# PAKISTAN MAY NEGOTIATE WITH UKRAINE FOR 100 OPLOT-M MAIN BATTLE TANKS



## nadeemkhan110

KMDB T-84 Oplot M main battle tank (MBT).

*PAKISTAN POSSIBLY RE-INTERESTED IN OPLOT-M MAIN BATTLE TANK*


With Pakistan reviving industry ties with Ukraine, specifically with the Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau (KMDB) and Malyshev Factory, could the Pakistan Army be re-interested in the Malyshev Factory Oplot-M main battle tank (MBT)?

The Malyshev Factory Oplot-M was among the armoured combat vehicles exhibited by Ukroboronprom, Ukraine’s state-owned defence industry dealer, at the 2016 International Defence Exhibition and Seminar (IDEAS), which took place last week in Karachi, Pakistan. The Oplot-M was among the tanks the Pakistan Army evaluated as part of its Haider program in 2015.

During IDEAS, Pakistan’s state-owned armoured vehicles manufacturer Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) inked a memorandum-of-understanding (MoU) worth $600 million U.S. with Ukroboronprom for the provision of 200 diesel engines for al-Khalid 1 MBTs and other heavy armoured related support (e.g. possibly upgrading the Pakistan Army’s T-80UD MBTs), likely upgrades of existing vehicles and infrastructure work at HIT. Pakistan may also consider the KMDB’s new 6TD-3 diesel engine for use on the recently disclosed al-Khalid 2 MBT, which is to use a 1,500-hp powerplant.

It is not clear if Pakistan is interested in extending this collaboration to an off-the-shelf tank such as the Oplot-M. However, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence stated that during IDEAS, it did discuss the prospect of jointly manufacturing tanks with Pakistan. This is likely in reference to the Oplot-M.

The 51-ton Oplot-M is the latest development of the T-80, Ukraine’s mainstay MBT platform. The Oplot-M uses a new welded turret and multi-layered armour. It also benefits from an updated onboard electronics suite (e.g. fire control system) and passive as well as an active protection system for defensibility against incoming projectiles. The Oplot-M is armed with a 125-mm smoothbore gun capable of firing armour-piercing, high-explosive, and fragmentation rounds, and anti-tank guided missiles. Although it is powered by a variant of the 1,200-hp 6TD-2, there is the option of having it use the 1,500-hp 6TD-3.

For Pakistan, there are three main considerations.

First, the reality of Ukraine’s geostrategic situation vis-à-vis Russia, which will place uncertainty in terms of the Ukrainian industry’s ability to commit to schedules and contractual commitments.

Pakistan’s uncertain financial long-term condition, which is the second main issue, will have Rawalpindi and Islamabad approach procurements and industry collaboration with Kiev carefully. Uncertainty on both sides could either yield equitable exchanges or failure in actual negotiations.

Third, the technical considerations. In this respect, Ukraine has a strong case. The Oplot-M could share a high margin of commonality with the forthcoming al-Khalid 2, especially in terms of the powerplant. The procurement of the tank could also yield valuable work-share in relation to the 6TD diesel engine, which would be a valuable gain for the Pakistan Army in terms of localizing the supply chain of its armour. The Oplot-M could also be among the more affordable off-the-shelf tanks today.

Source: http://quwa.org/2016/11/29/pakistan-possibly-re-interested-in-oplot-m-main-battle-tank/

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Suff Shikan

Pakistan should seriously consider Oplot.


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Told you  Oplot-M only had Engine problems

now that has been solved with new Ukrainian 1500 HP engine the same we are buying from Ukraine for Al-Khalid there no way that this tank will be rejected now...

Oplot-M = Al-Haider

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Daghalodi

Best of luck


----------



## ssethii

Neither Russians nor Chinese would be happy if this news materializes.


----------



## Skyliner

ssethii said:


> Neither Russians nor Chinese would be happy if this news materializes.


We are not procuring def equipments to make someone else happy, but only for self defense!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ssethii

Skyliner said:


> We are not procuring def equipments to make someone else happy, but only for self defense!


when the capabilities are nearly similar, then the deciding factor is always a political one. Ukraine doesn't offer Pakistan any strategical advantage over Chinese or (allegedly) Russian partnership unless it's linked with the engine sales agreement along with ToT in the long run.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Muhammad Omar

ssethii said:


> when the capabilities are nearly similar, then the deciding factor is always a political one. Ukraine doesn't offer Pakistan any strategical advantage over Chinese or (allegedly) Russian partnership unless it's linked with the engine sales agreement along with ToT in the long run.



If China or Russian had any problem they should have issued the statement about it already plus we buys equipment from many countries and even buying from China so why would someone object about it?? These weapons are not against them we tested we liked we buy simple..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Pakistan never loss the interest. Ukraine promised that they would resolve engine issue soon and we would test OPLOT M again. So in next few months OPLOT M would arrive and we would test them again.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## nadeemkhan110

Muhammad Omar said:


> Told you  Oplot-M only had Engine problems
> 
> now that has been solved with new Ukrainian 1500 HP engine the same we are buying from Ukraine for Al-Khalid there no way that this tank will be rejected now...
> 
> Oplot-M = Al-Haider



Ukrainian OPLOT-M MAIN BATTLE TANK can* destroy ground-based and low-flying, low-speed aerial targets, while offering superior protection and high mobility for troops *
can Haider MBT fire aerial targets?


----------



## Muhammad Omar

nadeemkhan110 said:


> Ukrainian OPLOT-M MAIN BATTLE TANK can* destroy ground-based and low-flying, low-speed aerial targets, while offering superior protection and high mobility for troops *
> can Haider MBT fire aerial targets?



well if Haider MBT will be Oplot-M   sure it'll

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RAAJ大和

@nadeemkhan110 But Nadeem the Russian Tank gives out too much smoke...and can give your location to your enemy...i prefer Turkish Tech or more refined engine technology...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

RAAJ大和 said:


> @nadeemkhan110 But Nadeem the Russian Tank gives out too much smoke...and can give your location to your enemy...i prefer Turkish Tech or more refined engine technology...


Turkish engine is german engine. There is no Turkey engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## nadeemkhan110

RAAJ大和 said:


> @nadeemkhan110 But Nadeem the Russian Tank gives out too much smoke...and can give your location to your enemy...i prefer Turkish Tech or more refined engine technology...


Yes and Turkey ordered 1000 Atlay Tanks and indigenous 1,800 hp engine option is also available with 1,500 hp engine

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## C130

Oplot-M+BTR-4+Dozer-B would be a interesting combo for Pakistan

500 Oplot-M for $2 billion
2000 BTR-4 for $2 billion
10000 Dozer-B $2.5 billion

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Incog_nito

Pakistan should not procure it - rather become a partner in the program.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHI RULES

ssethii said:


> Neither Russians nor Chinese would be happy if this news materializes.


Russians after current deals with India may be interest only on limited scale defense ties with Pak meanwhile China has many other customers even ready to buy on much better terms as compared to Pak. In the end its the sole PA decision which looks to be tilted towards Oplot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## fitpOsitive

ssethii said:


> Neither Russians nor Chinese would be happy if this news materializes.


We are not Indians!

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Muhammad Omar

C130 said:


> Oplot-M+BTR-4+Dozer-B would be a interesting combo for Pakistan
> 
> 500 Oplot-M for $2 billion
> *2000 BTR-4 for $2 billion*
> *10000 Dozer-B $2.5 billion*


----------



## RAAJ大和

Beast said:


> Turkish engine is german engine. There is no Turkey engine.


Point Noted...but all i wanted to say is reduce smoke to zero percent....



nadeemkhan110 said:


> Yes and Turkey ordered 1000 Atlay Tanks and indigenous 1,800 hp engine option is also available with 1,500 hp engine


This will be a good option

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## C130

Muhammad Omar said:


>


that might sound like a lot, but in a full blown war you will need all the armor you can get.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

nadeemkhan110 said:


> Ukrainian OPLOT-M MAIN BATTLE TANK can* destroy ground-based and low-flying, low-speed aerial targets, while offering superior protection and high mobility for troops *
> can Haider MBT fire aerial targets?



Because of amazing things like canon launched missiles ... I.E Kombat.... Which is also compatible with AK.



Storm Force said:


> View attachment 356669
> 
> 
> I think this new battle tank would be maasive upgrade for Pakistan
> 
> Any guesses ??????????


The one in your pic is a douche on tracks.. 

And quiet posting indian shyt on our threads..

@Oscar. @Irfan Baloch

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ssethii

fitpOsitive said:


> We are not Indians!


Yes and all of you sound like typical armchair generals with no sense of reality.


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Storm Force said:


> View attachment 356669
> 
> 
> I think this new battle tank would be maasive upgrade for Pakistan
> 
> Any guesses ??????????



Arjun MK-III tank 70 Ton weight

Better we get Altay then this



C130 said:


> that might sound like a lot, but in a full blown war you will need all the armor you can get.



Shocked on the Price tag 10000 Dozer worth $2.5 Billion 

but we are getting these Blitzkreig

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hassan Guy

Base the Al-Hyder tank on the Oplot-M, like Al-khalid is based on MBT-2000.

And of course most importantly source its production locally under TTA, and also the possibility of licence building the engine.

As discovered at IDEAS Ukraine is looking for joint tank production with Pakistan.


----------



## Dazzler

Storm Force said:


> View attachment 356669
> 
> 
> I think this new battle tank would be maasive upgrade for Pakistan
> 
> 
> 
> Any guesses ??????????



Considering its troubled history and poor performance, it would be a downgrade.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## muhammadali233

Storm Force said:


> View attachment 356669
> 
> 
> I think this new battle tank would be maasive upgrade for Pakistan
> 
> Any guesses ??????????


M-48 patton had a better firing report than arjun mk-2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mustang06

How many tanks have been tested for the new MBT which PA will acquire?


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Mustang06 said:


> How many tanks have been tested for the new MBT which PA will acquire?



2 were tested 

Chinese MBT-3000 and Ukrainian Oplot-M there was rumor about Russian T-90 but was rumor


----------



## Fieldmarshal

Oplot-M is comming back for trials in June or July 2017
Along with VT 4
According to the manufacturers the faults identified by PA in both the tanks have been fixed.


----------



## Signalian

Zaslon Active protection system and the new ERA design Nozh will be interesting

More about Zaslon APS

http://en.uos.ua/produktsiya/sistemi-zashchiti/49-kompleks-aktivnoy-zashchiti-zaslon

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mustang06

Muhammad Omar said:


> 2 were tested
> 
> Chinese MBT-3000 and Ukrainian Oplot-M there was rumor about Russian T-90 but was rumor


Suppose a tank is disqualified on technical basis and the manufacturer rectifies the fault can the tank then come back reevaluation?


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Mustang06 said:


> Suppose a tank is disqualified on technical basis and the manufacturer rectifies the fault can the tank then come back reevaluation?



yes.. 

Oplot-M has engine fault and had 1200 HP engine Ukraine now made a new engine of 1500 HP which they they are providing it for Al-Khalid Tanks (200 Engines) 

I don't remember what were the faults in Chinese MBT-3000 VT-4 but both tanks are now coming to Pakistan in 2017 for further evaluation

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## omega supremme

ssethii said:


> Neither Russians nor Chinese would be happy if this news materializes.






Russia deals with india and now it is dealing with us. We didn't say stop dealing with indians yet indians did say and Russians just didn't give damn about it and is even doing exercises with us. So Russia wouldn't mind with whom we do deals.
China doesn't have any problem with Ukraine so they will not mind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

T 84 Oplot M Main Battle Tank







VT-4 MBT


----------



## royalharris

Muhammad Omar said:


> If China or Russian had any problem they should have issued the statement about it already plus we buys equipment from many countries and even buying from China so why would someone object about it?? These weapons are not against them we tested we liked we buy simple..


Choose the best according to pakistan interest
According to export record,VT-4 maybe a little expensive

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mustang06

Muhammad Omar said:


> yes..
> 
> Oplot-M has engine fault and had 1200 HP engine Ukraine now made a new engine of 1500 HP which they they are providing it for Al-Khalid Tanks (200 Engines)
> 
> I don't remember what were the faults in Chinese MBT-3000 VT-4 but both tanks are now coming to Pakistan in 2017 for further evaluation


Thanks!


----------



## Saifullah

Dazzler said:


> Considering its troubled history and poor performance, it would be a downgrade.


Why are we acquiring totally new platform when we already have AK Tanks in same or better class ?


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Saifullah said:


> Why are we acquiring totally new platform when we already have AK Tanks in same or better class ?



Al-Khalid will be Upgraded to Al-Khalid II 

Al-Haider wil replace old Tanks like Type-6X


----------



## Suff Shikan

Sould not we consider Altay?


----------



## Zarvan

Suff Shikan said:


> Sould not we consider Altay?


Altay is way too heavy but you never know


----------



## Suff Shikan

Zarvan said:


> Altay is way too heavy but you never know



We should incorporate technology of Altay to produce a Tank more suitable to our needs, suitable to our terrains.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Suff Shikan said:


> We should incorporate technology of Altay to produce a Tank more suitable to our needs, suitable to our terrains.


That would be done in AL KHALID II and also which ever Tank is selected under AL HAIDER project.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Suff Shikan

Will it also include Active Protection System? I have heard or read somewhere we have produced our locals APS.


----------



## TopCat

If you could get some T-14 armata otherwise stick to your Al-Khalid. Ukraine could anytime taken over by Russians.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Zarvan said:


> Altay is way too heavy but you never know



i think India Pakistan has almost the same terrain if India can make Arjun MK III which is 70 Tons why can't Pakistan consider Altay which is 60-62 Tons 

Altay will be seriously advance tank.. 
We can use Al-Khalid and Al-zarrar in Desert areas and Altay in other.. also Turkey is making a 1800 HP engine we can use it later to upgrade them

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nadeemkhan110

Muhammad Omar said:


> i think India Pakistan has almost the same terrain if India can make Arjun MK III which is 70 Tons why can't Pakistan consider Altay which is 60-62 Tons
> 
> Altay will be seriously advance tank..
> We can use Al-Khalid and Al-zarrar in Desert areas and Altay in other.. also Turkey is making a 1800 HP engine we can use it later to upgrade them


100% agree
_Otokar entered into a system development deal with South Korean tank maker, Hyundai Rotem, whose *K2 Black Panther tank* project serves as the basis for the development of the Altay. Both tanks share the same base design including the chassis, although the Altay is purportedly slightly longer, equipped with heavier armor, and, in comparison to the *K2 MBT *also sports a modified turret with composite armor.
_
and* K2 Black panther tank* is best amoung all (Top ten modern Tanks)
one of the Source : http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/top-10-most-sophisticated-main-battle-tanks/


----------



## Saifullah

Muhammad Omar said:


> Al-Khalid will be Upgraded to Al-Khalid II
> 
> Al-Haider wil replace old Tanks like Type-6X



The question was "Why are we acquiring totally new platform when we already have AK Tanks in same or better class ?".
Now please let me explain.

AL Khalid and Oplot-M is of same Weight category. Both Tanks have similar Specification. Both Tanks provide Equivalent Protection. Both Tanks have Equivalent fire power. Now price of the Tanks are similar too (Oplot-M would be a little high i guess because of import).

Now this need of replacing the Type-6x is not all of sudden, why Al Khalid Tank production was not improved and replaced all of the Type-6x with it ? Why buy a completely new platform when you have equivalent or better platform with less or equivalent price which is home grown and you know it inside out ?.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Saifullah said:


> The question was "Why are we acquiring totally new platform when we already have AK Tanks in same or better class ?".
> Now please let me explain.
> 
> AL Khalid and Oplot-M is of same Weight category. Both Tanks have similar Specification. Both Tanks provide Equivalent Protection. Both Tanks have Equivalent fire power. Now price of the Tanks are similar too (Oplot-M would be a little high i guess because of import).
> 
> Now this need of replacing the Type-6x is not all of sudden, why Al Khalid Tank production was not improved and replaced all of the Type-6x with it ? Why buy a completely new platform when you have equivalent or better platform with less or equivalent price which is home grown and you know it inside out ?.



Oplot will also be manufacture here in Pakistan... you can't replace all the tanks with just Al-Khalid..



nadeemkhan110 said:


> 100% agree
> _Otokar entered into a system development deal with South Korean tank maker, Hyundai Rotem, whose *K2 Black Panther tank* project serves as the basis for the development of the Altay. Both tanks share the same base design including the chassis, although the Altay is purportedly slightly longer, equipped with heavier armor, and, in comparison to the *K2 MBT *also sports a modified turret with composite armor.
> _
> and* K2 Black panther tank* is best amoung all (Top ten modern Tanks)
> one of the Source : http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/the-biggest/top-10-most-sophisticated-main-battle-tanks/



Well depends on Army i don't they want a heavy tank like K-2 or Altay

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Saifullah

Muhammad Omar said:


> Oplot will also be manufacture here in Pakistan... you can't replace all the tanks with just Al-Khalid..



I am just asking a simple question which is "Why" ? (With some clear points).


----------



## Signalian

Saifullah said:


> The question was "Why are we acquiring totally new platform when we already have AK Tanks in same or better class ?".
> Now please let me explain.
> 
> AL Khalid and Oplot-M is of same Weight category. Both Tanks have similar Specification. Both Tanks provide Equivalent Protection. Both Tanks have Equivalent fire power. Now price of the Tanks are similar too (Oplot-M would be a little high i guess because of import).
> 
> Now this need of replacing the Type-6x is not all of sudden, why Al Khalid Tank production was not improved and replaced all of the Type-6x with it ? Why buy a completely new platform when you have equivalent or better platform with less or equivalent price which is home grown and you know it inside out ?.



Time taken, to replace older tanks.



Muhammad Omar said:


> i think India Pakistan has almost the same terrain if India can make Arjun MK III which is 70 Tons why can't Pakistan consider Altay which is 60-62 Tons
> 
> Altay will be seriously advance tank..
> We can use Al-Khalid and Al-zarrar in Desert areas and Altay in other.. also Turkey is making a 1800 HP engine we can use it later to upgrade them



Put additional armour on AK and make it 70 Ton.


----------



## Adnan Adil

Why aren't we applying the same technology in Al Khalid 2. I think we should seriously consider it. This may take some time but will be a better option 

Same as Pakistan is apply AESA in 3rd generation of JF17.



Saifullah said:


> I am just asking a simple question which is "Why" ? (With some clear points).



We need to replace the older one bro, like Type 69-II, Type 88, Type 63(we are using since 1963), Type 59 (using since 1959)..


----------



## Mercenary

Pakistan needs to prioritize its Artillery over Tanks. Our Artillery is woefully in adequate vs India.

While we produce our own indigenous Tanks, we really need to fix our artillery.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Sarge said:


> Time taken, to replace older tanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Put additional armour on AK and make it 70 Ton.



