No Turkiye use own K-9 .....The Howitsers is co prouction with Korea, i mean the design etc but everything els is Turkish made...like computers, systems,, software etc etc....only the design of the howitser it self is under license.... but now we have K99 NG...In Turkish name is: Firtina-NG.....This is 100% Turkish because we learne from the first project. Firtina-NG can fire 3 rounds and make them impact at the same time at target
@@oghuzkhan5117 Altay tank is based on K2 black panther. And Firtina is based on K9 spg too You are denying it now, but you will admit it after Turkey develop the next generation of new tanks and spg.
@@seoul_9584 i do not deny. Can you not read? K9 was produced under license in Turkiye but only the shape. The computers/software and all others are 100% Turkish. Only the design is based on K9....And that is old one. NOW we have produced another new model its called FIRTINA-NG ....and this we did not get help from Korea is 100% Turkish even the design. Only the first old FIRTINA is based on K9
@@oghuzkhan5117 Firtina is basically almost identical to K9. Major sub systems such as guns, loader, chassis, etc are Korean designs manufactured by Turkey after tech transfers. It also has parts imported from Korea such as engine, transmission, and driving systems. The vehicle also has Turkish origin parts, but compared to Korean origin that's far smaller %. Not to mention that armor plate and its crafting skill also came from Korea.
@@oghuzkhan5117 I agree that next version of Firtina was designed by 100% Turkey with use of transferred technology from Korea. South Korea gave good deal to Turkey regarding technologies when Turkey made purchase.
1. 1200 K9s are rolling in mainland Korea alone, and the upgrade to the K9A2 was approved in 2022. 2. The types of shells in the K9 are as follows: 18km(M107, HE) 30km(M549A1, HE-RAP) 36km(K310, DP-ICMBB) 40km(K307, HEBB) 55km(K315, HE-RAP) 100km(Gliding Guided Artillery Munition - GGAM In development, the prototype is completed, Similar to M982) 80km(ramjet shell under development) 3. The K9A3 after 2030 will add water-cooled L58 Barrel and unmanned-powered capabilities. 4. It has already achieved economies of scale, and there is currently no SPH that satisfies this more realistic price and performance. There is also no SPH with this more realistic maintenance cost and future upgrades. 5. If the UK buys it, the K9 will become a NATO standard self-propelled gun, and South Korea expects the status of K9 and Korean weapons to be raised to the next level due to the purchase of the great Britain.
@@oghuzkhan5117 SORRY, special ammunition such as GGAM cannot be fired at any 155mm. There must be a chamber and barrel that can withstand the explosive power of a high tension, as well as a Run-out cylinder and a suspension. It's not an easy technology to shoot a 100km range with a cannon, not a rocket.
I was always interested in Archer or maybe Caesar for the UK's new SPG, but the more I hear about K9A2 the more it makes practical sense. And it makes sense to get a licence for building them in the UK too because 1) We have the tech/production infrastructure to do it 2) It sounds like Hanwha can't build them fast enough to satisfy demand from NATO countries, India etc. When you're South Korea, with all the geopolitical realities you have around you, I guess it makes sense to put extra effort into having an excellent super-long-range highly-mobile precision artillery system. K9 is a product of the environment ROK grew up in. It's mature, it's advanced, it's effective, and it's a popular product among allies.
There are more than 1,000 K9s in Korean Army. They have the capacity to produce whatever the demand is out there. By the time, UK makes the decision, Hanwha would have already fulfill the demand from Poland. Other countries demands are not massive at this point.
The thing I like about the Archer and Ceasar is that there tire mobility versus the tracked one on the K9. The war in Uukraine revealed Russian tracked vehicles over and over trying to hide among trees only to have their fresh tracks in the field give away their positions and getting blown up. Does SK have a wheeled variant of the K9?
This along with the archer is under consideration, likely path is the MOD will spend a few hundred million on assessing the best option, then decide on wide ranging modifications that after some 15 years, and several billions, still does not work, and following the latest defence review, cancelled, to be replaced by an air gun for the one remaining UK soldier.
Korean self-propelled howitzers are an excellent choice. Korea is a country with four distinct seasons, and it is really hot in summer and cold in winter. In such a country, in order to move precision machines such as tanks, Aegis warships and ballistic missiles, good weapon performance is required. Korea is a technological powerhouse. They can craft all the weapons themself. Recently, it also built a new fighter, the KF-21 fighter. Britain and South Korea must work closely together to stay away from expensive American weapons.
@@Red.Hot.Chili.Beans63 You don't seem to be familiar with the US military system. The US never transfers technology to its allies. Even to Five Eyes, represented by Anglo-Saxons. It is true that Britain also imports many weapons from the United States, but it is not satisfactory. It's not just the UK, but all over the world. If each country does not make its own weapons, the price of US-made weapons continues to rise. The US never transfers technology. Rather, South Korea imported many weapons from Russia. In the former Soviet Union, they lent a lot of money, but when they couldn't pay it back, Korea chose to get weapons instead of debt. South Korea studied it and developed the present-day Black Panther and ballistic missile. This is Russia's biggest mistake. Americans think that America's weapons are the best, but that's because they don't know the flow of the times. Korea is a country where the war is not over and has been continuously producing and developing weapons for that war for half a century. As far as I know, there is currently no Army force that can stand up to South Korea except the United States. The UK must understand this and dispel the stereotype that only the US supplies advanced weapons. Military cooperation with Korea, which has technological prowess, will be the best option for Britain in the future.
@@kebinify ". As far as I know, there is currently no Army force that can stand up to South Korea except the United States." LMAO have you seen the revelation of Korean Army special forces member? They are using cheap brittle Made in China tourniquets? No better than Russia that uses cheap Chinese tires for their trucks
They already do and have for the last 40 years the m109 was 155,the m777 is 155 so apparently you have no idea what is going on,unless you're thinking about 120mm rifled tank ammo.
the voiceover was incorrect. as many comments say, the ammunition can already be sourced in UK. it is the gun that is not being made in the UK. No one makes large guns in UK
K9 is one of the best howitzers. along with its autoloader and the new rubber tracks and mostly made in the UK its got to be looked at as the top contender. only down side to the rubber tracks life span on roads is a lot less
We, the UK need more than one version of a self propelled howitzer, both tracked and wheeled, the BAE systems “ARCHER” 155mm howitzer, very good in all theatres of war within all environments with its all wheel drive, and we also need something like the K9, with extended range shells within the package of different ordinance that's comes with it, but it also needs to fire BAE systems ER munitions like Excalibur with its control surfaces and long range GPS guided rocket assisted brilliantly accurate technology to pinpoint any target up to 40-58kms or 25-35mls.
Note in Ukraine they have the AHS Krab howitzer which combines a British AS-90M Braveheart turret with a 155mm 52-calibre gun and WB Electronics' Topaz artillery fire control system with the chassis, or load-bearing vehicle frame, of Korean K-9 Thunder howitzers. as for South Korea not providing the K9 Thunder or any other real type of lethal weapons directly ? in this day and age one would have thought that having their kit evaluated in real time would do wonders for their weapons manufactures, and enhance their reputation and to hell with citing the country's diplomatic and security situations and the impact on its own military's readiness posture as the reason why they are reluctant , when facing off against another despot with a pile of garbage on its border.
You must think south korea is like Canada and USA, isolated in their own side of the world, or like the nato countries surrounded by allies. South Korea has nk and russia to the north, China to the west, and its former enemy Japan to the south. Do you really think sk is in a position to freely supply arms to whatever countries it wants to without facing consequences? 🤔
South Korea has been practically the only country that has the technology and, more importantly, maintained the production capacity due to the demand from the Korean Army. Other countries including UK have not been keen to develop the technology or production capacity. This is the same for the US. South Korea at this point has the largest fleet of 155mm self-propelled guns in the world. To match it, you have to combine guns from US, UK, and several other countries.
Only reason would be due to its low price since Korea has already achieved economies of scale and has a stockpile of millions of shells in its possession.
