Poland Buying Korean Tanks?

[Mighty_Zuk]

That's interesting. Didn't know the Type 90 had it.

I'm also sure I've heard the Leclerc has it. Any good info on this one, anyone?

[TTK Ciar]

Well, every damn tank today is horribly vulnerable to having sensors torn off by fragmentation, simply due the fact there are so many of those today on tanks. Sight heads are large, hard to armor and have to be open for a tank to be operational. Nothing you can do about that.

What you say is basically true. As Ssnake said, armored shutters are a thing, and they help, but it's still a problem.

 

Sensors are extremely vulnerable while they are being used, and somewhat vulnerable when they are not. Some button up more snugly than others.

 

Thinking about it made me wonder what we could do to change that.

 

Some alloys of aluminum are transparent to some frequencies of X-rays, and steel armor reflects X-rays nicely, so perhaps an X-ray sensor could be designed which detected enemy tanks from under aluminum armor?

 

There are some problems with this -- afaik the permissive alloys of aluminum make horrible armor, and the compact X-ray emitters I know of aren't electronically steerable, but perhaps there are ways around those problems.

 

Just thinking out loud. Hopefully folks will point out other problems.

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

Well, every damn tank today is horribly vulnerable to having sensors torn off by fragmentation, simply due the fact there are so many of those today on tanks. Sight heads are large, hard to armor and have to be open for a tank to be operational. Nothing you can do about that.

What you say is basically true. As Ssnake said, armored shutters are a thing, and they help, but it's still a problem.

 

Sensors are extremely vulnerable while they are being used, and somewhat vulnerable when they are not. Some button up more snugly than others.

 

Thinking about it made me wonder what we could do to change that.

 

Some alloys of aluminum are transparent to some frequencies of X-rays, and steel armor reflects X-rays nicely, so perhaps an X-ray sensor could be designed which detected enemy tanks from under aluminum armor?

 

There are some problems with this -- afaik the permissive alloys of aluminum make horrible armor, and the compact X-ray emitters I know of aren't electronically steerable, but perhaps there are ways around those problems.

 

Just thinking out loud. Hopefully folks will point out other problems.

Isn't it super dangerous to literally everyone around the tank, especially if the device is emitting in such power that allows detection at relevant ranges?

Radars are far more viable, I believe.

[JasonJ]

 

You said "limited" in reference to AI system for initial implementation by "2021/22". So that shouldn't mean the full package of self-driving or the increase in situational awareness with use of auto scaning 360 view cameras and sensors. The point of the Type 10 wasto show elements of "AI" already being fielded. You initially responded to it by down playing it as just "storage" and "limited analysis" but obviously the information sharing and what you later conceded "can assign targets" is more than just data storage. But why does it have to be like pulling teeth to get proper acknowledgment?

 

And one aspect that you seem to be overlooking is the probably the most effective feature which is the information with other tanks in a platoon and the auto assignment of targets to create "cooperative attack" to prevent overkill but also means improving engagement efficiency. So even your late concession of "can assign targets" still over looks that the target assignment is being spread throughout the platoon of tanks, not just an activity happen within a single tank that's not in sync with the other platoon tanks.

 

But well Israel STRONK! yeah :)

 

Nice videos and general update on the R&D of things

The core of the system will be fielded next year, but will not reach its full potential until 2026/7.

What is described about the Type 10 does show an AI, but I defined some clear goals for the AI of next gen AFVs. AI in itself is not just one thing. It can be defined in many ways. In a way, existing FCS and BMS already show limited AI, but it does not provide those capabilities we expect to see fielded soon.

 

The sharing of information between tanks in a platoon is not the unique aspect. The unique aspect of the Type 10 is the allocation of targets itself, between tanks of a platoon. But one might ask, where does the infantry come into the picture? Does the Type 10 platoon get fed from independently sourced data, or does it get data from other sources like infantry and aerial assets? Can it allow target allocation to other elements?

Where does the company coordination come into play? Or the battalion?

Don't get me wrong. The idea of sharing targets between platoon mates is great. But if existing interfaces and data buses allow, and within permissible latency, I think the framework should be expanded.

 

And of course, the main point here is that even those Type 10 tanks in the same platoon are fed data that a human gunner or TC acquired, and sent to the other tanks. The AI I was talking about, is one whose purpose is to allow tanks to operate independently if needed, by automatically and independently acquiring targets that the human crew is unable to detect. Everything else, including target allocation and sharing, is in the realm of BMS which I intentionally separated.

 

 

 

 

Green - Type 10 can automatically track targets, and can assign targets, but it does not automatically scan the environment. It does not provide the crew with a proper 360° picture. It does not add any of the above mentioned capabilities, other than perhaps some analysis of the target. But it's a far cry from what's being done now. It improves upon an old technology, but does not add any new technology.

