Comments by "Hyok Kim" (@hyokkim7726) on "Why Korean Army Artillery is the Best in the World" video.
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@jimpark8379 ''German weapons are ridiculously expensive and break, or massively underperform, like how the Turkish Leopards just got blown up so easily because of their design flaws....''
To be fair to the Turkish Leopards, their failure was mainly due to faulty tactics in urban environment, than hardware failures. The way the Turks used the Leopards, pretty much every other MBTs would have failed, other than the latest Merkava with their iron vision, but then IDF has a plenty of experience using armors in a terrain not suitable for traditional MBTs.
''Even Germany can't maintain the Leopard. Over half their Leopard tanks are out of service because they don't have enough spare parts.''
I didn't know that, but still that is way better than vaunted Eurofighters, which has even lower reliability rates, almost bordering or even 'surpassing' in the wrong way PRC fighter jets.
7
-
@jimpark8379 '' First, the German powerpack is the best and Korean powerpack is second. There is no debate or controversy on this issue. Even the Koreans acknowledge the superiority of the German powerpack.
Re the Omani trials, I read the Leopard 2 got stuck, which is not a failure of the powerpack it's just the Leopard is too heavy, and that the K2 variant tested by the Omanis had the German powerpack.''
Didn't K2 variant produced, the lot 2, use hybrid powerpack, ROK engine, German transmission?
What I have read from ROK channels was that the testing that faulted ROK powerpak was not designed fair; the German powerpaks were allowed to be maintained per maintenence schedule, while ROK powerpak were continously run, without maintenence. That's per the technicians from Doosan, and ST Dynamics.
Not only that the so-called, 'failure' of ROK powerpak was due to the failure of the neighboring components to the transmission, a German component!
''The MTU engine generates the same horsepower as the Hyundai Doosan Infracore engine but it weighs 1,000 pounds less due to its, in the words of Korean engineers, "insane cooling tech." 1,000 pounds lighter is a huge advantage.''
Didn't K2 use ROK engine with the German transmission in Omani trial, and still won the test?
In MBTs, weighing along 60 to 70 tons, 0.5 ton is a miniscule advantage.
There's more than just power to weight performance advantage in engine, for military gears. Reliability, durability, robustness over rough terrain/weather, the ease of maintenance, and the overall cost, both initial, and maintenance.
Why Ferrari makes great formula 1 racing engine, but not a car to drive day to day; why both UK and even U.S. are going to ditch F-35. Why ROK is working on 'hard coat baked' stealth coating instead of F-35's 'soft panel' stealth coating. For the present, F-35 'soft panel' stealth coating is superior in minimizing radar cross section, but ROK 'hard coat baked' stealth coating is far superior when it comes to robustness, durability, and maintenance, and its ability to minimize the radar cross section is steadily improving.
''The Germans are the world's best at diesel engines and among the world's best at heavy duty transmissions along with the Alison company of USA. The ZF 8 speed transmission is perhaps the best automatic transmission ever made.''
Didn't Himsen engine win both IF and Red Dot awards in 2010?
Not only that, the word I hear from Norway is that K2 is winning over Leopard.
6
-
@d.o.g573 ''ROK doesn’t even have plans for a fifth gen tank''
K3, supposed to work with Poles; supposed to incorporate rail gun eventually, thermal camf, stealth against tactical ground radar, with built in unmanned option.
Btw, ROK might even invent a new category of armored platform that could make MBTs obsolete.
quadrupedal robot control technology, that's like AT-AT from Star Wars, but better, faster, more stable on rough terrain, and autonomous.
DreamWaQer technology that can help run a robot run 'blind'.
''for the plane: I am not a Chinese „war thunder“ player….''
Germany has no plan for 5th gen fighter jets. ROK is working on KF-21, is supposed to incorporate virtual laser turret that will revolutionize the dog fights by 2035. Plus an ability to launch microsatellites from ultra high altitude to low orbit on demand, in real time. This could be the bid for space domination, dominate the space, dominate GPS guided weapons, with advances in thermal sensor, detect even nuclear powered submarined beneath the waves.
