South Korea launches Amphibious Tank XK2

hushine

New Member
Korea's first domestically-made amphibious tank, featuring an auto-loaded 120mm cannon, rolled off the assembly line in Changwon, Friday (March 2).

The next-generation tank, code named "XK2" and nicknamed "Black Panther," will replace the older K1 and American M47/48 tanks starting in 2011, defense officials said.

The new model features an auto-loaded 120 mm cannon, can reach speeds of up to 70 km per hour, and can cross rivers as deep as 4.1 meters using a snorkel, according to its developer, the Agency for Defense Development (ADD).

At the launch ceremony for the tank, President Roh Moo-hyun stressed that Korea's development of a top-tier weapon such as the XK2 with its own technology testifies to the country's defense capability.

"The development of the world's top-level tank--in both mobility and firepower--with our own technology shows the world our commitment to self-defense," Roh said during the ceremony held at the ADD facilities in Changwon, Gyeongsang nam-do (South Gyeongsang Province).

Korea plans to commission the tank after preparations for mass production.

It also aims to export the tanks with the price tag of US$8.5 million per unit, with an adjustment for inflation.
I think it is the best target of Chinese ZTZ-99!

Admin: First, welcome to the forums. Second, Please respond with posts that are not of the above calibre. Try and make comments that have substance rather than easy "throw away" lines that are designed to irritate the original poster.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chrom

New Member
The room for the new auto loader located on the T-90`s does take up more room, they had to go to it due to penetrator size.
But T-90 is still about the size of T-72, no? So does it matter?
so far the west is just starting to get into the counter measures game for their armored vehicles, western tanks do have more interior room to place these power sources and power relay boxes.
.
Not necessary. Most of this addidional room is taken by human loader, bigger engine, addidional armor due to bigger size, etc. Either way, it is a future features and as such 20-30 years ago smaller size of russian tanks was justified and didnt restricted equipment in any way. Even now it is highly debatable if there is any need in increasing size - after all, engines got smaller and consumer less fuel, electronic got smaller and lighter, unmanned turret, etc.

P.S. XK2 looks a bit bulky for my taster... all these sharp edges.. Else it appears like pretty decent tank for modern standards - definitly it have more high-tech features than any other current tank.
 
Last edited:

ever4244

New Member
I think it is the best target of Chinese ZTZ-99!
It s better than 99 in fire-power, positive defence, data lan, fire-control, and power plant actually. and times more expensive.
The fact is fact, and from some data it reveals , It s even better than leopardA6 in many aspect----all though it s ralatively smaller
However, they just get every best single part from all over the world and mount them up. germany power unit, germany gear sys, germany Rh120-L55, armor derived from UK s, positive defence from Russia s curtain``````apart from some part of the fire-control sys and information center, maybe only the brand was made in SK.
and 8.8m $ each is quit unacceptable , even cheaper 99 in China only distribute to elite armor division .
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It s better than 99 in fire-power, positive defence, data lan, fire-control, and power plant actually. and times more expensive.
The fact is fact, and from some data it reveals , It s even better than leopardA6 in many aspect----all though it s ralatively smaller
However, they just get every best single part from all over the world and mount them up. germany power unit, germany gear sys, germany Rh120-L55, armor derived from UK s, positive defence from Russia s curtain``````apart from some part of the fire-control sys and information center, maybe only the brand was made in SK.
and 8.8m $ each is quit unacceptable , even cheaper 99 in China only distribute to elite armor division .
Better in a LEO 2A6 in what way, also with the type of terrian in that part of the world its offensive capabilities will be restricted, thus making the Type 99 a major threat for the XK2. You cannot speculate as to what type of auto loader is in the Type 99 thus giving this vehicle very good maingun capabilities.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
But T-90 is still about the size of T-72, no? So does it matter?