 

 

 

 

So tanks that could identify prioritise, track and engage targets and automatically assign targets between tanks in a platoon already existed before the Type 10. Which ones were those then?

 

I do not know. My intention however was that it does not add any new technology that does not exist in what I described earlier. Not that all tanks were already equipped with such systems. And the system that exists on the Type 10, if it is as described, is not one that would fit the needs of all potential users. Depending on the situation, the BMS should be flexible enough to prioritize targets on anything from the individual level, to brigade level. I do not understand the fixation on the platoon level, and especially the exclusion of other maneuvering elements from the equation.

Are you sure this is an accurate description of the system? I'd like to read more.

 

To your first paragraph, yes, you defined clear goals for the 2026/27. But the early 2021/22 was not well defined. So that combined with your early rebuttal about Type 10. That's the only extent that I made posts. I think we have agreement on this point now. I think it is still up for debate as to whether or not such 360 view auto scanning is to be implemented. R&D and actual production are different things. Also, there is cost/priority for each tank design. For example, Type 10 and K2 have the adjustable suspension because of defense operations in home terrain. In fact that tech has been out since Type 74 and the S-Tank. US had testing of it too IIRC before or part of MBT70 IIRC. But that tech didn't find its way into a number of MBTs even today. There is costs associated to its addition. The 360 auto sensor view might be a critical for Israel because of high likelihood of operations in tight urban areas so a person creeping up with an RPG from behind and around the corner of a building or from the rooftop and be detected immediately and engaged sooner. The expense of incorporating that kind of system might be lower in priority for other countries when designing a new MBT so even if a new tank designed in 2030 may still choose to not incorporate such features to that extent. And of course, the vulnerability of such systems to machine gun or autocannon spray, or nearby explosions is another cost/benefit factor for designers of other countries to consider.

 

To the first sentence of your second paragraph. I never claimed that the Type 10 FCS info sharing was unique. I actually don't know if it is, it sounds nifty and fairly new, but I don't know what systems are in the latest of other tanks like the latest Leo2A7 NexGen or whatever its called or T-90MS with all its gadgets on the turret or whatever the latest M1A2 is called.. M1A2 SEPv3 or something.. what might be just straight up called M1A3, something, IDK,. I was only posting to the earlier claim so I feel no need to be pressed in having to go into all this comparison with other very new MBTs which others are better informed than me. I have no doubt that the latest Israeli tanks are very advanced and have all sorts of info sharing and sensors and naturally as your videos show, Israel is looking into evolving situational awareness to a new level for an uncertain future.

 

As for the rest of your second paragraph with all the questions that might be asked, yes, as part of C4I, the Type 10s are part of what is called Regiment Command Control system (基幹連隊指揮統制システム) or ReCs in which tank units and infantry units can be formed into one body for combined tactical maneuvers. Its said that information provided by OH-1 and AH-64 is to be added to ReCs (although with only 12 AH-64Ds, why bother with them..)

 

To the third paragraph, auto detection.. yes Type 10 doesn't have 360 and autoscan for the complete field of view. But as I described, there is a degree of of the FCS doing the thinking part that sort of implies the crew can't do at least on a moments instance such as it doing the classification of targets, it acquire search, detect, classify targets, and indiscriminate them according to threat level. This is said to occur automatically. Call it AI or not but its the FCS doing it first, not the crew. Which one has to wonder how that actually works in actual combat. Maybe works as described in common engagement situations. But maybe some oddball situations that can occur in battle might make the system not work as intended. But who knows.. it's probably designed in a way that can be overlooked by the TC. At any rate, the biggest difference between your explanation and what is described about the Type 10 FCS is the 360 field of view.

 

To your last paragraph that is replying to the second quote, the discussion about the FCS is at the platoon level. There is still the whole C4I which brings it up to regiment level. Info is in Japanese wiki. Other websites just seem to echo it. Japanese wiki may still have erros of course. Like it says that high frequency radar is on the tank, but in reality, it doesn't seem to have it. But the bulk of part about the FCS sources from a 2014 book I once considered getting but figured I had enough on my hands and that anything published about the Type 10 5-10 years later will probably be more illuminating.

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/10%E5%BC%8F%E6%88%A6%E8%BB%8A#%E6%8C%87%E6%8F%AE%E3%83%BB%E5%B0%84%E6%92%83%E7%B5%B1%E5%88%B6%E8%A3%85%E7%BD%AE

 

But usually whenever the Type 10 is making a fire demonstration, the networking features is briefly described.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYX7qNXLZHo

Edited February 9, 2020 by JasonJ

[Chris Werb]

 

 

. But why does it have to be like pulling teeth to get proper acknowledgment?

 

Because it's not...

 

 

You know, shoving nationality into debates out of frustration, really detracts from your credibility. If you want to have a healthy debate, please refrain from doing so.