We can but we have worthless and utterly treasonous scum in the seats of power who will not ever do what is right by this nation,, globalism one world traitors 🤬
@@mikeycraig8970 you still refuse to support the idea of strengthening the UK industry by making a UK mobile howitzer instead of spending potentially billions to a foreign country... a howitzer is not an f35.
Looks good, the K9A2 has a fire rate of 8-10 rounds a minute which is very impressive and it's clearly a popular platform with the amount of countries choosing it as their preferred SPG. The thing is, I can't help but feel that a wheeled platform would be more suitable for the British army. The artillery gun module for the Boxer looks like a good option.
@@davesherry5384 More and more armies around the world are adopting 8x8 armoured vehicles instead of tracks including the British army which is replacing the Warriors with Boxer 8x8's.
They should design a new platform that can replace the Challenger 3 and AS-90 (British Designed) with one hull makes maintenance and operation costs cheaper and as they would still be dedicated platform they would not sacrifice capability
Costs less, yes. Performance optimized, no. MBT and SPH have very different roles. You can't have a chassis that is optimized for MBT and SPH at the same time. A chassis optimized for a MBT will be unnecessarily too heavy for SPH role. A chassis optimized for SPH role will not have the adequate protection. Something in the middle is going to produce MBT and SPH that are also somewhere in the middle, in terms of performance.
@@ghostray3252 If you design the hull to be used for both roles you can have a MBT and SPH based on the same hull but just because they are based on the same hull does not mean they are the same hull and also future MBT’s will be a lot lighter than current MBT’s (50 Tons) and there are examples of MBT hulls being used for both roles Challenger has a MBT/SPA/SPAA
Actually the K9 has the same carriage like the ordnance transporter K10 which should team up with the K9. These carriages and it's are interchangable for the most part.
A friend of mine, a counter battery radar officer in ROK army, said it was mostly hit at a diameter of 40 to 50 meters from a distance of 40 kilometers. but he also said wind calculation is more important than accuracy
@@edwardkim8972 lol there is a lot of gap between russian and western Artillery technology, 40~50m in a diameter accuracy is quite normal standard for western modernized Artillery like phaladin, archer, k9, pzh2000 etc
That footage of it shooting in a straight line to a small target has me wondering what the difference is between this & say a tank? I'm referring specifically to the idea of a howitzer essentially lobbing a bomb compared to a cannon firing directly at the target, and not the question of turret or no turret. Thank you.
I would guess tanks are more armored and maneuverable and a clear shot like that are usually not possible to take from such a long range due to terrain and buildings. Artillery usually aims at a location, not specific targets.
SPGs are not designed for direct firing and the the machine takes a lot of toll when it does. It's to be used only as a very last resort when the enemy is in the visual range. In fact, artillery crews are told to be ready to meet their makers if and when they are in such a circumstance... Let's keep in mind that SPGs are designed to hit and run.
I'm not disputing it can do it, I'm just disputing it can hit what it's aiming at. The boxer has independent suspension on each wheel but it's not self leveling ... unless that's part of the modifications to make it a howitzer.
Totally Agree, 3 of them with a couple of cv90's with twin amos 100mm auto mort, a couple more with quick firing 50's in support a ammo truck and call it a battery, youd be demolishing smallish towns with that hardware, certainly from the furthest shell to your firing position everything inbetween would be mostly dead or dieing with that sort of firepower!! , and anything to do with BAE is a win win as it saves us money...
Did you hear the bit at the end that stated the hull, turret, and drive would all be made in Britain, and that the ordinance would be the only imported part? That sounds like a really good deal for British workers. Domestic development from scratch of a completely new gun can take years before production actually starts (in peace time). Then all the kinks have to be hammered out of it. And then you have to find international sales in order to bring the unit cost down. If British arms manufacturers have a comparable gun in the works then it might not make sense to make this deal. But if they don’t, they should be working on the next generation of artillery to come out in 10 to 20 years.
@@pepperroni6252 The cheaper option is not always the best. We need to keep the design skills and technology in the UK for building a self propelled gun that's as good or better than those offered by others.
Fırtına 2 obus gövdenin üzerine k9 a2 insansız versiyonu kulesini entegre ettim 35mm 8 namlulu stamp olarak entegre ettim. Tamamen otomatik olarak ateş ediyor etkili mevzil 90km azmi mevzil 180km
No economies of scale. We only need 1/2 dozen regiments - 100 - 150 maybe? It's not with spending the money. or we can increase the defence budget to cater for such new weapons and try and sell them as well. But our defence budget is underfunded even for what we need.
@@gregzy789_gaming4 trouble is it tends to be governements that promise tax cuts that get voted in, military spending is long down the list of voter priorities
What still mystifies me, is why hasn’t the PzH 2000 been considered, as it is a proven design, combing one of the highest fire rates of up to 10-12 RPM, a 52 calibre barrel that can fire all Nato standard ammunition including Excalibur guided projectiles. At the same time Rheinmetall and KMW already have manufacturing interests in the UK with RBSL involved in the Challenger 3 upgrade programme and ARTEC being a subsidiary to KMW for producing Boxer.
1. The PzH 2000 is excellent but it costs around 2 to 3 times more depending on options. Would you rather have 1 PzH 2000 or 2 to 3 K9? 2. Several countries have purchased K9 including the right to manufacture components. Spare parts for the K9 are readily available, not the case for any German weapon. 3. I don't know how reliable the PzH 2000 is, but I doubt it's more reliable than the K9, which has an 85% availability rate 4. Upgrade path - Future versions of K9 are ready to roll so you can purchase new versions but the training and spare parts will, to some extent, still be useful for the upgrades versions.
By the end of the decade we need to be buying a gun that is not an older design. A lot can and will change in 7/8 years and this design may be getting long in the tooth by then. There's no harm in looking I suppose, but what upgrades are the Koreans planning to make to it, in the meantime, to make it still relevant in 7 or 8 years time?
The K9A2 variant as being marketed to the UK has an automated loading system. The some 1,300 K9s and K9A1s in service in Korea require time to upgrade.
We shouldn't be buying from others, as we need to keep the design skills and technology in the UK, and build a self propelled gun that's as good or better than those offered by others. Then if we wish we can export and sell to others.
In order to be efficient we would have to make them for ourselves, and make enough for a large export market. Something that has proven very difficult to do with British arms in the past. Not many nations use Warrior, Challenger to the AS90. Why not save time and money, get the best system available and still retain NATO compatibility? The "note made in Britain" mentality often bites us in the bum.
Designing and producing everything yourself is an unrealistic expectation. Most European countries got rid of their extensive domestic defense industries long ago. Britain would need decades to get development on an SPH done.
The issues with not keeping the skills and technologies is that it's far harder to get them back than is to maintain them. Look at the UK aircraft industry now and where it was after the war, the same goes for rail emngineering and dozens of other engineering industries. Germany never gave up on it's industries, which is why its still an industrial powerhouse today.
This is because South Korea does not sell weapons directly to warring countries, and the K9 mass production line is already full of Polish contracts, so it cannot be given to Ukraine in need of weapons right now. In a hurry, Ukraine had no choice but to live a German system that was four times as expensive. According to recent Czech media, an unknown Czech company is planning to buy a $3 billion weapons package from South Korea and send it somewhere, which includes a $2.5 billion Korean-made 155mm shell, a $500 million Cheiron MANPAD, and various munitions. (American Land-Lease Program)
K9 A4 155 59 kalibre yeni obusu tasarım olarak yaptim etkili mevzil 120km azmi mevzil roketli mermi ile 190km 250kmm kulesini üzerine 35mm stamp makineli top tamamen otomatik olarak ateş yapan insansız olan gövdenin ucuna kadar kademeli zırhlı sistemi donatılan top
the archer is more advanced, shoots further, and is much quicker, however, tracked performance is critical, we shall see if the MOD has the cash for the numbers required, me, id go for the force multiplier, and thats the archer system.