Well didn't see any plan or any Pic of army putting additional Armor on Al-Khalid



Mercenary said:


> Pakistan needs to prioritize its Artillery over Tanks. Our Artillery is woefully in adequate vs India.
> 
> While we produce our own indigenous Tanks, we really need to fix our artillery.



Pakistan is testing Nora B-52 and also Danial Howitzer


----------



## Signalian

Muhammad Omar said:


> Well didn't see any plan or any Pic of army putting additional Armor on Al-Khalid


whats the obsession with a heavy western MBT?



nadeemkhan110 said:


>


is this a LEGO model?



Adnan Adil said:


> We need to replace the older one bro, like Type 69-II, Type 88, Type 63(we are using since 1963), Type 59 (using since 1959)..



Type-59 was inducted by China in 1959 but saw induction in Pakistan after 1965. 

Type-63 was inducted by China in 1963 but saw induction in Pakistan around 1970-71.



Mercenary said:


> Pakistan needs to prioritize its Artillery over Tanks. *Our Artillery is woefully in adequate vs India*.
> 
> While we produce our own indigenous Tanks, we really need to fix our artillery.



The bold Part is not true, especially currently in Self propelled Artillery.


----------



## CHACHA"G"

*Hello all.
PA need 2500+ Tanks (minimum) to keep defensive and some sort of offensive capability , We can not match IA with TANK for TANK , Best solution is to have modern Eqm.
AK is and will be back born and we will see (hope fully) many more AK series production , But only having 2500+ AKs , not a great Idea , its not even sound that good.
For that reason AH will join AK , PA need Tanks weight around 49t to 51t MAX, In modern ATGM and other systems(IA Tanks) we can not use Lighter Tank against IA. 
AH will bring the new tech (more advance armament , Advance systems) with it , and This will also help AK program in future . Both (may be) will shear same engine and some other Tch , Both will have great HP/T ratio.
AH (Oplot or VT-300) will replace all older Tanks like T6x , Type 59G , Type 85 , Only AZ will stay in-service for few more years with upgraded T-80UDs.
For Heavy Tank , PA may buy of the shelf 55T+ Tank , Max 250 just for desert area to counter IA cold or hot start , 
In very short against IA 5000+ Tanks PA will have 2500 to 2700 Tanks and PA trying to have modern 50T+ tanks with some 55T+ tanks , (AZ not against T90s and upgraded T-72s) .
AK all versions 1000
AH all versions 1000
T-80UD 320
55T+ Tank 350
_______________________
Total 2670
Just Add 500 AZ in that so Grand total will come out 3170 Tanks . Less in number (The number gape will always stay) but Advance in Tch , Armament , Protection and extremely lethal , fast.
Thank you all *

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Sarge said:


> whats the obsession with a heavy western MBT?
> 
> 
> is this a LEGO model?
> 
> 
> 
> Type-59 was inducted by China in 1959 but saw induction in Pakistan after 1965.
> 
> Type-63 was inducted by China in 1963 but saw induction in Pakistan around 1970-71.
> 
> 
> 
> The bold Part is not true, especially currently in Self propelled Artillery.



More Fire power more armor etc etc


----------



## IHK_PK

Instead of telling PA that how many tanks will be enough , it's better to tell them how to get financing for it.


----------



## Aryzin

Why would the Ukrainian or Chinse tanks replace the old type 69? Pakistan has the Al-Zarrar! Abd why purchase Oplot-M when AK2 available?


----------



## Signalian

Muhammad Omar said:


> More Fire power more armor etc etc


I think AK has all that, except probably an APS for protection. 
Its weight can be increased if more armour is put on its top/front/sides/rear, which could give it extra 5-10 Tons depending how the armour is applied. 

Many people fancy Leo2A6 or K-2 Black Panther or Altay or Leclerc. So AK may not be sexy like Leo2  Looks boring probably.


----------



## Signalian

CHACHA"G" said:


> *Hello all.
> PA need 2500+ Tanks (minimum) to keep defensive and some sort of offensive capability , We can not match IA with TANK for TANK , Best solution is to have modern Eqm.
> AK is and will be back born and we will see (hope fully) many more AK series production , But only having 2500+ AKs , not a great Idea , its not even sound that good.
> For that reason AH will join AK , PA need Tanks weight around 49t to 51t MAX, In modern ATGM and other systems(IA Tanks) we can not use Lighter Tank against IA.
> AH will bring the new tech (more advance armament , Advance systems) with it , and This will also help AK program in future . Both (may be) will shear same engine and some other Tch , Both will have great HP/T ratio.
> AH (Oplot or VT-300) will replace all older Tanks like T6x , Type 59G , Type 85 , Only AZ will stay in-service for few more years with upgraded T-80UDs.
> For Heavy Tank , PA may buy of the shelf 55T+ Tank , Max 250 just for desert area to counter IA cold or hot start ,
> In very short against IA 5000+ Tanks PA will have 2500 to 2700 Tanks and PA trying to have modern 50T+ tanks with some 55T+ tanks , (AZ not against T90s and upgraded T-72s) .
> AK all versions 1000
> AH all versions 1000
> T-80UD 320
> 55T+ Tank 350
> _______________________
> Total 2670
> Just Add 500 AZ in that so Grand total will come out 3170 Tanks . Less in number (The number gape will always stay) but Advance in Tch , Armament , Protection and extremely lethal , fast.
> Thank you all *


 

Yaar i like your plannings

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHACHA"G"

Sarge said:


> Yaar i like your plannings



 . hahahaha* . *


----------



## YeBeWarned

I think Oplet M will win the Contract ..


----------



## alimobin memon

CHACHA"G" said:


> . hahahaha* . *


Having always MBT and 40+ tanks to counter the enemy is never best answer. ATGMS can and will also be deadly against these 40+ ton tanks which are larger in size as compared to lighter tanks. Lighter tanks are perfect for ambush and flanking enemy positions, tanks are good for front line war breaking barriers from the front. Light tanks have faster acceleration and response of turret can be exceptional using Recoil less guns on the turret for ambushing and attacking enemy light mechanized forces and buildings. In Urban warfare sending Bradley IFV or 50 to 75mm equipped light bored cannons on wheeled/tracked armor vehicles both are more effective to fight inside city surrounded by buildings. For cold start type attack also reason is these lightly armored vehicles are cheaper and can be produced in bulk equipped with atgms to fight along side tanks is more favorable. 

US forces have proved that a combined task force which includes from light to medium to heavy armored vehicles is best combination than sending only single type of class. 

I hope you get the point.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

alimobin memon said:


> Having always MBT and 40+ tanks to counter the enemy is never best answer. ATGMS can and will also be deadly against these 40+ ton tanks which are larger in size as compared to lighter tanks.


MBT is the main offensive weapon for any Ground force. MBT has protection systems against ATGM teams and there are ways to counter and neutralise enemy ATGM teams. ATGM has not made MBT obsolete. Almost every ground force in the world which can afford an MBT inducts it.



> Lighter tanks are perfect for ambush and flanking enemy positions, tanks are good for front line war breaking barriers from the front. Light tanks have faster acceleration and response of turret can be exceptional using Recoil less guns on the turret for ambushing and attacking enemy light mechanized forces and buildings.


Light tanks and an MBT which is lighter in weight when compared to heavier MBT's ....are two different platforms. 

Light tanks have recon and sometimes convoy escort roles where threat is not monumental. Light tank is not expected to counter MBT's but can sometimes carry a heavier cannon like 105mm. An example of light tank could be PL-01, British Scorpion, PT-76 etc. Wheeled Armoured vehicles like Stryker etc are coming up and taking the role away from Light tanks.
In weight category, PL-01 is 30 to 35 Tonnes but its called a light tank. Others are 20 Tonnes or lighter. Interestingly, T-55 MBT was 36 Tonnes when it was inducted, later up gradations made it heavier.

MBT which is lighter in weight compared to other MBT's , still retains the role of an MBT and its role cannot be replaced by a Light tank. AK is not a light tank but a lighter MBT. An MBT is used for recon only when it will be encountering threats which a Light armoured vehicle or recon vehicle or light tank cannot counter easily, but this is rare. 

In Pakistan Army, its usually MBT and APC filling in two distinctly separate roles, where light 4x4 can fulfill the recon duty along with helis. 



> In Urban warfare sending Bradley IFV or 50 to 75mm equipped light bored cannons on wheeled/tracked armor vehicles both are more effective to fight inside city surrounded by buildings. For cold start type attack also reason is these lightly armored vehicles are cheaper and can be produced in bulk equipped with atgms to fight along side tanks is more favorable.


M2 Bradley was replaced by MRAPs as Bradley fell easily to IED's, RPG's, ambushes etc. A 25mm/30mm/40mm cannon or even a bigger cannon like 105mm can bring a wall down. Depends also if HE or AP is used. Ofcourse smaller calibre may use more rounds. 

Sending an MRAP to fight in a built up area like city is probably a good idea than sending an MBT or IFV. 
1.The carried personnel and crew are expected to survive the hits and ambushes, 
2.its cheaper to produce and operate as its mostly wheeled, 
3. it has good on road speeds where it will be operating
4. still carries a decent cannon for fire support. 
5.The personnel it carries can dismount and use indirect firing weapons like mortars to engage NLOS targets. 


> US forces have proved that a combined task force which includes from light to medium to heavy armored vehicles is best combination than sending only single type of class.
> 
> I hope you get the point.



Its observed in recent excercises that PA also practices using this combo of MBT, APC, SP Guns, Air Defence and Gunships.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## alimobin memon

Sarge said:


> MBT is the main offensive weapon for any Ground force. MBT has protection systems against ATGM teams and there are ways to counter and neutralise enemy ATGM teams. ATGM has not made MBT obsolete. Almost every ground force in the world which can afford an MBT inducts it.
> 
> 
> Light tanks and an MBT which is lighter in weight when compared to heavier MBT's ....are two different platforms.
> 
> Light tanks have recon and sometimes convoy escort roles where threat is not monumental. Light tank is not expected to counter MBT's but can sometimes carry a heavier cannon like 105mm. An example of light tank could be PL-01, British Scorpion, PT-76 etc. Wheeled Armoured vehicles like Stryker etc are coming up and taking the role away from Light tanks.
> In weight category, PL-01 is 30 to 35 Tonnes but its called a light tank. Others are 20 Tonnes or lighter. Interestingly, T-55 MBT was 36 Tonnes when it was inducted, later up gradations made it heavier.
> 
> MBT which is lighter in weight compared to other MBT's , still retains the role of an MBT and its role cannot be replaced by a Light tank. AK is not a light tank but a lighter MBT. An MBT is used for recon only when it will be encountering threats which a Light armoured vehicle or recon vehicle or light tank cannot counter easily, but this is rare.
> 
> In Pakistan Army, its usually MBT and APC filling in two distinctly separate roles, where light 4x4 can fulfill the recon duty along with helis.
> 
> 
> M2 Bradley was replaced by MRAPs as Bradley fell easily to IED's, RPG's, ambushes etc. A 25mm/30mm/40mm cannon or even a bigger cannon like 105mm can bring a wall down. Depends also if HE or AP is used. Ofcourse smaller calibre may use more rounds.
> 
> Sending an MRAP to fight in a built up area like city is probably a good idea than sending an MBT or IFV.
> 1.The carried personnel and crew are expected to survive the hits and ambushes,
> 2.its cheaper to produce and operate as its mostly wheeled,
> 3. it has good on road speeds where it will be operating
> 4. still carries a decent cannon for fire support.
> 5.The personnel it carries can dismount and use indirect firing weapons like mortars to engage NLOS targets.
> 
> 
> Its observed in recent excercises that PA also practices using this combo of MBT, APC, SP Guns, Air Defence and Gunships.


I never said obsolete. the point here was made by the guy to whom I quoted named chacha. That is 
"*In modern ATGM and other systems(IA Tanks) we can not use Lighter Tank against IA."*
To that I said. Saying IED's made bradley ineffective is completely same as saying Mines make tanks ineffective. IED's in Military wars are less of a threat. There will be face to face battles. Bradley's du round of 25mm easily penetrated most of iraqi tanks from rear and sides. also had some kills against them. Light tanks can be used against MBT if they are equipped with ATGM's or 105 is also good against side and rear armor.

Why are you saying that light tanks and mbts are different platform ? did I said that they are same ?

thats the point that 25mm, 40 or higher can bring wall down, why send heavy forces when light forces can do the job against light infantry inside buildings.

using combo is what I am making the point. but apparently our forces still lack IFV and low caliber systems.

AK is not light mbt but medium to heavy mbt. 47 tonnes while most of heavy mbt lie within 55tons m1 and leopard are super heavy


----------



## jupiter2007

CHACHA"G" said:


> *Hello all.
> PA need 2500+ Tanks (minimum) to keep defensive and some sort of offensive capability , We can not match IA with TANK for TANK , Best solution is to have modern Eqm.
> AK is and will be back born and we will see (hope fully) many more AK series production , But only having 2500+ AKs , not a great Idea , its not even sound that good.
> For that reason AH will join AK , PA need Tanks weight around 49t to 51t MAX, In modern ATGM and other systems(IA Tanks) we can not use Lighter Tank against IA.
> AH will bring the new tech (more advance armament , Advance systems) with it , and This will also help AK program in future . Both (may be) will shear same engine and some other Tch , Both will have great HP/T ratio.
> AH (Oplot or VT-300) will replace all older Tanks like T6x , Type 59G , Type 85 , Only AZ will stay in-service for few more years with upgraded T-80UDs.
> For Heavy Tank , PA may buy of the shelf 55T+ Tank , Max 250 just for desert area to counter IA cold or hot start ,
> In very short against IA 5000+ Tanks PA will have 2500 to 2700 Tanks and PA trying to have modern 50T+ tanks with some 55T+ tanks , (AZ not against T90s and upgraded T-72s) .
> AK all versions 1000
> AH all versions 1000
> T-80UD 320
> 55T+ Tank 350
> _______________________
> Total 2670
> Just Add 500 AZ in that so Grand total will come out 3170 Tanks . Less in number (The number gape will always stay) but Advance in Tch , Armament , Protection and extremely lethal , fast.
> Thank you all *




Current Inventory:
800 Al-Khalid Tank (all versions)
320 T-80UD Tanks
600 Al-Zarrar Tanks
300 Type 85-IIAP
1200 Type-69/63/59 _(Need to be replaced by Al-Khalid 2 and Al-Haider tank)_
*Total: 3,220*

additional Requirement:
600 Al-Khalid 2 Tanks
1000 Al-Haider Tanks (*Oplot or VT-300)*
500 Advance Lighter and more agile Tank (Something closer to PL-01)
Upgrading remaining Type-59 to Al-Zarrar II Tank


----------



## monitor

jupiter2007 said:


> Current Inventory:
> 800 Al-Khalid Tank (all versions)
> 320 T-80UD Tanks
> 600 Al-Zarrar Tanks
> 300 Type 85-IIAP
> 1200 Type-69/63/59 _(Need to be replaced by Al-Khalid 2 and Al-Haider tank)_
> *Total: 3,220*
> 
> additional Requirement:
> 600 Al-Khalid 2 Tanks
> 1000 Al-Haider Tanks (*Oplot or VT-300)*
> 500 Advance Lighter and more agile Tank (Something closer to PL-01)
> Upgrading remaining Type-59 to Al-Zarrar II Tank


300 Type 85-IIAP 1200 Type-69/63/59 should either upgraded to alzarar until the alkhalid or haider arraived or convert it as heavy track IFV with at least 4 ATGM .


----------



## Signalian

jupiter2007 said:


> Current Inventory:
> 800 Al-Khalid Tank (all versions)
> 320 T-80UD Tanks
> 600 Al-Zarrar Tanks
> 300 Type 85-IIAP
> 1200 Type-69/63/59 _(Need to be replaced by Al-Khalid 2 and Al-Haider tank)_
> *Total: 3,220*


are you sure AK is 800 in numbers?

Type-59/69 cannot be 1200, as AZ upgrade was applied on these tanks. AZ isnt a new inducted tank.



monitor said:


> 300 Type 85-IIAP 1200 Type-69/63/59 should either upgraded to alzarar until the alkhalid or haider arraived or convert it as heavy track IFV with at least 4 ATGM .



MBTs are already short in numbers. The older ones are being given to FC. APC will be Talha/M-113 or the wheeled Hamza.



alimobin memon said:


> I never said obsolete. the point here was made by the guy to whom I quoted named chacha. That is
> "*In modern ATGM and other systems(IA Tanks) we can not use Lighter Tank against IA."*
> To that I said. Saying IED's made bradley ineffective is completely same as saying Mines make tanks ineffective. IED's in Military wars are less of a threat. There will be face to face battles. Bradley's du round of 25mm easily penetrated most of iraqi tanks from rear and sides. also had some kills against them. Light tanks can be used against MBT if they are equipped with ATGM's or 105 is also good against side and rear armor.
> 
> Why are you saying that light tanks and mbts are different platform ? did I said that they are same ?
> 
> thats the point that 25mm, 40 or higher can bring wall down, why send heavy forces when light forces can do the job against light infantry inside buildings.
> 
> using combo is what I am making the point. but apparently our forces still lack IFV and low caliber systems.
> 
> AK is not light mbt but medium to heavy mbt. 47 tonnes while most of heavy mbt lie within 55tons m1 and leopard are super heavy


M2 Bradley had its own set of problems in COIN and MRAPs are a preferred platform.
Light tanks are surviving because of air transport capability and can operate well in certain terrain. In India Pak scenario the MBT weight is increasing.

105mm was used in COIN because the MBT had better protection and punch. 25mm wasnt available.

light, medium, heavy, super heavy is not my categorisation.


----------



## 帅的一匹

Muhammad Omar said:


> Al-Khalid will be Upgraded to Al-Khalid II
> 
> Al-Haider wil replace old Tanks like Type-6X


Type 69 means a lot for PA.

I thought they said the price tag of VT4 is not cheap.i still remember China provided type 69 tanks to Pakistan when Pakistan had war with India in 1971 per Pakistan request(Pakistan tanks stock runed nearly empty), most of those type 69 delivered to Pakistan was brand new induction in PLA Arsenal.the only country willing to provide tanks when Pakistan hanged by a thread is China. Those Oplot is good looking, but you know what I mean. Maybe Ukranian willing to provide TOT? I don't know.

But now Pakistan already has the ability to produce Al Khalid on his own. So there will be not a problem which tank it induct for Al Haider.

All the best!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Sarge said:


> are you sure AK is 800 in numbers?


Confirmed numbers of AK (all versions) produced so far is 320. Some PDF members suggest that roughly 450 are produced so far.



wanglaokan said:


> .i still remember China provided type 69 tanks to Pakistan when Pakistan had war with India in 1971 per Pakistan request(Pakistan tanks stock runed nearly empty), most of those type 69 delivered to Pakistan was brand new induction in PLA Arsenal.the only country willing to provide tanks when Pakistan hanged by a thread is China





Sarge said:


> Type-59/69 cannot be 1200, as AZ upgrade was applied on these tanks. AZ isnt a new inducted tank.