 

 

LOL. You were the one that started the nationality thing. Is there any piece of new military technology since 1948 that Israel didn't invent?

[Stuart Galbraith]

The BV.

[Chris Werb]

I do not know. My intention however was that it does not add any new technology that does not exist in what I described earlier. Not that all tanks were already equipped with such systems. And the system that exists on the Type 10, if it is as described, is not one that would fit the needs of all potential users. Depending on the situation, the BMS should be flexible enough to prioritize targets on anything from the individual level, to brigade level. I do not understand the fixation on the platoon level, and especially the exclusion of other maneuvering elements from the equation.

 

 

 

Are you sure this is an accurate description of the system? I'd like to read more.

 

 

There you go again....

 

Doesn't work exactly like a much more recent Israeli system...

Customers won't want it because it doesn't work like a much more recent Israeli system...

Is crap because it only works at platoon level...

Description can't be right because it violates a fundamental physical law by doing things an Israeli system didn't do at the time...

[Chris Werb]

The BV.

 

They took the British one on the Cent and had upgraded it into a Star Trek Replicator by the Merkava 3B.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Okay now you're just being a Glenn level idiot. If you don't want to have intellectual debates, don't comment in this thread.

And if you refrained from being an idiot, you'd notice I have specifically mentioned this is not an Israeli-only effort, but an ideologically shared western one.

This is exactly why the American demands of the next gen AFV are nearly identical to Israel's.

I can only bring Israeli examples because the IDF structured the program for a tech demonstration first, and platform development later. The American structure is first platform then systems.

[Rick]

Okay now you're just being a Glenn level idiot. If you don't want to have intellectual debates, don't comment in this thread.

And if you refrained from being an idiot, you'd notice I have specifically mentioned this is not an Israeli-only effort, but an ideologically shared western one.

This is exactly why the American demands of the next gen AFV are nearly identical to Israel's.

I can only bring Israeli examples because the IDF structured the program for a tech demonstration first, and platform development later. The American structure is first platform then systems.

Ex-sailor question; does Israel have an Infantry Fighting Vehicle similar to Europe, ex-Soviet, or U.S. types?

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

 

Okay now you're just being a Glenn level idiot. If you don't want to have intellectual debates, don't comment in this thread.

And if you refrained from being an idiot, you'd notice I have specifically mentioned this is not an Israeli-only effort, but an ideologically shared western one.

This is exactly why the American demands of the next gen AFV are nearly identical to Israel's.

I can only bring Israeli examples because the IDF structured the program for a tech demonstration first, and platform development later. The American structure is first platform then systems.

Ex-sailor question; does Israel have an Infantry Fighting Vehicle similar to Europe, ex-Soviet, or U.S. types?

Unfortunately no. This massive gap (IMO at least) was only truly realized recently, and work began on turreted versions of the Namer and Eitan. But fielding will be long, and critical mass will not be achieved anytime soon.

 

Any firepower the infantry needed, the army decided the tanks will provide. With such an abundance of tanks, it made SOME sense. But independence is still required, and it's sad they only started working on it recently.

 

Although improving impressively with every year, and making huge strides since 2005 (intifada's end and start of switch to high end warfare against near peers), there are many substantial issues the IDF ground forces must tackle before reaching their desired objectives. Some are indeed being worked on, and some are just talk and nothing more.

Edited February 9, 2020 by Mighty_Zuk

[Chris Werb]

Realistically, what peers could Israel face that would have the remotest chance of taking them on successfully, conventionally at some point over the next decade or two? You mentioned recently that Israel disbanded or intends to disband the last Merkava 2 brigade. In their existing security situation that would appear a perfectly sensible thing to do.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Realistically, what peers could Israel face that would have the remotest chance of taking them on successfully, conventionally at some point over the next decade or two? You mentioned recently that Israel disbanded or intends to disband the last Merkava 2 brigade. In their existing security situation that would appear a perfectly sensible thing to do.

Egypt, Syria, and reshaped Hezbollah. Of them, only Egypt is a near peer. But history has shown that in less than 20 years, the reference threat can turn completely, from multiple peers to low intensity warfare, and back to peers. The IDF needed to constantly move between preparations to high intensity to low intensity and it was always with a delay that resulted in unnecessary losses and some inefficiency. So now the strategy is to constantly be prepared for multi-front warfare against peers, with some modifications always in place to be ready for low intensity and hybrid warfare.

 

Sure, disbanding a whole brigade sounds bad, but Israel has another 11 of those which might still be a bit much considering it wants "only" 10 expanded Brigade Combat Teams. It still expands the maneuvering forces by creating additional light infantry units for increased strategic mobility.

 

Egypt is a semi-stable country. A political change is not expected anytime soon, but it had seen some government overthrows. In the future, it can unilaterally tear up the peace treaty.