Why the hell do the west tell Russia what arms there sending to Ukraine ? just send them arms and keep quiet, let the Russians find out themselves Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦 😊
Having to import rounds sounds like a major drawback to this bid. As an Island state our dependence on imported ammo is a major strategic weakness. Just saying im sure this a a fine system but lets not build issues into our logistics chain, Trying to get rounds from the other side of the planet in a war situation is a recipe for disaster.
Korean equipment is often more NATO compatible than actual NATO equipment because there is no childish political rivalry (see: France, Germany, US). The K9 will be able to take standard 155mm rounds guaranteed. The reason why they want to import Korean rounds is because it is significantly cheaper, making it the obvious choice during peacetime.
Since South Korea is in a truce with North Korea, it is stockpiling at least 10 million 155mm shells. This means that Korean-made is the cheapest among NATO standard 155mm shells. We are also developing 100km range guided shells GGAM and 80km range non-guided ramjet shells. Because it's cheap, it's also a good way to buy an appropriate amount and stock up on a regular time, or to license and produce shells with British technology. In addition, in the case of the aforementioned long-range special shells, it is necessary to buy an appropriate amount and stock up.
So let me get this right; we'll build them here but still need to truck the ammunition halfway around the world in order to use them? What could possibly go wrong! 🤪
Yep these can take standard 155mm NATO shells. The reason why the shells are being imported is because Korea has full economies of scale hence they're cheaper. Korea produces and stockpiles millions and millions and millions of artillery rounds. Keeps the Norks and Chinese and Russians and Japanese away.
We have a tracked gun, albeit it has been subject to through life neglect. For nowhere near as much as K9. And the spare cash liberated could be used to autoload AS90; and licence produce our own 52 cal from the Poles (who it was sold to by the DA). Why upgrade what we have got rather than buy something nice and shiny? Because we can reestablish our own sovereign capability and MLI it; and 'Balance of Payments'. If we insist on a wheeled gun, lease tank transporters for long marches and do you mobility bit on our own tracks.
Australia is getting K9 howitzers as well. The photo of the Army officers sitting down are Australian. Booyah finally some self propelled guns for Australia yeagh baby.
Good system. PZH2000 is probably a bit better and more battle proven. It has already shown truly exceptional combat capabilities in Ukraine and Afghanistan alike. But domestic porduction would be amazing for the brits and really I think they are pretty much equal except that the pzh2000 does have superior fire rate and is combat proven. That said this might be a stereotype but germans do tend to like overengineering to squeeze 1% extra performance where asians are known for reliability.
PZH is it's own can of worms. It lost Norway competiotion to K9 and is extremely expensive. In Ukraine they started developing fatigue problems after shootilg hundreds of rounds in relatively short time, some already went to repairs. I would really love to see K9s in Ukraine, and if they would survive such harsh conditions especially in comparison to PZH2000
its not much of a improvement on the as90 , if the as90 had the rounds the k9 had it would be near par or on par with a few upgrades . Like the AHS Krab is. also i doubt The MoD would buy into the idea of ruining our arms industry even further to the point we can only make air rifles. because the whole reason why we have bearly any defence industry anymore is due to taking the cheap foreign option. or completely mismanaging our arms industry with specialised demands, and the government constantly going back and forth over what we want. Honestly , there are 5 more years till there is serious discussion about replacing a specialised vehicle that is cited to be retired by 2030. as90 is fine for the next 5 years as its weaknesses are covered by The m270s . all of this seems like a sudden hype train over Korean vehicles because they have been the only ones making military equipment for the last 25 years par from the germans .
The K9 looks on the books, at least, to give the Panzerhaubitze 2000 a run for it’s money. If I was a buyer I would like to see it proven in battle first. As we are finding out, anecdotally, that the Panzerhaubitze 2000 has mechanical flaws that only now have been revealed because they are being work so hard as never before. The loading mechanism breaks under repeated and non-stop use.
@@MrDK0010 The K9 is getting great reviews but… so wasn’t the Panzerhaubitze 2000 before it was placed under war conditions. I want to see the K9 in the grind before I’ll buy it.
@@steve-real The Pzh2000 is still among the best of its kind in the world, I have no doubt the previously unnoticed shortcomings will be corrected over the coming years back in Germany. Perhaps some of the difficulties also arise from its remote nature of use, rather far away from the usually constant specialized logistics and support. As for the K9, while it has yet to experience high-intensity combat in a conventional war, I would be remiss if I did not mention that very large numbers have been in use in many different types of climates for more than a decade. Extensive feedback from all types of users (professional and conscript armies, mobile units and border installations, etc) is certainly no substitute for trials in continued combat, but it is experience nonetheless.
@@MrDK0010 I agree with all your points. I think a toe for toe contest in the war in Ukraine is the only way to flush out design flaws and see who the true king of the battle field is. All the heavy hitters are there except the K9 brother. I think you would need the South Korean government to give it’s blessing in order for the K9 be sent to Ukraine though. The United States needs a new artillery platform. The K9 is looking good. I encourage the South Korean government to make this sponsorship happen. None of this can be done without them brother.
The flaws of the PzH2000 are mainly there because its used in a way it was not built for. I mean, whats a Howitzer worth if its not able to ramp up the speed of shooting.. So one could argue that a howitzer should be able to fire as much as required.. But I guess, the main reason for the shortcomings in battle are the high usage because of the lack of support. 15 PzH2000 on a frontline of 2000kms are obviously not enough (no that they have to be used on all places, just for visualization).. So the Ukraine had to overuse the units they got with personell that is not well trained on the Howitzers.. And with missing spare parts and expertise to repair and maintain them it is inevitable that those machines will break sooner or later. That does not necessary make them worse than tremendously good. And it does not make the Ukraine a bad competitor. They are just not as awesome as one thought before, because in the specific case they cant deliver as wanted. But nevertheless the K9 is cheaper, so it there is one big argument against the PzH2000... And Im almost certain KMW will not agree to give away the knowledge about turret for the RCH155 to be built in Britain.. The RCH155 is able to shoot on the move, as far as I know no other Howitzer is able to do that so far. And this technological lead KMW will not easily give away.
K9 3 Round MRSI PzH 2000 5 round MRSI K9 2-3 Round per minute, Mechanical/Technical Limitation PzH 2000 20 Round in 2 min, thermal limit, but if you want you can shoot the whole 60 rounds without a break, with 3 Round per minute K9 moves in a little under 1min after one shot PzH 2000 moves 30s after one shot The K9 must be very cheap... Technically, it is ok but not really good. It was certainly a purely political decision, but certainly not a logical one.
PzH costs at least three times more. This is what Hanwha said: If you pay three times more, we can make better than PzH. Further, PzH has mechanical, maintenance issues. In Germany and Ukraine, many PzHs are sleeping in the garage waiting to be repaired. The maintenance costs a lot more too.
When Norway was making a decision on which 155mm SPH to buy in 2017, K9 and PzH 2000 were basically went head to head. Rumor has it, PzH 2000's engine froze overnight in −40 °C temp and didn't start up whereas K9 was able to start up with just a tarp covering the engine area. If PzH 2000 was about the same price, all that technical detail might win over, but at current price levels, any sane government/army would choose K9 and that's clearly panned out in the 155mm SPH export market. K9 is really only game in town. With Poland producing K9 in Poland starting in a couple of years, many European countries now considering the future 155mm SPH will likely go K9 route.
@@sammylee2338 PzH has no mechanical problems... where does this nonsense come from? The few PzH in Ukraine have fired much more ammunition than the KRAB from Poland, of which there are more and they have been there longer. Simply because they can. The only defect is a seal, from the compressed air loader or on the compressor due to this excessive use. But you can't blame the Ukrainians for that, they simply received too few PzH2000s. The PzH is supposed to have cold-start problems? Where do you get these fairy tales from? K9, KRAB and PzH2000 all have the same engine... an german MTU 881.