Not necessary. Most of this addidional room is taken by human loader, bigger engine, addidional armor due to bigger size, etc. Either way, it is a future features and as such 20-30 years ago smaller size of russian tanks was justified and didnt restricted equipment in any way. Even now it is highly debatable if there is any need in increasing size - after all, engines got smaller and consumer less fuel, electronic got smaller and lighter, unmanned turret, etc.

P.S. XK2 looks a bit bulky for my taster... all these sharp edges.. Else it appears like pretty decent tank for modern standards - definitly it have more high-tech features than any other current tank.
But all the ammunition racks for the most part are placed at the turret rear, exception being XK2 and LEO2 series which as you know have emergency rounds placed inside the hull.

Yes the flat angled welded process is being used now by pretty much everyone, including the Russian T - 90 series which they state gives them mush better armor protection.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I also would want to know which are the aspects were it is better than the most modern Leo II version (Leopard IIA6EX).

Besides the hydraulic system (Which I really like) there is nothing what proofes your statement.

Datalink - Both have battlefield management systems.

Modern digital FCS - Both, but Leo has no autotracking

Modern sights including hunter/killer capabilities with TI - Both

Active protection system - K2 has Arena but is soon to get a modern one, Leopard has none but is going to get the Diehl APS which recently successfully intercepted ATGMs during tests

Suspension - Leopard defenitely has a good one, XK2 is said to have a good one

Fire power - nearly equal. Depends on the ammo and if it comes closer to DM63 or KEW-2. No equal modern HE round but should be no problem to buy it for the XK2.

Engine - Leopard has one of the best and most reliable 1500hp engines out there with the option for customers to go for the Europowerpack, XK2 also uses a german engine and wants to go for a new developed one.

Protection - totally classified but the new Leo add-on armor is defenitely not that weak.
 

hushine

New Member
It s better than 99 in fire-power, positive defence, data lan, fire-control, and power plant actually. and times more expensive.
The fact is fact, and from some data it reveals , It s even better than leopardA6 in many aspect----all though it s ralatively smaller
However, they just get every best single part from all over the world and mount them up. germany power unit, germany gear sys, germany Rh120-L55, armor derived from UK s, positive defence from Russia s curtain``````apart from some part of the fire-control sys and information center, maybe only the brand was made in SK.
and 8.8m $ each is quit unacceptable , even cheaper 99 in China only distribute to elite armor division .
住在北京的朝鲜人,真可笑!你们吹牛皮的水平的确可以"媲美"我们中国人的谦逊礼让美德!
 

Letli

New Member
I realise that you're passionate about the subject - but can we also concentrate on the mechanics of debate but avoid the east vs west elements?

btw, I've worked with the Sings and know what they are capable of - I seriously doubt that anyone in the mil industry takes a prescriptive view as you've outlined. In fact, our nickname for Singapore was the "PACRIM Israel" due to its technical competency.
Haven't bothered to come back in ages but...

This certainly hasn't got anything to do with the Singaporeans, its the persistent dismissiveness of the Koreans regarding this tank which I find quite ridiculous. Given that the whole world depends on the world class products from their semiconductors, automobile and ship building (heavy) industries.

I do give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that whoever started this thread probably pulled it off Endgadget or something and therefore wrongly mislabelled it as an "Amphibious Tank" when it can't even float. Therein causing the dismissive remarks.
 

Letli

New Member
The problem is that such active protection systems do not work very well against a 1750km/h KE.
It is very nice for giving the tank a 360° protection against a limited number of ATGMs/RPGs/etc but they wont help if you are in front of a high pressure gun with advanced KEs.
There you still need the good traditional armor and maybe some modern ERA.

But a "1750km/h KE" can only be fired by a main battle tank using direct line of fire. This tank changes the whole paradigm since its gun fires shells using smart terminal guidance ... i.e. beyond line of sight, artillery style via a high trajectory. Range up to 8 km! Which is twice the range of standard MBT guns.

Considering that the world record is only 4-5km by a Challenger, this Korean tank can take out all other MBTs b4 they even get within firing range! That's what changes the game.
 

