Poland Buying Korean Tanks?

[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

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).

 

Well, I'm just conveying the contents of the article and not using it as my own opinion on the matter.

 

About the changes to the defense matters with Japan, yes that's true. Reinterpretation of the constitution happened in 2014, new defense bills passed in 2015, and the defense laws becoming effective in 2016. Although since then, separate agreements with other countries regarding logistics sharing and tech transfers still needed to be made with individual countries. Such agreements have been made with the US, Australia, the Philippines, India, and some European countries like Italy, France, the UK and Germany. Not sure if such an agreement would need to be made with Poland first before enabling a sale of tanks. It can be further added as to what Japan has actually tried to sell abroad up until now, attempts including subs to Australia, static air defense radar to the Philippines and Thailand, US-2 to India, P-1 MPA to a few other countries like the UK and perhaps New Zealand (possible false reporting on the Japanese side), some advertising of C-2 in the ME with expressed interest but no negotiation process. I don't think there's been any effort reported about Japan trying to sell the Type 10 so far.

 

When you say "other candidates" do you mean other tanks that are actually part of the selection process or just "candidates" as in suitable tanks for the job in Poland?

[Mighty_Zuk]

As in suitable tanks for the job. I have serious doubts they considered the Challenger 2 and T-90.

[bd1]

maybe it was just matter of confusing T-90 with (updating ) polish PT-91

Edited February 24, 2020 by bd1

[Nobu]

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...

 

 

These examples are interesting. The German engine may actually be a feature, as I think the Poles are averse to the political optics of buying a German tank, not to German quality.

 

The question of Polish bridges is painful. The $4 billion spent on F-35s could have been the answer.

 

Unfortunate for Poland, as its deciding to opt for a heavy mech partnership with Israel would have gone a long way toward carving out the independent identity within NATO for itself that it appears to crave.

 

[Mighty_Zuk]

I've heard plenty of the "if we just don't buy X, we could buy a hundred Y".

That does not work like this. By delaying the F-35 buy they are just spending more on maintaining current aircraft before making the purchase. So no gain.

By not buying F-35 at all, they're giving up strategic capabilities. Strengthening one strategic capability is not equivalent to creating a whole new one.

[DB]

That is only true if you believe that you need to sustain the legacy capability. See, for example Chris Werb's opinion on the utility of F-35. That opinion will logically apply to the existing capability too.

 

See also lastdingo's comment about Germany's need for a (blue water) navy, elsewhere.

 

Don't necessarily agree with those examples, but the point should be clear - at some point you stop breeding better cavalry horses and replace them with something completely different.

[Mighty_Zuk]

That is only true if you believe that you need to sustain the legacy capability. See, for example Chris Werb's opinion on the utility of F-35. That opinion will logically apply to the existing capability too.

 

See also lastdingo's comment about Germany's need for a (blue water) navy, elsewhere.

 

Don't necessarily agree with those examples, but the point should be clear - at some point you stop breeding better cavalry horses and replace them with something completely different.

The F-35 compared with any legacy aircraft, is analogous to replacing something with something completely different, while buying new tanks at the moment is a lot more like breeding new horses.

 

I believe the next generation of tanks, the 4th, is right around the corner, and will enter service before 2030, with critical masses around mid 2030's.

But right now tanks are not much different than the first tanks of the 3rd generation.

 

That's like 4th gen vs 4++ gen in aircraft.

 

Poland is in a position of great inferiority. That is why it needs to prioritize its strategic capabilities first, and strengthening tactical capabilities last.

Or more specifically, it needs force multipliers.

[Nobu]

Allowing an infrastructure condition preventing NATO armor from reinforcing it to continue sounds like compounding great inferiority with great stupidity.

 

Polish F-35s in subordination to the combined airpower of the USAF and its NATO allies will not be decisive, strategically or otherwise.

 

Alone, they could be a strategic component of an independent Polish foreign policy. The prestige of showing others it can afford and operate them will help in that regard. They also say something about Poland's priorities in various ways.

Edited February 25, 2020 by Nobu