Syria is recovering, and only the Turkish invasion is a setback. Overall, I expect Syria to regain substantial military capabilities until 2030, and to become a significant threat again before 2040.

Hezbollah is constantly evolving, and from simple Katyusha and Grad rockets plus some advanced ATGMs, it has evolved to operate limited armored formations, cannon artillery, has deep penetration units, and operates in formations of battalions. They were once in possession of simple cruise missiles, but could possess by 2030 far more advanced and capable ones, and from long range rockets they could advance to SRBMs.

 

Even though most of Israel's enemies are "low tech", they still have substantial capabilities to inflict a lot of harm in a very short time, even if they have to expend most of their munitions to do so. To counter that, the IDF has been particularly interested in tech that reduces engagement times, to permit its forces to clear out vast areas as fast as possible.

[Chris Werb]

 

Realistically, what peers could Israel face that would have the remotest chance of taking them on successfully, conventionally at some point over the next decade or two? You mentioned recently that Israel disbanded or intends to disband the last Merkava 2 brigade. In their existing security situation that would appear a perfectly sensible thing to do.

Egypt, Syria, and reshaped Hezbollah. Of them, only Egypt is a near peer. But history has shown that in less than 20 years, the reference threat can turn completely, from multiple peers to low intensity warfare, and back to peers. The IDF needed to constantly move between preparations to high intensity to low intensity and it was always with a delay that resulted in unnecessary losses and some inefficiency. So now the strategy is to constantly be prepared for multi-front warfare against peers, with some modifications always in place to be ready for low intensity and hybrid warfare.

 

Sure, disbanding a whole brigade sounds bad, but Israel has another 11 of those which might still be a bit much considering it wants "only" 10 expanded Brigade Combat Teams. It still expands the maneuvering forces by creating additional light infantry units for increased strategic mobility.

 

Egypt is a semi-stable country. A political change is not expected anytime soon, but it had seen some government overthrows. In the future, it can unilaterally tear up the peace treaty.

Syria is recovering, and only the Turkish invasion is a setback. Overall, I expect Syria to regain substantial military capabilities until 2030, and to become a significant threat again before 2040.

Hezbollah is constantly evolving, and from simple Katyusha and Grad rockets plus some advanced ATGMs, it has evolved to operate limited armored formations, cannon artillery, has deep penetration units, and operates in formations of battalions. They were once in possession of simple cruise missiles, but could possess by 2030 far more advanced and capable ones, and from long range rockets they could advance to SRBMs.

 

Even though most of Israel's enemies are "low tech", they still have substantial capabilities to inflict a lot of harm in a very short time, even if they have to expend most of their munitions to do so. To counter that, the IDF has been particularly interested in tech that reduces engagement times, to permit its forces to clear out vast areas as fast as possible.

 

 

I think that's a very good assessment, Zuk. However, I think it would be very pessimistic to see Egypt becoming a peer threat in even 20 years. Syria more so given it's economic devastation and remaining internal problems, despite its apparently much deeper emnity. Both have pretty lacklustre regimes in charge and economies that won't be able to fund a massive increase in capabilities in the near future even if their military institutions could absorb it. It wouldn't just need an influx of funds and technology but of competence. I know that happened before, but Israel is so way ahead in so many ways and has so many alternative means of dealing with the kind of massed armoured forces that would need to be deployed to invade that it's hard to see a repetition of 1973, even allowing for the changed geography. Israel wouldn't stand still over the next 20 years either. So, I agree losing an armoured brigade, given that the existing ones are becoming ever more capable vs an opposition that is not, is a big deal at all.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Egypt already has a navy far larger than Israel's, and its air force could soon rival Israel's, if we factor out the F-35. In the land army, it can give Israel some serious trouble. But although it's unlikely given Egypt's recent alliance of convenience with Israel on the gas dispute (Israel-Greece-Egypt-Cyprus-Italy alliance vs a Turkey-Libya alliance), preparations should be made.

Syria itself also does not need to take independent military action against Israel in the form of an invasion. It could simply build forces to create a deterrence and allow Iran to further build up its forces there. After sufficient preparations by Iran in Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, there could be an actual coalition that could try and rival Israel in its northern border. For this purpose, they're also prepping up Hamas and PIJ, to give Israel enough pain to dedicate at least some of its precious maneuvering forces and air defenses away from the actual fight.

[Chris Werb]

I really don't think Egypt's navy is even a factor for Israel - it's more of a national prestige thing for Egypt. I think Egypt attacking from the air would put them at odds with their sponsors, the United States. However, a larger problem Israel has is its lack of strategic depth which poses a risk from even relatively moderate range precision munitions. It's airpower is particularly vulnerable as it is dependent on runways (I'm sure they have rapid runway clearance and repair in place, but it's still going to be problematic in the first few days from the onset of a conflict). I'm a lot more confident of their ability to shoot down ballistic and quasi ballistic threats than cruise missiles. I read somewhere (might have been yourself) that Israel is looking at protected dispersed underground storage for key munitions etc., which would make a lot of sense.