@@JuanCarlos-dz7wc i think prduction will start again with the order from Ukraine and yeah its more expensive than the K9 but its MRSI on the PHZ 2000 is much better than on the K9 and MRSI is in the view of many experts one of the key fetures of a moder howitzer
@@ionees3640 So when do you start ? K9A2 upgrade version would start soon then K9A2 upgraded version will be better with Low cost ! PzH is rip off ! The sales performance shows how K9 is the better product and Some of countries which already imported K9 want to increase their K9
@@JuanCarlos-dz7wc you dont realy know how the K9A2 will perform, you can always say it will be better, but how do you know and if ukrain gets there PHZ I think germany will get some knew wons too and im also going to speculate but with many other military peces of equpment it was so, that the prices will drop
as an American it's almost laughable that artillery is making a big comeback, although I'll admit it's cool to see the big guns. Our air power would devastate all of these systems. These countries need to learn how to build airplanes, smart bombs and satellites.
But why? AS90 is a good system and with a contractor like BAe systems which has decades of experience, why would you wanna import something instead of developing a new platform based on AS90. BAe systems can do it for god's sake , don't make this next Ajax .
@@HedgehogZone no it wasnt, big defence conglomerates like BAE often buy and sell off certain divisions that often were separate companies at one point. This allows them to focus investment on key tech where they see worthwhile growth (military tech is notorisouly expensive). In fact those divisions then often have regional ownership under shared parent companies with different levels of stake. This especially happens on national military tenders which require local build or large chunks of a project being brought together from different companies (e.g. the current Challenger III project), its a bit like the European Royal families of old. You think the British government would allow BAE to be bought by a foreign company? Goodness.
Operators of K9 Thunder (2022)
🇰🇷 South Korea
🇦🇺 Australia
🇪🇬 Egypt
🇪🇪 Estonia
🇫🇮 Finland
🇮🇳 India
🇳🇴 Norway
🇵🇱 Poland
🇹🇷 Turkey
No Turkiye use own K-9 .....The Howitsers is co prouction with Korea, i mean the design etc but everything els is Turkish made...like computers, systems,, software etc etc....only the design of the howitser it self is under license....
but now we have K99 NG...In Turkish name is: Firtina-NG.....This is 100% Turkish because we learne from the first project.
Firtina-NG can fire 3 rounds and make them impact at the same time at target
@@oghuzkhan5117 Altay tank is based on K2 black panther. And Firtina is based on K9 spg too
You are denying it now, but you will admit it after Turkey develop the next generation of new tanks and spg.
@@seoul_9584 i do not deny. Can you not read? K9 was produced under license in Turkiye but only the shape. The computers/software and all others are 100% Turkish. Only the design is based on K9....And that is old one. NOW we have produced another new model its called FIRTINA-NG ....and this we did not get help from Korea is 100% Turkish even the design. Only the first old FIRTINA is based on K9
@@oghuzkhan5117 Firtina is basically almost identical to K9. Major sub systems such as guns, loader, chassis, etc are Korean designs manufactured by Turkey after tech transfers. It also has parts imported from Korea such as engine, transmission, and driving systems. The vehicle also has Turkish origin parts, but compared to Korean origin that's far smaller %. Not to mention that armor plate and its crafting skill also came from Korea.
@@oghuzkhan5117 I agree that next version of Firtina was designed by 100% Turkey with use of transferred technology from Korea. South Korea gave good deal to Turkey regarding technologies when Turkey made purchase.
1. 1200 K9s are rolling in mainland Korea alone, and the upgrade to the K9A2 was approved in 2022.
2. The types of shells in the K9 are as follows:
18km(M107, HE)
30km(M549A1, HE-RAP)
36km(K310, DP-ICMBB)
40km(K307, HEBB)
55km(K315, HE-RAP)
100km(Gliding Guided Artillery Munition - GGAM In development, the prototype is completed, Similar to M982)
80km(ramjet shell under development)
3. The K9A3 after 2030 will add water-cooled L58 Barrel and unmanned-powered capabilities.
4. It has already achieved economies of scale, and there is currently no SPH that satisfies this more realistic price and performance. There is also no SPH with this more realistic maintenance cost and future upgrades.
5. If the UK buys it, the K9 will become a NATO standard self-propelled gun, and South Korea expects the status of K9 and Korean weapons to be raised to the next level due to the purchase of the great Britain.
Sorry but what has the shells to do with the howitser it self? Every 155 mm nato complicited howitsers can fire those shells. Nothing special to K9
There are a few better howitzer already in use in europe. I dont think the k9 will ever be nato standard.
@@HedgehogZone you mean the Pzh? The Pzh is 60% more expensive and has worser mobility (as the Norwegian trials proved).
@@oghuzkhan5117 SORRY, special ammunition such as GGAM cannot be fired at any 155mm. There must be a chamber and barrel that can withstand the explosive power of a high tension, as well as a Run-out cylinder and a suspension. It's not an easy technology to shoot a 100km range with a cannon, not a rocket.
@@bangdoll4500 Are there right hand and left hand steering variants of the K9?
For the UK and Australia for example ...
I was always interested in Archer or maybe Caesar for the UK's new SPG, but the more I hear about K9A2 the more it makes practical sense.
And it makes sense to get a licence for building them in the UK too because 1) We have the tech/production infrastructure to do it 2) It sounds like Hanwha can't build them fast enough to satisfy demand from NATO countries, India etc.
When you're South Korea, with all the geopolitical realities you have around you, I guess it makes sense to put extra effort into having an excellent super-long-range highly-mobile precision artillery system. K9 is a product of the environment ROK grew up in. It's mature, it's advanced, it's effective, and it's a popular product among allies.
우리꺼 사줘
나토표준이야
There are more than 1,000 K9s in Korean Army. They have the capacity to produce whatever the demand is out there. By the time, UK makes the decision, Hanwha would have already fulfill the demand from Poland. Other countries demands are not massive at this point.
Whatever you think, it's been already considered in K9 and the system, man. Hahaha~
The thing I like about the Archer and Ceasar is that there tire mobility versus the tracked one on the K9. The war in Uukraine revealed Russian tracked vehicles over and over trying to hide among trees only to have their fresh tracks in the field give away their positions and getting blown up. Does SK have a wheeled variant of the K9?
This along with the archer is under consideration, likely path is the MOD will spend a few hundred million on assessing the best option, then decide on wide ranging modifications that after some 15 years, and several billions, still does not work, and following the latest defence review, cancelled, to be replaced by an air gun for the one remaining UK soldier.
🤣😂🤣😂
That would be funnier if it wasnt true
Oh, go play with your dolly Paul.
Absolutely
While the MOD expands to 100,000 civil servants…
Korean self-propelled howitzers are an excellent choice. Korea is a country with four distinct seasons, and it is really hot in summer and cold in winter. In such a country, in order to move precision machines such as tanks, Aegis warships and ballistic missiles, good weapon performance is required. Korea is a technological powerhouse. They can craft all the weapons themself. Recently, it also built a new fighter, the KF-21 fighter. Britain and South Korea must work closely together to stay away from expensive American weapons.
@@Red.Hot.Chili.Beans63 You don't seem to be familiar with the US military system. The US never transfers technology to its allies. Even to Five Eyes, represented by Anglo-Saxons. It is true that Britain also imports many weapons from the United States, but it is not satisfactory. It's not just the UK, but all over the world. If each country does not make its own weapons, the price of US-made weapons continues to rise. The US never transfers technology. Rather, South Korea imported many weapons from Russia. In the former Soviet Union, they lent a lot of money, but when they couldn't pay it back, Korea chose to get weapons instead of debt. South Korea studied it and developed the present-day Black Panther and ballistic missile. This is Russia's biggest mistake. Americans think that America's weapons are the best, but that's because they don't know the flow of the times. Korea is a country where the war is not over and has been continuously producing and developing weapons for that war for half a century. As far as I know, there is currently no Army force that can stand up to South Korea except the United States. The UK must understand this and dispel the stereotype that only the US supplies advanced weapons. Military cooperation with Korea, which has technological prowess, will be the best option for Britain in the future.
@@kebinify ". As far as I know, there is currently no Army force that can stand up to South Korea except the United States."
LMAO have you seen the revelation of Korean Army special forces member? They are using cheap brittle Made in China tourniquets? No better than Russia that uses cheap Chinese tires for their trucks
Lol Gordon deleted his comment.
