Hanwha Systems (CEO Eo Seong-cheol) announced today that it has signed a contract with the Korea Research Institute for defense Technology planning and advancement for the ‘Intelligent Active Defense Technology for Next Generation Infantry Fighting Vehicles’ project worth approximately 36 billion KRW.
Hanwha Systems plans to secure intelligent active protection technology that can respond to multiple threats by developing ‘composite active protection technology’ and ‘ground-based directional jamming technology’ by 2026.
The Active Protection System (APS) is a defense system that actively neutralizes threats and prevents attacks on armored vehicles such as tanks and armored personnel carriers before they are attacked by anti-tank rockets and anti-tank missiles, and is an advanced survival equipment for combat vehicles.
한화시스템(대표이사 어성철)이 국방기술진흥연구소와 약 360억 규모의 ‘차세대보병전투차량 다중 위협체 대응 지능형 능동방호 기술’ 과제 계약을 체결했다고 3일 밝혔다.
한화시스템은 2026년까지 '복합형 능동방호기술’과 '지상용 지향성 방해기술’을 개발해 다중 위협체에 대응 가능한 지능형 능동방호기술을 확보할 계획이다.
능동방호체계(APS, Active Protection System)는 전차·장갑차 등의 기갑 차량이 대전차 로켓·대전차 미사일 등의 공격을 받기 전에 능동적으로 위협체를 무력화해 공격을 막는 방어 체계로 전투차량의 첨단 생존 장비다.
Of course, the Korean military also developed the Korean Active Protection System (KAPS) 10 years ago, spending 44 billion KRW to develop the K2 tank. However, it was not adopted due to the high cost of 1 billion KRW per unit and the damage to allies caused by a lot of fragments. Due to the lessons learned from the recent war in Ukraine, Poland and other countries want to equip their tanks with APS, so APS development is being promoted again in Korea, centered on Hyundai Rotem and Hanwha Systems.
물론 우리 군도 10여년 전 K2 전차 개발 때 440억원을 들여 국산 능동방호체계(KAPS)를 개발했다. 하지만 1개당 10억원이나 드는 비싼 비용과 많은 파편에 따른 아군 피해 등을 이유로 채택하지 않았다. 최근 우크라이나전의 교훈 등으로 폴란드 등 전차 수입국에선 APS 장착을 원해 국내에서 현대로템과 한화시스템 등을 중심으로 다시 APS 개발이 추진 중이다.
Hyundai Rotem, which exports 1,000 K2 tanks to Poland, is developing an improved KAPS that combines the latest Israeli technology with the KAPS developed 10 years ago to equip locally produced K2 tanks in Poland with a domestic APS after 2026. In March, Hanwha Systems signed a contract worth about 36 billion KRW with the Korea Research Institute for defense Technology planning and advancement for the ‘Intelligent Active Protection Technology for Next-Generation Infantry Fighting Vehicles Against Multiple Threats’ project, and plans to secure intelligent active protection technology by developing ‘complex active protection technology’ and ‘ground-based jamming technology’ by 2026.
폴란드에 1000대의 K2 전차를 수출하는 현대로템은 오는 2026년 이후 폴란드 현지 제작 K2 전차에 국산 APS를 장착하기 위해 10년전 개발된 KAPS에 이스라엘 최신기술 등을 접목한 개량형 KAPS를 개발중이다. 한화시스템은 지난 3월 국방기술진흥연구소와 약 360억 규모의 ‘차세대보병전투차량 다중 위협체 대응 지능형 능동방호 기술’ 과제 계약을 체결했는데, 2026년까지 ‘복합형 능동방호기술’과 ‘지상용 지향성 방해기술’을 개발해 지능형 능동방호 기술을 확보할 계획이다.
I cannot comment about the hull but isn’t someone straight up measured thickness of K2’s turret ? @Til_Dovre_Faller’s values are matching with that guy’s measurement, why do you think it is not accurate ?
It originally started with the South Korean National Assembly. Based on South Korean military data, there was a controversy about the lack of protection against the Bulsae-5 (licensed Kornet) missile from North Korea. At the time, the Bulsae-5 was estimated to penetrate 1000-1200 mm.
This is a Kornet ATGM equivalent; as K2’s protection against it was brought into question, and values presented by the thread’s OP are as follows:
Ca. 800–900mm RHA vs KE for turret
Ca. 1500–1600mm RHA vs HEAT for turret
Ca. 600–700mm RHA vs KE for hull
Ca. 1200–1400mm RHA vs HEAT for hull
Are basically fantasy. Not only is the real life K2 susceptible to the Kornet (per both SKNA & the Polish military community in the know-how, such as Jarosław Wolski who’s in contact with the Polish Army), the best estimate we’ve got on the KE protection is immunity to the K276 APFSDS, which by all measures is only at 3BM-60s level, or slightly below it (meaning at 2km distance it will perforate only ~550mm’s of RHA in a best case scenario), this is the threshold to use when estimating K2’s armour capability.
This was provided by Jarosław Wolski/Militarysta himself:
Precisely, I was talking about thickness, I only read the table below and missed protection values. Sorry about that, its on me.
Thank you for the values, is there any sources I could cite, could you please link them if you. I would like the use them on my Altay suggestions since frontal protection seems to pretty much the same with K2.
i foiund these stat from various sources, but they are only approximately. this protection aginst heat/kinetic, wich i wrote are from someone that “calkulated it” were better than nothing at the time.
(hard to explain)
considering that many other vehiles i have been looking at, have much of the protection classified i believe there is a simlar case here
Aint no way that armor can with stand 3BM59 or any NATO equivilent but i expected the CE is nearly or at best, equal to modern Chobham/IBD’s NERA.
Their option for ERA is the thing that we blind, much harder to find info about ERA they uses.
Don’t. Altay’s turret protection will be significantly different from K2s. Based on what I’ve seen, its turret modules are thicker than K2s by a pretty significant amount (may even exceed 1 meter in Line-of-Sight thickness). The hull armour module itself also seems to be larger.
It also uses a different composite package (a domestic development), as such you cannot use K2s armour values as a base for Altay’s.