[Rick]

 

Realistically, what peers could Israel face that would have the remotest chance of taking them on successfully, conventionally at some point over the next decade or two? You mentioned recently that Israel disbanded or intends to disband the last Merkava 2 brigade. In their existing security situation that would appear a perfectly sensible thing to do.

Egypt, Syria, and reshaped Hezbollah. Of them, only Egypt is a near peer. But history has shown that in less than 20 years, the reference threat can turn completely, from multiple peers to low intensity warfare, and back to peers. The IDF needed to constantly move between preparations to high intensity to low intensity and it was always with a delay that resulted in unnecessary losses and some inefficiency. So now the strategy is to constantly be prepared for multi-front warfare against peers, with some modifications always in place to be ready for low intensity and hybrid warfare.

 

Sure, disbanding a whole brigade sounds bad, but Israel has another 11 of those which might still be a bit much considering it wants "only" 10 expanded Brigade Combat Teams. It still expands the maneuvering forces by creating additional light infantry units for increased strategic mobility.

 

Egypt is a semi-stable country. A political change is not expected anytime soon, but it had seen some government overthrows. In the future, it can unilaterally tear up the peace treaty.

Syria is recovering, and only the Turkish invasion is a setback. Overall, I expect Syria to regain substantial military capabilities until 2030, and to become a significant threat again before 2040.

Hezbollah is constantly evolving, and from simple Katyusha and Grad rockets plus some advanced ATGMs, it has evolved to operate limited armored formations, cannon artillery, has deep penetration units, and operates in formations of battalions. They were once in possession of simple cruise missiles, but could possess by 2030 far more advanced and capable ones, and from long range rockets they could advance to SRBMs.

 

Even though most of Israel's enemies are "low tech", they still have substantial capabilities to inflict a lot of harm in a very short time, even if they have to expend most of their munitions to do so. To counter that, the IDF has been particularly interested in tech that reduces engagement times, to permit its forces to clear out vast areas as fast as possible.

 

Reference to the bolden type. To me that reads chemical weapons.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Rick

[Mighty_Zuk]

To you.

 

Anyway, I think we didn't cover one argument in this topic, and that is Poland's current interest to upgrade existing tanks. The Leo 2PL standard is pretty limited in scope, and if they had the money they're willing to allocate to an alleged PL-SK deal, they'd upgrade all their Leos.

They'd also try to buy up more used Leo 2A4 and upgrade them to the latest standard to replace T-tanks in service.

 

This could mean two things:

 

1)They don't really have the money, and whatever they can shift to acquisition after already making massive investments in IADS, they prefer to spend on more strategic capabilities first, like F-35 fighters and advanced capabilities for SEAD/DEAD and operation in contested airspace.

 

2)They have a general distrust in German industry and would rather suffer some deficiencies in the ground forces than create a long term dependence on Germany.

 

Both are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Mighty_Zuk

[Chris Werb]

I think Poland's belief that it's air force would even get off the ground in the event of a conflict with Russia is bizarre. F-35s are an enormous waste of money. That's way off topic though. Has anyone heard any more about the potential K2 buy?

[JasonJ]

I think Poland's belief that it's air force would even get off the ground in the event of a conflict with Russia is bizarre. F-35s are an enormous waste of money. That's way off topic though. Has anyone heard any more about the potential K2 buy?

Here's a korean web page that has a little more detail towards the end of it. Parenthesis are my on add-in comments. There's a part saying that according to Polish media, Poland was considering three other tanks which were the Challenger 2, the T-90, and the M1. The Challenger 2 was a no go because of weak success in international sales and the T-90 was no good because of geopolitics (obviously). So that left the M1 as the remaining strong competitor to the K2. A security think tank sort of group called TNI speculates that the K2 might have won because of greater willingness for ROK to export tank technology than the US, such as the 120L55 gun, armor tech, and K279 ammunition. K2 does not get produced with APS ability (even through during K2 development, APS was developed for it) but procuring the K2 tanks even without APS might be viewed as cost saving for Poland (ROK produced its own K2 tanks without APS for cost reasons too). M1 can carry 34 to 36 rounds in the turret but K2 only can carry 16 in the turret due to autoloader.

 

No mention of Leo 2.

 

 

 

폴란드 매체 티솔닷피엘(Tysol.pl)은 25일(현지시각) 현대로템이 폴란드의 요구사항에 맞춘 K2 전차와 기술이전을 제안했다고 보도했다. 미국의 외교 안보 전문 매체 더내셔널인터레스트(이하 TNI)는 한국의 영자신문 보도를 인용해 비슷한 내용을 보도했다. 앞서 폴란드 군사 매체 '디펜스 24'도 지난 13일 비슷한 취지로 보도했다.