Letli

New Member
without wanting to trivialise or oversimplify the issue - its why artillery is fondly referred to as "king of the battlefield" - GMLRS makes that even more so (and I realise that there are a raft of caveats - but in real terms its an indicative absolute)

the paradigm has changed in the sense that the definition of armour has also changed.

armour is not necessarily restricted to a system designed to blunt, obstruct or deflect/defeat a kinetic attack - its also now about systems (such as electronic) that are pro-active (in a defeating sense)
This reference to artillery as king does miss the crux. No weapon system is king. Artillery is a threat to any land force only in certain situations. Its dependent on forward observation and proper coordinates for beyond line of sight engagements - i.e. if the enemy is in front of u.

The whole point of armour is to thrust deep into your positions, where your artillery is then rendered useless, short of raining shells onto your own friendly troops. Artillery will not be king once enemy armour mixes it with your troops. In fact, it'll be a blood bath when enemy armour gets within attacking range of your arty.

Of course, with precision terminal guidance for MLRS and arty base bleed shells, remote surveillance planes etc. the battlefield becomes more complex. Then again, this Korean tank turns the table on the old paradigms by offering terminal guidance for shells fired from its gun... up to 8 km. Finally, an MBT that offers indirect fire capability somewhat akin to artillery fire but with terminal accuracy.

My point being... this Korean tank does screw things up quite a bit.
 

Letli

New Member
Tanks w/o tons of Armor... what IS this world coming to?:cool:

K.E.s are so cheap and easy to manufacture that they will always be around, I think. Also, there is the protection it offers from blast weapons, radiation and other things.

There is also the dampening effect that the wieght of armor has on the "ride" in uneven ground. Could a 20 ton tank move with the same stability as a 70 tonner?
A 20 tonner will move way better given the lower ground pressure exerted by the tracks. Stability? Its not likely to flip is it?

If u're talking about ride comfort (aka sprung vs unsprung weight), modern tanks are already hugely comfortable even though they are not meant to be like your neighbourhood Lexus!
 

Letli

New Member
When that day happens that you can counter a KE projectile it will probable be the end of heavy armor.
I think this reflects the old paradigm of unstoppable brute force against immovable force.

A smarter way to counter this is to recognise the limitations of KE rounds - which are necessarily unguided (too heavy to maneuver in mid-flight), line of sight weapons and therefore limited to a certain effective range and accuracy.

Think of a boxing fight. If u're facing Mike Tyson with a huge punch but limited reach, what do you do? U engage him at range, not close in. A real boxer can't grow longer arms but u can certainly develop an MBT with a tank gun that hits the enemy tank before it hits u.

That's what impressed me about this Korean tank, precision guided rounds, not seen since the ill-fated Shillelagh missile on the 152mm tank gun.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I do give the benefit of the doubt to the fact that whoever started this thread probably pulled it off Endgadget or something and therefore wrongly mislabelled it as an "Amphibious Tank" when it can't even float. Therein causing the dismissive remarks.
ok, understood. ;)
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
But a "1750km/h KE" can only be fired by a main battle tank using direct line of fire. This tank changes the whole paradigm since its gun fires shells using smart terminal guidance ... i.e. beyond line of sight, artillery style via a high trajectory. Range up to 8 km! Which is twice the range of standard MBT guns.

Considering that the world record is only 4-5km by a Challenger, this Korean tank can take out all other MBTs b4 they even get within firing range! That's what changes the game.
This is overly simplified. Normal battlefield conditions make it look more like this.
Enemy mech formations are approaching and are spotted by recon assets of some kind. Your arty starts to engage them with bomblets or SMArt ammunition (intelligent to attack ammo is nothing new). Enemy artillery begins counterfire and your own SPHs try to get the hell out of their firing position into a new one.
If your MBTs would also begin to shell the incoming enemy formations they would also reveal their position which would not be that good. Your line of defence could also paint "please hit me with a arty/MLRS salvo!" in big red letters onto the ground.

