(2/n) A pocket history. There are 11 main variants of K9 (not all shown on this image) which started with the 🇰🇷 K9 in 1999, and follow two broad lineages. The more advanced examples that are being marketed follow the line of 🇰🇷 K9A1, 🇳🇴 VIDAR, 🇦🇺 AS21 and now the K9A2.
(3/n) 🇪🇬 K9A1 EGY also derives from baseline K9A1 but wasnt around when chart was made. The other lineage is also receiving upgrades and enhancements and the 2 lines are parallel rather than superior/inferior, the second lineage includes the 🇫🇮 Moukari, 🇪🇪 K9 EST, and 🇮🇳 Vajra.
(4/n) AS21 is the 'latest and greatest' to have been purchased, with 🇦🇺 buying 30x AS9 plus 15x AS10 ammunition resupply vehicles, built locally. They have said they hope to add a second batch of 30+15 down the line.
(5/n) On to the new stuff this thread is about. K9A2. Brings fully automated projectile & charge handling & loading derived from AS10 systems, dual automatic fuze setting, electric gun & turret drives, automatic breech, Composite Rubber Tracks and reduction in crew from 4 to 3.
(6/n) This is the broad strokes of what has been offered to 🇬🇧 for Mobile Fires Platform (MFP) programme, and looks like a best in class design for a tracked howitzer. There are a few accompanying vehicles that round out the K9 package:
(7/n) K10 Ammunition Resupply Vehicle (ARV) is the ammo carrier (this pic is 🇦🇺 AS10). Holds 104 rounds + charges, crew of 3 & feeds rounds into K9 automatically via the loading boom @ 12rds/min. It does need someone to control mating of K10 to K9 but otherwise automatic process
(8/n) KX10 is proposed successor to K10, an optionally manned ARV offering semi- or fully-autonomous resupply. Uses Follow the Leader to enable vehicle packets to transit battlefield, meet up with K9 for resupply & conduct that resupply fully under-armour (incl. automatic mating)
(9/n) K10C2 is a battery command vehicle based on K10. Once you strip out K10 you have a huge space to play with - 8 standing work-stations plus associated C4 kit. Automotive and mobility match with K9/K(X)10. They also suggest you could have one with a counterbattery radar too.
(10/n) K11 Fire Direction Control Vehicles (FDCV) is another C2 vehicle using K10, purchased by 🇪🇬 as the K11 EGY, but is less advanced (unspecified) than the proposed K10C2. Still, nice to see someone getting some good vehicle commonality in their artillery units.
(11/n) Hanwha's autonomous proposition is KX10 move as semi-autonomous packets. First vehicle has a driver, the rest follow. Move to meet K9 for 'just in time' resupply. The vision has a UGVs accompanying for defence against ground and UAS threats, potentially some CRAM/APS too.
(12/n) End result is a situation rather like this, distributed K9 conducting fire missions from K10C2 or other direction nodes (incl. UAS), with KX10 moving around resupplying,
(13/n) KX10 could (bit of a stretch tech wise right now...) move to fully autonomous resupply model, with lots of connected smart logistics going on to feed the KX10s, in turn feeding K9s. A fair few tech hurdles we need to ignore for now, but this is big picture vision stuff.
(14/n) So there you have it, the broad strokes of current and near future K9 offerings. Quite a neat bit of kit, and being explored actively for 🇰🇷 and 🇬🇧 requirements (at least as K9A2). Whether 🇬🇧 can stretch to the fancy bits remains to be seen but one to watch certainly. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
(2/n) Nice top line facts. Many will point to £3bn spent, 26 vehicles received but its obviously a little more nuanced than that, not least because of decision to run demonstration & manufacture together. Also there would have been a lot more than 26 if the issues hadn't arisen
(3/n) These are the scary ones. Late 2022 before a solution might be found. No idea of IOC. 'More than' £10bn through life cost vs £6bn originally. This isn't something that's going to suddenly get back on track
(1/n) Really looking forward to Land 400 Phase 3 decision any day now in Australia
A reminder via this lovely Hanwha Redback chart that its for a family of variants and not just an IFV. Hanwha's approach with Redback is 6 core variant designs for the 10 mission variants required
(2/n) It appears a dead heat with no obvious leader. Loads of rumour floating around that cant be repeated. There are three big angles that could swing it - technical capability, industrial plan, political considerations. I'm sure whoever wins the Army will get a great AFV
(3/n) L400P3 is a really significant programme for medium armour. Australia got the timing wrong, arguably, and is leading the world in having to make a judgement call about which of the Redback and Lynx is the AFV of choice rather than letting someone else make that judgement...
(1/7) New Blog Post: There is a persistent statement that wheeled AFV can happily drive 1,000+ miles and fight a war, all by themselves. A shorter piece on why its a little more involved and nuanced than that sweeping statement may suggest. By way of,,,
(2/7) ...summary here on Twitter - yes you can do it. But there is a tremendous cost to doing so and the maintenance & logistical implications are enormous. In all cases you want to avoid this approach at all costs.
This is relevant to any long distance movement of armoured...
(3/7) ...vehicles. For a really clear example just look at Ukraine these past weeks. Huge numbers of AFV in poor maintenance and preparation with degraded logistics are, it would at least appear, floundering all over the place with breakdowns, fuel and tyre supply...
Thinking about Ajax again. The tale strikes me as a national equivalent to a manager having an employee that degrades in performance over time without being noticed. MoD trusted Army to specify and manage programmes, and it just fell apart procedurally and culturally. It took...
...a media storm to make MoD pay attention to this one and realise how bad things had systemically got. In commercial world we reform the individual or get rid of them. What are the next steps to make substantial and far reaching change to the Army and its projects...
...as without it, you just end up in this position again and again. Poor performers don't improve without very proactive management and accompanying change, or you reveal that they cant operate to requirement and need wholesale replacement with someone actually suitable...
Lots of people note that hard kill APS rarely have more than 2-4 rounds available on each aspect, ever wondered why? A(nother) thread!
When you look at projectile APS, most have 2-4 rounds (either ready rounds like an Iron Fist, or reloads like a Trophy). There are some exceptions, QuickKill had 8+ but that single pod covered all aspects, versus 2 or 3 per aspect on more traditional systems. So, 2-4 is the norm.
Even non projectile systems tend to trend around here. StrikeShield/ADS has 2 per pod with adjacent pods able to defend one another, so again in the 2-4 window, give or take.
Discussions over the weekend around oft overlooked fact that M1 remains one of few Western tanks to use hydraulic turret drive, where essentially all peer AFV designs have migrated to all-electric
A short thread on the actual dangers of hydraulic drive, and a trope along the way
Tank turrets are really heavy – 26 tonnes for an M1 Abrams – and need to move fast to traverse weapons and respond to fine control commands for stabilisation. As a result hydraulic systems were for a long time the norm for control