How do you figure that, the price will depend on the amount manufactured for home use and exporting. it still has a very high price tag compared to what is out there on the market.
South Korea launches Amphibious Tank XK2
- Thread starter SATAN
- Start date
Is anybody thinking that the Koreans built an $8 million tank to work as an artillery piece?Normal artillerry/MLRS are much better in indirect fire role, so i doubt this feature would add much to the tank value. Either way, there is inheritly NO problem why every other tank in the world wouldnt be able to employ same "smart" guided ammunition if needed - and even at ranges in excess of 8km.
Again a huge lack of armoured tactics here if you do not appreciate the possibilities of terminal guided rounds fired from an MBT gun as compared to the old paradigm of dumb KE rounds. Which somehow on this thread, everybody bandies about like its something of phallic pride... "Oh try stopping this hugeass uranium/tungsten whopper if u're that good... I'm king cos I can kill anything within range of my KE round etc."
Its my fault, I thought more people would be able to appreciate this critical point, clearly not. So here's lesson 101 about armoured warfare (actually 2 of the most basic) ...
Scenario 1 - Attacking entrenched enemy positions (dug-in)
Supposing this is the toughest enemy position of all - Enemy tanks/IFVs, artillery all based on high ground, almost always dug in or behind slope (commonly referred to as the hull-down or defilade position).
This is STANDARD defensive entrenchment doctrine against direct fire!
What good is your typical MBTs' super-duper direct line of fire dumbass KE round firing into the sand/mud/ground fortifications protecting enemy vehicles (even if you can acquire target position?)
& please dun mention using artillery (indirect fire) to attack the defensive position. If ur arty can reach them, their arty can certainly reach u. For simplicity's sakes, lets remove all airpower/arty etc. from the equation - just MBT against MBT.
On the other hand this Korean XK2 charging full speed at the position would engage the targets from 8 km using high trajectory indirect fire from the main gun & yet landing every round on top of the soft top armour of enemy MBTs via precision terminal guidance.
This makes a huge winning tactical difference.
In any other simpler attacking scenario, eg. slopes and MBTs behind buildings, like I've said before, indirect fire and smart guidance is often the only way.
Scenario 2- Defending against an attack.
Ur MBT would in turn be in defilade/hull down position facing an onslaught of enemy MBTs charging at you at full speed. MBTs in such a defensive position are not without problems as well since the angle of depression of MBT guns are typically limited to about 10 deg. This is aggravated if your hull-down position is on high ground.
Bottom line, u can't fire using your direct line of fire KE rounds at all! Either that or once the enemy gets too close (beyond your angle of depression), you will have to leave the safety of your hull-down position to slug it out with them toe to toe!
With the Korean XK2, u remain in your hull-down position and enjoy the turkey shoot!
Not true, what makes firing smart guided rounds from tank guns an excellent idea is that it is cheaper than firing anti-tank missiles. The propellant is the same as any other rounds, not the expensive rocket motors of missiles. Its like attaching server motors to the fins and a guidance head to dumb 500lb bombs.Every tank round that is currently designed has some type of limitations not only KE, but they are still your best tank killers in a moving engagement with other armored forces.
Beyond visual munitions are good for long range sniping and they are not designed to take the place of a KE projectiles, with modern technology and the limitations of line of sight on current weapons systems and the speed of battle after contact has been made, they will be less of a threat, you can fire approximately 3 to 4 KE projectiles versus one of these very expensive munitions. With artillery and aircraft smart munitions that are currently out there I do not see the importance of establishing this capability on tanks and besides the technology has been out there for quite some time with Russia and other countries and would not take too much in modifications to get this placed on other tanks.
There is an over dependence on KE rounds. The fact remains that so many people think KE rounds are the be-all and end-all when (as above), I've pointed out so many limitations of KE rounds.
There is a reason why the maximum range has of KE rounds has plateau-ed, which I thought I've elaborated before. Short of rail gun technology to increase the velocity of rounds, the current several KE rounds take several seconds of flight time to reach their target at say 4-5 km, (that's world record distances... realistically more like 2-3km). With smooth bore discarding sabot KE rounds, u achieve higher velocity but the fin-stablisied nature of the rounds make them susceptible to cross-winds, wind shear.
That's why the Challengers hold the supposed world record, they are rifled barrels. Yet, the somewhat lower velocity of the rounds (barrel friction & therefore wear & tear) mean that if the target moves/stops/changes direction unexpectedly, the FCS' firing solution cannot do anything once the KE round has left the barrel. The kind of hits reported at 4-5 km are outliers that people should not expect to be repeated with regularity. The target would need to be completely stationary or moving at a constant speed in a straight line in completely uniform atmospheric conditions and no wind.