As to sniping out enemy tanks at extreme ranges. You are normally lucky when you get a line of sight of more than 2km. Extreme range kills are more normal only in desert conditions.

Last but not least. Ammunition is not a real good indicator for the capabilities of a tank.
The tank is really expensive. You could also buy a cheaper tank with nearly the same capabilities and just buy the ammo you want for its 120mm be it a US M829A3 DU-KE, German DM63 non DU-KE, Swedish HE or Korean guided ammo.
 

Chrom

New Member
But a "1750km/h KE" can only be fired by a main battle tank using direct line of fire. This tank changes the whole paradigm since its gun fires shells using smart terminal guidance ... i.e. beyond line of sight, artillery style via a high trajectory. Range up to 8 km! Which is twice the range of standard MBT guns.

Considering that the world record is only 4-5km by a Challenger, this Korean tank can take out all other MBTs b4 they even get within firing range! That's what changes the game.
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.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I think this reflects the old paradigm of unstoppable brute force against immovable force.

A smarter way to counter this is to recognise the limitations of KE rounds - which are necessarily unguided (too heavy to maneuver in mid-flight), line of sight weapons and therefore limited to a certain effective range and accuracy.

Think of a boxing fight. If u're facing Mike Tyson with a huge punch but limited reach, what do you do? U engage him at range, not close in. A real boxer can't grow longer arms but u can certainly develop an MBT with a tank gun that hits the enemy tank before it hits u.

That's what impressed me about this Korean tank, precision guided rounds, not seen since the ill-fated Shillelagh missile on the 152mm tank gun.
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.
 

Letli

New Member
This is overly simplified. Normal battlefield conditions make it look more like this.
Enemy mech formations are approaching and are spotted by recon assets of some kind. Your arty starts to engage them with bomblets or SMArt ammunition (intelligent to attack ammo is nothing new). Enemy artillery begins counterfire and your own SPHs try to get the hell out of their firing position into a new one.
If your MBTs would also begin to shell the incoming enemy formations they would also reveal their position which would not be that good. Your line of defence could also paint "please hit me with a arty/MLRS salvo!" in big red letters onto the ground.

As to sniping out enemy tanks at extreme ranges. You are normally lucky when you get a line of sight of more than 2km. Extreme range kills are more normal only in desert conditions.

Last but not least. Ammunition is not a real good indicator for the capabilities of a tank.
The tank is really expensive. You could also buy a cheaper tank with nearly the same capabilities and just buy the ammo you want for its 120mm be it a US M829A3 DU-KE, German DM63 non DU-KE, Swedish HE or Korean guided ammo.
U wanna talk about overly simplified? My post was in reference to the "overly simplified" view that artillery is king.

Ur starting point - artillery starting with bomblets etc. isn't even accurate. When u throw air power into the equation, nothing on land is safe, let alone artillery.

Even then, any artillery that opens fire is immediately pinpointed via counter-artillery radar that extrapolates ur arty's position based on trajectory.
In the modern battlefield, any non self-propelled arty is a sitting duck, not that SPHs etc. are much safer given how slow they are.

There's also a lack of understanding of armoured tactics here. U dun throw ur armour into the mix until enemy arty has been engaged & negated as far as possible. Furthermore, armour movements are almost always covered by air / attack copter, IFV & artillery support anyway. People seem to speak in isolation of which weapon is king. Its called combined arms.

Armours job is to charge at maximum speed into &/or behind enemy lines, where Arty then finds it difficult to engage them, given the chaos & confusion and the lack of forward observers to pinpoint the enemy & call down arty.

Arty wasn't meant to kill MBTs the same way MBTs were not invented to kill arty. There's a place for every weapon system.

Bottomline, u wanna compare, do it like for like. The point which ppl dun seem to get is that this Korean tank will be able to engage ANY OTHER MBT from much further away than before - that's the point of this thread.
 
Top