@@miraphycs7377 i’m pretty sure that the tourniquet that i was issued in my medkit was made in korea I discharged like 2 months ago
US still makes the best weapons even if they are over priced
Only the ordinance will be imported. I worry that the ordinance is the one element that we might absolutely need to make here in a crisis.
yeah, it does sound like a very big "only" !
BAE systems is more than capable of producing 155mm ammunition if they need to.
They already do and have for the last 40 years the m109 was 155,the m777 is 155 so apparently you have no idea what is going on,unless you're thinking about 120mm rifled tank ammo.
the voiceover was incorrect. as many comments say, the ammunition can already be sourced in UK. it is the gun that is not being made in the UK. No one makes large guns in UK
Yeah seems extremely bizarre. I thought all 155mm ammo would be built to some sort of NATO spec which would be copied by the Japanese and Koreans.
If they are as good as a Hyundi or a KIa, then they will be just fine.
The UK just donated 30 AS90s so they're going to need some K9s to replace them!
K9 is one of the best howitzers. along with its autoloader and the new rubber tracks and mostly made in the UK its got to be looked at as the top contender. only down side to the rubber tracks life span on roads is a lot less
Those tracks can presumably be replaced pretty easily though
@@1IbramGaunt yes i heard that also. But worth while for MOD To think about using them
Yes, we are ready! Let's go together!!! ROKA & UKA!
We, the UK need more than one version of a self propelled howitzer, both tracked and wheeled, the BAE systems “ARCHER” 155mm howitzer, very good in all theatres of war within all environments with its all wheel drive, and we also need something like the K9, with extended range shells within the package of different ordinance that's comes with it, but it also needs to fire BAE systems ER munitions like Excalibur with its control surfaces and long range GPS guided rocket assisted brilliantly accurate technology to pinpoint any target up to 40-58kms or 25-35mls.
Note in Ukraine they have the AHS Krab howitzer which combines a British AS-90M Braveheart turret with a 155mm 52-calibre gun and WB Electronics' Topaz artillery fire control system with the chassis, or load-bearing vehicle frame, of Korean K-9 Thunder howitzers. as for South Korea not providing the K9 Thunder or any other real type of lethal weapons directly ? in this day and age one would have thought that having their kit evaluated in real time would do wonders for their weapons manufactures, and enhance their reputation and to hell with citing the country's diplomatic and security situations and the impact on its own military's readiness posture as the reason why they are reluctant , when facing off against another despot with a pile of garbage on its border.
Unfortunately we have questionable arms export policies preventing lethal aid to Ukraine.
Yeah, seeing K9s and AS90s in one service (and even in one title) instantly brings Krab to my mind
And all of our parties are pro-chinese in a nutshell, while people are anti chinese.
They fear chinese revenge on our economy.
You must think south korea is like Canada and USA, isolated in their own side of the world, or like the nato countries surrounded by allies. South Korea has nk and russia to the north, China to the west, and its former enemy Japan to the south. Do you really think sk is in a position to freely supply arms to whatever countries it wants to without facing consequences? 🤔
@@trstnhn Yes.
We need to have the ability to make our own
All they have to do is upgrade the SP90's guns and there is already a superb gun. the UK MoD is going slowly bonkers.
Cool and I love the name too. I know I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of that lol
"Only the ordnance would be imported"
Sounds like a hell of a potential problem to me...
How come the UK is unable to make a gun like this on their own and export it?
Because we end up spending millions on development and then no one buys it because there are other alternatives with better logistics
Economies of scale. It's also useful to use kit that your allies use or are very similar.
우리는 항상 전쟁중
Also, sold off and broken up a lot of defence companies. The expertise is dwindling.
South Korea has been practically the only country that has the technology and, more importantly, maintained the production capacity due to the demand from the Korean Army. Other countries including UK have not been keen to develop the technology or production capacity. This is the same for the US. South Korea at this point has the largest fleet of 155mm self-propelled guns in the world. To match it, you have to combine guns from US, UK, and several other countries.
Looks like a much improvedm109,which I worked on in the 1970,s
I would think that they would be willing to allow a UK company to license rights to make the ammo domestically to win the business from the MoD.
it accepts all standard 155mm NATO ammo.
It seems like the script is in error, they probably meant the barrel.
Only reason would be due to its low price since Korea has already achieved economies of scale and has a stockpile of millions of shells in its possession.
Next Gen Boxer RCH 155 is worth a look too.
Unless you want to be the beta tester.
The k9 is an unproven platform too!
@@hishot1078 Well, the driving platform is already proven, so it comes down to the fully automated gun module, that can be changed in minutes...
한국제품이 좋은 이유는 1좋은가격 2빠른배송 3확실한 AS 4고객이 원할때까지 업그레이드를 해준다는것이다!
Pretty shameful UK can't even design and make its own
Coming from a germ in a horrid country, buying old soviet junk 😂
We can but we have worthless and utterly treasonous scum in the seats of power who will not ever do what is right by this nation,, globalism one world traitors 🤬
You look at decisions affecting our country especially in defence procurement to see our politicians don’t feel shame about anything.
PS, 20% of each F35 made is done so with British parts and manpower. You seem to forget who built the first operational VTOL jet.
@@mikeycraig8970 you still refuse to support the idea of strengthening the UK industry by making a UK mobile howitzer instead of spending potentially billions to a foreign country... a howitzer is not an f35.
Looks good, the K9A2 has a fire rate of 8-10 rounds a minute which is very impressive and it's clearly a popular platform with the amount of countries choosing it as their preferred SPG. The thing is, I can't help but feel that a wheeled platform would be more suitable for the British army.
The artillery gun module for the Boxer looks like a good option.
Especially as there is a Boxer varient with a 155mm
LOL! How to eliminate the Mobility feature of an AFV in one fell swoop. Just put wheels on it.
@@davesherry5384 More and more armies around the world are adopting 8x8 armoured vehicles instead of tracks including the British army which is replacing the Warriors with Boxer 8x8's.
It's only the second choice...
First choice would be the PzHbz 2000
The PZH is better tbh
They should design a new platform that can replace the Challenger 3 and AS-90 (British Designed) with one hull makes maintenance and operation costs cheaper and as they would still be dedicated platform they would not sacrifice capability
Costs less, yes. Performance optimized, no. MBT and SPH have very different roles. You can't have a chassis that is optimized for MBT and SPH at the same time. A chassis optimized for a MBT will be unnecessarily too heavy for SPH role. A chassis optimized for SPH role will not have the adequate protection. Something in the middle is going to produce MBT and SPH that are also somewhere in the middle, in terms of performance.
@@ghostray3252 If you design the hull to be used for both roles you can have a MBT and SPH based on the same hull but just because they are based on the same hull does not mean they are the same hull and also future MBT’s will be a lot lighter than current MBT’s (50 Tons) and there are examples of MBT hulls being used for both roles Challenger has a MBT/SPA/SPAA
Or just go with the RCH155 on the Boxer chassie
@@Vatnik_tschistilka That a stupid idea
Actually the K9 has the same carriage like the ordnance transporter K10 which should team up with the K9. These carriages and it's are interchangable for the most part.
For what it's worth, Hanhwa means "Korea Gunpowder". Kind of a cool name I'd say.
🇵🇱🇰🇷❤️🇬🇧
mmm... I'm not sure want to be a position where we are importing ammunition
The UK will buy 100 rounds per gun, war will start, and then they'll draw 300,000 rounds from US stocks.
Don't you already make your own 155mm artillery shells for your M777s?
@@robman2095 funny thing, we made the M777 but we don’t use
Every NATO-compatibile 155mm howitzer can shoot nearly any NATO 155mm shell AFAIK
So everything made for M777 or AS90 should be perfectly fine
Thanks Much !
Cool name missed opertunity to play thunder sounds 🌩
The commentator should have pressed the colonel to state what size circle a shell would land in at 40 km range.
They can be guided so accurate !