Also cost doesn't even come into it if 8 million can get you a tank that can whack other tanks before they do. The M1s cost much more both to acquire and to operate.
I'm not even saying this Korean tank is the best in the world. I'm saying, hey u all, take note of the developments here, they ought to be implemented in any modern tank.
Charging a defensive position at full speed and engaging targets 8 KMs away is unrealistic for this type of munition, this round is not the XK2s primary armor defeating munition, it will be used for helicopters and long range sniping, also it is a top attack munition along the lines of LEHAT.Is anybody thinking that the Koreans built an $8 million tank to work as an artillery piece?
Again a huge lack of armoured tactics here if you do not appreciate the possibilities of terminal guided rounds fired from an MBT gun as compared to the old paradigm of dumb KE rounds. Which somehow on this thread, everybody bandies about like its something of phallic pride... "Oh try stopping this hugeass uranium/tungsten whopper if u're that good... I'm king cos I can kill anything within range of my KE round etc."
Its my fault, I thought more people would be able to appreciate this critical point, clearly not. So here's lesson 101 about armoured warfare (actually 2 of the most basic) ...
Scenario 1 - Attacking entrenched enemy positions (dug-in)
Supposing this is the toughest enemy position of all - Enemy tanks/IFVs, artillery all based on high ground, almost always dug in or behind slope (commonly referred to as the hull-down or defilade position).
This is STANDARD defensive entrenchment doctrine against direct fire!
What good is your typical MBTs' super-duper direct line of fire dumbass KE round firing into the sand/mud/ground fortifications protecting enemy vehicles (even if you can acquire target position?)
& please dun mention using artillery (indirect fire) to attack the defensive position. If ur arty can reach them, their arty can certainly reach u. For simplicity's sakes, lets remove all airpower/arty etc. from the equation - just MBT against MBT.
On the other hand this Korean XK2 charging full speed at the position would engage the targets from 8 km using high trajectory indirect fire from the main gun & yet landing every round on top of the soft top armour of enemy MBTs via precision terminal guidance.
This makes a huge winning tactical difference.
In any other simpler attacking scenario, eg. slopes and MBTs behind buildings, like I've said before, indirect fire and smart guidance is often the only way.
Scenario 2- Defending against an attack.
Ur MBT would in turn be in defilade/hull down position facing an onslaught of enemy MBTs charging at you at full speed. MBTs in such a defensive position are not without problems as well since the angle of depression of MBT guns are typically limited to about 10 deg. This is aggravated if your hull-down position is on high ground.
Bottom line, u can't fire using your direct line of fire KE rounds at all! Either that or once the enemy gets too close (beyond your angle of depression), you will have to leave the safety of your hull-down position to slug it out with them toe to toe!
With the Korean XK2, u remain in your hull-down position and enjoy the turkey shoot!
I have a extensive background in armor tactics be it offensive or defensive along with another defense talker you have replied to, and you may not like the fact that a silly dumb KE projectile is a primary tank killer when going toe to toe with other tanks, but that is currently what is out there no matter what country out there is fielding heavy armor.
Its only the starting price - like the RRP - ... before mass production cost savings are factored in.How do you figure that, the price will depend on the amount manufactured for home use and exporting. it still has a very high price tag compared to what is out there on the market.
I believe the M1s are easily in excess of US$10 million per piece, & that's after significant quantity production.
U neglect the fact that the XK2 fires KE rounds like any other MBT!Charging a defensive position at full speed and engaging targets 8 KMs away is unrealistic for this type of munition, this round is not the XK2s primary armor defeating munition, it will be used for helicopters and long range sniping, also it is a top attack munition along the lines of LEHAT.
I have a extensive background in armor tactics be it offensive or defensive along with another defense talker you have replied to, and you may not like the fact that a silly dumb KE projectile is a primary tank killer when going toe to toe with other tanks, but that is currently what is out there no matter what country out there is fielding heavy armor.
But the crux is that where KE rounds (even HEAT since they are direct fire) dun work, rendering all other MBTs effectively toothless, & therefore sitting ducks, the XK2 will still strike with top attack munitions at your soft top armour!
If classic hull-down positions are so common, depending on KE rounds is really myopic. That's why the XK2 doesn't just depend on KE!
& I want to reiterate, no other tank producing country seems to have made this a standard feature, its notable in its own right.
