Pakistan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Mohsin77 said:

Okay then I misheard, hopefully that's right. But I've also heard of issues with the logistical supply line from Ukraine...

Click to expand...

to an extent yes but as far as orders placed by Pakistan for AK-I engine was small .... so I think that was not affected to the extent Thai order of Oplot tank ....

Mohsin77 said:

The Altay is supposed to be in serial production now, but you're right we didn't have actual trials, I checked the article I read again, and it was rejected based on specifications (weight specific):

Click to expand...

still not in serial production when the last time I checked the dedicated facility which was suppose to build Altay tank is still not decided, and the contract for the manufacturing the Altay tank is awarded to a different company other then the company who build the prototypes of Altay tank and above all Supply of Engine from Germany or some other country is still an unresolved issue .....

This article which you have quoted states obvious reasons nothing new other than this I don't want to comment about the authenticity of the article and its author who is quoting Pakistan Strategic Forum as a source of information, you can judge it yourself .....

Mohsin77 said:

The T-80UDs will be a small portion of that anyway so it's not a big deal (as long as we get the rest of the 1700).

Click to expand...

T-80UDs are also a 3rd gen tank in fact PA's first 3rd gen tank and currently first batch of 25 tanks are undergoing for upgrades, detail of upgrade package is not available so we can only speculate at this stage that PA might be trying to upgrade it up to +3rd gen tank.

gelgoog said:

Just look at the Al-Khalid tank.

Click to expand...

My dear I don't need to look just few pics of Al-Khalid on net ....

gelgoog said:

The numbers you are talking about in terms of RHA equivalent seem kind of off to me considering the tank weight and the lack of ERA across most of it

Click to expand...

and I have quoted all the figures specifically in plain/naked form without ERA or Additional Armour

Turret

plz have a look at the attached pictures



the hollow space as indicated in the above attached pic is approximately size of 650mm [with out back plate] an it the place where where special composite armour is inserted plz see the below attached pics



after attaching special composite armour in the front cavity of the Turret, turret get the shape shown below keep in mind special composite armour offer better protection then RHA and +650mm protection is without including
- Back Plate
- ERA
- Additional add on Armour



Now for Front of Al Khalid Hull I will attached pics in new post as receiving message that I can not attached more than 6 pic in a single post

gelgoog said:

and when I look at the tank it does not look like that. It also seems to have no ERA on top of the turret which makes it vulnerable to top-attack missiles.

Click to expand...

pic from 2001

below attached pic is from 2003 and I have Highlighted ERA on top of the Turret, but want to mention that ERA or NO ERA no tank can remain safe from top attack anti-tank missiles as modern top attack AT missiles offer +1000mm penetration behind ERA .... this thing which you have highlighted is a non-issue
as AK have ERA at top of the turret [just there are not many pics available in public which shows full ERA coverage of AK tank] and NO Tank in the world offer +1000mm RHA at top of the turret ....


In the below attached pic you can see ERA at the side and top of the turret

gelgoog said:

Like you said the transmission is French and the engines are Ukrainian. They are also much lower power than the VT-4 engines which are made in China

Click to expand...

but power to weight ratio is same in both tanks i.e. 25 horsepower per ton

For Al-Khalid Tank:
1200 (Engine horsepower) ÷ 48 tonnes (AK combat weight) = 25 horsepower per ton

For VT-4 Tank:
1300 (Engine horsepower) ÷ 52 tonnes (VT-4 combat weight) = 25 horsepower per ton

gelgoog said:

So I think Pakistan would be better off with Al-Zarrar on the Afghanistan border since that side doesn't need to face tanks and Al-Zarrar has 125mm gun which can use existing ammo stocks,

Click to expand...

Nope Al-Zarrar would not be deployed at Pak-Afghan Border we are using tanks with small 100mm gun there

@gelgoog ....

Now plz have a look at the front of the Hull of AK tank

1- Back plate of Special Armour Cavity of AK hull
2- Special Armour Cavity
3- Front Armour Plate
4- Place where driver sits



now plz calculate the figure shown in below pic only Front Armour Plate and Special Armour Cavity give the figure of 845mm excluding the figure of Back Plate which even if only 50mm-60mm then one get the figure of 895mm-905mm of frontal armour of AK hull; here again keep in mind these figures are in plain form which mean NO ERA, No Add on Armour

[email protected] said:

still not in serial production when the last time I checked the dedicated facility which was suppose to build Altay tank is still not decided, and the contract for the manufacturing the Altay tank is awarded to a different company other then the company who build the prototypes of Altay tank and above all Supply of Engine from Germany or some other country is still an unresolved issue .....

This article which you have quoted states obvious reasons nothing new other than this I don't want to comment about the authenticity of the article and its author who is quoting Pakistan Strategic Forum as a source of information, you can judge it yourself .....

Click to expand...

Fair enough, but weight is an actual problem in our particular terrain. If the Altay can overcome this issue (perhaps with its modern suspension system) then great, buy 300-500.

T-80UDs are also a 3rd gen tank

Click to expand...

I know, that's why I'm including it in the 2000 count. My problem with the T-80 isn't its performance, it's the supply chain associated with it. But if that's not a problem (and I'm skeptical of that claim), then by all means keep them and even upgrade them. We need all the gen 3/3+ we can get right now.