A friend of mine, a counter battery radar officer in ROK army, said it was mostly hit at a diameter of 40 to 50 meters from a distance of 40 kilometers. but he also said wind calculation is more important than accuracy
@@dlejrgud23 Russian stuff is 200 meters.
@@edwardkim8972 lol there is a lot of gap between russian and western Artillery technology, 40~50m in a diameter accuracy is quite normal standard for western modernized Artillery like phaladin, archer, k9, pzh2000 etc
Pzh200 has a better accuracy at 80 km. Having a 40 to 50 meter radius at 30 km is realy bad!
The Boxer is already locally made. Why not use this way to produce PZH 2000?
There is a Boxerbased artillerysystem called RCH155. It's pretty new too.
Does the MOD ever considered the french CAESAR?
Nope. It's french
1950년 한국에서 전쟁이 일어났을 때 작고 가난한 나라를 도와준 서방의 여러 국가들에게 은혜를 갚고 싶다.
과거 한국이 전쟁의 폐허에서 복구할 때 서방은 힘없고 보잘 것 없는 시골사람들에게 기술을 포함한 힘을 빌려주었습니다.
우리 할머니는 아직도 그 이야기를 하신다.
We need to build our artillery in house. Especially ammunition!
That footage of it shooting in a straight line to a small target has me wondering what the difference is between this & say a tank? I'm referring specifically to the idea of a howitzer essentially lobbing a bomb compared to a cannon firing directly at the target, and not the question of turret or no turret. Thank you.
I would guess tanks are more armored and maneuverable and a clear shot like that are usually not possible to take from such a long range due to terrain and buildings. Artillery usually aims at a location, not specific targets.
My guess is muzzle velocity and thus kinetic energy when hitting the target.
Armor. An MBT has a lot more. SPHs only have enough armor for shrapnel and small arms
@@trstnhn Ahh. That makes sense. Thanks.
SPGs are not designed for direct firing and the the machine takes a lot of toll when it does. It's to be used only as a very last resort when the enemy is in the visual range. In fact, artillery crews are told to be ready to meet their makers if and when they are in such a circumstance... Let's keep in mind that SPGs are designed to hit and run.
RCH155 is much better. It can fire while moving.
The wheeled Boxer variant?
I don't think so.
@@JammyDodger45 There are videos that show it.
if you don't mind missing by a km or two yes it can fire on the move. hitting the target whilst firing on the move would be the clever bit
I'm not disputing it can do it, I'm just disputing it can hit what it's aiming at.
The boxer has independent suspension on each wheel but it's not self leveling ... unless that's part of the modifications to make it a howitzer.
@@richardc6681 It's hitting with high precision while moving!
Interesting product. So the extra adds on will cost more. Like the tracks for the vehicle which are light weight?
K2 balckpanther, K9 thunder는 사막과 북극,남극에서도 운용 가능합니다 ^^
proven design, built in Britain 🇬🇧 order it now
K9 is korean designed and manufactured in South korea, India and Turkey
@@rudrakshsinghkatal5609 hello Angel of War. Ye aap ho ho na ?
From dfi
or go with boxer tracked + boxer 155 howitzer module
Boxer has a 155mm gun??!
@@TheBooban yes, and looks very good. High fire rate and remote fire.
@@OrIoN1989 Not in an optical way
@@TheBooban The Artillery Gun Module was first introduced back in 2004. It is based on the technology of a combat-proven PzH 2000
Buy the Archer instead 👍🏻
Totally Agree, 3 of them with a couple of cv90's with twin amos 100mm auto mort, a couple more with quick firing 50's in support a ammo truck and call it a battery, youd be demolishing smallish towns with that hardware, certainly from the furthest shell to your firing position everything inbetween would be mostly dead or dieing with that sort of firepower!! , and anything to do with BAE is a win win as it saves us money...
Why not the new boxer artillery? Archer should also be an contender
Competition start !!
Boxer is wheeled, different applications.
50% is made in 🇬🇧 which benefits the economy and workforce.
We should be developing and building our own equipment giving jobs to UK workforce.
True Gilbert but this new gun if purchased would be built within the UK under licence
You'd think but it takes years of investment and development into industry and education, which has not been done.
Did you hear the bit at the end that stated the hull, turret, and drive would all be made in Britain, and that the ordinance would be the only imported part? That sounds like a really good deal for British workers.
Domestic development from scratch of a completely new gun can take years before production actually starts (in peace time). Then all the kinks have to be hammered out of it. And then you have to find international sales in order to bring the unit cost down.
If British arms manufacturers have a comparable gun in the works then it might not make sense to make this deal. But if they don’t, they should be working on the next generation of artillery to come out in 10 to 20 years.
The problem is, our arms industry was sold to private companies. We can't really do a lot if it's not under public ownership
@@pepperroni6252 The cheaper option is not always the best. We need to keep the design skills and technology in the UK for building a self propelled gun that's as good or better than those offered by others.
Archer should replace all towed artillery maybe the k9 should replace AS90 all infantry battalions should have both 120mm and 81mm mortars
Good choice
Fırtına 2 obus gövdenin üzerine k9 a2 insansız versiyonu kulesini entegre ettim 35mm 8 namlulu stamp olarak entegre ettim. Tamamen otomatik olarak ateş ediyor etkili mevzil 90km azmi mevzil 180km
amazing
A shame we can’t build our own anymore.
No economies of scale. We only need 1/2 dozen regiments - 100 - 150 maybe? It's not with spending the money. or we can increase the defence budget to cater for such new weapons and try and sell them as well. But our defence budget is underfunded even for what we need.
@@dnmurphy48 underfunded and under sized massively
@@gregzy789_gaming4 yeah and you would be the first person to vote for increasing taxes I am sure (if you even pay tax that is)
@@suburbia2050 don’t mind to be fair rather pay more to help British made kit
@@gregzy789_gaming4 trouble is it tends to be governements that promise tax cuts that get voted in, military spending is long down the list of voter priorities
How does the Challenger stack up against K9?
You don't just stack up SPH and MBT against each other. Different use cases
If you wanna compare head to head, K2 vs Challenger makes more sense
But there is the fenominal Panzerhaubitze 2000 from Germany why not buy close by and better.
AS90 can do 3 rds in 10 sec.
What still mystifies me, is why hasn’t the PzH 2000 been considered, as it is a proven design, combing one of the highest fire rates of up to 10-12 RPM, a 52 calibre barrel that can fire all Nato standard ammunition including Excalibur guided projectiles. At the same time Rheinmetall and KMW already have manufacturing interests in the UK with RBSL involved in the Challenger 3 upgrade programme and ARTEC being a subsidiary to KMW for producing Boxer.
1. The PzH 2000 is excellent but it costs around 2 to 3 times more depending on options. Would you rather have 1 PzH 2000 or 2 to 3 K9?
2. Several countries have purchased K9 including the right to manufacture components. Spare parts for the K9 are readily available, not the case for any German weapon.
3. I don't know how reliable the PzH 2000 is, but I doubt it's more reliable than the K9, which has an 85% availability rate
4. Upgrade path - Future versions of K9 are ready to roll so you can purchase new versions but the training and spare parts will, to some extent, still be useful for the upgrades versions.
@@jimpark8379 Some very valid and interesting points raised here, food for thought, Cheers!
Yeah PzH 2000 proved itself not useful in Ukraine.
By the end of the decade we need to be buying a gun that is not an older design. A lot can and will change in 7/8 years and this design may be getting long in the tooth by then. There's no harm in looking I suppose, but what upgrades are the Koreans planning to make to it, in the meantime, to make it still relevant in 7 or 8 years time?
Upgrade is a 59 calibre gun with a range of 70-100 km. Already on drawing board.
In Korea, the m48 patten is still used. It is characteristic of this country to use it until the moment of death. We have plans from 2030 to after.
1:48 "Fully automatic loading system" as a gun number pulls the projo over for ramming and inserts the powder.
The K9A2 variant as being marketed to the UK has an automated loading system. The some 1,300 K9s and K9A1s in service in Korea require time to upgrade.
there is a video of fully automatic K9A2 on youtube. it use robotic arm to load the shell and powder.