Also, autonomous stealth fighters, Kaori-X, 1 manned KF-21 'managing' 3 to 4 Kaori-X.
Plus UCAV for ROKA, that's like, but better than USMC Osprey, safer, more reliable.
Night Intruder 500 Vectored Thrust (NI-500VT)
F-35 Germany relies on, even U.S and U.K. are planning to ditch them, due to poor QA.
6
-
@jimpark8379 Here, I am talking about optimal course of action, from future grand strategic perspective, not just current short term financial.
ROK needs Turkiye to build the bridgehead into EU, V4, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary. Turkiye is the 'gatekeeper' to V4, and EU, in turn.
ROK wants to build hyper tube trade route across Central Asia, boosting trade, and building an alliance, relying Pan-Turanism. Without Turkiye, ROK cannot get to V4, and EU.
With the alliance secure, ROK would have 'built-in' customers for both military and civilian goods.
As far as Poles are concerned, I agree ROK should not grant as generous deal as Turkiey got, but keeping the current technology too secret is not in the optimal interest of ROK.
The reason being, the state of art technology has rather a short, shelf life. It's either use it or lose it. Not only that, keeping the technology too secret makes one's platform becoming the standard that much more difficult. Also, it would make the domestic companies too complacent relying on patent protection, rather than continued excellence in innovation.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
@jimpark8379 Poles will be the gateway to V4, and in turn, V4 will be the gateway to EU.
Turkiye is the gatekeeper to all of the above. With Turkiye, and V4 secure, ROK can build the hyper tube trade route through Central Asia, using Pan-Turanism will greatly help in the endeavor. ROK needs to very delicate in this matter; Turkiye is big on Pan-Turkism, which is a subset of Pan-Turanism, but she knows she cannot compete with ROK. So she's insisting Pan-Turkism is not compatible with Pan-Turanism. ROK needs to give the Turks wide berth, and let her come to the optimal conclusion based on reality on her own terms, and schedule.
After all, Erdogan swallowed his pride, and went to MBS to 'kiss' his ring, to save Turkish economy.
I expect more than just more civilian investments, but an alternative to NATO, for many in NATO.
What many small countries in NATO/EU care is the loss of sovereignty, not making the Russians 'pay'. What Russia fear is not the sovereignty of the small countries in NATO/EU, but the potential threat NATO presents to Russia.
ROK led alliance could offer both parties what they crave, guaranteed sovereignty for small countries in NATO/EU, and guaranteed peaceful, mutually productive existence to Russia.
3
-
3
-
@d.o.g573 It's a great system for now, outstanding spec, but it's not as upgradable as K9, no autoloader, meaning no upgrade path to MUM-T. Plus horrible value, too expensive, even considering its outstanding specs now.
MUM-T is the future: ROK is upgrading K9s to tactically mostly autonomous units, first starting with unmanned turret, and totally unmanned K9, mostly autonomous in the minor tactical matters, starting with 1 unmanned to 3 manned to eventually 1 manned, and 3 unmanned per platoon.
Experimentally, ROK is also working on entirely unmanned SPG platoons. MUM-T and eventually even entirely autonomous mechanized units will make a nation both far more effective and efficient militarily at the strategic level.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
@Janoip ''AGM Iveco 8 x 8''
Still wheeled, not tracked, a no go during winter, and mud season
''Donar tracked System''
Sounds good in peace time, but the greatest weakness is the forward driver compartment, this is actually the reverse idea of the Soviet object 490b from 80s/90s? COG too high, most likely to roll over when going up/down steep slope. All wheeled platforms have higher COG than tracked.
I prefer the Soviet object 490b idea.
Not only that upcoming autonomous SPG will make Donar system obsolete.