 

이 매체 보도에 따르면, 현대로템이 제안한 계약은 90억 달러 규모로 의 탱크 계약을 결론내려고 한다. 이 계약이 성사되면 현대로템의 통합 방어 기술을 해외로 수출하는 첫 사례가 된다.

 

현대로템이 제안한 K2 '흑표' 전차는 차세대 전차로 정평나 있다. 주포로 구경 120mm 55구경장 장포신 활강포를 갖춰 사거리와 관통력이 뛰어나다. 구경 12.7mm와 7.62mm 기관총을 부무장으로 장착한다. 길이 10.8m, 너ㅏ2비 3.6m,높이 2.4m에 무게는 55t이다. 자동장전장치를 갖춰 승무원은 3명이다.1500마력의 힘을 내는 강력한 디젤 엔진 덕분에 포장 도로에서 최고 시속 75km의 속도로 주행한다. 야지에서도 시속 50km의 속도를 내 기동력이 탁월하다.

 

또 자동탐지추적 기능과 피아식별장치, 자동항법 기능, 미사일과 리에저 경고장치,복합연망 발사장치, 화학탐지기 등을 갖추고 있다.

 

폭발반응장갑 등으로 방어력이 뛰어나다. 잠수도하장치를 장착할 경우 수심 4.1m의 강도 건널 수 있다. K2 흑표전차는 현대로템이 한국 육군에 100대를 실전배치하고 106대를 생산 중일 만큼 능력을 검증받은 전차이다.

 

앞서 현대로템은 지난 2008년 독일 업체를 제치고 K2 전차를 터키에 수출했다.

 

폴란드 매체 보도에 따르면, 현대로템 대표는 K2 전차의 기능을 자세하게 설명하기 위해 폴란드 공무원을 여러 차례 만났다.

 

폴란드 정부는 노후 전차 대체를 위해 자체 전차 개발을 선택했다. 그동안 폴란드 차기 전차로 미국의 M1에이브럼스 전차, 러시아의 T-90, 영국의 챌린저 전차 등이 거론됐는데 폴란드가 자체 개발 쪽으로 선회하면서 K2 전차를 개발해 한국 육군에 납품하고 기술도 이전하겠다는 현대로템은 강력한 경쟁자로 떠올랐다.

 

TNI는 현재의 지정학 여건을 감안하면 폴란드가 잠재 적국인 러시아의 전차를 수입하는 것은 불가능하며 영국의 챌린저 2 전차는 수출 성공사례가 없는 만큼 K2의 경쟁자는 미국의 M1에이브럼스뿐이라고 주장했다. TNI는 한국은 첨단 기술 이전에 더 적극성을 띠고 있으며 K2 계약에는 첨단 장갑기술과 120mm 55 구경장 포의 생산 세부내용, k279 관통탄 생산기술 등이 포함될 것으로 추정했다.

 

M1탱크는 포탑에 34~36발의 포탑을 수납하고 있지만 K2는 자동장전장치 때문에 그 절반인 16발만 수납하고 있을 뿐이다. 또 M1은 APS 능동방어장치를 즉시 장착할 수 있지만 K2는 그렇지 못하다. 그럼에도 K2는 미사일 접근을 알리는 통합레이더를 갖추고 있다.

 

TNI는 폴란드고 생산단가를 낮추기 위해 APS가 없어도 K2를 선택할 것으로 예상했다.

 

현대로템은 자체 개발한 K2 전차의 사양과 기능을 설명하기 위해 폴란드 공무원들을 여러 차례 만났다. 보도에 따르면,폴란드 정부는 현대로템과 협력해 2023년께 차세대 탱크를 생산할 것으로 알려졌다.

 

현대로템 측은 이 매체에 "폴란드 정부는 차세대 전차 생산을 위한 공개 입찰을 상반기 중 발표할 계획인 것으로 알고 있으며 우리는 여기에 분명히 참여할 것"이라면서 "전체 프로젝트는 800대의 전차를 생산하기 위해 2단계로 진행될 것이라고 한다"고 전했다.

 

현대로템은 이미 지난 2008년 독일 제치고 터키에 K2 탱크를 수출했으며 터키는 현대로템의 K2를 기반으로 '알타이'탱크를 생산하고 있다. 현대로템이 폴란드에서도 '탱크 수출 대박'을 터뜨릴지에 이목이 집중된다.

http://m.g-enews.com/view.php?ud=202001261557149667c5557f8da8_1&ssk=pcmain_0_1

[Nobu]

I think Poland's belief that it's air force would even get off the ground in the event of a conflict with Russia is bizarre. F-35s are an enormous waste of money. That's way off topic though. Has anyone heard any more about the potential K2 buy?