There were times when we had them as many as 1500. 600 converted to Al Zarrar, some returned back,some moved to reserves, most stayed. We should be having 320, 320 each of T59/69 still in army which IMO should be given to FC or move to reserves once replacement will become available.



Sarge said:


> . The older ones are being given to FC



Do you have any info that how many T59 were given to FC?



jupiter2007 said:


> Current Inventory:
> 800 Al-Khalid Tank (all versions)
> 320 T-80UD Tanks
> 600 Al-Zarrar Tanks
> 300 Type 85-IIAP
> 1200 Type-69/63/59 _(Need to be replaced by Al-Khalid 2 and Al-Haider tank)_
> *Total: 3,220*
> 
> additional Requirement:
> 600 Al-Khalid 2 Tanks
> 1000 Al-Haider Tanks (*Oplot or VT-300)*
> 500 Advance Lighter and more agile Tank (Something closer to PL-01)
> Upgrading remaining Type-59 to Al-Zarrar II Tank



320 Al Khalid is confirm number. 450 is Rumored Number.

Numbers must have decreased by now. Perhaps 600 of them are still around in army.

300 AK2 and 300 Al Haider. Remember these tanks are not new additions but replacement of old ones. PA has enough numbers of Tanks already and it need to focus on ''Quality'' factor bcoz this is what India is doing.

And we don't need light tanks. Upgradation of T59/69 tanks to AZ standard is not in plans as far as I know. Bcoz after a decade, AZ & T85 will be too obsolete to fight against armor. You don't spend millions of $ on 600 Tanks for making them use full for next decade only.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jupiter2007

Tipu7 said:


> Confirmed numbers of AK (all versions) produced so far is 320. Some PDF members suggest that roughly 450 are produced so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were times when we had them as many as 1500. 600 converted to Al Zarrar, some returned back,some moved to reserves, most stayed. We should be having 320, 320 each of T59/69 still in army which IMO should be given to FC or move to reserves once replacement will become available.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any info that how many T59 were given to FC?
> 
> 
> 
> 320 Al Khalid is confirm number. 450 is Rumored Number.
> 
> Numbers must have decreased by now. Perhaps 600 of them are still around in army.
> 
> 300 AK2 and 300 Al Haider. Remember these tanks are not new additions but replacement of old ones. PA has enough numbers of Tanks already and it need to focus on ''Quality'' factor bcoz this is what India is doing.
> 
> And we don't need light tanks. Upgradation of T59/69 tanks to AZ standard is not in plans as far as I know. Bcoz after a decade, AZ & T85 will be too obsolete to fight against armor. You don't spend millions of $ on 600 Tanks for making them use full for next decade only.



Al khalid are close to 800 based on my calculation. We had 320+ back in 2007- 2008.


----------



## Tipu7

jupiter2007 said:


> We had 320+ back in 2007- 2008


We had 320 Back in 2013 as mentioned by Officials in IDEAS.
Only two Al Khalid were produced in 2015. Total target was to produce 600 of them by 2019 which suffered due to economic constrains.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Tipu7 said:


> Confirmed numbers of AK (all versions) produced so far is 320. Some PDF members suggest that roughly 450 are produced so far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were times when we had them as many as 1500. 600 converted to Al Zarrar, some returned back,some moved to reserves, most stayed. We should be having 320, 320 each of T59/69 still in army which IMO should be given to FC or move to reserves once replacement will become available.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any info that how many T59 were given to FC?
> 
> 
> 
> 320 Al Khalid is confirm number. 450 is Rumored Number.
> 
> Numbers must have decreased by now. Perhaps 600 of them are still around in army.
> 
> 300 AK2 and 300 Al Haider. Remember these tanks are not new additions but replacement of old ones. PA has enough numbers of Tanks already and it need to focus on ''Quality'' factor bcoz this is what India is doing.
> 
> And we don't need light tanks. Upgradation of T59/69 tanks to AZ standard is not in plans as far as I know. Bcoz after a decade, AZ & T85 will be too obsolete to fight against armor. You don't spend millions of $ on 600 Tanks for making them use full for next decade only.



450 number + 50 on order were confirmed by MODP 2014.. Not rumours.



Tipu7 said:


> We had 320 Back in 2013 as mentioned by Officials in IDEAS.
> Only two Al Khalid were produced in 2015. Total target was to produce 600 of them by 2019 which suffered due to economic constrains.



Do some research .. You will find Ministry of defence production report. 

600 by 2019..


By next year AK-II probably will be revealed ... Even that has been confirmed by HIT...

1500 HP engine,more armour and self protection gizmos ...



wanglaokan said:


> Type 69 means a lot for PA.
> 
> I thought they said the price tag of VT4 is not cheap.i still remember China provided type 69 tanks to Pakistan when Pakistan had war with India in 1971 per Pakistan request(Pakistan tanks stock runed nearly empty), most of those type 69 delivered to Pakistan was brand new induction in PLA Arsenal.the only country willing to provide tanks when Pakistan hanged by a thread is China. Those Oplot is good looking, but you know what I mean. Maybe Ukranian willing to provide TOT? I don't know.
> 
> But now Pakistan already has the ability to produce Al Khalid on his own. So there will be not a problem which tank it induct for Al Haider.
> 
> All the best!



Type 69 is obsolete ..

VT-4 doesn't offer much advantage of AK.. Apart from slightly better protection.. With its additional modular armour.

It competed against Oplot M to require a tender .. Don't know about the results but it was to augment our fleet ... While AK-II comes online .. Which will be our workhorse...

I'd think Oplot M makes more sense .. Because not just a great tank but since Pak operates 325 T-80UDs .. Which share similarities with the Oplot (and can be upgraded to Oplots capability)... Hence inducting it would make sense ...


----------



## 帅的一匹

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> 450 number + 50 on order were confirmed by MODP 2014.. Not rumours.
> 
> 
> 
> Do some research .. You will find Ministry of defence production report.
> 
> 600 by 2019..
> 
> 
> By next year AK-II probably will be revealed ... Even that has been confirmed by HIT...
> 
> 1500 HP engine,more armour and self protection gizmos ...
> 
> 
> 
> Type 69 is obsolete ..
> 
> VT-4 doesn't offer such advantage of AK..
> 
> It competed against Oplot M to require a tender .. Don't know about the results but it was to augment our fleet ... While AK-II comes online .. Which will be our workhorse...
> 
> I'd think Oplot M makes more sense .. Because not just a great tank but since Pak operates 325 T-80UDs .. Which share similarities with the Oplot (and can be upgraded to Oplots capability)... Hence inducting it would make sense ...


What the is the price of Oplots offered to PA?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wanglaokan said:


> What the is the price of Oplots offered to PA?



No idea...

Here are a few pics of them during trials... According to the Ukrainians PA wants a new Remote controlled weapon system and other modifications to the tank;























Also Heavy Industries Taxila has also signed a 600 million contract with Ukraine... Specifics of the contracts aren't released.

Since T-80UD shares the same chasis,turret,gun and other systems of the Oplot M... It can also be upgraded to OPLOT M status;

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Ukraine didn't perform well in the Oplot M business with Thiland royal army, delivery speed is extremely slow and Thiland army had lost its patience. Some of the tanks delivered are found refurbished product due to its rough surface . But the price is very competitive, only 4 millions USD per. Thiland had begun to order VT4 from China.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wanglaokan said:


> Ukraine didn't perform well in the Oplot M business with Thiland royal army, delivery speed is extremely slow and Thiland army had lost its patience. Some of the tanks delivered are found refurbished product due to its rough surface . But the price is very competitive, only 4 millions USD per. Thiland had begun to order VT4 from China.



Because the Ukranians hadn't produce rabks since T-80UD deal with Pak.. But they are upgrading their factories for mass production of Oplot and have also offered TOT.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LeGenD

Why bother with Oplot-M MBT when PA already has MBT of similar class? 

It would make sense to pursue a heavy MBT to counter Indian heavy MBT designs. However, not expecting much from PA planners.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

LeGenD said:


> It would make sense to pursue a heavy MBT to counter Indian heavy MBT designs. However, not expecting much from PA planners.


There is no need for Heavy MBT in PA arsenal at first place. The Indian ''heavy MBT'' offer no threat to Pakistan.
For rest couple of options are in sight and will be followed with time being.



LeGenD said:


> Why bother with Oplot-M MBT when PA already has MBT of similar class?



Off shelf purchase with domestic upgrades while AK will remain in production. As a result PA will successfully replace 600 of legacy tanks with cutting edge ones in comparatively short duration of time. Otherwise with production rate of 40-50 tanks per year, HIT will take Decade and Half to meet the production requirement of 600 tanks for replacing obsolete T59 series. That's the reason both Al Khalid & Al Haider exist as per now.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Do some research .. You will find Ministry of defence production report.


We read about that report right here on PDF. 2 Al Khalid in 2015, there is no doubt about it. 




DESERT FIGHTER said:


> 600 by 2019..



This 600 Target is discussed a lot, I am tied of digging old stuff. As far as Remember you were also among them who facilitated the target of having 600 in total.
https://web.archive.org/web/2013110...rity.org/military/world/pakistan/mbt-2000.htm
Any way, 7th Para. Not very credible source but this thing is discussed more than enough.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> By next year AK-II probably will be revealed ... Even that has been confirmed by HIT...
> 
> 1500 HP engine,more armour and self protection gizmos ...



Yup. Hopefully. Other wise we are waiting for AK2 from past half decade.............


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Tipu7 said:


> There is no need for Heavy MBT in PA arsenal at first place. The Indian ''heavy MBT'' offer no threat to Pakistan.
> For rest couple of options are in sight and will be followed with time being.
> 
> 
> 
> Off shelf purchase with domestic upgrades while AK will remain in production. As a result PA will successfully replace 600 of legacy tanks with cutting edge ones in comparatively short duration of time. Otherwise with production rate of 40-50 tanks per year, HIT will take Decade and Half to meet the production requirement of 600 tanks for replacing obsolete T59 series. That's the reason both Al Khalid & Al Haider exist as per now.
> 
> 
> We read about that report right here on PDF. 2 Al Khalid in 2015, there is no doubt about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This 600 Target is discussed a lot, I am tied of digging old stuff. As far as Remember you were also among them who facilitated the target of having 600 in total.
> https://web.archive.org/web/2013110...rity.org/military/world/pakistan/mbt-2000.htm
> Any way, 7th Para. Not very credible source but this thing is discussed more than enough.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. Hopefully. Other wise we are waiting for AK2 from past half decade.............



600 was the target ... But not by 2019...


MODP 2014 mentions 450 in service and 50 on order.

AK II was frozen due to financial crunch and is on track and confirmed by HIT officials at Ideas 2016... Aswell as on their website...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

C130 said:


> Oplot-M+BTR-4+Dozer-B would be a interesting combo for Pakistan
> 
> 500 Oplot-M for $2 billion
> 2000 BTR-4 for $2 billion
> 10000 Dozer-B $2.5 billion


Pak needs wheeled APC we lack it most of APC are tracked

Oplot is good but Altay is superior tech which is German engineering


----------



## waz

I hope not.....
Just go along with AK2 and supplement that with Altay, job done. Look at what's going on in Ukraine.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

waz said:


> Just go along with AK2 and supplement that with Altay, job done.


Good to see your affair with Altay is still alive. 



waz said:


> Look at what's going on in Ukraine.



Yup, Tank is fine. Source is not in good shape. Only thing I dislike in Oplot is its extra large commander sight.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> 600 was the target ... But not by 2019...



What ever.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

waz said:


> I hope not.....
> Just go along with AK2 and supplement that with Altay, job done. Look at what's going on in Ukraine.


Nothing is going in Ukraine. Ukrainian companies are still producing great weapons and our Defence Minister for production was recently in Ukraine so there are more chances that the Tank Mr @Army research has mentioned is indeed OPLOT M. We can get OPLOT M with TOT and I think if we try a little harder we can also get engine technology from Ukraine. Not to forget some latest Anti Tank weapons can also come from Ukraine along with other stuff. @Tipu7

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## C130

Super Falcon said:


> Pak needs wheeled APC we lack it most of APC are tracked
> 
> Oplot is good but Altay is superior tech which is German engineering




Altay is a $7 million each, I bet Oplot-M is $4 million each

you could almost buy two Oplot-M for a single Altay

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> There were times when we had them as many as 1500. 600 converted to Al Zarrar, some returned back,some moved to reserves, most stayed. We should be having 320, 320 each of T59/69 still in army which IMO should be given to FC or move to reserves once replacement will become available.
> 
> Do you have any info that how many T59 were given to FC?



T-59 design has limitations for modern combat now. There are three major points regrading this:

1. Ammunition storage capacity. Modern tanks have bigger hulls and bigger turrets. 
2. Speed, related to engine up gradation. 50-55km/hr on road speed is less, offroad would be lesser.
3. Armor, related to engine up gradation. More armor will improve protection but further reduce speed.

If its used as a reserve or reinforcement tank, it will only fill in numbers to bring a battered armour regiment to its full strength during war but imagine using T-59 alongside AZ, AK and T-80. Dont you think it will be more of a burden on the regiment's role and capability?

AK and T-80 are used in the desert. They have the best available engines in the MBT inventory of PA. Speed is necessary in desert not for competitive racing with enemy tanks, but constant flanking on enemy sides, rear and weak points. Desert terrain gives flexibility of movement just like ships in the sea. Flanking requires covering extra distance and this distance sometimes needs to be covered in shortest duration possible to get all units aligned for an attack. If the commander waits and postpones the attack for the flank manoeuvring regiment to get into position, he may lose excellent opportunities. 

Suppose, an AK regiment loses 22 AK's in 4 days of combat. Reinforcements are 12 T-59 II's from the reserves and 10 AK's either from Division reserve or acquired from reserves of any other formation. First, the CO will have a headache of asking QM and ordnance units for 105mm ammo.Then his Ops planning will suffer as how to deploy a slow and a fast tank. Getting a trained crew wont be a problem as almost every armour soldier is trained on T-59 and sometimes crew comes with the tank from other regiments. In defensive position, it will be fine. Let the enemy come close and flank the enemy from side or take enemy head on. The problem comes in offensive posture for which his regiment has been training with AK's. His offensive punch will still be the remaining AK's. The T-59 II's will not be able to keep up.

Oplot, Type-99 .....any modern MBT that can compliment AK and T-80 in desert is welcome. 

There is another problem that IA regiments most probably are larger in quantity of tanks. Pakistan has 44 tanks, India has 59 tanks in a regiment. Maybe an indian member can confirm this. IA Armoured divisions have more regiments probably 7 whereas Pakistan has 5. Quality of PA tanks maybe better but quantity is a big issue. Hoping on tactics and operational command to make up for such short comings. 

With AZ regiments, the T-59 II may fare better as a reinforcement for Armour Division to continue its operations. Terrain in upper punjab, lower Kashmir regions has limitations in manoeuvring, road networks are in place, lots of fields, population and houses, bridges etc. Ammunition type maybe a problem but operational capability of the regiment will remain. 

There are minimum 16-17 Infantry divisions in PA that have one armour regiment atleast. That Minimum 750 tanks, probably around 900 if mechanised divisions are taken into account. That is where the T-59 and T-69 reside. They can keep pace with the slowly moving infantry advance and give awesome firepower with HE ammo. Enemy T-72 will be countered by PA infantry ATGM teams.

Using T-59 as a reserve tank, new formations can be raised e.g. in war time, raise a new Armoured brigade. 

90 x T-59 MBT (2 Regiments)
Motorised infantry (Infantry in vehicles if M-113 and Talha are not in sufficient numbers) 
Artillery (reserve 105mm guns)
AD Regiment.

FC is deployed on the eastern border. I am not sure how many T-59 are given to them but im hoping atleast one regiment worth of tanks to FC KPK and Baluchistan each.

Its upto PA to decide where to use T-59 II in combat in case of war:
1. A newly formed armoured brigade
2. Bring FC in combat with heavy weapons
3. Send it as reinforcements to depleted units.

@Ulla

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
5


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Sarge said:


> T-59 design has limitations for modern combat now. There are three major points regrading this:
> 
> 1. Ammunition storage capacity. Modern tanks have bigger hulls and bigger turrets.
> 2. Speed, related to engine up gradation. 50-55km/hr on road speed is less, offroad would be lesser.
> 3. Armor, related to engine up gradation. More armor will improve protection but further reduce speed.
> 
> If its used as a reserve or reinforcement tank, it will only fill in numbers to bring a battered armour regiment to its full strength during war but imagine using T-59 alongside AZ, AK and T-80. Dont you think it will be more of a burden on the regiment's role and capability?
> 
> AK and T-80 are used in the desert. They have the best available engines in the MBT inventory of PA. Speed is necessary in desert not for competitive racing with enemy tanks, but constant flanking on enemy sides, rear and weak points. Desert terrain gives flexibility of movement just like ships in the sea. Flanking requires covering extra distance and this distance sometimes needs to be covered in shortest duration possible to get all units aligned for an attack. If the commander waits and postpones the attack for the flank manoeuvring regiment to get into position, he may lose excellent opportunities.
> 
> Suppose, an AK regiment loses 22 AK's in 4 days of combat. Reinforcements are 12 T-59 II's from the reserves and 10 AK's either from Division reserve or acquired from reserves of any other formation. First, the CO will have a headache of asking QM and ordnance units for 105mm ammo.Then his Ops planning will suffer as how to deploy a slow and a fast tank. Getting a trained crew wont be a problem as almost every armour soldier is trained on T-59 and sometimes crew comes with the tank from other regiments. In defensive position, it will be fine. Let the enemy come close and flank the enemy from side or take enemy head on. The problem comes in offensive posture for which his regiment has been training with AK's. His offensive punch will still be the remaining AK's. The T-59 II's will not be able to keep up.
> 
> Oplot, Type-99 .....any modern MBT that can compliment AK and T-80 in desert is welcome.
> 
> There is another problem that IA regiments most probably are larger in quantity of tanks. Pakistan has 44 tanks, India has 59 tanks in a regiment. Maybe an indian member can confirm this. IA Armoured divisions have more regiments probably 7 whereas Pakistan has 5. Quality of PA tanks maybe better but quantity is a big issue. Hoping on tactics and operational command to make up for such short comings.
> 
> With AZ regiments, the T-59 II may fare better as a reinforcement for Armour Division to continue its operations. Terrain in upper punjab, lower Kashmir regions has limitations in manoeuvring, road networks are in place, lots of fields, population and houses, bridges etc. Ammunition type maybe a problem but operational capability of the regiment will remain.
> 
> There are minimum 16-17 Infantry divisions in PA that have one armour regiment atleast. That Minimum 750 tanks, probably around 900 if mechanised divisions are taken into account. That is where the T-59 and T-69 reside. They can keep pace with the slowly moving infantry advance and give awesome firepower with HE ammo. Enemy T-72 will be countered by PA infantry ATGM teams.
> 
> Using T-59 as a reserve tank, new formations can be raised e.g. in war time, raise a new Armoured brigade.
> 
> 90 x T-59 MBT (2 Regiments)
> Motorised infantry (Infantry in vehicles if M-113 and Talha are not in sufficient numbers)
> Artillery (reserve 105mm guns)
> AD Regiment.
> 
> FC is deployed on the eastern border. I am not sure how many T-59 are given to them but im hoping atleast one regiment worth of tanks to FC KPK and Baluchistan each.
> 
> Its upto PA to decide where to use T-59 II in combat in case of war:
> 1. A newly formed armoured brigade
> 2. Bring FC in combat with heavy weapons
> 3. Send it as reinforcements to depleted units.
> 
> @Ulla


As of 2015 HIT re-manufactured/upgraded 486 al-Zarrar tanks, but the Army has 1021 T-59s left (link). The good think about the AZ is that it is given an up-rated engine and new 125 mm gun. The latter should offer ordnance commonality with the AK and T-80UD, though I'm not sure how well the new engine (730 hp diesel) stacks up in the desert. For what it's worth, the engine (I believe) comes from KMDB in Ukraine, i.e. the same source for the 6TD-2 aboard the AK and T-80UD. So comparable cooling and output (relative to weight) should be plausible. 