''you dont need that much armor they focus more on mobility and active protection like ADS if wanted''
ADS are not much help for SPGs that are most likely to be facing artillery shrapnels, and maybe small arms fire, not direct hits from heavy duty artillery, or even cannons.
Anyway, thanks for the detail explanation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jimpark8379 ''I honestly have no clue WTH you're talking about re pan-Turanism but I can tell you right now what you're dreaming about will never happen.''
How do you know it will never happen?
''Every country will look out for themselves and trying to make them bend to your will is not something Korea should ever get involved in.''
Yes, the plan to be feasible has to be organic, not didactic like U.S. plans for 'liberal democracy supremacy' of the post-modern kind.
Turanism is far more organic than U.S. plans for Iraq, Iran, Saudis, Gulf states, and of course, Afghanistan. The reason for the failure of U.S. plan was due to the total disregard for the local interests and local customs/traditions.
Turanism will not be a political alliance, but a military and trade alliance, non-interference of the local autonomy, by the way, which ROK has been practicing. After all, ROK has no qualms about doing business with MBS regardless of Kashoggi.
Hyper tube trade route through C.A. will benefit all the members more or less equally, solving the transportation/logistics bottlenecks that plague pretty much all the C.A. states.
C.A. nations have abundance of natural resources, but has no ready means of exporting them to where needed in timely, economic ways, due to geography, and local politics.
Hyper tube trade route and the accompanying alliance will benefit all members. Why should they say no, given enough time and info to consider?
ROK has no qualms about doing business with Turkomanstan, and Iran as well, and that's what distinguishes ROK from U.S.
1
-
@Janoip Doesn't it need two crew to load the shells?
As for RCH 155, why is it not tracked?
Wheeled SPG is okay, even in offroad conditions, so long as it doesn't have to deal with mud, snow, and ice.
SPGs are not MBTs. They are not as tactically oriented as MBTs; they are more oriented toward operational strategy. To employ SPGs in operational as opposed to merely tactical environments, they need to be able to deploy in big numbers in wider dispersal than MBTs.
That means SPGs should be able to go offroad, even in snow, ice, and mud.
Plus the projected cost at mass production. Pzh 2000 was a no go as for value, too expensive compared to K9, even when it's superior to K9, (and that's not by much) in the present.
Would it be cost effective compared to the latest and uncoming K9s?
1
-
@Janoip ''It is more mobile, partly air-portable, and altogether easier to transport on low-loaders.''
I understand the tactical reason; SPGs are not meant to be primarily tactical weapons, but weapons at the operational level. Armored cars with heavy gun primarily are direct fire tactical weapons, kinda like poor man's MBT. Why armored cars with heavy guns were popular in Africa, but far less in other parts of the world. You don't see much snow, ice in Africa; they do see some mud, and the armored cars with heavy gun did not perform well in those conditions.
''It can be produced faster and fits the Nato/Eu planned easier exchange/cooperation together and cheaper to maintain.''
I understand the logistical reasons, but it defeats the very purpose of SPGs, especially outside Africa, weapons primarily for operational purpose, not tactical purpose.
How would you deploy wheeled SPGs offroad, in winter, or spring mud, when even tracked SPGs can struggle? If you cannot deploy SPGs offroad, it defeats the very purpose of SPGs.
''Theoretically there is also a tracked version of the Boxer, but it has not been ordered yet..''
Why not? and what does that say about the high command of NATO? In peace time, you don't have to deploy wheeled SPGs in offroad, during winter, or mud season. In war times, you wouldn't have a choice.
''KMW RCT120 remote-controlled turret armed with a 120 mm smoothbore gun with an automatic loader.''
What ROK is working is beyond that; autonomous SPG, monitored/managed, but not remote controlled by manned unit. Autonomous K9s does its own aiming, firing, driving, with the manned unit monitoring, 'recommending' targets. I'm sure ROK will work on some kind of FOE system integrated as well.
