South Korean Air and Missile Defence systems

GTX said:
Correct - the Sth Koreans had Russian support (Almaz-Antey) - it's essentially a variant of the Russian 9M96 missile used in the S-400 system:

Cheolmae II / Cheongung (Iron Hawk) M-SAM Medium Surface to Air Missile

www.globalsecurity.org
Click to expand...
Having revisited the thread, this can't be further from truth. KM-SAM basic system design was done by AA as noted above, but the effector design is so noticeably different I'm not sure how you could call it a variant of the 9M96 missile used in S-400.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
Having revisited the thread, this can't be further from truth. KM-SAM basic system design was done by AA as noted above, but the effector design is so noticeably different I'm not sure how you could call it a variant of the 9M96 missile used in S-400.
Click to expand...
It is said that was developed by the Agency for Defense Development (ADD) with technical support from Almaz-Antey and Fakel, based on technology from the 9M96 missile used on S-350E and S-400 missile systems. This allows it to be both different and similar at the same time and depending upon the degree of similarity could be accurately declared a variant of.
 
GTX said:
It is said that was developed by the Agency for Defense Development (ADD) with technical support from Almaz-Antey and Fakel, based on technology from the 9M96 missile used on S-350E and S-400 missile systems. This allows it to be both different and similar at the same time and depending upon the degree of similarity could be accurately declared a variant of.
Click to expand...
Well, the problem is, it isn't a variant. The design differs too much to be called such. You could cite Global Security all you want but the differences of their designs, which is just out there for you to simply see, indicates otherwise. Else, it's just your definition of 'variant'.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
but the differences of their designs, which is just out there for you to simply see, indicates otherwise.
Click to expand...
How about listing with evidence/references some of the differences as I don't have the specifics on either...

What I do know is that it is reported in multiple locations (see below for a few examples) that the S-350 Vityaz and KM-SAM/Cheolmae 2/Chung Koong are related or at the very least, that the latter was developed using technology from the former.

S-350 Vityaz Medium-Range Air Defense Missile System | MilitaryToday.com

The S-350 Vityaz is a short-to-mid range air defense missile system. It is intended to provide point defense against precision attacks and defense suppression weapons.
www.militarytoday.com


South Korea inks largest arms export deal with UAE for missile interceptor

Valued about $3.5 billion, the contract for the Cheongung II KM-SAM weapons was singed Jan. 16 during a meeting between South Korean President Moon Jae-in and Emirati Prime Minister Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum in Dubai as they discussed economic cooperation.
www.defensenews.com

Why the UAE opted for South Korean missiles - Asia Times

The United Arab Emirates is buying a South Korean air defense system based on the Russian 9M96 interceptor missile and radars and command and
asiatimes.com
 
GTX said:
How about listing with evidence/references some of the differences as I don't have the specifics on either...
Click to expand...
As with anything, it is on someone who claims something exists to prove that, not someone doubting such existence. As in this case, you are claiming that there's a concrete connection between KM-SAM effector design and 9M96E that it could be called a variant, and I'm telling that's not true. Then it's not on me to prove that such connection doesn't exist.

GTX said:
What I do know is that it is reported in multiple locations (see below for a few examples) that the S-350 Vityaz and KM-SAM/Cheolmae 2/Chung Koong are related or at the very least, that the latter was developed using technology from the former.
Click to expand...
I have never doubted this. I've also exclusively said that there's clear AA involvement in KM-SAM development. They provided basic technological basis for the SAM system, especially the radar. But KM-SAM is still an independent product. Korea for example developed its own X-band space-feeder PESA demonstrator prior to developing the KM-SAM radar, so it's also not the case that KM-SAM was entirely designed by AA, as some other forum members have claimed on this thread.

Most importantly, what I'm explicitly disputing is your claim that 'KM-SAM effector is the variant of 9M96', which, as I've said countless times, is outright wrong.

Although the SAM system was co-developed with Russia, the effector itself was developed by ADD and LIG Nex1, and input from Russia was limited on this front. The most notable Russian input was the cold-launch technique and the ACS side thruster technology, but as you could very easily notice, the ACS design is very different from that of 9M96 side thruster. They also differ in their warhead design, KM-SAM effector is guided by a Korean Ku-band seeker and the ACS and warhead position itself is also different compared to that of 9M96E. It also doesn't have cannards, indicating very different aerodynamics and handling characteristics. KM-SAM block-I terminal guidance solely relies on tail-fin and side ACS. The booster is also proportionately shorter on KM-SAM compared to 9M96E. When all these clear evidences can't convince you, LIG Nex1's own magazine Gndeun also mentions the same, that the SAM complex was developed with Almaz Antey but the missile was developed by ADD and them as their own design.