Overall, I agree with you, the AZ and T-59 would be best served supporting the infantry. It would be ideal if we could end up upgrading all of the T-59s to AZ. I imagine this would be cheaper than coming up with another flanking tank, which is what Turkey and Indonesia appear to be doing by developing the MMWT (link).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## CriticalThought

Question: Why isn't HIT making efforts to enhance its capacity? The model should be the same as JF-17. Offer a technologically superior product at a lower price and people will buy. Use this money to further enhance capacity and perform R&D. An initial shot in the arm might be needed from the government.

My own philosophy is to keep the tanks agile and nimble, with first find, first kill capability in xWeather xTerrain. Ideally ATGMs would be countered by am indigenously produced world leading active protection. In as much as this ideal cannot be achieved, I am willing to compromise on agility and nimbleness to increase armor.

But then again I have never fought a tank battle! I think the army's current strategy will be highly influenced by the WoT - both it's aftermath, and it's lessons learnt. But I hope our planners will adopt a research oriented approach to onboarding the lessons learnt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Inception-06

Sarge said:


> T-59 design has limitations for modern combat now. There are three major points regrading this:
> 
> 1. Ammunition storage capacity. Modern tanks have bigger hulls and bigger turrets.
> 2. Speed, related to engine up gradation. 50-55km/hr on road speed is less, offroad would be lesser.
> 3. Armor, related to engine up gradation. More armor will improve protection but further reduce speed.
> 
> If its used as a reserve or reinforcement tank, it will only fill in numbers to bring a battered armour regiment to its full strength during war but imagine using T-59 alongside AZ, AK and T-80. Dont you think it will be more of a burden on the regiment's role and capability?
> 
> AK and T-80 are used in the desert. They have the best available engines in the MBT inventory of PA. Speed is necessary in desert not for competitive racing with enemy tanks, but constant flanking on enemy sides, rear and weak points. Desert terrain gives flexibility of movement just like ships in the sea. Flanking requires covering extra distance and this distance sometimes needs to be covered in shortest duration possible to get all units aligned for an attack. If the commander waits and postpones the attack for the flank manoeuvring regiment to get into position, he may lose excellent opportunities.
> 
> Suppose, an AK regiment loses 22 AK's in 4 days of combat. Reinforcements are 12 T-59 II's from the reserves and 10 AK's either from Division reserve or acquired from reserves of any other formation. First, the CO will have a headache of asking QM and ordnance units for 105mm ammo.Then his Ops planning will suffer as how to deploy a slow and a fast tank. Getting a trained crew wont be a problem as almost every armour soldier is trained on T-59 and sometimes crew comes with the tank from other regiments. In defensive position, it will be fine. Let the enemy come close and flank the enemy from side or take enemy head on. The problem comes in offensive posture for which his regiment has been training with AK's. His offensive punch will still be the remaining AK's. The T-59 II's will not be able to keep up.
> 
> Oplot, Type-99 .....any modern MBT that can compliment AK and T-80 in desert is welcome.
> 
> There is another problem that IA regiments most probably are larger in quantity of tanks. Pakistan has 44 tanks, India has 59 tanks in a regiment. Maybe an indian member can confirm this. IA Armoured divisions have more regiments probably 7 whereas Pakistan has 5. Quality of PA tanks maybe better but quantity is a big issue. Hoping on tactics and operational command to make up for such short comings.
> 
> With AZ regiments, the T-59 II may fare better as a reinforcement for Armour Division to continue its operations. Terrain in upper punjab, lower Kashmir regions has limitations in manoeuvring, road networks are in place, lots of fields, population and houses, bridges etc. Ammunition type maybe a problem but operational capability of the regiment will remain.
> 
> There are minimum 16-17 Infantry divisions in PA that have one armour regiment atleast. That Minimum 750 tanks, probably around 900 if mechanised divisions are taken into account. That is where the T-59 and T-69 reside. They can keep pace with the slowly moving infantry advance and give awesome firepower with HE ammo. Enemy T-72 will be countered by PA infantry ATGM teams.
> 
> Using T-59 as a reserve tank, new formations can be raised e.g. in war time, raise a new Armoured brigade.
> 
> 90 x T-59 MBT (2 Regiments)
> Motorised infantry (Infantry in vehicles if M-113 and Talha are not in sufficient numbers)
> Artillery (reserve 105mm guns)
> AD Regiment.
> 
> FC is deployed on the eastern border. I am not sure how many T-59 are given to them but im hoping atleast one regiment worth of tanks to FC KPK and Baluchistan each.
> 
> Its upto PA to decide where to use T-59 II in combat in case of war:
> 1. A newly formed armoured brigade
> 2. Bring FC in combat with heavy weapons
> 3. Send it as reinforcements to depleted units.
> 
> @Ulla



I agree on every line what you have written, my thoughts to that topic:

_*Offensive Operation against Indian quantity and quality still possible? *_

That's a good summary of the Pakistan Tank Corps. I think the top General leadership knows very well the lack of the offensive options. For defensive operations, the Pakistan Tank Corps is very well equipped and can hold his own ground, but how many AK and T-80UDs (current inventory 300 T-80UD ca. 300-400 Aks) we would need *to penetrate* the Indian territory and get an overhand in the battle? At the moment we are facing ca. 1400 Indian T-90s and ca. 1300 Indian T-72s (already upgraded) is not an easy task to overwhelm such a big force.
*
400 AK+300 T-80UD =700 v.s 1500 T-90=1:2 is not a bad match for a defensive Force.*

_*T-85IIM and T-59IIM:*_
But you have forgotten to mention the T-85IIMP, I see a huge potential to upgrade this fleet to the AK-Standard. As you have described, I support your idea to integrate the T-59IIM in mechanized and FC Divisions, close fire support for the Troops and protection for the M-113 is a great deal in one cheap and economical package with the T-59IIM. By the way, many T-59IIMP are also upgraded with a 125mm gun.


*ca. 750 Al-Zarrar + 250 T-85IIMP upgraded nearly to the Al-Zarrar standard vs. 1100 T-72M = also a ratio of 1:2, is absolutely fine for a defensive Force.*


_*The Alkhalid, is here but in low numbers:*_
What I had read and heard from Members of the Army, *is that during the Zardari Period, HIT had very fewer funds to upgrade and produce more Tanks*, we have lost ca. 5-6 years. I did hear that, at some times, the factories even did not have electricity, of course, now the situation has changed, and they continued the program with AK-1 and Maybe AK-2. But still too slow and in low numbers, if we compare it to the Indian MBT inventory.


*T-85IIM ca. 2002*




*
The Al-Zarrar ca. 2002*







Bottom line:
In my opinion, *we have lost our technical superiority for the offensive operations* (time is over where our numbers of AK and T-80UDs was bigger or equal to the Indian T-90S). As you already said: Oplot would be the best Option because it's built on the T-80 series, we already have the infrastructure, maintenance and supply structure for this Tank. If we want *to gain success with our Strike Corps,* we need more T-80UDs and AK-1s or the Oplot. But can we afford that with our current economical situation and the low budget?


_*On the other hand:*_
Tanks can't feed our folk, let Indians waste their resource in an arms race, we can hold the ground in the Future with our current inventory. The economy is now the key to success! What does help Tanks, when we can't control the floods, can't deliver clean drinking water to the mass of people, can't deliver electricity, no standard education for everyone, no future plans for climate change and water shortage.... I hope India is wasting more billions of Dollars in Tanks and Rockets, one day they will realize how fine the life is on the other side of the Border, where clean water and air are a standard and not a demand!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CriticalThought

I wish we would adopt an R&D oriented approach towards modernization. Something like this:

https://defence.pk/threads/americas...he-m1-abrams-tank-into-a-super-weapon.469713/



Ulla said:


> That's a good summary of the Pakistan Tank Corps. I think the top leadership knows very well the lack of the offensive options, for defensive operations, the Tank Corps is very well equipped and can hold his own ground, how many AK and UDs we would need to penetrate and HOLD the Indian territory? Facing 1300 T-90s and ca. 2000 T-72s (already upgraded) is not an easy task. But have forgotten to mention the T-85IIMP?
> 
> As you have described, I would also integrate the T-59IIM in mechanized and FC Divisions.
> 
> My Analysis and research of the years:
> 
> 
> 
> What I had read and heard from Members of the Army , *is that during the Zardari Period, HIT had very fewer funds to upgrade and produce more Tanks*, we have lost ca. 5-6 years. I did hear that, at some times, the factories even did not have electricity, of course, now the situation has changed, and they continued the program with AK-1 and Maybe AK-2. But you are right still too slow if we compare it to the Indian MBT inventory, which has now upgraded ca. 1100 T-72 to nearly to the T-90 standard. And Indian Army has inducted ca. 1400 T-90 (engine problems already resolved, 300 of these are T-90M especially for the China Border). In my opinion, we have lost our technical superiority f*or the offensive *in that arena.
> 
> 
> 
> 400 AK+300 T-80UD =700 v.s 1500 T-90=1:2 is not a bad match for a *defensive Force*.
> 
> 
> 
> ca. 750 Al-Zarrar + 250 T-85IIMP upgraded nearly to the Al-Zarrar standard vs. 1100 T-72M = also a ratio of 1:2, is absolutely fine for a defensive Force.
> 
> 
> 
> T-85IIM ca. 2002
> 
> [attachment=14204:a-goods-train-carrying-pakistan-military-tanks-passes-hyderabad-railway-h0dgmf.jpg]
> 
> 
> 
> The Al-Zarrar ca. 2002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [attachment=14205:epa000276957-pakistani-soldiers-stand-in-line-next-to-tank-al-khalid-FEWRRN.jpg]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when we want *to gain success with our Strike Corps,* we need more T-80UDs and AK-1s or some new modern MBT like the T-80 Oplot (ca. 300). Which we can't afford now, because of low budget. Tanks can't feed our folk, let Indians waste their resource in an arms race, we can hold the ground in the Future with our current inventory. The economy is now the key to success ! What does help Tanks, when we can't control the floods, can't deliver clean drinking water to the mass of people, can't deliver electricity, no standard education for everyone, no future plans for climate change and water shortage.... I hope India is wasting more billions of Dollars in Tanks and Rockets, one day they will realize how fine the life is on the other side of the Border, where clean water and air are a standard and not a demand !



In 2016, planning for an all out war between Pak and India needs to take into account much more than the enemy's armored columns. There are a lot of variables involved. There are the tactical nukes, the missiles, the attack helicopters, the air to ground strikes, the bombers, and the aces which the enemy keeps up his sleeve and only reveals when the time comes.

For Pakistan, a measure of assurance would be a thermobaric missile which could inflict the same type of casualties as a tactical nuke, but would give Pakistan the moral upper ground of avoiding first use. That would literally throw India's calculus into disarray. How do they even reply in the face of thermobaric missiles wiping out entire battalions. Do they want the black spot of first use to be affixed on their forehead?

Anyway, a crucial aspect of our planning has to be air superiority, and then air offense.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MystryMan

Sarge said:


> T-59 design has limitations for modern combat now. There are three major points regrading this:
> 
> 1. Ammunition storage capacity. Modern tanks have bigger hulls and bigger turrets.
> 2. Speed, related to engine up gradation. 50-55km/hr on road speed is less, offroad would be lesser.
> 3. Armor, related to engine up gradation. More armor will improve protection but further reduce speed.
> 
> If its used as a reserve or reinforcement tank, it will only fill in numbers to bring a battered armour regiment to its full strength during war but imagine using T-59 alongside AZ, AK and T-80. Dont you think it will be more of a burden on the regiment's role and capability?
> 
> AK and T-80 are used in the desert. They have the best available engines in the MBT inventory of PA. Speed is necessary in desert not for competitive racing with enemy tanks, but constant flanking on enemy sides, rear and weak points. Desert terrain gives flexibility of movement just like ships in the sea. Flanking requires covering extra distance and this distance sometimes needs to be covered in shortest duration possible to get all units aligned for an attack. If the commander waits and postpones the attack for the flank manoeuvring regiment to get into position, he may lose excellent opportunities.
> 
> Suppose, an AK regiment loses 22 AK's in 4 days of combat. Reinforcements are 12 T-59 II's from the reserves and 10 AK's either from Division reserve or acquired from reserves of any other formation. First, the CO will have a headache of asking QM and ordnance units for 105mm ammo.Then his Ops planning will suffer as how to deploy a slow and a fast tank. Getting a trained crew wont be a problem as almost every armour soldier is trained on T-59 and sometimes crew comes with the tank from other regiments. In defensive position, it will be fine. Let the enemy come close and flank the enemy from side or take enemy head on. The problem comes in offensive posture for which his regiment has been training with AK's. His offensive punch will still be the remaining AK's. The T-59 II's will not be able to keep up.
> 
> Oplot, Type-99 .....any modern MBT that can compliment AK and T-80 in desert is welcome.
> 
> There is another problem that IA regiments most probably are larger in quantity of tanks. Pakistan has 44 tanks, India has 59 tanks in a regiment. Maybe an indian member can confirm this. IA Armoured divisions have more regiments probably 7 whereas Pakistan has 5. Quality of PA tanks maybe better but quantity is a big issue. Hoping on tactics and operational command to make up for such short comings.
> 
> With AZ regiments, the T-59 II may fare better as a reinforcement for Armour Division to continue its operations. Terrain in upper punjab, lower Kashmir regions has limitations in manoeuvring, road networks are in place, lots of fields, population and houses, bridges etc. Ammunition type maybe a problem but operational capability of the regiment will remain.
> 
> There are minimum 16-17 Infantry divisions in PA that have one armour regiment atleast. That Minimum 750 tanks, probably around 900 if mechanised divisions are taken into account. That is where the T-59 and T-69 reside. They can keep pace with the slowly moving infantry advance and give awesome firepower with HE ammo. Enemy T-72 will be countered by PA infantry ATGM teams.
> 
> Using T-59 as a reserve tank, new formations can be raised e.g. in war time, raise a new Armoured brigade.
> 
> 90 x T-59 MBT (2 Regiments)
> Motorised infantry (Infantry in vehicles if M-113 and Talha are not in sufficient numbers)
> Artillery (reserve 105mm guns)
> AD Regiment.
> 
> FC is deployed on the eastern border. I am not sure how many T-59 are given to them but im hoping atleast one regiment worth of tanks to FC KPK and Baluchistan each.
> 
> Its upto PA to decide where to use T-59 II in combat in case of war:
> 1. A newly formed armoured brigade
> 2. Bring FC in combat with heavy weapons
> 3. Send it as reinforcements to depleted units.
> 
> @Ulla


Excellent post sir. But I think FC is (like rangers) while due to WOT it got COIN oriented. Can it supplement regular infantry on Eastern borders?
Also our T-59ll and Al-Zarrars would be susceptible to IA ATGMs? Or they will b with holding formations hence relatively safe from ATGM threat.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Sarge said:


> There is another problem that IA regiments most probably are larger in quantity of tanks. Pakistan has 44 tanks, India has 59 tanks in a regiment. Maybe an indian member can confirm this..



No of Tanks in each Regiment is nearly equal for both PA & IA. Pakistan has 44-46 tanks per regiment, India got 46-48 tanks.
Currently India is operating 18 regiments of T90 with nearly 850 tanks in total. (Average 47 tank per Reg). They are looking to upgrade 10 Tank regiments by replacing T72Mk1 with T90MS by adding 420 tanks. (Average 42 Tank per Reg)
Size of their T72 regiments is same. Arjun case is however different. Since Arjun has poor availability and is prone to technical glitches so both Arjun tank regiments are of large size. (62 Tank per regiment). They have 2 Regiments armed with Arjun and are planning to follow 2 Regiments of Arjun Mk2 in similar numbers. To how much extent this plan will materialise and will it be a addition or replacement of Mk1s, its yet to be known.




Sarge said:


> T-59 design has limitations for modern combat now. There are three major points regrading this:
> 
> 1. Ammunition storage capacity. Modern tanks have bigger hulls and bigger turrets.
> 2. Speed, related to engine up gradation. 50-55km/hr on road speed is less, offroad would be lesser.
> 3. Armor, related to engine up gradation. More armor will improve protection but further reduce speed.





Sarge said:


> With AZ regiments, the T-59 II may fare better as a reinforcement for Armour Division to continue its operations. Terrain in upper punjab, lower Kashmir regions has limitations in manoeuvring, road networks are in place, lots of fields, population and houses, bridges etc. Ammunition type maybe a problem but operational capability of the regiment will remain.




To be Honest, considering Indo Pak armor combat I consider T59/69 as Metal Coffin. 
As you mentioned, it has ammo constraints (105mm against Standard 125mm) hence create troubles in supplies. Lack enough muzzle velocity & range required to pierce through enemy tanks, lack hunter killer capability, cannot fire ATGM from gun, has limited night vision, lack thermal sights, lack add on armor, its own armor is very weak against anti tank projectiles, lack enough range/speed. etc etc even more weak points can be mentioned. I only consider this tank Worthy to be given slight upgrades and provided to FC where the worse enemy it can face is either RPG, mortar shells or heavy MG against which it can hold it self up better.




Sarge said:


> Its upto PA to decide where to use T-59 II in combat in case of war:
> 1. A newly formed armoured brigade
> 2. *Bring FC in combat with heavy weapons*
> 3. Send it as reinforcements to depleted units.



I wish for second option only. Or may be PA consider converting it into IFV armed with 30mm gun with ATGM with limited troop carrying capability? A concept similar to Russian BTR-T conversion of T55? Or how about using its chassis for developing a dedicated anti tank unit with 8 long range fire & forget missiles similar to Chinese AFT10?



Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Overall, I agree with you, the AZ and T-59 would be best served supporting the infantry. It would be ideal if we could end up upgrading all of the T-59s to AZ. I imagine this would be cheaper than coming up with another flanking tank, which is what Turkey and Indonesia appear to be doing by developing the MMWT (link).



Its possible to further upgrade Al Zarrar tanks (AZ Mk3) and conversion of T59 into AZMk3 directly.
Al Zarrar Upgrade is impressive but not impressive enough.
Just consider Ukraine Typhoon upgrade to T55 to form T55M8A2.
5TDFMA multi fuel diesel engine with power out put of 840HP, 75km/h road top speed, add on armor, remote control gun system, advance countermeasure systems, hunter killer capability. This upgrade can convert our AZ & T59/69 into a third generation MBT enough to face on T90 and chew down T72 of Indian army. And its offered by Ukraine which is big plus point considering our ''armor'' relations with that country.






http://www.armyrecognition.com/weap..._under_the_name_t-55m8a2_typhoon_1903134.html



Ulla said:


> At the moment we are facing ca. 1400 Indian T-90s and ca. 1300 Indian T-72s (already upgraded)



Nearly 850 T90 & 950 T72 (upgraded)

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

Tipu7 said:


> No of Tanks in each Regiment is nearly equal for both PA & IA. Pakistan has 44-46 tanks per regiment, India got 46-48 tanks.
> Currently India is operating 18 regiments of T90 with nearly 850 tanks in total. (Average 47 tank per Reg). They are looking to upgrade 10 Tank regiments by replacing T72Mk1 with T90MS by adding 420 tanks. (Average 42 Tank per Reg)
> Size of their T72 regiments is same. Arjun case is however different. Since Arjun has poor availability and is prone to technical glitches so both Arjun tank regiments are of large size. (62 Tank per regiment). They have 2 Regiments armed with Arjun and are planning to follow 2 Regiments of Arjun Mk2 in similar numbers. To how much extent this plan will materialise and will it be a addition or replacement of Mk1s, its yet to be known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be Honest, considering Indo Pak armor combat I consider T59/69 as Metal Coffin.
> As you mentioned, it has ammo constraints (105mm against Standard 125mm) hence create troubles in supplies. Lack enough muzzle velocity & range required to pierce through enemy tanks, lack hunter killer capability, cannot fire ATGM from gun, has limited night vision, lack thermal sights, lack add on armor, its own armor is very weak against anti tank projectiles, lack enough range/speed. etc etc even more weak points can be mentioned. I only consider this tank Worthy to be given slight upgrades and provided to FC where the worse enemy it can face is either RPG, mortar shells or heavy MG against which it can hold it self up better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish for second option only. Or may be PA consider converting it into IFV armed with 30mm gun with ATGM with limited troop carrying capability? A concept similar to Russian BTR-T conversion of T55? Or how about using its chassis for developing a dedicated anti tank unit with 8 long range fire & forget missiles similar to Chinese AFT10?
> 
> 
> 
> Its possible to further upgrade Al Zarrar tanks (AZ Mk3) and conversion of T59 into AZMk3 directly.
> Al Zarrar Upgrade is impressive but not impressive enough.
> Just consider Ukraine Typhoon upgrade to T55 to form T55M8A2.
> 5TDFMA multi fuel diesel engine with power out put of 840HP, 75km/h road top speed, add on armor, remote control gun system, advance countermeasure systems, hunter killer capability. This upgrade can convert our AZ & T59/69 into a third generation MBT enough to face on T90 and chew down T72 of Indian army. And its offered by Ukraine which is big plus point considering our ''armor'' relations with that country.
> 
> View attachment 364474
> 
> http://www.armyrecognition.com/weap..._under_the_name_t-55m8a2_typhoon_1903134.html
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 850 T90 & 950 T72 (upgraded)


No matter how 2th gen tanks modified, it has certain constrains and can't match 3th gen tanks in the real sense. That's why Pakistan need to develop Al Haider. The price of Oplot M offered to PA is very competitive, which means it can't be denied with its acceptable performance. Said Ukraine will provide TOT for a 125mm rounds production line, it will boost Pakistan tank export. As to whether Oplot M or VT4 is better, I can say definitely VT4z

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Ulla said:


> I agree on every line what you have written, my thoughts to that topic:
> 
> _*Offensive Operation against Indian quantity and quality still possible? *_
> 
> That's a good summary of the Pakistan Tank Corps. I think the top General leadership knows very well the lack of the offensive options. For defensive operations, the Pakistan Tank Corps is very well equipped and can hold his own ground, but how many AK and T-80UDs (current inventory 300 T-80UD ca. 300-400 Aks) we would need *to penetrate* the Indian territory and get an overhand in the battle? At the moment we are facing ca. 1400 Indian T-90s and ca. 1300 Indian T-72s (already upgraded) is not an easy task to overwhelm such a big force.
> *
> 400 AK+300 T-80UD =700 v.s 1500 T-90=1:2 is not a bad match for a defensive Force.*
> 
> _*T-85IIM and T-59IIM:*_
> But you have forgotten to mention the T-85IIMP, I see a huge potential to upgrade this fleet to the AK-Standard. As you have described, I support your idea to integrate the T-59IIM in mechanized and FC Divisions, close fire support for the Troops and protection for the M-113 is a great deal in one cheap and economical package with the T-59IIM. By the way, many T-59IIMP are also upgraded with a 125mm gun.
> 
> 
> *ca. 750 Al-Zarrar + 250 T-85IIMP upgraded nearly to the Al-Zarrar standard vs. 1100 T-72M = also a ratio of 1:2, is absolutely fine for a defensive Force.*
> 
> 
> _*The Alkhalid, is here but in low numbers:*_
> What I had read and heard from Members of the Army, *is that during the Zardari Period, HIT had very fewer funds to upgrade and produce more Tanks*, we have lost ca. 5-6 years. I did hear that, at some times, the factories even did not have electricity, of course, now the situation has changed, and they continued the program with AK-1 and Maybe AK-2. But still too slow and in low numbers, if we compare it to the Indian MBT inventory.
> 
> 
> *T-85IIM ca. 2002*
> View attachment 364441
> 
> *
> The Al-Zarrar ca. 2002*
> 
> View attachment 364442
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line:
> In my opinion, *we have lost our technical superiority for the offensive operations* (time is over where our numbers of AK and T-80UDs was bigger or equal to the Indian T-90S). As you already said: Oplot would be the best Option because it's built on the T-80 series, we already have the infrastructure, maintenance and supply structure for this Tank. If we want *to gain success with our Strike Corps,* we need more T-80UDs and AK-1s or the Oplot. But can we afford that with our current economical situation and the low budget?
> 
> 
> _*On the other hand:*_
> Tanks can't feed our folk, let Indians waste their resource in an arms race, we can hold the ground in the Future with our current inventory. The economy is now the key to success! What does help Tanks, when we can't control the floods, can't deliver clean drinking water to the mass of people, can't deliver electricity, no standard education for everyone, no future plans for climate change and water shortage.... I hope India is wasting more billions of Dollars in Tanks and Rockets, one day they will realize how fine the life is on the other side of the Border, where clean water and air are a standard and not a demand!



There are a lot of variables in an armoured offensive. Tanks are the main weapon followed by combined force tactics of infantry, artillery, air defence etc.
The problem of continuous supply of weapons to press on an offensive exists in Pak Army. If an armoured force is continuously supplied with replacement for losses in tanks and troops, it will keep pressing forward. what happened in the 1965 khem Karan offensive or assal utar, Pakistan lost around 90+ tanks.
Now if these losses had been replaced, would the attack continue? Of course.
Im not an expert on israel-arab wars,but i have observed as soon as war starts, US starts supplying Israel with weapons.Israeli losses are replaced and the offensives continue.

T-85 III has been upgraded to the best level it can be upgraded to but like T-59 had its future in AZ, T-80 may have its future in Oplot, AK has its future in AK-II, T-85 III has a different story. The T-85 III can be used in desert which is a plus point but AK and T-80UD will be the main attacking force, it will compliment them, probably replace them. Some sources say its being taken out of service, other say its upgraded so it will stay in service. In any case i doubt its numbers will increase.

Pakistan has roughly 450 AK ,320 T-80 UD in southern part along with 300 T-85 III and 600 AZ in north as spearhead of an offensive. All these are three different types of tanks. When Pakistan loses around 70 of each of AK and T-80 UD tanks after 7 days of war, the offensive in the desert will come to a halt and a defensive war will start. No matter how good the commander is, how good the strategy is, how good the execution is, losses do happen. 70 each is a high figure i know, but its not worst case still. If it has to come down to a defensive war, when Indian tanks enter Pakistan through the desert corridor then its not just 2nd tier tanks like T-85 , T-59, T-69 taking on IA tanks now, there will be AH-1 gunships, UCAV's, iregular infantry and para military with ATGM's, even PAF will jump in to support PA, and of course Nasr.
But the offensive would be lost and same outcome of previous wars.

If its just one excellent thing that PA has done by inducting AZ is to keep AK and T-80 UD focused on the southern part of desert in Pakistan. AZ in good numbers can hold the northern sector of Pakistan along with other tanks and friendly geography.Hopefully, AK or T-80 UD will not be shifted north to rescue Sialkot or Lahore.

To keep the war on Indian side of the border, either Pakistan signs an MOU not only with China but with Ukraine also to open a steady supply of tanks as replacement of losses as soon as a war starts.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

I think PA still look at VT4's disel engien's reliability and durability. TBO and life span. I have to admit China still lags behind in engine performance, but the difference of Ukraine 6TD2 and Chinese engine is already quite close. Thiland used to choose Oplot M over VT4 because we didn't have domestic power package back in 2010. Now, it's totally different scenario, we have our own 1300HP Disel engine on VT4.



Sarge said:


> There are a lot of variables in an armoured offensive. Tanks are the main weapon followed by combined force tactics of infantry, artillery, air defence etc.
> The problem of continuous supply of weapons to press on an offensive exists in Pak Army. If an armoured force is continuously supplied with replacement for losses in tanks and troops, it will keep pressing forward. what happened in the 1965 khem Karan offensive or assal utar, Pakistan lost around 90+ tanks.
> Now if these losses had been replaced, would the attack continue? Of course.
> Im not an expert on israel-arab wars,but i have observed as soon as war starts, US starts supplying Israel with weapons.Israeli losses are replaced and the offensives continue.
> 
> T-85 III has been upgraded to the best level it can be upgraded to but like T-59 had its future in AZ, T-80 may have its future in Oplot, AK has its future in AK-II, T-85 III has a different story. The T-85 III can be used in desert which is a plus point but AK and T-80UD will be the main attacking force, it will compliment them, probably replace them. Some sources say its being taken out of service, other say its upgraded so it will stay in service. In any case i doubt its numbers will increase.
> 
> Pakistan has roughly 450 AK ,320 T-80 UD in southern part along with 300 T-85 III and 600 AZ in north as spearhead of an offensive. All these are three different types of tanks. When Pakistan loses around 70 of each of AK and T-80 UD tanks after 7 days of war, the offensive in the desert will come to a halt and a defensive war will start. No matter how good the commander is, how good the strategy is, how good the execution is, losses do happen. 70 each is a high figure i know, but its not worst case still. If it has to come down to a defensive war, when Indian tanks enter Pakistan through the desert corridor then its not just 2nd tier tanks like T-85 , T-59, T-69 taking on IA tanks now, there will be AH-1 gunships, UCAV's, iregular infantry and para military with ATGM's, even PAF will jump in to support PA, and of course Nasr.
> But the offensive would be lost and same outcome of previous wars.
> 
> If its just one excellent thing that PA has done by inducting AZ is to keep AK and T-80 UD focused on the southern part of desert in Pakistan. AZ in good numbers can hold the northern sector of Pakistan along with other tanks and friendly geography.Hopefully, AK or T-80 UD will not be shifted north to rescue Sialkot or Lahore.
> 
> To keep the war on Indian side of the border, either Pakistan signs an MOU not only with China but with Ukraine also to open a steady supply of tanks as replacement of losses as soon as a war starts.


If PA has large sacle of tanks battle with India, You can't count Ukraine in. Because China is just next door. We will replenish many tanks as you need.be it type 96 or VT4 or newly developed light tanks.

The recent deal with Ukraine updating T80UD to T84 is quite advisable. But still we have to notice that many subsystem of Oplot M is importing from Russia. Now Ukraine has sever problem getting those parts from Russia, that's why whey deliver only 10 Oplot M to Thiland in a period of 5/6 years. Another factor need to be taken into consideration, as Pakistan already own the ability to produce AK( which is a derivative from MBT2000). Pakistan now can be competitor of China in some tank export market. The export market could be impeded if PA keeps inducting new fruit grow in the very same scientific tree. Maybe PA is searching the way to reinforce AK by inducting different types of technology.

China and Pakistan are friends, but business is business, that's how it is.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## MystryMan

Sarge said:


> There are a lot of variables in an armoured offensive. Tanks are the main weapon followed by combined force tactics of infantry, artillery, air defence etc.
> The problem of continuous supply of weapons to press on an offensive exists in Pak Army. If an armoured force is continuously supplied with replacement for losses in tanks and troops, it will keep pressing forward. what happened in the 1965 khem Karan offensive or assal utar, Pakistan lost around 90+ tanks.
> Now if these losses had been replaced, would the attack continue? Of course.
> Im not an expert on israel-arab wars,but i have observed as soon as war starts, US starts supplying Israel with weapons.Israeli losses are replaced and the offensives continue.
> 
> T-85 III has been upgraded to the best level it can be upgraded to but like T-59 had its future in AZ, T-80 may have its future in Oplot, AK has its future in AK-II, T-85 III has a different story. The T-85 III can be used in desert which is a plus point but AK and T-80UD will be the main attacking force, it will compliment them, probably replace them. Some sources say its being taken out of service, other say its upgraded so it will stay in service. In any case i doubt its numbers will increase.
> 
> Pakistan has roughly 450 AK ,320 T-80 UD in southern part along with 300 T-85 III and 600 AZ in north as spearhead of an offensive. All these are three different types of tanks. When Pakistan loses around 70 of each of AK and T-80 UD tanks after 7 days of war, the offensive in the desert will come to a halt and a defensive war will start. No matter how good the commander is, how good the strategy is, how good the execution is, losses do happen. 70 each is a high figure i know, but its not worst case still. If it has to come down to a defensive war, when Indian tanks enter Pakistan through the desert corridor then its not just 2nd tier tanks like T-85 , T-59, T-69 taking on IA tanks now, there will be AH-1 gunships, UCAV's, iregular infantry and para military with ATGM's, even PAF will jump in to support PA, and of course Nasr.
> But the offensive would be lost and same outcome of previous wars.
> 
> If its just one excellent thing that PA has done by inducting AZ is to keep AK and T-80 UD focused on the southern part of desert in Pakistan. AZ in good numbers can hold the northern sector of Pakistan along with other tanks and friendly geography.Hopefully, AK or T-80 UD will not be shifted north to rescue Sialkot or Lahore.
> 
> To keep the war on Indian side of the border, either Pakistan signs an MOU not only with China but with Ukraine also to open a steady supply of tanks as replacement of losses as soon as a war starts.


Good point about replenishment for war losses and reserve equipment to sustain an offensive and the Israeli forces. Despite being a smaller force they were able to achieve greater results due to logistics support.
I read somewhere an American commander said that our forces make brilliant tactical battle plan but they don't give due importance to logistics.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CriticalThought

Sarge said:


> There are a lot of variables in an armoured offensive. Tanks are the main weapon followed by combined force tactics of infantry, artillery, air defence etc.
> The problem of continuous supply of weapons to press on an offensive exists in Pak Army. If an armoured force is continuously supplied with replacement for losses in tanks and troops, it will keep pressing forward. what happened in the 1965 khem Karan offensive or assal utar, Pakistan lost around 90+ tanks.
> Now if these losses had been replaced, would the attack continue? Of course.
> Im not an expert on israel-arab wars,but i have observed as soon as war starts, US starts supplying Israel with weapons.Israeli losses are replaced and the offensives continue.
> 
> T-85 III has been upgraded to the best level it can be upgraded to but like T-59 had its future in AZ, T-80 may have its future in Oplot, AK has its future in AK-II, T-85 III has a different story. The T-85 III can be used in desert which is a plus point but AK and T-80UD will be the main attacking force, it will compliment them, probably replace them. Some sources say its being taken out of service, other say its upgraded so it will stay in service. In any case i doubt its numbers will increase.
> 
> Pakistan has roughly 450 AK ,320 T-80 UD in southern part along with 300 T-85 III and 600 AZ in north as spearhead of an offensive. All these are three different types of tanks. When Pakistan loses around 70 of each of AK and T-80 UD tanks after 7 days of war, the offensive in the desert will come to a halt and a defensive war will start. No matter how good the commander is, how good the strategy is, how good the execution is, losses do happen. 70 each is a high figure i know, but its not worst case still. If it has to come down to a defensive war, when Indian tanks enter Pakistan through the desert corridor then its not just 2nd tier tanks like T-85 , T-59, T-69 taking on IA tanks now, there will be AH-1 gunships, UCAV's, iregular infantry and para military with ATGM's, even PAF will jump in to support PA, and of course Nasr.
> But the offensive would be lost and same outcome of previous wars.
> 
> If its just one excellent thing that PA has done by inducting AZ is to keep AK and T-80 UD focused on the southern part of desert in Pakistan. AZ in good numbers can hold the northern sector of Pakistan along with other tanks and friendly geography.Hopefully, AK or T-80 UD will not be shifted north to rescue Sialkot or Lahore.
> 
> To keep the war on Indian side of the border, either Pakistan signs an MOU not only with China but with Ukraine also to open a steady supply of tanks as replacement of losses as soon as a war starts.



What if we were able to dedicate fighters for air superiority and air attack to each armored brigade? The question becomes that of investing in tanks vs investing in aircraft. And it seems more consideration is being given to aircraft. I percieve a future model where each force makes its own exports sales and then uses the money for further R&D and upgrades.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wanglaokan said:


> I think PA still look at VT4's disel engien's reliability and durability. TBO and life span. I have to admit China still lags behind in engine performance, but the difference of Ukraine 6TD2 and Chinese engine is already quite close. Thiland used to choose Oplot M over VT4 because we didn't have domestic power package back in 2010. Now, it's totally different scenario, we have our own 1300HP Disel engine on VT4.



Ukranian engines power entire PA fleet... and who knows even their new 1500hp engines will power AK-II.



*Ukraine for $ 600 million.. Pakistan is modernizing tank park*

During the visit of the Ukrainian delegation in Islamabad was an agreement that the domestic defense industry will take up the repair of a tank park Pakistan. Apparently, we are talking about the long-awaited start of the process of major overhaul and modernization set out in the 1998-2000 period. 320 T-80UD tanks.
A memorandum of cooperation was signed by the general director of the state company "Ukrspetsexport" Pavel Bukin and CEO of heavy industry HIT TAXILA Vadzhit Lieutenant General Hussein Saeed.