''The crew of the PzH 2000 consists of five soldiers, but it is also fully combat capable with only three soldiers. The motorman, gunner and ammunition gunner 2 must be present in all cases; the gunner and ammunition gunner 1 perform their duties only when automatic systems fail. The gunner is the commander of the gun. He supervises communications, the activities of the ammunition gunner 2, and fires the gun.''
Ok, so motorman, gunner, ammunition gunner 2, ammunition gunner 1, who's the fifth crew member?
And what do ammunition gunner 1 and 2 do?
1
-
1
-
@dice138 ''"ROK led alliance", "guaranteed sovereignty for small countries in NATO/EU"
''Just one question. Who will have the command of the ROK military if you are going to war today?''
''Wow! That's quite impressive.''
Yes, indeed, isn't it? One needs to be forward looking, not shallow, and worry about just today, that's for small minded people, like the Toshei factioin of IJM before WW2.
I'm merely extending the precept of Kanji Ishiwara of IJA (who was ignored by the idiots of Toshei, and IJN, resulting in suicidal attack on Pearl harbor, in grand strategic terms, hiding behind the idiotic lunacy, such as 'ABCD Line'.
If you focus on grand strategy, you cannot afford to worry about just today; you have to think at least 20 years, or even 50 years into the future. ROK''s GDP has grown about 432 fold since late 60's; U.S. has grown about 48 fold, at the rate, ROK GDP is expected to surpass U.S. GDP by about 2050. This is not just playing with data on paper. Per Bloomberg, ROK has become #1 in their most innovative country index; U.S. used to be #1 about 20 years ago or so, now, I think #13.
As for you loaded question, today, U.S. will have the operational control, but when ROK implements her grand strategy, most likely, after the collapse of PRC, DPRK, U.S. will no longer have the control. ROK expects PRC to collapse by 2050 as well.
Why ROK is militarizing Ulung island, and Tokdo, to prevent link up of Japan with ROC/Taiwan through Eastern Manchuria, and interested in supporting the independence movement of Okinawa, and eventual grand union with ROK, again to prevent the link up with ROC/Taiwan, post-PRC collapse, when/if U.S. leaves Okinawa.
Why ROK is also interested in supporting Ainu in Hokkaido for either independence, but more likely union with the Russian Federation, to encirclement of Japan.
With Okinawa with ROK, Hokkaido with Russia, and the vast autonomous mini-nuclear sub fleet ROK is planning to build, combined with Russian sub fleet, Japan could be blockaded at well.
ROK is planning not because she harbors any unprovoked ill will toward Japan, but because of ROK is afraid of what the idiots like Abe, and his flunkies would do, allied with ROC/Taiwan after the PRC collapse; they could completely blockade ROK on demand.
Why ROK is seeking allies outside, and independent of U.S. in case, NeoCons come to power in U.S. decided to support ROC/Taiwan, Japan alliance against ROK.
ROK would have the finance, technology, military, and incentives not just to herself, but the would be member nations along the proposed hyper tube trade route, and the most of the rest of the world to build the alliance by 2050.
Today, NATO/EU are needlessly hostile to Russia, who doesn't even have the capacity to seriously threaten Europe, other than nukes, and energy. But for nukes, there is U.S., as for energy, all Europe has to do is to drop the needless hostility against the Russian Federation, as a stooge of U.S. MIC, and NeoCons, who seek needless forever wars, for their parochial profit, at the expense of U.S. overall, and the rest of the world. Whatever bases U.S. needs to make the world trade keep going can be done, without threatening Russia.
Most members of NATO are not necessarily hostile to Russia; they just want their sovereignty guaranteed, which Russia is willing to grant, so long as NATO/EU does not threaten Russia.
NeoCons in U.S. is using the member nations' insecurity to manipulate them against Russia.
ROK is not hostile to anyone, other than DPRK, PRC under Xi jin ping, and his like, Japan under Abe, and his flunkies, and ROC/Taiwan if she tries to take Inner Mongolia, and Manchuria after the PRC collapse, and the NeoCons in U.S.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1