@@davidjacobs8558 Thanks
How does this compare to the AS 90?
AS90 needs 5 to10 persons but this one needs only 3.
@@jongwankim5800 K9a2 needs only 2 operation soldier ~
It fires MRSI right?
Yeup. 6 rounds MRSI on K9A2
3 rounds MRSI on K9A1
Only 6 thats pretty bad.
@@HedgehogZone Is it bad? whoa~
They should purchase the PHZ2000
Isn't the PHZ2000 a bit older? I think the K9 is of more recent design. Just curious.
@@jacktoy3032 Its developed in 1997 approximately
phz2000 is way too expensive, and also, Germany doesn't have manufacturing capacity to make them in great numbers.
@@davidjacobs8558 The manufacturing capacity can be increased and there is also the RCH155 that can fire while moving. No other howitzer can do that.
@@davidjacobs8558 Ukraine ordert 100 of those
We shouldn't be buying from others, as we need to keep the design skills and technology in the UK, and build a self propelled gun that's as good or better than those offered by others. Then if we wish we can export and sell to others.
In order to be efficient we would have to make them for ourselves, and make enough for a large export market. Something that has proven very difficult to do with British arms in the past. Not many nations use Warrior, Challenger to the AS90. Why not save time and money, get the best system available and still retain NATO compatibility? The "note made in Britain" mentality often bites us in the bum.
Designing and producing everything yourself is an unrealistic expectation. Most European countries got rid of their extensive domestic defense industries long ago. Britain would need decades to get development on an SPH done.
The issues with not keeping the skills and technologies is that it's far harder to get them back than is to maintain them. Look at the UK aircraft industry now and where it was after the war, the same goes for rail emngineering and dozens of other engineering industries. Germany never gave up on it's industries, which is why its still an industrial powerhouse today.
Wouldn’t the pzh 2000 be more suitable for uk?
RCH155 would be the better choice considering the UK bougth tons of Boxer units with all types of modules.
@@Vatnik_tschistilka True, the RCH155 would be the better choice, also more mobile than the pzh 2000 or the k9.
Uk from being self sufficient now being dependent on other countries
Nice gun, but not on par with the Pzh2000 in shot cadence. Bigger bang for the buck though afaik.
K9? Congratulations on getting through the entire video without cracking a "dogs of war" joke. Sadly, I have no such scruples.
But the Ukraine ordred 100 Panzerhaubitze 2000 in Germany Rheinmetall. Why?
This is because South Korea does not sell weapons directly to warring countries, and the K9 mass production line is already full of Polish contracts, so it cannot be given to Ukraine in need of weapons right now.
In a hurry, Ukraine had no choice but to live a German system that was four times as expensive.
According to recent Czech media, an unknown Czech company is planning to buy a $3 billion weapons package from South Korea and send it somewhere, which includes a $2.5 billion Korean-made 155mm shell, a $500 million Cheiron MANPAD, and various munitions. (American Land-Lease Program)
South Korea is in special relationship with Russia. They can't support Ukraine because of North Korea even they want to.
Best is to take it off the shelf before UK wrecks it in planning and manufacturing
K9 A4 155 59 kalibre yeni obusu tasarım olarak yaptim etkili mevzil 120km azmi mevzil roketli mermi ile 190km 250kmm kulesini üzerine 35mm stamp makineli top tamamen otomatik olarak ateş yapan insansız olan gövdenin ucuna kadar kademeli zırhlı sistemi donatılan top
the archer is more advanced, shoots further, and is much quicker, however, tracked performance is critical, we shall see if the MOD has the cash for the numbers required, me, id go for the force multiplier, and thats the archer system.
Why the hell do the west tell Russia what arms there sending to Ukraine ? just send them arms and keep quiet, let the Russians find out themselves Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦 😊
Having to import rounds sounds like a major drawback to this bid. As an Island state our dependence on imported ammo is a major strategic weakness. Just saying im sure this a a fine system but lets not build issues into our logistics chain, Trying to get rounds from the other side of the planet in a war situation is a recipe for disaster.
Korean equipment is often more NATO compatible than actual NATO equipment because there is no childish political rivalry (see: France, Germany, US). The K9 will be able to take standard 155mm rounds guaranteed.
The reason why they want to import Korean rounds is because it is significantly cheaper, making it the obvious choice during peacetime.
Since South Korea is in a truce with North Korea, it is stockpiling at least 10 million 155mm shells. This means that Korean-made is the cheapest among NATO standard 155mm shells. We are also developing 100km range guided shells GGAM and 80km range non-guided ramjet shells. Because it's cheap, it's also a good way to buy an appropriate amount and stock up on a regular time, or to license and produce shells with British technology. In addition, in the case of the aforementioned long-range special shells, it is necessary to buy an appropriate amount and stock up.
Seending ammo from literaly the other side of the planet makes it already to expensiv!
K-9 - I just think of a robotic dog....
A pity not more money is spent looking after veterans, after they are used up and spat out.
who will be making it in the UK?
Probably bae systems
Its from a UAE weapons developer based in UK
Pearson engineering, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Soucy, Horstman ( and their subcontractors)
So let me get this right; we'll build them here but still need to truck the ammunition halfway around the world in order to use them? What could possibly go wrong! 🤪
That's obviously wrong. Anyone can produce 155 mm nato shells.
Yep these can take standard 155mm NATO shells. The reason why the shells are being imported is because Korea has full economies of scale hence they're cheaper. Korea produces and stockpiles millions and millions and millions of artillery rounds. Keeps the Norks and Chinese and Russians and Japanese away.
Just by carrying the rounds from the other side of the world makes the ammunition already more expensiv!
We have a tracked gun, albeit it has been subject to through life neglect. For nowhere near as much as K9. And the spare cash liberated could be used to autoload AS90; and licence produce our own 52 cal from the Poles (who it was sold to by the DA). Why upgrade what we have got rather than buy something nice and shiny? Because we can reestablish our own sovereign capability and MLI it; and 'Balance of Payments'. If we insist on a wheeled gun, lease tank transporters for long marches and do you mobility bit on our own tracks.
Crew of 3? The video showed 3 in the turret - gunner, loader & commander. Does it drive it's self???
2:45 k9a2, k9,k9a1 have 5 crew
Why not buy the M109A7 Paladin from BAE Systems.
Old... Outdated... No room for improvement
Old
Outdated
M109 chassis is too small, have to redesign it completely.
then, it would be cheaper to license produce K9 chassis, and put new turrets on it.
In that case sticking with AS90 would be the better option really.
I weep that Taiwan can't purchase these
Australia is getting K9 howitzers as well. The photo of the Army officers sitting down are Australian. Booyah finally some self propelled guns for Australia yeagh baby.
Sorry Old Bean, can't make the battle today, flat tyre don't you know. We wouldn't be firing the weapon anyway, they aren't zero carbon.
Welcome to the K-9 User Club. - From Korea.
I thought he crab system:)
Lol, import the ammunition? Are they crazy? AS90 doesn't even need to be replaced. Simple, effective system.
Because south Korean high tech weapons is up there, just like Israel and American tech.
Howitzers are a "tech" are they?
What the price comparison to others ? 👀
New Zealand army needs those . Along with some good tanks etc
If you want good stuff you buy german!
Good system. PZH2000 is probably a bit better and more battle proven. It has already shown truly exceptional combat capabilities in Ukraine and Afghanistan alike. But domestic porduction would be amazing for the brits and really I think they are pretty much equal except that the pzh2000 does have superior fire rate and is combat proven. That said this might be a stereotype but germans do tend to like overengineering to squeeze 1% extra performance where asians are known for reliability.