Unrealistic? I'm puzzled.. if u are familiar with armor tactics, surely armour never motors gingerly towards enemy positions in 2nd gear? Also you engage targets as soon as they come within your maximum attack range, whether it be 4km or 8km.Charging a defensive position at full speed and engaging targets 8 KMs away is unrealistic for this type of munition, this round is not the XK2s primary armor defeating munition, it will be used for helicopters and long range sniping, also it is a top attack munition along the lines of LEHAT.
I have a extensive background in armor tactics be it offensive or defensive along with another defense talker you have replied to, and you may not like the fact that a silly dumb KE projectile is a primary tank killer when going toe to toe with other tanks, but that is currently what is out there no matter what country out there is fielding heavy armor.
Its called stand-off engagement. Why bother closing in when u can pick them off, unless of course standing orders are to overrun and capture.
With your background, would u care to enlighten what good a KE round is for the classic defilade/hull-down positions?I have a extensive background in armor tactics be it offensive or defensive along with another defense talker you have replied to, and you may not like the fact that a silly dumb KE projectile is a primary tank killer when going toe to toe with other tanks, but that is currently what is out there no matter what country out there is fielding heavy armor.
I have never intended to do one of those silly 1 on 1 tank comparisons.
I am well aware of how modern tanks work and because of this I gave my example.
Because of this I told you that using your tanks for shelling the enemy formations with indirect fire before they reach you is not that good because unlike SPHs they cannot just perform the shoot and scoot tactics when dug in in defense positions. And so enemy fire finder radar is going to pinpoint your nice prepared positions and soon enough arty and MLRS is raining onto you.
And modern SPHs ARE fast enough to get away from their fire position before the enemy is coming close. A PzH2000 for example is fire ready in 30 sec than shoots 3 times in 10 sec and is away in max another min. All this without the battery being close together but scattered alot to make counterfire more difficult
And why do you think you get your 8km shots in the advance? How do you pinpoint the enemy positions good enough for a more or less precise shot above their heads?
We often enough ran into enemy tanks in good defense positions within some hundred meters and had nearly never any firefight at more than 2000m during maneuvers. And the north german flatlands are one of the areas which are known for being suited well for tank warfare.
That's the same problem like when people say that tube launched 125mm ATGMs are going to snipe enemy tanks well before normal 120mm guns are in range.
When you are not in very very flat terrain with nearly no vegetation (aka desert) you are not going to get those long range shots.
I agree that long range guided ammo gives you some advantages during certain situations but it is for sure not the Wunderwaffe you make it.
BTW, you could be a little bit more patient and stop shouting around that nobody here as a clue about how modern armor works, especially not at eckherl.
Edit: man I am late...
I am well aware of how modern tanks work and because of this I gave my example.
Because of this I told you that using your tanks for shelling the enemy formations with indirect fire before they reach you is not that good because unlike SPHs they cannot just perform the shoot and scoot tactics when dug in in defense positions. And so enemy fire finder radar is going to pinpoint your nice prepared positions and soon enough arty and MLRS is raining onto you.
And modern SPHs ARE fast enough to get away from their fire position before the enemy is coming close. A PzH2000 for example is fire ready in 30 sec than shoots 3 times in 10 sec and is away in max another min. All this without the battery being close together but scattered alot to make counterfire more difficult
And why do you think you get your 8km shots in the advance? How do you pinpoint the enemy positions good enough for a more or less precise shot above their heads?
We often enough ran into enemy tanks in good defense positions within some hundred meters and had nearly never any firefight at more than 2000m during maneuvers. And the north german flatlands are one of the areas which are known for being suited well for tank warfare.
That's the same problem like when people say that tube launched 125mm ATGMs are going to snipe enemy tanks well before normal 120mm guns are in range.
When you are not in very very flat terrain with nearly no vegetation (aka desert) you are not going to get those long range shots.
I agree that long range guided ammo gives you some advantages during certain situations but it is for sure not the Wunderwaffe you make it.
BTW, you could be a little bit more patient and stop shouting around that nobody here as a clue about how modern armor works, especially not at eckherl.
Edit: man I am late...
Actually some of these smart precision munitions are just as expensive as a some of the anti tank missiles that are currently being fielded.Not true, what makes firing smart guided rounds from tank guns an excellent idea is that it is cheaper than firing anti-tank missiles. The propellant is the same as any other rounds, not the expensive rocket motors of missiles. Its like attaching server motors to the fins and a guidance head to dumb 500lb bombs.
There is an over dependence on KE rounds. The fact remains that so many people think KE rounds are the be-all and end-all when (as above), I've pointed out so many limitations of KE rounds.
