Jump to content


Photo

Poland Buying Korean Tanks?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#81 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 57,272 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1253 PM

The BV. :)
  • 0

#82 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1256 PM

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...


  • 0

#83 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1300 PM

The BV. :)

 

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


  • 0

#84 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 611 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1635 PM

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.
  • 0

#85 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,612 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1710 PM

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?


  • 0

#86 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 611 posts

Posted 09 February 2020 - 1833 PM


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 by Mighty_Zuk, 09 February 2020 - 1839 PM.

  • 0

#87 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 15 February 2020 - 1015 AM

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. 


  • 0

#88 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 611 posts

Posted 15 February 2020 - 1143 AM

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.


  • 0

#89 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 15 February 2020 - 1200 PM

 

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.


  • 0

#90 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 611 posts

Posted 15 February 2020 - 1237 PM

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.


  • 0

#91 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 15 February 2020 - 1641 PM

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.


  • 0

#92 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,612 posts

Posted 15 February 2020 - 1934 PM

 

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 by Rick, 15 February 2020 - 1934 PM.

  • 0

#93 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 611 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 0213 AM

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 by Mighty_Zuk, 16 February 2020 - 0227 AM.

  • 0

#94 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Staff
  • PipPip
  • 11,181 posts

Posted 16 February 2020 - 1208 PM

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?


  • 0

#95 JasonJ

JasonJ

    nonbiri

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,952 posts

Posted 23 February 2020 - 0813 AM

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.

Spoiler
http://m.g-enews.com...&ssk=pcmain_0_1
  • 0

#96 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,856 posts

Posted 23 February 2020 - 1248 PM

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.


  • 0

#97 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,996 posts

Posted 23 February 2020 - 1325 PM

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.


  • 0

#98 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 611 posts

Posted 23 February 2020 - 1711 PM


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.
Spoiler
http://m.g-enews.com...&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).
  • 0

#99 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,856 posts

Posted 23 February 2020 - 1915 PM

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.


  • 0

#100 Mighty_Zuk

Mighty_Zuk

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 611 posts

Posted 24 February 2020 - 0439 AM

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 by Mighty_Zuk, 24 February 2020 - 0442 AM.

  • 0