PZH is it's own can of worms. It lost Norway competiotion to K9 and is extremely expensive. In Ukraine they started developing fatigue problems after shootilg hundreds of rounds in relatively short time, some already went to repairs. I would really love to see K9s in Ukraine, and if they would survive such harsh conditions especially in comparison to PZH2000
Non UK made ammunition should be setting alarm bells ringing.
its not much of a improvement on the as90 , if the as90 had the rounds the k9 had it would be near par or on par with a few upgrades . Like the AHS Krab is. also i doubt The MoD would buy into the idea of ruining our arms industry even further to the point we can only make air rifles. because the whole reason why we have bearly any defence industry anymore is due to taking the cheap foreign option. or completely mismanaging our arms industry with specialised demands, and the government constantly going back and forth over what we want.
Honestly , there are 5 more years till there is serious discussion about replacing a specialised vehicle that is cited to be retired by 2030. as90 is fine for the next 5 years as its weaknesses are covered by The m270s . all of this seems like a sudden hype train over Korean vehicles because they have been the only ones making military equipment for the last 25 years par from the germans .
💯👍
The K9 looks on the books, at least, to give the Panzerhaubitze 2000 a run for it’s money.
If I was a buyer I would like to see it proven in battle first.
As we are finding out, anecdotally, that the Panzerhaubitze 2000 has mechanical flaws that only now have been revealed because they are being work so hard as never before.
The loading mechanism breaks under repeated and non-stop use.
There was limited use in combat in 2010 when a handful responded to North Korean shelling.
@@MrDK0010 The K9 is getting great reviews but… so wasn’t the Panzerhaubitze 2000 before it was placed under war conditions.
I want to see the K9 in the grind before I’ll buy it.
@@steve-real The Pzh2000 is still among the best of its kind in the world, I have no doubt the previously unnoticed shortcomings will be corrected over the coming years back in Germany. Perhaps some of the difficulties also arise from its remote nature of use, rather far away from the usually constant specialized logistics and support.
As for the K9, while it has yet to experience high-intensity combat in a conventional war, I would be remiss if I did not mention that very large numbers have been in use in many different types of climates for more than a decade. Extensive feedback from all types of users (professional and conscript armies, mobile units and border installations, etc) is certainly no substitute for trials in continued combat, but it is experience nonetheless.
@@MrDK0010 I agree with all your points.
I think a toe for toe contest in the war in Ukraine is the only way to flush out design flaws and see who the true king of the battle field is. All the heavy hitters are there except the K9 brother.
I think you would need the South Korean government to give it’s blessing in order for the K9 be sent to Ukraine though.
The United States needs a new artillery platform. The K9 is looking good.
I encourage the South Korean government to make this sponsorship happen. None of this can be done without them brother.
The flaws of the PzH2000 are mainly there because its used in a way it was not built for.
I mean, whats a Howitzer worth if its not able to ramp up the speed of shooting.. So one could argue that a howitzer should be able to fire as much as required..
But I guess, the main reason for the shortcomings in battle are the high usage because of the lack of support. 15 PzH2000 on a frontline of 2000kms are obviously not enough (no that they have to be used on all places, just for visualization).. So the Ukraine had to overuse the units they got with personell that is not well trained on the Howitzers.. And with missing spare parts and expertise to repair and maintain them it is inevitable that those machines will break sooner or later. That does not necessary make them worse than tremendously good. And it does not make the Ukraine a bad competitor. They are just not as awesome as one thought before, because in the specific case they cant deliver as wanted.
But nevertheless the K9 is cheaper, so it there is one big argument against the PzH2000... And Im almost certain KMW will not agree to give away the knowledge about turret for the RCH155 to be built in Britain.. The RCH155 is able to shoot on the move, as far as I know no other Howitzer is able to do that so far. And this technological lead KMW will not easily give away.
That man has about as much charisma as I'd expect from a Finnish.
But he knows what he is talking about. Even if he doesnt know how to talk about it...
K9 3 Round MRSI
PzH 2000 5 round MRSI
K9 2-3 Round per minute, Mechanical/Technical Limitation
PzH 2000 20 Round in 2 min, thermal limit, but if you want you can shoot the whole 60 rounds without a break, with 3 Round per minute
K9 moves in a little under 1min after one shot
PzH 2000 moves 30s after one shot
The K9 must be very cheap... Technically, it is ok but not really good.
It was certainly a purely political decision, but certainly not a logical one.
It's not just about rate of fire. Mobility and reliability are a huge factor. K9 is excellent at rough and mountain terrain.
@@deslow7411 Yes, that's ok, the PzH2000 is already old. That's why it was further developed into the RCH 155.
PzH costs at least three times more. This is what Hanwha said: If you pay three times more, we can make better than PzH. Further, PzH has mechanical, maintenance issues. In Germany and Ukraine, many PzHs are sleeping in the garage waiting to be repaired. The maintenance costs a lot more too.
When Norway was making a decision on which 155mm SPH to buy in 2017, K9 and PzH 2000 were basically went head to head. Rumor has it, PzH 2000's engine froze overnight in −40 °C temp and didn't start up whereas K9 was able to start up with just a tarp covering the engine area. If PzH 2000 was about the same price, all that technical detail might win over, but at current price levels, any sane government/army would choose K9 and that's clearly panned out in the 155mm SPH export market. K9 is really only game in town. With Poland producing K9 in Poland starting in a couple of years, many European countries now considering the future 155mm SPH will likely go K9 route.
@@sammylee2338
PzH has no mechanical problems... where does this nonsense come from? The few PzH in Ukraine have fired much more ammunition than the KRAB from Poland, of which there are more and they have been there longer. Simply because they can. The only defect is a seal, from the compressed air loader or on the compressor due to this excessive use. But you can't blame the Ukrainians for that, they simply received too few PzH2000s.
The PzH is supposed to have cold-start problems? Where do you get these fairy tales from? K9, KRAB and PzH2000 all have the same engine... an german MTU 881.
K9 fires 3 rounds in 15 seconds.
AS90 fires 3 rounds in 10 seconds. Guess they forgot to mention that bit in their report.
I personaly think that the PHZ 2000 would be a better option
too expensive and mass production is not on the track now
It is already discontinued and three times more expensive than the K9
What do you think about that?
@@JuanCarlos-dz7wc i think prduction will start again with the order from Ukraine and yeah its more expensive than the K9 but its MRSI on the PHZ 2000 is much better than on the K9 and MRSI is in the view of many experts one of the key fetures of a moder howitzer
@@ionees3640 So when do you start ? K9A2 upgrade version would start soon then K9A2 upgraded version will be better with Low cost !
PzH is rip off ! The sales performance shows how K9 is the better product and Some of countries which already imported K9 want to increase their K9
@@JuanCarlos-dz7wc you dont realy know how the K9A2 will perform, you can always say it will be better, but how do you know and if ukrain gets there PHZ I think germany will get some knew wons too and im also going to speculate but with many other military peces of equpment it was so, that the prices will drop
And THIS is 24 secs now at
as an American it's almost laughable that artillery is making a big comeback, although I'll admit it's cool to see the big guns. Our air power would devastate all of these systems. These countries need to learn how to build airplanes, smart bombs and satellites.
I'm sure those countries have all of those.
You must be fantasizing a Rohan type of army. No foot soldiers, no tanks, only airplanes. Lol
Typical American thinking. Not everyone has access to your aircraft sir.
Many countries invest more in education than using more planes.
But why?
AS90 is a good system and with a contractor like BAe systems which has decades of experience, why would you wanna import something instead of developing a new platform based on AS90.
BAe systems can do it for god's sake , don't make this next Ajax .
You do realise that BAE is a private company right
@@suburbia2050 yes but it's a British company, why would you wanna import something when you already have capability at home.
Incorrect bae was bought by germany a few years ago!
@@HedgehogZone no it's not
@@HedgehogZone no it wasnt, big defence conglomerates like BAE often buy and sell off certain divisions that often were separate companies at one point. This allows them to focus investment on key tech where they see worthwhile growth (military tech is notorisouly expensive). In fact those divisions then often have regional ownership under shared parent companies with different levels of stake. This especially happens on national military tenders which require local build or large chunks of a project being brought together from different companies (e.g. the current Challenger III project), its a bit like the European Royal families of old. You think the British government would allow BAE to be bought by a foreign company? Goodness.
lol
Excellent we’re take 2000 units