*23 November, in Pakistan, agreement was reached that the Ukrainian military-industrial complex of the country will receive from the order worth more than 600 million. dollars. This is stated in the message Defense Ministry's press service.
"Arrangements relating to maintenance and modernization of tanks", - explained in the department.*

According to the source, the signing of the documents took place with the participation of Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak, Pakistani Federal Minister of Defense Industry Rana Tanvir Hussain and Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleg Gladkovsky.



Source: https://defence.pk/threads/t-80-and...information-pool.268820/page-13#ixzz4UOBIlu00


> The recent deal with Ukraine updating T80UD to T84 is quite advisable. But still we have to notice that many subsystem of Oplot M is importing from Russia.
> 
> 
> Now Ukraine has sever problem getting those parts from Russia, that's why whey deliver only 10 Oplot M to Thiland in a period of 5/6 years. Another factor need to be taken into consideration



Its actually the other way around... Russia imports Ukranian parts for their T-90.... Ukraine messed up the thai order due to issues like:

November 19, 2016 it was announced that the name of the State Enterprise Plant VA Malyshev gave the Armed Forces of Ukraine 6 T-84 Oplot (product 478DU9) passed the factory for repair of their technical condition.
In June 2016 the Ministry of Defence signed a contract with the Kharkov enterprise "Malyshev Plant" in the restoration and partial modernization of the first generation of tanks "Oplot" Series T-84 received the Armed Forces of Ukraine back in 2001 year.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/t-80-and...information-pool.268820/page-11#ixzz4UOAfgdRI
Ukraine hadnt produced any tanks since the Pak order ... the factory needs repairs,upgradation ...



> , as Pakistan already own the ability to produce AK( which is a derivative from MBT2000). Pakistan now can be competitor of China in some tank export market. The export market could be impeded if PA keeps inducting new fruit grow in the very same scientific tree. Maybe PA is searching the way to reinforce AK by inducting different types of technology.



MBT-2000 is the export version of AK jointly marketed by Norinco and HIT.... AK is rather expensive and high tech... while AK upgrade AK-I is in service... Pak now is developing a heavier 1500 hp AK-II variant..


Both MBT-3000 and Oplot offer nothing over AK-I... but we have 2 replace hundreds of tanks....

Both tanks competed for the order and the winner will be chosen on merit.

Both had issues and the tests will again be held in 2017... Ukraine promised a newer version with modifications..and claim to have outperformed MBT-300....Maybe China will compete with T-99..

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Zarvan

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Ukranian engines power entire PA fleet... and who knows even their new 1500hp engines will power AK-II.
> 
> 
> 
> *Ukraine for $ 600 million.. Pakistan is modernizing tank park*
> 
> During the visit of the Ukrainian delegation in Islamabad was an agreement that the domestic defense industry will take up the repair of a tank park Pakistan. Apparently, we are talking about the long-awaited start of the process of major overhaul and modernization set out in the 1998-2000 period. 320 T-80UD tanks.
> A memorandum of cooperation was signed by the general director of the state company "Ukrspetsexport" Pavel Bukin and CEO of heavy industry HIT TAXILA Vadzhit Lieutenant General Hussein Saeed.
> 
> *23 November, in Pakistan, agreement was reached that the Ukrainian military-industrial complex of the country will receive from the order worth more than 600 million. dollars. This is stated in the message Defense Ministry's press service.
> "Arrangements relating to maintenance and modernization of tanks", - explained in the department.*
> 
> According to the source, the signing of the documents took place with the participation of Defense Minister Stepan Poltorak, Pakistani Federal Minister of Defense Industry Rana Tanvir Hussain and Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council Oleg Gladkovsky.
> 
> 
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/t-80-and...information-pool.268820/page-13#ixzz4UOBIlu00
> 
> 
> Its actually the other way around... Russia imports Ukranian parts for their T-90.... Ukraine messed up the thai order due to issues like:
> 
> November 19, 2016 it was announced that the name of the State Enterprise Plant VA Malyshev gave the Armed Forces of Ukraine 6 T-84 Oplot (product 478DU9) passed the factory for repair of their technical condition.
> In June 2016 the Ministry of Defence signed a contract with the Kharkov enterprise "Malyshev Plant" in the restoration and partial modernization of the first generation of tanks "Oplot" Series T-84 received the Armed Forces of Ukraine back in 2001 year.
> 
> Source: https://defence.pk/threads/t-80-and...information-pool.268820/page-11#ixzz4UOAfgdRI
> Ukraine hadnt produced any tanks since the Pak order ... the factory needs repairs,upgradation ...
> 
> 
> 
> MBT-2000 is the export version of AK jointly marketed by Norinco and HIT.... AK is rather expensive and high tech... while AK upgrade AK-I is in service... Pak now is developing a heavier 1500 hp AK-II variant..
> 
> 
> Both MBT-3000 and Oplot offer nothing over AK-I... but we have 2 replace hundreds of tanks....
> 
> Both tanks competed for the order and the winner will be chosen on merit.
> 
> Both had issues and the tests will again be held in 2017... Ukraine promised a newer version with modifications..and claim to have outperformed MBT-300....Maybe China will compete with T-99..



I think if the Tank mentioned by @Army research is Oplot M first it would come with 1500 HP engine and secondly we would make lot of other changes in it to make it better than our current AL KHALID. I think systems from Turkey and Europe will be placed on them.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Tipu7 said:


> No of Tanks in each Regiment is nearly equal for both PA & IA. Pakistan has 44-46 tanks per regiment, India got 46-48 tanks.
> Currently India is operating 18 regiments of T90 with nearly 850 tanks in total. (Average 47 tank per Reg). They are looking to upgrade 10 Tank regiments by replacing T72Mk1 with T90MS by adding 420 tanks. (Average 42 Tank per Reg)
> Size of their T72 regiments is same. Arjun case is however different. Since Arjun has poor availability and is prone to technical glitches so both Arjun tank regiments are of large size. (62 Tank per regiment). They have 2 Regiments armed with Arjun and are planning to follow 2 Regiments of Arjun Mk2 in similar numbers. To how much extent this plan will materialise and will it be a addition or replacement of Mk1s, its yet to be known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be Honest, considering Indo Pak armor combat I consider T59/69 as Metal Coffin.
> As you mentioned, it has ammo constraints (105mm against Standard 125mm) hence create troubles in supplies. Lack enough muzzle velocity & range required to pierce through enemy tanks, lack hunter killer capability, cannot fire ATGM from gun, has limited night vision, lack thermal sights, lack add on armor, its own armor is very weak against anti tank projectiles, lack enough range/speed. etc etc even more weak points can be mentioned. I only consider this tank Worthy to be given slight upgrades and provided to FC where the worse enemy it can face is either RPG, mortar shells or heavy MG against which it can hold it self up better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish for second option only. Or may be PA consider converting it into IFV armed with 30mm gun with ATGM with limited troop carrying capability? A concept similar to Russian BTR-T conversion of T55? Or how about using its chassis for developing a dedicated anti tank unit with 8 long range fire & forget missiles similar to Chinese AFT10?
> 
> 
> 
> Its possible to further upgrade Al Zarrar tanks (AZ Mk3) and conversion of T59 into AZMk3 directly.
> Al Zarrar Upgrade is impressive but not impressive enough.
> Just consider Ukraine Typhoon upgrade to T55 to form T55M8A2.
> 5TDFMA multi fuel diesel engine with power out put of 840HP, 75km/h road top speed, add on armor, remote control gun system, advance countermeasure systems, hunter killer capability. This upgrade can convert our AZ & T59/69 into a third generation MBT enough to face on T90 and chew down T72 of Indian army. And its offered by Ukraine which is big plus point considering our ''armor'' relations with that country.
> 
> View attachment 364474
> 
> http://www.armyrecognition.com/weap..._under_the_name_t-55m8a2_typhoon_1903134.html
> 
> 
> 
> Nearly 850 T90 & 950 T72 (upgraded)



AZ itself is a pretty comprehensive upgrade.. old specs of AZ... Im sure they tweaked it further:









Zarvan said:


> I think if the Tank mentioned by @Army research is Oplot M first it would come with 1500 HP engine and secondly we would make lot of other changes in it to make it better than our current AL KHALID. I think systems from Turkey and Europe will be placed on them.



AK already uses french imagery systems developed in JV by Pak Shibli electronics ltd... but new Turkish imagery system (developed for Altay) claim to be superior or comparable to the French sights at affordable prices... hence they are being considered..

P,S: Even UDs were upgraded with with Sagem,Matis,catherine systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## HRK

wanglaokan said:


> Said Ukraine will provide TOT for a 125mm rounds production line



We are already producing it & if I am not wrong exporting it was well

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

CriticalThought said:


> What if we were able to dedicate fighters for air superiority and air attack to each armored brigade? The question becomes that of investing in tanks vs investing in aircraft. And it seems more consideration is being given to aircraft. I percieve a future model where each force makes its own exports sales and then uses the money for further R&D and upgrades.



I did post somewhere about F-7P given to Pakistan Army Aviation (PAA). The logistics, infrastructure, weapons and other support elements are already in place. PAF pilots have clocked many hours on them also so an experienced teaching pool is present locally. JF-17 is currently replacing F-7P squadrons which means they are going in reserve and thus are available.
The best thing about F-7P is that it has multi role capability for A2A and A2G missions. While PA armoured assets will rely on FM-90 AD weapon system as seen in recent exercises, a dedicated squadron for each of the three Army commands (North,central and southern) can help achieve air support independent of PAF. 

Mirage-III would be better but its air frames are near end of life. A-5 were dedicated ground attack fighters but have been completely retired.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Maravannn

Lot misinformation regarding al Khalid tank(chinese mbt 2000) by some senior pakistani members here.
Pakistan ordered 500 MBT 2000 from china in 1998.Of which only 358 were delivered till 2015.Pakistan army has around 360 alkhalid tank as of now


----------



## Khafee

Maravannn said:


> Lot misinformation regarding al Khalid tank(chinese mbt 2000) by some senior pakistani members here.
> Pakistan ordered 500 MBT 2000 from china in 1998.Of which only 358 were delivered till 2015.Pakistan army has around 360 alkhalid tank as of now


So as per your logic AK is just an imported Chinese MBT2000?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

MystryMan said:


> Excellent post sir. But I think FC is (like rangers) while due to WOT it got COIN oriented. Can it supplement regular infantry on Eastern borders?
> Also our T-59ll and Al-Zarrars would be susceptible to IA ATGMs? Or they will b with holding formations hence relatively safe from ATGM threat.


Thank you.
FC got T-59 for COIN but its upto army discretion where to deploy FC in case of war. 

AZ is part of armoured division so it will be facing T-90, T-72 as well as ATGM threats. T-59 II will be supporting infantry formations so it will definitely be facing IA ATGM.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Maravannn said:


> Lot misinformation regarding al Khalid tank(chinese mbt 2000) by some senior pakistani members here.
> Pakistan ordered 500 MBT 2000 from china in 1998.Of which only 358 were delivered till 2015.Pakistan army has around 360 alkhalid tank as of now


O Mr no AL KHALID were ever ordered from China. Pakistan produces all AL KHALID in Pakistan and the Al KHALID we use is now totally different from engine to main Gun to other internal systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Maravannn said:


> Don't spread misinformation


You are spreading misinformation not me. AL KHALID we are using are all produced in Pakistan and not only that we changed everything in it long ago. From engine to Gun to other systems. Nothing Chinese is left in this Tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

Maravannn said:


> Again misinformation .open sipri database. See yourself


I know so called databases they are big fat lie. Pakistan produces all AL KHALID in Pakistan and all AL KHALID which we use have hardly anything commen with Chinese because we long ago changed each and everything in our AL KHALID.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> No of Tanks in each Regiment is nearly equal for both PA & IA. Pakistan has 44-46 tanks per regiment, India got 46-48 tanks.
> Currently India is operating 18 regiments of T90 with nearly 850 tanks in total. (Average 47 tank per Reg). They are looking to upgrade 10 Tank regiments by replacing T72Mk1 with T90MS by adding 420 tanks. (Average 42 Tank per Reg)
> Size of their T72 regiments is same. Arjun case is however different. Since Arjun has poor availability and is prone to technical glitches so both Arjun tank regiments are of large size. (62 Tank per regiment). They have 2 Regiments armed with Arjun and are planning to follow 2 Regiments of Arjun Mk2 in similar numbers. To how much extent this plan will materialise and will it be a addition or replacement of Mk1s, its yet to be known.
> 
> 
> To be Honest, considering Indo Pak armor combat I consider T59/69 as Metal Coffin.
> As you mentioned, it has ammo constraints (105mm against Standard 125mm) hence create troubles in supplies. Lack enough muzzle velocity & range required to pierce through enemy tanks, lack hunter killer capability, cannot fire ATGM from gun, has limited night vision, lack thermal sights, lack add on armor, its own armor is very weak against anti tank projectiles, lack enough range/speed. etc etc even more weak points can be mentioned. I only consider this tank Worthy to be given slight upgrades and provided to FC where the worse enemy it can face is either RPG, mortar shells or heavy MG against which it can hold it self up better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish for second option only. Or may be PA consider converting it into IFV armed with 30mm gun with ATGM with limited troop carrying capability? A concept similar to Russian BTR-T conversion of T55? Or how about using its chassis for developing a dedicated anti tank unit with 8 long range fire & forget missiles similar to Chinese AFT10?


T-59 and T-69 have chances of survival when fighting alongside infantry. This infantry is not mechanised nor it is motorised when in combat. In subcontinent wars, infantry mostly covers ground and fights on foot. 

One armoured regiment in an Infantry Divisions supports 9 infantry battalions (3 brigades). Its upto the GOC and his staff how he deploys the tanks from this armoured regiment. If the regiments is broken down systematically, then its 12-14 tanks per brigade. Further broken down to 4 tanks per infantry battalion.
The Infantry Division has a dedicated anti tank battalion usually which combats enemy tanks. This means that Division's own tanks can solely fulfill the role of supporting foot infantry during an offensive. 

During an attack, the infantry can pick out entrenched enemy ATGM teams and direct fire at them like LMG, sniper, mortar or even Direct Artillery fire to suppress them while the T-59 starts taking out enemy hardened LMG bunkers with HEAT rounds head on or even flank the enemy from its weak point (where ATGM teams are less or not present at all).
Problem will occur if T-59 act alone without infantry support(easily ambushed). Vice versa Infantry will suffer huge losses if tanks and artillery dont support them(losing 100 men instead of 30-40). 

Your list of short comings on T-59 part are true, but if used correctly with infantry, it is still an effective Tank.

PA already is short of MBT. T-59 and T-69 are 1000 in number. After they are replaced, probably then PA can think of converting them to heavier IFV, but then again PA inducts APC's, not IFV. 
The ATGM carriers are nimble and swift, they do the damage and leave. A heavier ATGM carrier is also a good option. So far PA is satisfied with Talha variant of ATGM carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Khafee

Maravannn said:


> Don't spread misinformation


Enough BS from you. No more trolling.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

@DESERT FIGHTER Thailand Royal army asked for T99A2, but the IFQ was denied immediately. I don't know whether China will send T99A2 to Pakistan for test or not. If that is so, T99A2 is a overkill for Oplot M.



Maravannn said:


> Lot misinformation regarding al Khalid tank(chinese mbt 2000) by some senior pakistani members here.
> Pakistan ordered 500 MBT 2000 from china in 1998.Of which only 358 were delivered till 2015.Pakistan army has around 360 alkhalid tank as of now


Al Khalid(MBT 2000), a project co developed by China and Pakistan. The configuration of MBT2000(we call it VT1) and Al Khalid is somehow different, more foreign imported sub systems on AK. And there is no direct links between MBT2000 and MBT 3000. Cause MBT 3000 design is based on T99 and MBT2000 is based on T90-II.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wanglaokan said:


> @DESERT FIGHTER Thailand Royal army asked for T99A2, but the IFQ was denied immediately. I don't know whether China will send T99A2 to Pakistan for test or not. If that is so, T99A2 is a overkill for Oplot M.



Well Thailand ain't China's best buddy either...

And we have always bought the best you could offer and in the old time made it better for us and you too...

Il give you an example .. We bought the A-100 MRLS... Those had issues... We resolved/rectified those issues ... The input was also given to your guys ... And than a production cum worshop facility was built...

The SLC-2 issues again faced issues .. PA being a long time US weapon user again fixed those and the helped China improve it further...

We bought Type-99,90IIMs (built under tot) we improved them made modifications and upgraded them... So whatever we do helps Chinese industries too...

You sold us the F-7s in the good old days.. We improved them... The ejection seats,gondolas (we did them),the radars,even put on US SWs on em.. 

Right now China have Pak 3 Z-10s .. What does China get in return ? Real time combat experience and data ... Helps you improve your weapons and sellin systems to Pak also makes your systems look credible...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## 帅的一匹

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Well Thailand ain't China's best buddy either...
> 
> And we have always bought the best you could offer and in the old time made it better for us and you too...
> 
> Il give you an example .. We bought the A-100 MRLS... Those had issues... We resolved/rectified those issues ... The input was also given to your guys ... And than a production cum worshop facility was built...
> 
> The SLC-2 issues again faced issues .. PA being a long time US weapon user again fixed those and the helped China improve it further...
> 
> We bought Type-99,90IIMs (built under tot) we improved them made modifications and upgraded them... So whatever we do helps Chinese industries too...
> 
> You sold us the F-7s in the good old days.. We improved them... The ejection seats,gondolas (we did them),the radars,even put on US SWs on em..
> 
> Right now China have Pak 3 Z-10s .. What does China get in return ? Real time combat experience and data ... Helps you improve your weapons and sellin systems to Pak also makes your systems look credible...


Brother, Last time I remembered you said PA revalue Z10 and quite satisfied with its improvement? Can you brief it further? I thought you have army background, am I right?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

wanglaokan said:


> Brother, Last time I remembered you said PA revalue Z10 and quite satisfied with its improvement? Can you brief it further?



Bro .. I personally have no idea on its induction.. Expect the fact that it's still in Pak... All 3 of them... And being tested by Cobra pilot instructors .. (Also in combat missions)... These people also tested the T-129s.. And probably will be the first to get their hands on the Vipers (on order)... So any input by them would be valuable ... Now I'm not saying that the choppers (Zulu's) have any issue .. I'm just suggesting that anything needing improvement could be pointed out .. During real combat operations)... 


But the combat data is an essential thing ... If there are any issues (or areas which can be improved further)... Such data is valuable in that regard..

Now I'm not dissing Chinese weapons .. China has come a long way ... Your progress actually is envious ...! In a decade or half you would probably overtake the Europeans .. (You already have done that in many fields already).