KM-SAM effector cutaway.png
Elbp7ZdW0Akmr3x.jpeg

There's already a precedent in Korean SAM design (K-31 Pegasus) where the SAM system was co-developed with a foreign company (Thales) but the effector missile was an indigenous design (Crotale and Pegasus missile designs are very noticably different similar to 9M96E and KM-SAM).

The writing is basically on the wall and it's so easy to notice them. It's important to understand that it doesn't really matter how many media outlets claim the same thing, when none of them have a concrete first-hand source to support what's written in the article. If anything, a lot of those "report" that you've cited just parrot what they've found elsewhere without much consideration, which is especially more true when it comes to South Korean weaponery, of which credible information in English is very obscure.
 
Last edited:
Maro.Kyo said:
As with anything, it is on someone who claims something exists to prove that, not someone doubting such existence. As in this case, you are claiming that there's a concrete connection between KM-SAM effector design and 9M96E that it could be called a variant, and I'm telling that's not true. Then it's not on me to prove that such connection doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
I am/was only repeating what is reported. I also therefore assert that if the Korean weapon uses technology from the Russian it could be argued to be a variant of. Now one might naturally differ as to what % commonality constitutes a variant vs a new product. For example, if a missile had the same warhead, engine, guidance and basically internals but perhaps different external features such as fins and body would that be deemed a variant of or a new weapon?

As to my asking you to provide evidence, it was in reaction to your simply saying I was wrong but not explaining why. I was simply trying to illicit more detailed information rather than just saying I was wrong. I thank you for the information you have now shared.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the new thread, but I think we could keep several of these topics in a single thread, maybe it could be named "ROK Air and Missile Defence systems" or something along the lines.

There's already L-SAM thread where some matters, mostly about L-SAM, has been handled and on top of that there's the S-350 thread in which quite a few KM-SAM related discussions took place. I think we can merge all of these into one.
 
@GTX sometimes you have to admit you were mistaken.

For something to be a variant of something it has to have some large scale commonality of components and design. The PL-9 AAM is in part derived from the Python-3 clone PL-8, but you couldn't really call it a variant of it, nor would anyone call the the Z-10 a variant of the Ka-50 despite Kamov assisting on the design of the latter and some generic family resemblance.

So on this point I'd have to say I don't think KL-SAM can be described as a variant. And therefore we probably need to tidy up this topic.
 
Last edited:
Maro.Kyo said:
As with anything, it is on someone who claims something exists to prove that, not someone doubting such existence. As in this case, you are claiming that there's a concrete connection between KM-SAM effector design and 9M96E that it could be called a variant, and I'm telling that's not true. Then it's not on me to prove that such connection doesn't exist.


I have never doubted this. I've also exclusively said that there's clear AA involvement in KM-SAM development. They provided basic technological basis for the SAM system, especially the radar. But KM-SAM is still an independent product. Korea for example developed its own X-band space-feeder PESA demonstrator prior to developing the KM-SAM radar, so it's also not the case that KM-SAM was entirely designed by AA, as some other forum members have claimed on this thread.

Most importantly, what I'm explicitly disputing is your claim that 'KM-SAM effector is the variant of 9M96', which, as I've said countless times, is outright wrong.

Although the SAM system was co-developed with Russia, the effector itself was developed by ADD and LIG Nex1, and input from Russia was limited on this front. The most notable Russian input was the cold-launch technique and the ACS side thruster technology, but as you could very easily notice, the ACS design is very different from that of 9M96 side thruster. They also differ in their warhead design, KM-SAM effector is guided by a Korean Ku-band seeker and the ACS and warhead position itself is also different compared to that of 9M96E. It also doesn't have cannards, indicating very different aerodynamics and handling characteristics. KM-SAM block-I terminal guidance solely relies on tail-fin and side ACS. The booster is also proportionately shorter on KM-SAM compared to 9M96E. When all these clear evidences can't convince you, LIG Nex1's own magazine Gndeun also mentions the same, that the SAM complex was developed with Almaz Antey but the missile was developed by ADD and them as their own design.

View attachment 709092
View attachment 709093

There's already a precedent in Korean SAM design (K-31 Pegasus) where the SAM system was co-developed with a foreign company (Thales) but the effector missile was an indigenous design (Crotale and Pegasus missile designs are very noticably different similar to 9M96E and KM-SAM).

The writing is basically on the wall and it's so easy to notice them. It's important to understand that it doesn't really matter how many media outlets claim the same thing, when none of them have a concrete first-hand source to support what's written in the article. If anything, a lot of those "report" that you've cited just parrot what they've found elsewhere without much consideration, which is especially more true when it comes to South Korean weaponery, of which credible information in English is very obscure.
Click to expand...
9M96 has two sets of side thrusters. One is located under the missile’s front wings, used for initial steering after the missile’s cold launch. The other set is a ring-shaped nozzle in the middle of the missile body, used for the terminal phase.
But M-SAM seems to have only one set of side thrusters. Is its usage method similar to the PAC-3? The one set is used during launch and terminal phase.

what is the difference between their warheads?
some korean websites have mention their differences(both directional warheads, but the details are different?), but there seems to be no data to check. I tried searching, but no results either.
 