[email protected] said:

View attachment 64172

Click to expand...

Here's a detailed open-source analysis of this armor array:

I think the Chinese tanks from the Type 85 onwards (inclusive) featured better frontal turret protection compared to the T series. The modern Type 99 and Type 96 feature far superior frontal protection compared to modernised T-90, T-72s, and T-80s from around the former Soviet bloc. This is also reflected in the nearly 10 tonne weight difference between the Type 99, Type 96A/B against the modern T-72 and T-90. The Type 99A is nearly 15 tonnes heavier than most modernised late Soviet era designs.

The Russian tanks do feature better angled protection but side armour is equally non-existent on both. To be fair NATO tank side armour is as useless as butter against modern rounds with direct or near direct hits anyway. So it truly doesn't make any sense giving your MBT side armour unless you know you're going to be facing some really low tech and poorly coordinated attacks. So the Soviet doctrine which Chinese tank designers followed in part is clearly smart with use of weight and material. It just needs to be thick enough and wear ERA so that extreme angled shots are more or less going to bounce off or not penetrate far due to the geometry and physics of the penetration. Any remotely direct attack on the side is good as dead no matter if you're in a M1A2 or T-72. Russian and Chinese tank designers considered their tanks will be going up against NATO level adversaries so spending material and weight on beefing up side armour is honestly purely useless for 99% of encounters and shots. Sending M1A1 into Grozny against the same resistance and employing the same tactics honestly would have pretty much yielded similar results. Leopard 2A4, Leclerc, M1A1/A2, Merkava 3/4 have all been easily annihilated by relatively primitive munitions shot by poorly funded and trained groups (again relative).

I think the Chinese focus on pure frontal direct angles are a wise decision once you consider the numerical advantage the PLA holds and the typical tank travel formations used by the PLA and the numbers of tanks and cover provided. It'll be very hard to knock out much more than the few tanks on the very edge of a formation which have turrets pointed to the side when traveling in formation. Hull armour is universally rubbish against modern rounds and well funded militaries but hull shots are harder given typical trajectory geometry unless terrain just so happens to open up the geometry for the shooter. Direct frontal is where most of the shots land and where you point your turret along with the rest of your formation. In this regard the Type 99A is pretty much as impenetrable as the best of them and the Type 96A/B along with Type 99 does decently enough for 50 to 55 odd tonnes. Most of the armour weight is focused on this area for modern Chinese tanks. Add on the APS and latest ERA and you've got decent protection for PLA's purposes and doctrine at least.

According to from back in 2017 (that I totally forgot about), the max production capacity of HIT is up to 60/year. So assuming it operates at this capacity, that's 600 AKs by 2030. In 2019 we had around 350, which means we may actually reach 1000 Al Khalids by 2030 (that may include some AK-II by the end of the decade, IF we get that program sorted out, but it also includes 300 of the older originals.)

Now, if we include the T-80UDs (possibly upgraded and hopefully supported by decent supply chain), that takes the total to around 1300 by 2030... Sticking with magical "2000" number, that means we need an additional 700 imported MBTs by the end of this decade. This is totally achievable and shouldn't really be a problem. We can just keep it simple and buy 700 VT-4s, unless the 99A becomes available and then we can switch out a couple of hundred for those. Aside from the T-80s, that would be a solid logistical setup, since the vast majority of the MBTs would be based on the same VT/AK platform, with a lot of commonality.

Pakistan’s New Type-039B AIP Submarines: Image Shows Shipyard Expansion




The Pakistan Navy's expansion is gearing up in Karachi. Major enhancements are evident at a shipyard, where a new construction hall and a dry dock greatly increase capacity. Although details are scarce, it seems likely that the local construction of Chinese-designed AIP (Air Independent Power) submarines will take place there.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

New construction halls and dry dock in Karachi are taking shape. Although official details are scarce, we understand that the new site will be for the local construction of Type-039B AIP submarines for the Pakistan Navy.

Pakistan Navy's Future Weapons & Systems/ Hypersonic Missile

Recently retired CONS of PN stated that PN is planning to induct 6 DDGs in next coming years.... you can see in video from 01:54 onwards...

timepass said:

Pakistan Navy's Future Weapons & Systems/ Hypersonic Missile

Recently retired CONS of PN stated that PN is planning to induct 6 DDGs in next coming years.... you can see in video from 01:54 onwards...

Click to expand...

Well this news has made me stand up and look!!! The outgoing CNS certainly has rattled the region with this announcement. Six heavy class Destroyers is no joke and if the recent procurement contracts are anything to go by, it means that the Destroyers would be of Chinese origin.

To top that off, Jinnah Class "Frigates" will constitute further addition to Pakistan Navy's frigate fleet, aside from Milgem and Type-054. Whether the Jinnah Class frigates will replace F-22Ps or would be in addition to it, remains to be seen. Whatever the case, it is clear that Pakistan Navy is going grow larger than it has been historically.

It is an ominous sign, that Pakistan will protect CPEC at all costs. With a 700+ km coastline, three major Sea Ports, two of which are in close proximity to india. It is definitely a serious modernization program for Pakistan Navy.