Maravannn said:


> Don't spread misinformation



It's a shame you got banned .. I'd have loved to embarrass you.. Damn shame.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## 帅的一匹

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Bro .. I personally have no idea on its induction.. Expect the fact that it's still in Pak... All 3 of them...
> 
> But the combat data is an essential thing ... If there are any issues (or areas which can be improved further)... Such data is valuable in that regard..
> 
> Now I'm not dissing Chinese weapons .. China has come a long way ... Your progress actually is envious ...! In a decade or half you would probably overtake the Europeans .. (You already have done that in many fields already).
> 
> 
> 
> It's a shame you got banned .. I'd have loved to embarrass you.. Damn shame.


 only the most sincere friend will tell you the truth, I love the way Pakistani and Chinese frankly treat each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## CriticalThought

Sarge said:


> T-59 and T-69 have chances of survival when fighting alongside infantry. This infantry is not mechanised nor it is motorised when in combat. In subcontinent wars, infantry mostly covers ground and fights on foot.
> 
> One armoured regiment in an Infantry Divisions supports 9 infantry battalions (3 brigades). Its upto the GOC and his staff how he deploys the tanks from this armoured regiment. If the regiments is broken down systematically, then its 12-14 tanks per brigade. Further broken down to 4 tanks per infantry battalion.
> The Infantry Division has a dedicated anti tank battalion usually which combats enemy tanks. This means that Division's own tanks can solely fulfill the role of supporting foot infantry during an offensive.
> 
> During an attack, the infantry can pick out entrenched enemy ATGM teams and direct fire at them like LMG, sniper, mortar or even Direct Artillery fire to suppress them while the T-59 starts taking out enemy hardened LMG bunkers with HEAT rounds head on or even flank the enemy from its weak point (where ATGM teams are less or not present at all).
> Problem will occur if T-59 act alone without infantry support(easily ambushed). Vice versa Infantry will suffer huge losses if tanks and artillery dont support them(losing 100 men instead of 30-40).
> 
> Your list of short comings on T-59 part are true, but if used correctly with infantry, it is still an effective Tank.
> 
> PA already is short of MBT. T-59 and T-69 are 1000 in number. After they are replaced, probably then PA can think of converting them to heavier IFV, but then again PA inducts APC's, not IFV.
> The ATGM carriers are nimble and swift, they do the damage and leave. A heavier ATGM carrier is also a good option. So far PA is satisfied with Talha variant of ATGM carrier.



First of all, each of your posts is an absolute gem and deserves a positive rating.

On my part, I just can't help idealizing things and then sharing my thoughts. Hope you'll not take offense.

So, for our spearhead attacking formations of AK and T-80 fast movers. And even fo AK-II I strongly propose NOT compromising on top speed at any cost. These should be further muscled with attack gunships, dedicated infantry in armored carriers, air offense in the form of FP-7, and air superiority in the form of F-16s and/or JF-17s. These formations should be considered elite, and should be battle hardened and battle ready, forming Pakistan's offense into enemy territory.

And for the infantry divisions, seriously we need to:

1. Make armor dependent on mission type. And armor can mean tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft missile batteries with radars (short range), and specialized shoulder carry anti-aircraft missiles. In any case, 4 tanks for ~900 men is abysmal!!!! Also, since the tanks will be facing ATGMs, I fully support heavier, well armored tanks in this case. This is where Al-Haider with 1500hp engine comes in. I researched on the internet and the article below provides some insight into how the US military does it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-3/f377apc.htm

2. Make infantry highly mobile. No use having them exhausted by walking. Transportation is essential.

3. The recent change to CZ-806 needs to be factored in. My understanding is that engagement from a distance with battle rifles is going to be a thing of the past. Please correct me if I am wrong. This means while initial contact will be made through the tanks/artillery, the resulting chaos will give men in boots to get up close and personal with the enemy. I am assuming each soldier will have xWeather sights to engage with deadly accuracy, thus reducing the number of bullets used.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

CriticalThought said:


> First of all, each of your posts is an absolute gem and deserves a positive rating.
> 
> On my part, I just can't help idealizing things and then sharing my thoughts. Hope you'll not take offense.
> 
> So, for our spearhead attacking formations of AK and T-80 fast movers. And even fo AK-II I strongly propose NOT compromising on top speed at any cost. These should be further muscled with attack gunships, dedicated infantry in armored carriers, air offense in the form of FP-7, and air superiority in the form of F-16s and/or JF-17s. These formations should be considered elite, and should be battle hardened and battle ready, forming Pakistan's offense into enemy territory.
> 
> And for the infantry divisions, seriously we need to:
> 
> 1. Make armor dependent on mission type. And armor can mean tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft missile batteries with radars (short range), and specialized shoulder carry anti-aircraft missiles. In any case, 4 tanks for ~900 men is abysmal!!!! Also, since the tanks will be facing ATGMs, I fully support heavier, well armored tanks in this case. This is where Al-Haider with 1500hp engine comes in. I researched on the internet and the article below provides some insight into how the US military does it.
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-3/f377apc.htm
> 
> 2. Make infantry highly mobile. No use having them exhausted by walking. Transportation is essential.
> 
> 3. The recent change to CZ-806 needs to be factored in. My understanding is that engagement from a distance with battle rifles is going to be a thing of the past. Please correct me if I am wrong. This means while initial contact will be made through the tanks/artillery, the resulting chaos will give men in boots to get up close and personal with the enemy. I am assuming each soldier will have xWeather sights to engage with deadly accuracy, thus reducing the number of bullets used.


Infantry mobility will require various investments. Thanks to the increasingly pervasive road network, not just in Pakistan but the region as a whole, we can begin looking at wheeled-APCs - such as the Hamza MCV - seriously. The off-road element will require tracked APCs, especially when deployed in the think of armour-on-armour operations. A larger air lift capability via medium-lift helicopters would be helpful too, which I think the Mi-171 and/or Super Puma (assuming the MoDP interest in the Romanian H215 line is genuine) could fulfill. Some surplus Chinooks would be helpful too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Naif al Hilali

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-t-80-tank-total-disaster-13550

Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem

Is the Oplot less of a death-trap now than the T-80 series was? Russia was quick to move on to the T-90 (T-72 re-designed) and so was India.

Any reason for all the love for the tank at defence.pk when we already build a superior tank in the Al Khalid (not to mention the up and coming Al Khalid II)?

Why do we need another tank?

Just questions not picking a fight, since I do not know the answers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

T80 is not a death trap. It earned bad reputation bcoz Russians operated them in Urban warfare with poor planning.
In fact compared to T72 & T90 series it has more thick armor.
Russia moved back to T72 as it's very cheap to operate compared to T80 series which in one on one comparison is generation ahead of T72 and is more expensive to buy ,operate & mass produce.
India never operated T80 in first place. They moved directly to T90 as being T72 operator it was most feasible option considering common attributes of both tanks.

T80 was inducted due to delays in Al Khalid project. And now Oplot (AH) is here to over come the production demand which is hard to full fill by HIT Al Khalid which can produce 50 tanks per year at best ...... It's better to have 600 Tanks of two types in 6 years than having 600 Tanks of one type in 12 years. Plus T80 & AK series share a lot of common features from ammo to engine so it's a practical choice to go for both as time saving measure.



Naif al Hilali said:


> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-t-80-tank-total-disaster-13550
> 
> Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem
> 
> Is the Oplot less of a death-trap now than the T-80 series was? Russia was quick to move on to the T-90 (T-72 re-designed) and so was India.
> 
> Any reason for all the love for the tank at defence.pk when we already build a superior tank in the Al Khalid (not to mention the up and coming Al Khalid II)?
> 
> Why do we need another tank?
> 
> Just questions not picking a fight, since I do not know the answers.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CriticalThought

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Infantry mobility will require various investments. Thanks to the increasingly pervasive road network, not just in Pakistan but the region as a whole, we can begin looking at wheeled-APCs - such as the Hamza MCV - seriously. The off-road element will require tracked APCs, especially when deployed in the think of armour-on-armour operations. A larger air lift capability via medium-lift helicopters would be helpful too, which I think the Mi-171 and/or Super Puma (assuming the MoDP interest in the Romanian H215 line is genuine) could fulfill. Some surplus Chinooks would be helpful too.



Agreed airlift needs improvements a lot.

A fleeing enemy could destroy roads. The tracks are an insurance policy.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

Actually T80 series is much better than T72 when it comes to fire power and amour.


----------



## Signalian

CriticalThought said:


> First of all, each of your posts is an absolute gem and deserves a positive rating.
> 
> On my part, I just can't help idealizing things and then sharing my thoughts. Hope you'll not take offense.
> 
> So, for our spearhead attacking formations of AK and T-80 fast movers. And even fo AK-II I strongly propose NOT compromising on top speed at any cost. These should be further muscled with attack gunships, dedicated infantry in armored carriers, air offense in the form of FP-7, and air superiority in the form of F-16s and/or JF-17s. These formations should be considered elite, and should be battle hardened and battle ready, forming Pakistan's offense into enemy territory.
> 
> And for the infantry divisions, seriously we need to:
> 
> 1. Make armor dependent on mission type. And armor can mean tanks, artillery, anti-aircraft missile batteries with radars (short range), and specialized shoulder carry anti-aircraft missiles. In any case, 4 tanks for ~900 men is abysmal!!!! Also, since the tanks will be facing ATGMs, I fully support heavier, well armored tanks in this case. This is where Al-Haider with 1500hp engine comes in. I researched on the internet and the article below provides some insight into how the US military does it.
> 
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/71-3/f377apc.htm
> 
> 2. Make infantry highly mobile. No use having them exhausted by walking. Transportation is essential.
> 
> 3. The recent change to CZ-806 needs to be factored in. My understanding is that engagement from a distance with battle rifles is going to be a thing of the past. Please correct me if I am wrong. This means while initial contact will be made through the tanks/artillery, the resulting chaos will give men in boots to get up close and personal with the enemy. I am assuming each soldier will have xWeather sights to engage with deadly accuracy, thus reducing the number of bullets used.



Thank you.

its good that members share their thoughts openly and this is why PDF is an awesome forum.

In recent exercises it was seen that Gunships were used with armour so it can be expected that AH-1 may accompany armoured formations in an attack. However, deploying a gunship squadron or detachment in enemy area(across the border in India) is not an easy job. The amount of maintenance crew + parts + weapons+ spares+fuel (fuel trucks) etc means another 150-300 men and lots of equipment into enemy territory to keep the gunships flying and attacking enemy armour when required. Its not feasible to send gunships back into Pakistan for re-arming, refuelling and general maintenance. They need to be deployed minutes away from own armoured force to give cover, not hours away. Secondly, the ability of gunships to cover alot of distance in minimum time makes it an excellent defensive platform. It can be in the desert and after sometime, hundreds of km away to a threatened sector near Okara, where enemy armour will be about to break into Pakistani front lines. So it really depends how PA commanders want to utilise this asset. Probably if numbers were around 100, sending 20 or so across shouldn't be a problem. 

The APC's that PA operates are M-113 and Talha. @Ulla and @Zarvan will kill me here, lol, i dont jump into APC discussion much now. check the engine HP's of Talha and M-113. PA is matching 1200 HP engine AK with a 330 HP engined Talha. Talha's hp/ton figure is good, but its the add on armor that could affect it. Probably PA is satisfied with 330 HP engine and 25 HP/Ton P/W ratio because IA BMP-2 has a 300 HP engine with 19 HP/Ton P/W ratio.
There is another APC Saad with a 400-450 HP engine and an extra road wheel. With a 100-130 hp more than AL-Talha and an extra road wheel which gives the vehicle increased internal volume and payload, SAAD would have been a better platform to make tracked APC derivatives. ADD on Armour has become a trend in all AFV's nowadays and SAAD wouldnt have faltered. Sakb Tracked Logistics vehicle and Hadeed ARV uses Saad configuration of road wheels and engine.
Wheeled Hamza has a 600 HP engine and a bigger cannon 30mm, which now shows that PA is going towards bigger HP engines as well as cannons. 

PAF has its own plans regarding war times and truthfully support for Army and Navy comes as second priority for it. There are examples in the past, but PAF dedicating its top of the line jets like F-16 or JF-17 for an armoured offensive by PA, i doubt it.

The infantry divisions are sometimes attached with independent armoured brigades (90 tanks). This way the tank to battalion ratio can be increased. i told ratio in previous post to just give an idea. Do bear in mind that not all units go into combat together. The commander sends a few units into combat and keeps some reserve to send in where required. He may send the whole armoured brigade (2 armor regiments) with an infantry brigade (3 infantry battalions) to penetrate into enemy positions. The infantry brigade can then hold that position and entrench while the armoured brigade is called back and sent into action next with another infantry battalion or infantry brigade. 

The Infantry Battalions in infantry Divisions dont get APC's for movement but motorised transport(jeeps,pick ups,trucks), which also if available. The Supply and Transport (S&T) Battalion takes care of that for the whole division. Transport can also be also be arranged from Corps HQ. In some scenarios, civilain trucks are provided by Log HQ (Logistics HQ). 
Most western and gulf armies have more mechanised infantry battalions (MIB's) compared to Plain Infantry Battalions. PA has MIB's but usually attached with armoured divisions and armoured brigades apart from Mechanised Divisions in desert. 

Infantry combat is meant to be as stealthy as possible and get as close as possible to engage the enemy. Its too early to say about CZ-806. Things vary however, if calling a 15 min pre-attack artillery strike to suppress enemy infantry in entrenched bunkers or fortified positions, then distance needs to be kept to keep out of friendly fire. Engagement can begin after bombardment stops. More often or not, things dont go the text book style. Every plan has a different terrain, different threat level, different weapons to be utilised when and where etc. A combination of a good assault rifle, soldier training, tanks, artillery and other factors combined to bring a good result.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Sarge said:


> Thank you.
> 
> its good that members share their thoughts openly and this is why PDF is an awesome forum.
> 
> In recent exercises it was seen that Gunships were used with armour so it can be expected that AH-1 may accompany armoured formations in an attack. However, deploying a gunship squadron or detachment in enemy area(across the border in India) is not an easy job. The amount of maintenance crew + parts + weapons+ spares+fuel (fuel trucks) etc means another 150-300 men and lots of equipment into enemy territory to keep the gunships flying and attacking enemy armour when required. Its not feasible to send gunships back into Pakistan for re-arming, refuelling and general maintenance. They need to be deployed minutes away from own armoured force to give cover, not hours away. Secondly, the ability of gunships to cover alot of distance in minimum time makes it an excellent defensive platform. It can be in the desert and after sometime, hundreds of km away to a threatened sector near Okara, where enemy armour will be about to break into Pakistani front lines. So it really depends how PA commanders want to utilise this asset. Probably if numbers were around 100, sending 20 or so across shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> The APC's that PA operates are M-113 and Talha. @Ulla and @Zarvan will kill me here, lol, i dont jump into APC discussion much now. check the engine HP's of Talha and M-113. PA is matching 1200 HP engine AK with a 330 HP engined Talha. Talha's hp/ton figure is good, but its the add on armor that could affect it. Probably PA is satisfied with 330 HP engine and 25 HP/Ton P/W ratio because IA BMP-2 has a 300 HP engine with 19 HP/Ton P/W ratio.
> There is another APC Saad with a 400-450 HP engine and an extra road wheel. With a 100-130 hp more than AL-Talha and an extra road wheel which gives the vehicle increased internal volume and payload, SAAD would have been a better platform to make tracked APC derivatives. ADD on Armour has become a trend in all AFV's nowadays and SAAD wouldnt have faltered. Sakb Tracked Logistics vehicle and Hadeed ARV uses Saad configuration of road wheels and engine.
> Wheeled Hamza has a 600 HP engine and a bigger cannon 30mm, which now shows that PA is going towards bigger HP engines as well as cannons.
> 
> PAF has its own plans regarding war times and truthfully support for Army and Navy comes as second priority for it. There are examples in the past, but PAF dedicating its top of the line jets like F-16 or JF-17 for an armoured offensive by PA, i doubt it.
> 
> The infantry divisions are sometimes attached with independent armoured brigades (90 tanks). This way the tank to battalion ratio can be increased. i told ratio in previous post to just give an idea. Do bear in mind that not all units go into combat together. The commander sends a few units into combat and keeps some reserve to send in where required. He may send the whole armoured brigade (2 armor regiments) with an infantry brigade (3 infantry battalions) to penetrate into enemy positions. The infantry brigade can then hold that position and entrench while the armoured brigade is called back and sent into action next with another infantry battalion or infantry brigade.
> 
> The Infantry Battalions in infantry Divisions dont get APC's for movement but motorised transport(jeeps,pick ups,trucks), which also if available. The Supply and Transport (S&T) Battalion takes care of that for the whole division. Transport can also be also be arranged from Corps HQ. In some scenarios, civilain trucks are provided by Log HQ (Logistics HQ).
> Most western and gulf armies have more mechanised infantry battalions (MIB's) compared to Plain Infantry Battalions. PA has MIB's but usually attached with armoured divisions and armoured brigades apart from Mechanised Divisions in desert.
> 
> Infantry combat is meant to be as stealthy as possible and get as close as possible to engage the enemy. Its too early to say about CZ-806. Things vary however, if calling a 15 min pre-attack artillery strike to suppress enemy infantry in entrenched bunkers or fortified positions, then distance needs to be kept to keep out of friendly fire. Engagement can begin after bombardment stops. More often or not, things dont go the text book style. Every plan has a different terrain, different threat level, different weapons to be utilised when and where etc. A combination of a good assault rifle, soldier training, tanks, artillery and other factors combined to bring a good result.


Regarding attack helicopters.

We had been hammering the Z-10 a little bit, but to be honest, there are no attack helicopters besides the Viper and Apache that benefit from the Z-10's economies of scale (via PLA requirements). If we couple this with China's lower-cost manufacturing costs, then the Z-10 is the affordable option for building up numbers, full stop.

The T-129 could be great for operations in the north to back our infantry, a valid role for sure, but for covering our armour along the vast eastern front in Punjab and Sindh, there's nothing more affordable than the Z-10.