CIC-TAO said:
9M96 has two sets of side thrusters. One is located under the missile’s front wings, used for initial steering after the missile’s cold launch. The other set is a ring-shaped nozzle in the middle of the missile body, used for the terminal phase.
But M-SAM seems to have only one set of side thrusters. Is its usage method similar to the PAC-3? The one set is used during launch and terminal phase.
Click to expand...

2014112121354855792.jpg
(via Boltzman of BEMIL)

kmsam blk 1 st.png

This is Chun-goong block 1 effector side thruster design. As you've guessed, it's a SIE similar to PAC-3 side thrusters and is used for both missile attitude control after launch and during terminal phase.

KM-SAM effector cutaway en.png
2014112121250114004.png
Chun-goong block 2 has two separate side thrusters, of which the terminal phase side thruster being what ADD calls a "Nozzle Closure Separation Device". Post-launch ACS is very similar to what was already being used in block 1. The new DCS is more similar to 9M96 in terms of how it is structured internally.

So overall, quite a difference for the side thruster designs for both the block 1 and block 2 effectors.

CIC-TAO said:
what is the difference between their warheads?
some korean websites have mention their differences(both directional warheads, but the details are different?), but there seems to be no data to check. I tried searching, but no results either.
Click to expand...
Chun-goong uses kinetic energy rod warhead, whereas to my knowledge, 9M96 variants doesn't.

CIC-TAO said:
looks like L-SAM AAM didn't have side thrusters.

View: https://twitter.com/W_ChiefGunner/status/1718829541739962659
Click to expand...
I don't know what the original source material that you have translated is, but that is false info. L-SAM AAM will have its DCS side thruster placed just in front of the main propellant behind the guidance section. What it doesn't have is the post-launch ACS, since it is hot-launched unlike Chungung
 
Last edited:
Maro.Kyo said:
View attachment 710551
(via Boltzman of BEMIL)

View attachment 710550

This is Chun-goong block 1 effector side thruster design. As you've guessed, it's a SIE similar to PAC-3 side thrusters and is used for both missile attitude control after launch and during terminal phase.

View attachment 710553
View attachment 710552
Chun-goong block 2 has two separate side thrusters, of which the terminal phase side thruster being what ADD calls a "Nozzle Closure Separation Device". Post-launch ACS is very similar to what was already being used in block 1. The new DCS is more similar to 9M96 in terms of how it is structured internally.

So overall, quite a difference for the side thruster designs for both the block 1 and block 2 effectors.


Chun-goong uses kinetic energy rod warhead, whereas to my knowledge, 9M96 variants doesn't.


I don't know what the original source material that you have translated is, but that is false info. L-SAM AAM will have its DCS side thruster placed just in front of the main propellant behind the guidance section. What it doesn't have is the post-launch ACS, since it is hot-launched unlike Chungung
Click to expand...
As for the side thrusters of L-SAM AAM, I initially agreed with you, but recently some koreans went to the ADEX 2023 site to inquire and only then did they get this result. and korea military magazines also have the same mention (they are also at the ADEX site).
But I will ask them to check it
 
CIC-TAO said:
As for the side thrusters of L-SAM AAM, I initially agreed with you, but recently some koreans went to the ADEX 2023 site to inquire and only then did they get this result. and korea military magazines also have the same mention (they are also at the ADEX site).
But I will ask them to check it
Click to expand...
Yes I could always be wrong as well, but you should also keep in mind that most of those Korean military magazines are not as credible as their English counterparts. Also, you could still identify the DCS side thruster nozzles on the mockup presented in LIG Nex1 booth.

Though yes, if you have Korean friends, please inquire them as well.
 
CIC-TAO said:
As for the side thrusters of L-SAM AAM, I initially agreed with you, but recently some koreans went to the ADEX 2023 site to inquire and only then did they get this result. and korea military magazines also have the same mention (they are also at the ADEX site).
But I will ask them to check it
Click to expand...
I already confirmed with korean friend, the officials at ADEX confirmed this.
But did not explain the reason. He also gave me relevant pictures, you can see the difference between the "nozzles".
He also say: There are(L-SAM AAM) only 3 patches in that square shape, and if there were 4 patches the spacing would be closer; not enough space in the missile fuselage to place the side thruster.