 

Poland is more interested in the prestige that comes with operation of the F-35 than anything else.

 

Purchasing main battle tanks from those it wants to impress with its prestige would defeat the purpose.

[RETAC21]

I think Poland's belief that it's air force would even get off the ground in the event of a conflict with Russia is bizarre. F-35s are an enormous waste of money. That's way off topic though. Has anyone heard any more about the potential K2 buy?

 

I would say Sweden can teach them how to make it more survivable, but they already have some idea on how this works.

[Mighty_Zuk]

 

 

I think Poland's belief that it's air force would even get off the ground in the event of a conflict with Russia is bizarre. F-35s are an enormous waste of money. That's way off topic though. Has anyone heard any more about the potential K2 buy?

Here's a korean web page that has a little more detail towards the end of it. Parenthesis are my on add-in comments. There's a part saying that according to Polish media, Poland was considering three other tanks which were the Challenger 2, the T-90, and the M1. The Challenger 2 was a no go because of weak success in international sales and the T-90 was no good because of geopolitics (obviously). So that left the M1 as the remaining strong competitor to the K2. A security think tank sort of group called TNI speculates that the K2 might have won because of greater willingness for ROK to export tank technology than the US, such as the 120L55 gun, armor tech, and K279 ammunition. K2 does not get produced with APS ability (even through during K2 development, APS was developed for it) but procuring the K2 tanks even without APS might be viewed as cost saving for Poland (ROK produced its own K2 tanks without APS for cost reasons too). M1 can carry 34 to 36 rounds in the turret but K2 only can carry 16 in the turret due to autoloader.

 

No mention of Leo 2.

 

폴란드 매체 티솔닷피엘(Tysol.pl)은 25일(현지시각) 현대로템이 폴란드의 요구사항에 맞춘 K2 전차와 기술이전을 제안했다고 보도했다. 미국의 외교 안보 전문 매체 더내셔널인터레스트(이하 TNI)는 한국의 영자신문 보도를 인용해 비슷한 내용을 보도했다. 앞서 폴란드 군사 매체 '디펜스 24'도 지난 13일 비슷한 취지로 보도했다.

 

이 매체 보도에 따르면, 현대로템이 제안한 계약은 90억 달러 규모로 의 탱크 계약을 결론내려고 한다. 이 계약이 성사되면 현대로템의 통합 방어 기술을 해외로 수출하는 첫 사례가 된다.

 

현대로템이 제안한 K2 '흑표' 전차는 차세대 전차로 정평나 있다. 주포로 구경 120mm 55구경장 장포신 활강포를 갖춰 사거리와 관통력이 뛰어나다. 구경 12.7mm와 7.62mm 기관총을 부무장으로 장착한다. 길이 10.8m, 너ㅏ2비 3.6m,높이 2.4m에 무게는 55t이다. 자동장전장치를 갖춰 승무원은 3명이다.1500마력의 힘을 내는 강력한 디젤 엔진 덕분에 포장 도로에서 최고 시속 75km의 속도로 주행한다. 야지에서도 시속 50km의 속도를 내 기동력이 탁월하다.

 

또 자동탐지추적 기능과 피아식별장치, 자동항법 기능, 미사일과 리에저 경고장치,복합연망 발사장치, 화학탐지기 등을 갖추고 있다.

 

폭발반응장갑 등으로 방어력이 뛰어나다. 잠수도하장치를 장착할 경우 수심 4.1m의 강도 건널 수 있다. K2 흑표전차는 현대로템이 한국 육군에 100대를 실전배치하고 106대를 생산 중일 만큼 능력을 검증받은 전차이다.

 

앞서 현대로템은 지난 2008년 독일 업체를 제치고 K2 전차를 터키에 수출했다.

 

폴란드 매체 보도에 따르면, 현대로템 대표는 K2 전차의 기능을 자세하게 설명하기 위해 폴란드 공무원을 여러 차례 만났다.

 

폴란드 정부는 노후 전차 대체를 위해 자체 전차 개발을 선택했다. 그동안 폴란드 차기 전차로 미국의 M1에이브럼스 전차, 러시아의 T-90, 영국의 챌린저 전차 등이 거론됐는데 폴란드가 자체 개발 쪽으로 선회하면서 K2 전차를 개발해 한국 육군에 납품하고 기술도 이전하겠다는 현대로템은 강력한 경쟁자로 떠올랐다.

 

TNI는 현재의 지정학 여건을 감안하면 폴란드가 잠재 적국인 러시아의 전차를 수입하는 것은 불가능하며 영국의 챌린저 2 전차는 수출 성공사례가 없는 만큼 K2의 경쟁자는 미국의 M1에이브럼스뿐이라고 주장했다. TNI는 한국은 첨단 기술 이전에 더 적극성을 띠고 있으며 K2 계약에는 첨단 장갑기술과 120mm 55 구경장 포의 생산 세부내용, k279 관통탄 생산기술 등이 포함될 것으로 추정했다.

 

M1탱크는 포탑에 34~36발의 포탑을 수납하고 있지만 K2는 자동장전장치 때문에 그 절반인 16발만 수납하고 있을 뿐이다. 또 M1은 APS 능동방어장치를 즉시 장착할 수 있지만 K2는 그렇지 못하다. 그럼에도 K2는 미사일 접근을 알리는 통합레이더를 갖추고 있다.

 

TNI는 폴란드고 생산단가를 낮추기 위해 APS가 없어도 K2를 선택할 것으로 예상했다.

 

현대로템은 자체 개발한 K2 전차의 사양과 기능을 설명하기 위해 폴란드 공무원들을 여러 차례 만났다. 보도에 따르면,폴란드 정부는 현대로템과 협력해 2023년께 차세대 탱크를 생산할 것으로 알려졌다.

 

현대로템 측은 이 매체에 "폴란드 정부는 차세대 전차 생산을 위한 공개 입찰을 상반기 중 발표할 계획인 것으로 알고 있으며 우리는 여기에 분명히 참여할 것"이라면서 "전체 프로젝트는 800대의 전차를 생산하기 위해 2단계로 진행될 것이라고 한다"고 전했다.

 

현대로템은 이미 지난 2008년 독일 제치고 터키에 K2 탱크를 수출했으며 터키는 현대로템의 K2를 기반으로 '알타이'탱크를 생산하고 있다. 현대로템이 폴란드에서도 '탱크 수출 대박'을 터뜨릴지에 이목이 집중된다.

http://m.g-enews.com/view.php?ud=202001261557149667c5557f8da8_1&ssk=pcmain_0_1

Sounds like nonsense.

The T-90 would not even be considered in the first place.

The Challenger 2 in its current form is too outdated, and its modernized form has yet to be fully decided on. It is therefore a relatively high risk, long schedule program that will not offer Poland any real advantage over any other candidate.

The Abrams is American so there's that political bonus, but the switch to a diesel engine (ACE) has yet to advance from the drawing board. While demonstrators exist, there are no solid plans to add it to any existing vehicle, and when talking about its potential, I don't remember the Abrams even coming up.

Either way, it's not the only candidate. Other candidates are:

 

Type 10 - Japan has recently started revising its defense policy and that includes the approach toward export of weapons. They are technically not prohibited by law (domestic) from exporting to any NATO country, because the definition of countries likely to be involved in conflict is very arbitary.

Overall, Type 10 may not be the best choice but if they considered the Chally 2 and T-90, then that's not far fetched.

 

Leclerc - fund continued development of the Leclerc XLR under the Scorpion program, for Polish needs, and negotiate with Nexter on how to start production in Poland.

 

Merkava 4 - quite suitable because of its L44 gun, and would be a more direct competitor to the Abrams based on their approaches to protection and mobility.

Israel's approach to Merkava export is odd. It had offered the Mark 3 to Turkey, an unknown version to Switzerland, maybe Greece. In 2010 it showcased the Mark 4 in Eurosatory, and the Namer was a GCV contender.

However since then they were silent, and when asked about the Czech program they offered the Sabra instead.

 

Oplot - Ukraine has a bad reputation with its Oplot contracts, but if Poland manages to secure domestic production, that issue should be completely negated (unless they start having problems of their own, but ultimately they want to produce as much at home as possible, and Oplot is one of the least complex candidates).

[Nobu]

Merkava 4 for Poland would have been game changing in various ways. I don't think Israel loses to the Koreans if they decided they wanted to play.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Merkava 4 for Poland would have been game changing in various ways. I don't think Israel loses to the Koreans if they decided they wanted to play.

It is also not the most ideal choice. It lacks rubber pads for European roads, although that's not something that cannot be fixed.

Poland could leverage a long term, thorough, and proven methodology for continued development and support of the tank, already used by RAPAT.

But overall its passive protection is built more around a British concept, which Poland may or may not like.

Its engine is German, so there's that issue. On the other hand it is license produced by General Dynamics.

It has a 4 man crew so if it wants to go for autoloading, it's not the best choice.

 

Most importantly, perhaps, is Poland's bridge infrastructure that supports only AFVs around 50 tons, not 65 tons. That puts the K2 in a good position versus western candidates.

 

I could give more examples but it's not as straightforward as it seems.

Maybe if Poland decides they want HAPCs and HIFVs as well, it would be a much more logical option, but until then...

Edited February 24, 2020 by Mighty_Zuk