Posted on 10/13/2024 9:33:36 AM PDT by Chode
Since 2022, global demand in the arms market has expanded rapidly as many countries rush to restock on systems and munitions as well as adopt new technologies that were increasingly proving their worth in Ukraine.
In that environment, the Republic of Korea has become an increasingly prolific arms exporter, with the Korean defence industry working to sustain not just the ROK Armed Forces, but also inking major contracts with buyers from the Asia Pacific to Europe.
So following an invitation from the organisers of Korea's largest Defence Exhibition, the Korea Army International Defence Industry Exhibition (KADEX), I thought it was time for something a little different this week.
Join me for a bit of a Perun road-trip, as we look at range of Korean and international systems, the themes emerging from the event, and what it might indicate about the evolving defense market, and the RoK's role in it.
Thousands of booths, tens of thousands of attendees, and one Aussie trying to bring you an inside look at it all.
Thanks again to the organizers, my translator, and those who accepted (sometimes very long) interviews over the course of the event.
Like Israel. A good reason to be good at that.
*
They survived as long as they did because we lived in a general peaceful era where you had no viable near peer threat. That is, if you think about it, a good thing: Peace.
The only threats we did face were retards like in the Middle East. But they cannot counter our military technologically since they have no real R&D, industry, etc. Even a 1970s Dragon missile (ATGM- predecessor to Javelin) would work perfectly fine there. The real danger we faced was from the proliferation of advanced weapon systems i.e. from our allies, our own (that happens), Russia, China.
Today, this war in Ukraine “should” be sending a clear and even scary message to us that we are in dire need of force modernization in all aspects (structure/organization, training, equipment).
I watched the video until the Kamala ad.
“””” we are in dire need of force modernization in all aspects (structure/organization, training, equipment).””””
If you keep up with all that then you know that all of that modernization is taking place, although you posted the opposite.
You guys over do it when you pretend that the American military and weapons producers are completely stagnant and that they are just doing what they were doing 20 years ago.
There is a profound difference between an integrated systems approach which takes into considerations today’s type of operations, where we predominantly operate, threat systems, and new technologies, vs. a series of band aid fixes.
What we have today are band aid fixes.
A bunch of applique upgrades to systems that are fundamentally antiquated and far beyond their intended/designed life span, i.e. M1, M2, M113, M109.
I know a little bit about armor and infantry type systems, so let be stay in the domain I am knowledgeable about in order to make this point.
When the M1 was developed, the battle space was Europe and predominately Germany. That tank was designed to fight in a place which could carry a 70 ton tank on most bridges (even if it damages them - could handle them for a while). The temperatures are moderate. We were in the defense and that means big buried IEDs and large mines were no real threat (on friendly territory). The threat was an armored mechanized force which would move quickly. Technology wasn’t there yet, regards enemy top and dive attack weapons (no concern). We didn’t have networks and fast computers, hard kill systems like Trophy, or even GPS for that matter. There has been substantial advancement in composites, alloys (example, 7068-T6 aluminum, AR 550 and even 600 steel) and ceramics since 1980.
What you have seen is a steady upgrade of the M1 platform, BUT that does not change the fact that the belly is lightly armored, flat, and low (not designed for big threats underneath). The roof is at it’s weakest point 1 inch of steel, that’s it (no real concern when it was developed). You can upgrade the tank, but because wide spread digital systems didn’t exist when that tank was developed, the full capabilities or usefulness of these technologies is limited (cost prohibitive). If you were to design a system like that today, everything on that tank would be talking. The concept of signature reduction was practically nonexistent except for CARC paint and a radar scattering cammo net (that was “state of the art” in 1980). Likewise, if you were to build a new tank today, you would incorporate soft and hard kill systems and into their base design in order to maximize their usefulness.
M1: 1980
M2: 1981
M113: 1960
M109: ~1966
***We are trying to keep an M1 alive in the era of proliferated drones, dive and top attack ATGMs, high penetrating RPGs and ATGMs (not even imaginable in 1980 and exceeding what you can do to stop them given the tanks size and weight constraints) large mines and IEDs, large-scale and common urban operations, in places that cannot support that tanks weight.
When we decided to meddle in Ukraine and push this into a war with our plan of expanding NATO, we set off an arms race, like it or not, that is where we are at today. Russia has R&D capabilities, they have the industry and manufacturing capacity and some of these older systems are rapidly showing their age today.
Way to evade the actual changes in the military structure new and more advanced weapons and adaptions and innovations of recent years as our military switches to near peer warfare and adapts to what they are learning from Russia’s deadly and costly quagmire in Ukraine.
Unsolicited qualifying remarks aren’t arguments. Russia has achieved their political (No NATO) and military objectives (seizing Eastern ethnic Russian areas). When this war ends it will be on Russia’s terms.
We’re just stalling at this point. There are many who are politically invested to the point where their own survival (political) depends on this war and ending it today under Russia’s terms and the obvious loss/defeat that would mean even with the best media spin, is unacceptable. So we continue a war where Ukraine has ZERO chance of regaining their lost territory, any hopes of NATO are long gone, and in fact even EU membership was sacrificed. Can someone say - “stupid?”
In this war, stalling as we are, only means more dead, more lost territory for Ukraine (Russia will continue to slow creep to keep the pressure on), more damage to Ukraine’s infrastructure. Any hope for Ukraine actually winning, and there was a small chance of that, ended in 2023 when that counter offensive and 9 mechanized brigades we equipped were expended.
All that aside and back to the point. When you mess with a near peer and they start pouring their resources into their war machine, it makes your toys obsolete quicker. You see that today with our jamming equipment which is being rendered useless by fiber optic drones, Excalibur which is no more accurate than a 1970s unguided 155mm shell, HIMARS which is so inaccurate we use cluster munitions to cover a huge area in the hope it gets what it was sent for...
Messing with Russia is not like messing with Iraq.
And there you go, off into an entirely new rambling topic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.