L-SAM AAM
1698721225879.png


M-SAM Blk 2
1698721259227.png
 
CIC-TAO said:
I already confirmed with korean friend, the officials at ADEX confirmed this.
But did not explain the reason. He also gave me relevant pictures, you can see the difference between the "nozzles".
He also say: There are(L-SAM AAM) only 3 patches in that square shape, and if there were 4 patches the spacing would be closer; not enough space in the missile fuselage to place the side thruster.
Click to expand...
I see. If those information comes from LIG Nex1 personnel first-hand, then you must be right. I've mistaken those patches for a thruster nozzle, since they are located where the thruster nozzles were in the initial study model.
 
Maro.Kyo said:
I see. If those information comes from LIG Nex1 personnel first-hand, then you must be right. I've mistaken those patches for a thruster nozzle, since they are located where the thruster nozzles were in the initial study model.
Click to expand...
I trust him 100% because he often attends exhibitions in person and obtains book/brochure distributed onsite. There is a lot of "pay to win" in the KR/JP field(their book and journal are more valuable, containing more info).
Many military media often make mistakes in these fields, for example Jane's thought JP DDG-173 was BL 9 (the latest Jane's says initial BL for DDG173 was 3), but if you read Japanese magazines you'd know right answer it's BL 5.2.
For KR field, Jane's claimed KDX3 uses SQQ89 and SQS53C.

Their domestic publications are more credible in comparison. Because for some things, the real truth may never be found from official sources.
 
Last edited:

LIG Nex1 bags $3.2bln missile interceptor deal with Saudi Arabia

South Korean defense firm LIG Nex1 has clinched a US$3.2 billion deal to export mid-range surface-air-to missiles (M-SAM II) to Saudi Arabia, Seoul's defense ministry said Tuesday. LIG Nex1 inked the contract with the Saudi defense ministry to sell Cheongung M-SAM II in November, the ministry...
koreaherald.com

The deal is for 10 batteries. AESA radar for UAE and KSA is also nearing completion.
 

South Korea completes development of long-range SAM system

South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has completed the development of its long-range surface-to-air missile (L-SAM) system, the country's...
www.janes.com

According to the MND, the L-SAM fulfilled its “technical development goals and was judged suitable for combat” in a recent DAPA test on the system.

The production of the L-SAM will initiate in 2025, and the system is scheduled to be deployed to the military in the late 2020s, the MND said.
Click to expand...
"Late 2020s" is it 2028 according to AV Week.
 

South Korea outlines development of enhanced air-defence systems

South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has announced a plan to develop enhanced air-defence systems to counter missile threats from North Korea.
www.janes.com

In a press release on 29 May, DAPA said that it will initiate the development of long-range surface-to-air missile II (L-SAM II) system and medium-range surface-to-air missile Block III (M-SAM III) system in 2024.
Click to expand...
Some errors in the article, it mentions that the development of L-SAM II and M-SAM III will continue until 2032 and 2034 respectively, but those are the schedule for the full-service entry of all planned batteries, not the conclusion of development phase. Development will end much earlier.
 
View: https://x.com/mason_8718/status/1796831008022835329

View: https://x.com/mason_8718/status/1796832429090685394
 
View: https://x.com/mason_8718/status/1798692971321417913

View: https://x.com/mason_8718/status/1798693313224339535
 
View: https://x.com/mason_8718/status/1808172344659378429

View: https://x.com/mason_8718/status/1808142717933048317
View: https://x.com/mason_8718/status/1808145266350215570
 
Fotos courtesy of Yeonhap News Agency and News1. Several fotos of launchers of the two different variants of L-SAM (ABM, round canister and AAM, square canister), as well as a foto of L-SAM (AAM) and M-SAM (probably block-2) launcher. I think it roughly tells you the size of the missiles.
 

Attachments

  • optimize (8).jpeg
    optimize (8).jpeg
    401.5 KB · Views: 22
  • optimize (7).jpeg
    optimize (7).jpeg
    386.8 KB · Views: 20
  • optimize (6).jpeg
    optimize (6).jpeg
    446.9 KB · Views: 18
  • PYH2024100109350001300_P4.jpg
    PYH2024100109350001300_P4.jpg
    322.6 KB · Views: 20
  • PYH2024100114740001300_P4.jpg
    PYH2024100114740001300_P4.jpg
    351.6 KB · Views: 18
  • PYH2024100109560001300_P4.jpg
    PYH2024100109560001300_P4.jpg
    373.7 KB · Views: 20
  • PYH2024100109360001300_P4.jpg
    PYH2024100109360001300_P4.jpg
    495.5 KB · Views: 27
Find it mildly funny that vehicles look quite similar to their northern counterparts.

Best Korea going for the closest visual match for obvious deterrence was always the thing, but it's surprising how South seems to be doing the exact same symmetrical thing.
 

I've slowed down the ground testing footage of the missile that was revealed today.
These are footages of AAM and ABM rocket motor testing and gimbaling, ABM sled test, ABM stage separation test, ABM shroud separation test, ABM KV DACS hover test and ABM mock target interception test. The last two were already made public before.
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom