It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Next-Generation Battle Tank to Debut By 2010

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:36 AM
Interesting bit of news from South Korea:

The country's next-generation main battle tank equipped with advanced weapons systems will be deployed in the military by 2010, a state-run defense research institute said on Tuesday.

During the Korea Ground Forces Festival 2005, the Agency for Defense Development (ADD) made public the Korea Next-Generation Main Battle Tank (KNMBT).

The Army's five-day event started simultaneously in Seoul and Chungcheong and Gyeonggi provinces earlier in the day.

The agency has spent about 240 billion won ($230 million) for the development of the battle tank since 1995.

The article goes on to give more detail of the KNMBT:

The 55-ton KNMBT features various enhanced functions compared to the existing K1M1 tanks. It is equipped with a 55-caliber 120 millimeter gliding gun with increased penetrating power. A sophisticated missile guidance system, dubbed “fire and forget,” will also be applied to the tank, according to the officials.

With the fire and forget system, missiles can hit targets without further guidance, even if they are moving, they said.

The ADD also displayed next-generation rifles that can use both 20 millimeter high explosive round and standard 5.56 millimeter ammunition. Among the main features of the new rifle are the laser distance measurement system and the precise aiming system for day and night.

Next-Generation Battle Tank to Debut By 2010

Sounds interesting. I will try to track down some pictures, if they are available.
Thoughts? Comments?


posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 08:46 AM
possibly use some of the American M1 design again like their older tank. of course they probably may redesign the tank to look different. the K1m1 tank looks similar to the Abrams tank but is different design to meet South Korea's specs to fight in the environment and terrain of the Korean Peninsular.

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:44 AM
There are actually a few photos and videos of this tank.

Here is a big photo of the XK-2

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:48 AM

Originally posted by jetsetter
There are actually a few photos and videos of this tank.

Here is a big photo of the XK-2

the turret looks Frenchie in a way. modular armor. the way the gun looks, etc. of course i could be wrong.

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:34 AM
That's a newly designed turret on the older Korean K1A1 MBT chassis.

see the two pics:

Barrel is longer. Probably an L55 up from an L44, like what the Germans did with the latest Leopard. Higher velocity kinetic shots.

Two sets of three laser warning sensors on the front corners of the turret. They look like little phased array antennas.

I don't see a rack mount for the missiles mentioned in the article, but that grenade launcher behind the open hatch, at the rear of the turret, looks rather hefty for just little grenades. And it looks like it rotates. Maybe they mean bore launched missiles. Missiles in or on MBTs is not one of the better ideas in tank design.

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:45 AM
Yeah it does resemble the LeClerc quite a bit, looks like a very high-tech tank alright.

Might get all the way up there with the M1A2, Merkava Mk4 and Challenger 2.

Go Korea!

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 03:42 PM
oh yeah I would say its based off the Le Clarc, is it a Rheinmetal 120mm 55? nice to see korea moving forward and leaving NKin her dust now lets hope it keeps them from fighting rather than causing them to fight.

I was hoping this was about the new tank for the US but this is good news!

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 05:54 PM
It appears to have very advanced situational awareness in terms of its optical systems. It also has a very flexible weapons package. It sounds like its going full force with the cannon launched ATGWs.

Its armor, however, comes into question. The abrams has its prominent, turret slabs of composite and DU armor. The Russians have their low profile dome turrets and reactive armor. The British have the Chobham armor.

What does this have? It doesnt appear to have reactive armor of any type. It doesnt have the mountaints of composite armor like the Abrams. Though the turret armor is very sloped, like the Merkava and T-80UB, what kind of material is it going to use?

Also questionable is though it has alot of excellent sighting equipment, how resistant is it to Russian and Chinese "dazzler" sight jammers. This would also be a worthy question.

Im assuming since they have had so much help from the Americans its a 4 man crew with a loader, not any autoloading system.

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:39 PM
If countermeasures are used against dazzlers (smoke grenades), that would render its own laser sights, laser equipments and things like that useless.

Too bad its gonna cost $9 MIL per TANK! One great tank but one HOT HOT HOT HOT BURNING, TOO HOT, BURNED MY HAND kind of price.

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:57 PM
I bet those side track skirts get an upgrade before production given the lessons learned with the Abrams in Iraq. Thats a sweet looking tank. Add some reactive panels to the skirts and an anti RPG grate to the rear and we have something real nice.

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:28 PM
How can they only spend 230 mil on R/D for a new generation MTB? If we tried that in the US, we would be in the billions.

[edit on 14-10-2005 by WestPoint23]

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 10:42 PM
Looks like it will be more then a match for any North Korea T-62
Man the North is lagging behind the T-62 was good tech in the 70s. No wonder why they wanted nuclear weapons so bad.

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 05:41 AM
I have studied this tank and can see a hell of a lot of 'old' tank designs in it, LeClerc, Leopard, M60 to name but few.

There are a couple of 'new' mods, but one can hardly call this new technology. The gun barrel looks a lot like the L55 with the MRS being much smaller than on Abrams or Chally 2.

The gun mantlet (the bit where the barrel meets the turret) strongly suggests (to me at least) Amx 30, Sturmgeschutze (WWII German assault gun) and an M60 mod. I thought nobody used canvas any more.

The hull and chasis remind me of our CVR(T) series of veh - Scorpion, Scimitar and Sabre, cobbled together with Abrams and the tracks are right off the M60 family.

The turret is, in my opinion, a mis-match of design, with influence coming from the LeClerk, Lopard, Abrams and Chally 2. The sight system is by far, the most interesting thing about this tank.

There appears to be a system for just about everything - day, night and foul weather with at least 2 or 3 thermal/infra red sights and some kind of laser(?) detecting device either side of the manlet.

There also appears to be a TV (?) camera system/range finder mounted on the mantlet, suitable for missile launch (?) or detection.

Reactive armour is there to see, if you look closely enough. But a single slab (?) on the turret roof would not protect from an overhead strike.

Above the rear bustle, are the usual weather, comms and NBC stuff but as somebody has said, the rear turret remotely controlled mortar/cannon/smoke launcher is straight off the Leopard and Marders.

As I look at the released pics, I cannot help but wonder if there is a reactive anti-tank missile system incorporated within the turret, much like the CIS (?) T-85/90/95 with blow off shrapnel filled panels? (There does seem to be evidence to support my theory if one supposes that the twin 3 sided boxes either side of the turret in front of the smoke dischargers)

An interesting concept vehicle. I for one, would love to know how it measures up against other AFVs.

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 04:20 AM
My two cents about this topic is that if it's a next generation tank, it's not very stealthy.. Any designer worth his salts these days tries to make new systems harder to spot on radar. This baby will be like a christmas tree at night in a desert.

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 04:35 AM
Yeah it does look like it'd stick out like a sore thumb on radar, but it also looks pretty low too, and bear in mind that they've got plenty of time to rectify the design flaws. I expect it'll be up there with the heavy weight MBTs by the time it's done, although by then it's contemporaries may well have changed, so who knows?

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 04:59 AM
Anyone know of the size ration between this tanks, VS the others like M1s, T-90s,etc?

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 01:27 PM
Nearly all modern MBTs are the same size. At least in terms of the chassis. The FSU tanks still have remarkably small turrets, and the French Leclec has a very large turret, but its basically the same.

One notable different is that FSU tanks are 40-60 ton range, while Abrams and some other western MBTs are 60-70+ tons.

I would guess the tank to be between 50-60 tons. Not as light as a FSU, but not as heavy as the Abrams.

Of course, if we knew anything about its armor, which we dont, we could make a better guess of its weight and abilities.

All the electronics in the world wont save your tank from a 1960's ATGW launched from the T-64's main gun.

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:47 PM
Looks like a LeClerc, interesting attempt to improve top protection with that big thick slab of armor in the middle of the turret.

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 05:57 PM
This tank is 62 tons stated by a Korean poster in WAFF.

posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 04:59 PM
my thread on the tank

Yeah definetly ooks intresting! Oh by the way my computer is back up!

top topics


log in