There is a reason why the maximum range has of KE rounds has plateau-ed, which I thought I've elaborated before. Short of rail gun technology to increase the velocity of rounds, the current several KE rounds take several seconds of flight time to reach their target at say 4-5 km, (that's world record distances... realistically more like 2-3km). With smooth bore discarding sabot KE rounds, u achieve higher velocity but the fin-stablisied nature of the rounds make them susceptible to cross-winds, wind shear.
That's why the Challengers hold the supposed world record, they are rifled barrels. Yet, the somewhat lower velocity of the rounds (barrel friction & therefore wear & tear) mean that if the target moves/stops/changes direction unexpectedly, the FCS' firing solution cannot do anything once the KE round has left the barrel. The kind of hits reported at 4-5 km are outliers that people should not expect to be repeated with regularity. The target would need to be completely stationary or moving at a constant speed in a straight line in completely uniform atmospheric conditions and no wind.
Also cost doesn't even come into it if 8 million can get you a tank that can whack other tanks before they do. The M1s cost much more both to acquire and to operate.
I'm not even saying this Korean tank is the best in the world. I'm saying, hey u all, take note of the developments here, they ought to be implemented in any modern tank.
It takes a KE projectile several seconds to reach a target, not correct. Also the biggest reason for KE penetrator rounds showing signs of long range limitations would be the advancement in armor protection technology nothing more.
I think you give it too much hype inregards to this world record set by a Challenger tank, there is no performance enhancements using rifled guns over smoothebore. My gunner popped a BMP at 3200 meters using a heat round, it all depends on the atmospheric counditions and the line of sight, and yes this projectile took around 3 seconds to hit it`s target.
Modern tank fire control systems will automatically comphensate for cross wind and other atmosphere conditions by way of a ballistic computer, a M1A2 ballistic computer can comphensate for 45MPH cross winds.
The problem is tanks will not be slugging it out alone, you will have your artillery and air assetts that your opponent will have to contend with, also a KE penetrator will rip right thru a hasty defensive position, and with the speed of modern warfare the chances of your opponent having a well dug reinforced fighting position will be slim. With Modern technology in battlefield management systems and weapons platforms, the battle of Kursk scenarios are well gone. Smart munitions have a place on the battlefield, just not as a primary armor defeating round on a MBT.With your background, would u care to enlighten what good a KE round is for the classic defilade/hull-down positions?
Do you honestly think that you can fire this munition going full speed and locked on a target 8 km away.Unrealistic? I'm puzzled.. if u are familiar with armor tactics, surely armour never motors gingerly towards enemy positions in 2nd gear? Also you engage targets as soon as they come within your maximum attack range, whether it be 4km or 8km.
Its called stand-off engagement. Why bother closing in when u can pick them off, unless of course standing orders are to overrun and capture.
In modern warfare when fighting a sizable well equiped opponent there is no such thing as a stand off range, you stop you die.
Man-man... In reality it is NOT working like that. First, armored self-propelled artillery are almost as vulnerable/invulnerable to enemy artillery/airpower as a tank - i.e. require direct hit. So, if your artillery is blown by enemy artillery then you can be sure what your tanks are already buring as well. Second, throwing most vital componets of modern combined forces out of equation... well, may be we throw also infantry out of equation and will not defend tanks against ATGM's? May be we throw out SAM's out of equation and we need now SAM capability on every tank? It's just stupid. Tank dont need to be all-in-one wonder.What good is your typical MBTs' super-duper direct line of fire dumbass KE round firing into the sand/mud/ground fortifications protecting enemy vehicles (even if you can acquire target position?)
& please dun mention using artillery (indirect fire) to attack the defensive position. If ur arty can reach them, their arty can certainly reach u. For simplicity's sakes, lets remove all airpower/arty etc. from the equation - just MBT against MBT.
The targetting will be huge issue here. Besides, as i said, if enemy artillery can reach your artillery 30km behind you (or MLRS 80km behind you) then your tanks are already burned.On the other hand this Korean XK2 charging full speed at the position would engage the targets from 8 km using high trajectory indirect fire from the main gun & yet landing every round on top of the soft top armour of enemy MBTs via precision terminal guidance.
This may be true, but again i'm not sure what korean variant of smart ammunition can do the trick up close. The projectile should be much too agile if its gonna hit something behind the slope. Besides, T-90 Air-bust feature can deal with most of these issues as well and much, much cheaper.This makes a huge winning tactical difference.
In any other simpler attacking scenario, eg. slopes and MBTs behind buildings, like I've said before, indirect fire and smart guidance is often the only way.
Thats why every tank is equipped with self dug-in devices, and that why every tank battalion have ingeniering vehicles.Scenario 2- Defending against an attack.
