and no. KAPS also uses MEFP, but instead of firing it straight from the launcher, it puts a round MEFP plate inside a grenade and it activates close to the threat. 

So same principle, only KAPS adds a grenade. How much it affects safety of infantry is unknown. Both are inherently very low risk. 

However, MEFP are known to be less reliable in disabling the threat warhead than fragment-free blast rings. Around 50% vs 90% IIRC, which is why the former is less suitable for light vehicles, and the defeat can sometimes be labeled as a partial defeat, and thus both Trophy and KAPS are likely higher risk for infantry than something like the Iron Fist. Although, again, I'm a major advocate of the idea that (modern) APS do not add to the danger to infantry, regardless of the type, and can only reduce said danger.

54 minutes ago, Maro.kyo said:

Your following post is rather on the wrong side of the things. Poland would not be required to invest in R&D since the current KAPS is a fully developed system and next gen is being developed with Korean MoD funding.

It's not uncommon in industry to develop a next gen in parallel with current gen.

The parts of development that seem to be missing are integration and integration tests, software reliability tests, intercept reliability tests, and full system reliability tests, and certification. The product doesn't exist as a viable entity until it's proven to be working reliably, and certified, on the tank Poland's buying. 

So unless South Korea started producing KAPS serially and mounting them on in-service K2, Poland will have to either pay, or wait for those integration steps to be completed.

In the meantime, Trophy is ready for installation on the first K2 Poland receives, as is evident by the Norwegian trials.

There's also the fact that KAPS currently has only 2 radars covering the frontal 180°, and lesser issue of only 60° elevation. 

It's not unreasonable to think Poland would request increased coverage, especially considering that even Russia is acquiring top attack munitions and STUAS.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

It's not uncommon in industry to develop a next gen in parallel with current gen.

The parts of development that seem to be missing are integration and integration tests, software reliability tests, intercept reliability tests, and full system reliability tests, and certification. The product doesn't exist as a viable entity until it's proven to be working reliably, and certified, on the tank Poland's buying. 

So unless South Korea started producing KAPS serially and mounting them on in-service K2, Poland will have to either pay, or wait for those integration steps to be completed.

In the meantime, Trophy is ready for installation on the first K2 Poland receives, as is evident by the Norwegian trials.

There's also the fact that KAPS currently has only 2 radars covering the frontal 180°, and lesser issue of only 60° elevation. 

It's not unreasonable to think Poland would request increased coverage, especially considering that even Russia is acquiring top attack munitions and STUAS.

Which the KAPS has gone through? They've tested that system for quite a long time and got it certified in terms of its RoC. Meeting ROKA RoC and development milestone was never the problem for KAPS; MoD's willingness and implementation of the system in conjunction to actual tactics were. It is not much different in terms of its progress of integration and certification on K2 compared to Trophy.

Also like I've posted on the other thread, KAPS has 2 radars, namely L-band MWR and K-band FCR. The K-band FCR has 180° coverage for each, and coupled with 2 IRTs on each side, it gives KAPS HK system a 360° coverage on both IR and RF spectrum.

Edited by Maro.kyo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ISTR that KAPS was fully developed, integration and all. Only reason it didn't go into serial production and installation on existing tanks is because the K2 was already very expensive so to avoid even higher unit cost, procurement went without KAPS but with still an intention to have them procured with it installed in later batches. They may have wanted limited funds towards finishing the development of the South Korean powerpack. It's interrsting to see that KAPS is starting to fall behind the latest APS specs so a new one in development, which makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Maro.kyo said:

Which the KAPS has gone through? They've tested that system for quite a long time and got it certified in terms of its RoC. Meeting ROKA RoC and development milestone was never the problem for KAPS; MoD's willingness and implementation of the system in conjunction to actual tactics were. It is not much different in terms of its progress of integration and certification on K2 compared to Trophy.

Also like I've posted on the other thread, KAPS has 2 radars, namely L-band MWR and K-band FCR. The K-band FCR has 180° coverage for each, and coupled with 2 IRTs on each side, it gives KAPS HK system a 360° coverage on both IR and RF spectrum.

Just so we're clear, is this the configuration you are talking about?

korean-active-protection-system-kaps-3.j

I can see 2 forward facing modules. I searched a lot and couldn't find any rear modules. Only IR for rear, and that's assuming they're looking at wide FoV, which limits their detection range.

Even if we assume the absolute best case, and the side facing Rx modules have a 180° FoV, that's not really a workable solution - everything at the tank's rear is in a region of ambiguity.

 

I'll take your word on it being certified by RoK MoD. That still doesn't mean it's going through the development processes necessary to keep it up to date. And talk of "next gen" or KAPS 2.0 smells like industry talk of 'we can make it modern but pay up first'.

The German Rheinmetall ADS/RAP existed for a long time, and they claim it's now in its 3rd generation. But Germany itself preferred Trophy due to maturity advantage, or in other words RAP wasn't mature enough. 

Almost always, development stops at the expensive part, where companies present the product and look for a launch customer.

So if South Korea wants to ensure the success of its KAPS in Poland, it needs to start buying it and itself, including an updated version, otherwise it would be at a significant disadvantage.

Edited by Mighty_Zuk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Just so we're clear, is this the configuration you are talking about?

korean-active-protection-system-kaps-3.j

I can see 2 forward facing modules. I searched a lot and couldn't find any rear modules. Only IR for rear, and that's assuming they're looking at wide FoV, which limits their detection range.

Even if we assume the absolute best case, and the side facing Rx modules have a 180° FoV, that's not really a workable solution - everything at the tank's rear is in a region of ambiguity.

 

I'll take your word on it being certified by RoK MoD. That still doesn't mean it's going through the development processes necessary to keep it up to date. And talk of "next gen" or KAPS 2.0 smells like industry talk of 'we can make it modern but pay up first'.

The German Rheinmetall ADS/RAP existed for a long time, and they claim it's now in its 3rd generation. But Germany itself preferred Trophy due to maturity advantage, or in other words RAP wasn't mature enough. 

Almost always, development stops at the expensive part, where companies present the product and look for a launch customer.

So if South Korea wants to ensure the success of its KAPS in Poland, it needs to start buying it and itself, including an updated version, otherwise it would be at a significant disadvantage.

No.

Also it is not really wise to compare German APSs like Rheinmetall ADS/RAP(or other western products like that of Diehl or Raytheon) with KAPS since they have differeing levels of government involvement. Like I've said and will say again, the problem concerning KAPS was and is not the development maturity.

Also, KAPS development is done by ADD, not a private entity. In recent years Korean MoD have transferred a lot of development works and responsibilities to the private sector, namely to Hanwha, LIG and KAI, but traditional gov. institutes like ADD are still responsible for quite a few things, the next gen KAPS being one of them. So calling that "smells like industry talk of 'we can make it modern but pay up first'." or other assumptions of your only generally implies that you've misunderstood or lack information on the system in place at Korea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Is there any reluctance to buy Israeli APS in light of the political crisis? 

AFAIK no, but it does not mean that they are not considering possible alternatives. I know Army and MoD are very interested in US Army MAPS.

Edited by Damian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...