Ur MBT would in turn be in defilade/hull down position facing an onslaught of enemy MBTs charging at you at full speed. MBTs in such a defensive position are not without problems as well since the angle of depression of MBT guns are typically limited to about 10 deg. This is aggravated if your hull-down position is on high ground.
That may ineed be advantage depending on how KE guiding rounds are done.Bottom line, u can't fire using your direct line of fire KE rounds at all! Either that or once the enemy gets too close (beyond your angle of depression), you will have to leave the safety of your hull-down position to slug it out with them toe to toe!
With the Korean XK2, u remain in your hull-down position and enjoy the turkey shoot!
This is totally wrong. Rifled barrels offer absolutely NO benefits in accuracy firing APFSDS rounds - in fact, they offer LESS accuracy here. And, for the record, i'm 100% sure what Challenger have no advatage in accuracy compared to other modern tanks - M1A2, Leopard, Leclerc, T-90. This so much promoted 5km wonder hit is just that - wonder hit.That's why the Challengers hold the supposed world record, they are rifled barrels. Yet, the somewhat lower velocity of the rounds (barrel friction & therefore wear & tear) mean that if the target moves/stops/changes direction unexpectedly, the FCS' firing solution cannot do anything once the KE round has left the barrel.
I think this munition can be self-guided in terminal phase, thus requiring less precise targetting. Thought i'm sure what korean variant is not that advanced yet.Do you honestly think that you can fire this munition going full speed and locked on a target 8 km away.
In modern warfare when fighting a sizable well equiped opponent there is no such thing as a stand off range, you stop you die.
Exactly.
Rifled barrels offer an advantage when using HESH rounds (The rotating of the round is just good for the HE effect of the warhead) but not when using APFSDS rounds.
Not to talk of the fact that there are only two modern tanks which use rifled barrels (Challi 2 and Arjun) with the Challi changing to L/55.
What changes accuracy is longer calibre. Our tank crews observed that the dispersion pattern was better after they changed from L/44 to L/55.
As to your last post.
But you need the rough position of the enemy tank. How do you do this with a x12 optic? As I said before it is harder as one might think to find a tank in a defenseive position not to talk of finding it at 8km.
Rifled barrels offer an advantage when using HESH rounds (The rotating of the round is just good for the HE effect of the warhead) but not when using APFSDS rounds.
Not to talk of the fact that there are only two modern tanks which use rifled barrels (Challi 2 and Arjun) with the Challi changing to L/55.
What changes accuracy is longer calibre. Our tank crews observed that the dispersion pattern was better after they changed from L/44 to L/55.
As to your last post.
But you need the rough position of the enemy tank. How do you do this with a x12 optic? As I said before it is harder as one might think to find a tank in a defenseive position not to talk of finding it at 8km.
Ya, you need it. The question here is how much "rought"? But i agree - i dont think korean projectile is advanced enouth to self-aquire target hunderds (or even dozens ) meters away from its flight path. I dont even think it is self-guided at all. Seems it have rather semi-active guidance.Exactly.
Rifled barrels offer an advantage when using HESH rounds (The rotating of the round is just good for the HE effect of the warhead) but not when using APFSDS rounds.
Not to talk of the fact that there are only two modern tanks which use rifled barrels (Challi 2 and Arjun) with the Challi changing to L/55.
What changes accuracy is longer calibre. Our tank crews observed that the dispersion pattern was better after they changed from L/44 to L/55.
As to your last post.
But you need the rough position of the enemy tank. How do you do this with a x12 optic? As I said before it is harder as one might think to find a tank in a defenseive position not to talk of finding it at 8km.
Most definetly not at that range in a high speed offensive mode.I think this munition can be self-guided in terminal phase, thus requiring less precise targetting. Thought i'm sure what korean variant is not that advanced yet.
You could also throw a Heat round into that equation also for not having performance issues when fired out of smoothbore guns.Exactly.
Rifled barrels offer an advantage when using HESH rounds (The rotating of the round is just good for the HE effect of the warhead) but not when using APFSDS rounds.
Not to talk of the fact that there are only two modern tanks which use rifled barrels (Challi 2 and Arjun) with the Challi changing to L/55.
What changes accuracy is longer calibre. Our tank crews observed that the dispersion pattern was better after they changed from L/44 to L/55.
As to your last post.
But you need the rough position of the enemy tank. How do you do this with a x12 optic? As I said before it is harder as one might think to find a tank in a defenseive position not to talk of finding it at 8km.
Also your new bunker buster seems to not have any accuracy issues correct?