I think an up-rated turboshaft could assure us of a top-rotor mmW radar and more than 8 ATGM (together). Yes, we need to make sure this thing tolerates heat and has good resistance to sand intrusion. But I think CAIC and AVIC can resolve these issues, especially since there is direct benefit for the PLA.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## My-Analogous

nadeemkhan110 said:


> KMDB T-84 Oplot M main battle tank (MBT).
> 
> *PAKISTAN POSSIBLY RE-INTERESTED IN OPLOT-M MAIN BATTLE TANK*
> 
> 
> With Pakistan reviving industry ties with Ukraine, specifically with the Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau (KMDB) and Malyshev Factory, could the Pakistan Army be re-interested in the Malyshev Factory Oplot-M main battle tank (MBT)?
> 
> The Malyshev Factory Oplot-M was among the armoured combat vehicles exhibited by Ukroboronprom, Ukraine’s state-owned defence industry dealer, at the 2016 International Defence Exhibition and Seminar (IDEAS), which took place last week in Karachi, Pakistan. The Oplot-M was among the tanks the Pakistan Army evaluated as part of its Haider program in 2015.
> 
> During IDEAS, Pakistan’s state-owned armoured vehicles manufacturer Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) inked a memorandum-of-understanding (MoU) worth $600 million U.S. with Ukroboronprom for the provision of 200 diesel engines for al-Khalid 1 MBTs and other heavy armoured related support (e.g. possibly upgrading the Pakistan Army’s T-80UD MBTs), likely upgrades of existing vehicles and infrastructure work at HIT. Pakistan may also consider the KMDB’s new 6TD-3 diesel engine for use on the recently disclosed al-Khalid 2 MBT, which is to use a 1,500-hp powerplant.
> 
> It is not clear if Pakistan is interested in extending this collaboration to an off-the-shelf tank such as the Oplot-M. However, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence stated that during IDEAS, it did discuss the prospect of jointly manufacturing tanks with Pakistan. This is likely in reference to the Oplot-M.
> 
> The 51-ton Oplot-M is the latest development of the T-80, Ukraine’s mainstay MBT platform. The Oplot-M uses a new welded turret and multi-layered armour. It also benefits from an updated onboard electronics suite (e.g. fire control system) and passive as well as an active protection system for defensibility against incoming projectiles. The Oplot-M is armed with a 125-mm smoothbore gun capable of firing armour-piercing, high-explosive, and fragmentation rounds, and anti-tank guided missiles. Although it is powered by a variant of the 1,200-hp 6TD-2, there is the option of having it use the 1,500-hp 6TD-3.
> 
> For Pakistan, there are three main considerations.
> 
> First, the reality of Ukraine’s geostrategic situation vis-à-vis Russia, which will place uncertainty in terms of the Ukrainian industry’s ability to commit to schedules and contractual commitments.
> 
> Pakistan’s uncertain financial long-term condition, which is the second main issue, will have Rawalpindi and Islamabad approach procurements and industry collaboration with Kiev carefully. Uncertainty on both sides could either yield equitable exchanges or failure in actual negotiations.
> 
> Third, the technical considerations. In this respect, Ukraine has a strong case. The Oplot-M could share a high margin of commonality with the forthcoming al-Khalid 2, especially in terms of the powerplant. The procurement of the tank could also yield valuable work-share in relation to the 6TD diesel engine, which would be a valuable gain for the Pakistan Army in terms of localizing the supply chain of its armour. The Oplot-M could also be among the more affordable off-the-shelf tanks today.
> 
> Source: http://quwa.org/2016/11/29/pakistan-possibly-re-interested-in-oplot-m-main-battle-tank/



We should ask Ukraine to jointly produce 1,500-hp 6TD-3 engine inside Pakistan and with complete transfer of technology and it will also help Ukraine to win more contact because in will end uncertainty of geostrategic situation and also help Pakistan greatly by using same engine in AK-2

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Naif al Hilali said:


> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-russias-t-80-tank-total-disaster-13550
> 
> Bismillah ir Rahman ar Raheem
> 
> Is the Oplot less of a death-trap now than the T-80 series was? Russia was quick to move on to the T-90 (T-72 re-designed) and so was India.
> 
> Any reason for all the love for the tank at defence.pk when we already build a superior tank in the Al Khalid (not to mention the up and coming Al Khalid II)?
> 
> Why do we need another tank?
> 
> Just questions not picking a fight, since I do not know the answers.



Bro.. T-80UD Birch isn't T-80.... 

The chasis are similar yes but not the welded turret,gun and other systems equipping he UD.. Those are more similar to the Oplot (which was under development back than)...


P.S;T-80 was the best tank and the most expensive tank USSR produced... it suffered because the Russians used it for urban combat in cities ... 

The T-90 is essentially an upgraded T-72... The Russians had a large stock of those and hence the upgrade was more plausible rather than producing an expensive tank in large numbers...

Also the T-80 was also produced in Ukraine (which was the armour hub of USSR)... When Ukraine broke away from USSR it also contributed to the premature demise of T-80 in Russian inventory...

A lot has been written on T-80 by tank experts who still declare it better than the T-90.

The Oplot also is superior to the new Russian "Tegril"/MS..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CriticalThought

Sarge said:


> Thank you.
> 
> its good that members share their thoughts openly and this is why PDF is an awesome forum.
> 
> In recent exercises it was seen that Gunships were used with armour so it can be expected that AH-1 may accompany armoured formations in an attack. However, deploying a gunship squadron or detachment in enemy area(across the border in India) is not an easy job. The amount of maintenance crew + parts + weapons+ spares+fuel (fuel trucks) etc means another 150-300 men and lots of equipment into enemy territory to keep the gunships flying and attacking enemy armour when required. Its not feasible to send gunships back into Pakistan for re-arming, refuelling and general maintenance. They need to be deployed minutes away from own armoured force to give cover, not hours away. Secondly, the ability of gunships to cover alot of distance in minimum time makes it an excellent defensive platform. It can be in the desert and after sometime, hundreds of km away to a threatened sector near Okara, where enemy armour will be about to break into Pakistani front lines. So it really depends how PA commanders want to utilise this asset. Probably if numbers were around 100, sending 20 or so across shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> The APC's that PA operates are M-113 and Talha. @Ulla and @Zarvan will kill me here, lol, i dont jump into APC discussion much now. check the engine HP's of Talha and M-113. PA is matching 1200 HP engine AK with a 330 HP engined Talha. Talha's hp/ton figure is good, but its the add on armor that could affect it. Probably PA is satisfied with 330 HP engine and 25 HP/Ton P/W ratio because IA BMP-2 has a 300 HP engine with 19 HP/Ton P/W ratio.
> There is another APC Saad with a 400-450 HP engine and an extra road wheel. With a 100-130 hp more than AL-Talha and an extra road wheel which gives the vehicle increased internal volume and payload, SAAD would have been a better platform to make tracked APC derivatives. ADD on Armour has become a trend in all AFV's nowadays and SAAD wouldnt have faltered. Sakb Tracked Logistics vehicle and Hadeed ARV uses Saad configuration of road wheels and engine.
> Wheeled Hamza has a 600 HP engine and a bigger cannon 30mm, which now shows that PA is going towards bigger HP engines as well as cannons.
> 
> PAF has its own plans regarding war times and truthfully support for Army and Navy comes as second priority for it. There are examples in the past, but PAF dedicating its top of the line jets like F-16 or JF-17 for an armoured offensive by PA, i doubt it.
> 
> The infantry divisions are sometimes attached with independent armoured brigades (90 tanks). This way the tank to battalion ratio can be increased. i told ratio in previous post to just give an idea. Do bear in mind that not all units go into combat together. The commander sends a few units into combat and keeps some reserve to send in where required. He may send the whole armoured brigade (2 armor regiments) with an infantry brigade (3 infantry battalions) to penetrate into enemy positions. The infantry brigade can then hold that position and entrench while the armoured brigade is called back and sent into action next with another infantry battalion or infantry brigade.
> 
> The Infantry Battalions in infantry Divisions dont get APC's for movement but motorised transport(jeeps,pick ups,trucks), which also if available. The Supply and Transport (S&T) Battalion takes care of that for the whole division. Transport can also be also be arranged from Corps HQ. In some scenarios, civilain trucks are provided by Log HQ (Logistics HQ).
> Most western and gulf armies have more mechanised infantry battalions (MIB's) compared to Plain Infantry Battalions. PA has MIB's but usually attached with armoured divisions and armoured brigades apart from Mechanised Divisions in desert.
> 
> Infantry combat is meant to be as stealthy as possible and get as close as possible to engage the enemy. Its too early to say about CZ-806. Things vary however, if calling a 15 min pre-attack artillery strike to suppress enemy infantry in entrenched bunkers or fortified positions, then distance needs to be kept to keep out of friendly fire. Engagement can begin after bombardment stops. More often or not, things dont go the text book style. Every plan has a different terrain, different threat level, different weapons to be utilised when and where etc. A combination of a good assault rifle, soldier training, tanks, artillery and other factors combined to bring a good result.



Thanks. I guess the main problem comes back to numbers. What I envisaged in my last post is the utmost ideal. But, in terms of raising an elite front line corps, the fear inspiring guys who get first taste of the battle, it makes every sense for the services to join hands. Because success on the modern battlefield lies in coordination. Large armored columns without any airdefence/air superiority backing are sitting ducks inviting the enemy to come and pick them off. The elite corps should be able to rely on friendly skies free from enemy aircrafts and missiles, with the ability to call airstrikes and missile strikes as needed.

Sir @Bilal Khan (Quwa) has mentioned the Z-10 to fill the numbers. I don't have any details on its performance, but for our elite corps, agility, nimbleness, and deadly accuracy are a must, along with xWeather, xTerrain, Day/Night enabled. And this should apply right down to the equipment carried by the last soldier on the ground. For the helis, that TSS on AH-1Z comes to mind. Then again, Chinese ingenuity catches up with everything. And I think local Pakistani companies are starting to make strides in the area as well. Just need to take the R&D to the next level.

Also, the ideas I have laid down so far are for the desert and the plains. Completely different considerations apply in the mountains and glaciers but this is an OPLOT thread so let's not go there...

Finally, none of this considers the sheer numbers of the Indian Army. When they come, they are going to come in waves. Like a zombie apocalypse, except they are no zombies. If we strike first and take them by surprise, we may be able to capture some area. But in the end, whether we strike first or they start first, at some point we will face a wall of armor. Although nothing can prepare us for this eventuality except real life battle, it would be prudent if the army invested in a very detailed simulation system and tried various scenarios to prepare itself mentally.

Oh, and while we are discussing the topic, there is the ugly scenario of a three pronged attack where a massive naval fleet comes from the south, the army comes from the east, and the Afghans juiced up with Indian supplied weapons attack from the west. A scenario that MUST be prepared for. Of course, the preparations can be in the form of preemptively eliminating the Afghan threat at the source...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## khanmubashir

nadeemkhan110 said:


> KMDB T-84 Oplot M main battle tank (MBT).
> 
> *PAKISTAN POSSIBLY RE-INTERESTED IN OPLOT-M MAIN BATTLE TANK*
> 
> 
> With Pakistan reviving industry ties with Ukraine, specifically with the Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building Design Bureau (KMDB) and Malyshev Factory, could the Pakistan Army be re-interested in the Malyshev Factory Oplot-M main battle tank (MBT)?
> 
> The Malyshev Factory Oplot-M was among the armoured combat vehicles exhibited by Ukroboronprom, Ukraine’s state-owned defence industry dealer, at the 2016 International Defence Exhibition and Seminar (IDEAS), which took place last week in Karachi, Pakistan. The Oplot-M was among the tanks the Pakistan Army evaluated as part of its Haider program in 2015.
> 
> During IDEAS, Pakistan’s state-owned armoured vehicles manufacturer Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) inked a memorandum-of-understanding (MoU) worth $600 million U.S. with Ukroboronprom for the provision of 200 diesel engines for al-Khalid 1 MBTs and other heavy armoured related support (e.g. possibly upgrading the Pakistan Army’s T-80UD MBTs), likely upgrades of existing vehicles and infrastructure work at HIT. Pakistan may also consider the KMDB’s new 6TD-3 diesel engine for use on the recently disclosed al-Khalid 2 MBT, which is to use a 1,500-hp powerplant.
> 
> It is not clear if Pakistan is interested in extending this collaboration to an off-the-shelf tank such as the Oplot-M. However, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence stated that during IDEAS, it did discuss the prospect of jointly manufacturing tanks with Pakistan. This is likely in reference to the Oplot-M.
> 
> The 51-ton Oplot-M is the latest development of the T-80, Ukraine’s mainstay MBT platform. The Oplot-M uses a new welded turret and multi-layered armour. It also benefits from an updated onboard electronics suite (e.g. fire control system) and passive as well as an active protection system for defensibility against incoming projectiles. The Oplot-M is armed with a 125-mm smoothbore gun capable of firing armour-piercing, high-explosive, and fragmentation rounds, and anti-tank guided missiles. Although it is powered by a variant of the 1,200-hp 6TD-2, there is the option of having it use the 1,500-hp 6TD-3.
> 
> For Pakistan, there are three main considerations.
> 
> First, the reality of Ukraine’s geostrategic situation vis-à-vis Russia, which will place uncertainty in terms of the Ukrainian industry’s ability to commit to schedules and contractual commitments.
> 
> Pakistan’s uncertain financial long-term condition, which is the second main issue, will have Rawalpindi and Islamabad approach procurements and industry collaboration with Kiev carefully. Uncertainty on both sides could either yield equitable exchanges or failure in actual negotiations.
> 
> Third, the technical considerations. In this respect, Ukraine has a strong case. The Oplot-M could share a high margin of commonality with the forthcoming al-Khalid 2, especially in terms of the powerplant. The procurement of the tank could also yield valuable work-share in relation to the 6TD diesel engine, which would be a valuable gain for the Pakistan Army in terms of localizing the supply chain of its armour. The Oplot-M could also be among the more affordable off-the-shelf tanks today.
> 
> Source: http://quwa.org/2016/11/29/pakistan-possibly-re-interested-in-oplot-m-main-battle-tank/


we should focus on developing and upgrading alkhalid variants which would also b available 4 export


----------



## MystryMan

Sarge said:


> I did post somewhere about F-7P given to Pakistan Army Aviation (PAA). The logistics, infrastructure, weapons and other support elements are already in place. PAF pilots have clocked many hours on them also so an experienced teaching pool is present locally. JF-17 is currently replacing F-7P squadrons which means they are going in reserve and thus are available.
> The best thing about F-7P is that it has multi role capability for A2A and A2G missions. While PA armoured assets will rely on FM-90 AD weapon system as seen in recent exercises, a dedicated squadron for each of the three Army commands (North,central and southern) can help achieve air support independent of PAF.
> 
> Mirage-III would be better but its air frames are near end of life. A-5 were dedicated ground attack fighters but have been completely retired.


I would add to your suggestion of using F-7P, why not PA has an arrangement like PN has with PAF(Exocet Mirages). That is the jets remain with PAF while there primary role is CAS/AD cover of PA units. And when they are finally retired could be replaced by JF-17 which don't go through Blk-3 upgrade.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHACHA"G"

After long time healthy discussion on Tanks.
My take on this is little different , We need tanks and minimum 2500 all 3rd Gen 50T+ and 350 Tanks 55T+ , Y I said that because I had long discussion with some one who commanded our Tank Units.
And PA will not have only AL-Khalid , so New tank is coming may be Oplot or may be Mbt-3000 or may be any other.
@Sarge You have some extremely good points and The way u touched F-7p that's great , we surly can use them and I will also add CH-5 or Winglong II UCAVs in large numbers (both have good payload).
And for Z-10s, their will be no Z-10s without Pakistan Help(thank u USA ) we also provide war data for that heli , Its almost conform that Z-10s are coming otherwise We will not parade them on 23rd of march and we will also not going to use them in fire power show off .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Naif al Hilali

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Bro.. T-80UD Birch isn't T-80....
> 
> The chasis are similar yes but not the welded turret,gun and other systems equipping he UD.. Those are more similar to the Oplot (which was under development back than)...
> 
> 
> P.S;T-80 was the best tank and the most expensive tank USSR produced... it suffered because the Russians used it for urban combat in cities ...
> 
> The T-90 is essentially an upgraded T-72... The Russians had a large stock of those and hence the upgrade was more plausible rather than producing an expensive tank in large numbers...
> 
> Also the T-80 was also produced in Ukraine (which was the armour hub of USSR)... When Ukraine broke away from USSR it also contributed to the premature demise of T-80 in Russian inventory...
> 
> A lot has been written on T-80 by tank experts who still declare it better than the T-90.
> 
> The Oplot also is superior to the new Russian "Tegril"/MS..


Thanks

Do you believe it is more affordable now?

Also is the ammunition storage less of a hazard to the crew? I read that the ammunition and crew compartments are separated now and blowout panels have been added to the ammunition area (plus side-skirt armor, explosive reactive armor, and countermeasures systems).

Just wanted to get a professional viewpoint on these points.

Thanks again.

also @Dazzler, @Tipu7



MystryMan said:


> I would add to your suggestion of using F-7P, why not PA has an arrangement like PN has with PAF(Exocet Mirages). That is the jets remain with PAF while there primary role is CAS/AD cover of PA units. And when they are finally retired could be replaced by JF-17 which don't go through Blk-3 upgrade.



Oscar said they are being used as such:

https://defence.pk/threads/pakistan-f-16-discussions-2.15226/page-649#post-8860729

"
'Hassan Guy said: ↑
They may still remain in service in small numbers but NOT frontline fighters. They only use the F-4 as an interceptor. *Pakistan uses the F-7 as an interceptor but not as a frontline fighter*.'

Absolute BS. The F-7 is now used less and less in interception and more evolved roles such as embedded escort for CAS , CAS and even FAC."

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## 帅的一匹

CriticalThought said:


> Thanks. I guess the main problem comes back to numbers. What I envisaged in my last post is the utmost ideal. But, in terms of raising an elite front line corps, the fear inspiring guys who get first taste of the battle, it makes every sense for the services to join hands. Because success on the modern battlefield lies in coordination. Large armored columns without any airdefence/air superiority backing are sitting ducks inviting the enemy to come and pick them off. The elite corps should be able to rely on friendly skies free from enemy aircrafts and missiles, with the ability to call airstrikes and missile strikes as needed.
> 
> Sir @Bilal Khan (Quwa) has mentioned the Z-10 to fill the numbers. I don't have any details on its performance, but for our elite corps, agility, nimbleness, and deadly accuracy are a must, along with xWeather, xTerrain, Day/Night enabled. And this should apply right down to the equipment carried by the last soldier on the ground. For the helis, that TSS on AH-1Z comes to mind. Then again, Chinese ingenuity catches up with everything. And I think local Pakistani companies are starting to make strides in the area as well. Just need to take the R&D to the next level.
> 
> Also, the ideas I have laid down so far are for the desert and the plains. Completely different considerations apply in the mountains and glaciers but this is an OPLOT thread so let's not go there...
> 
> Finally, none of this considers the sheer numbers of the Indian Army. When they come, they are going to come in waves. Like a zombie apocalypse, except they are no zombies. If we strike first and take them by surprise, we may be able to capture some area. But in the end, whether we strike first or they start first, at some point we will face a wall of armor. Although nothing can prepare us for this eventuality except real life battle, it would be prudent if the army invested in a very detailed simulation system and tried various scenarios to prepare itself mentally.
> 
> Oh, and while we are discussing the topic, there is the ugly scenario of a three pronged attack where a massive naval fleet comes from the south, the army comes from the east, and the Afghans juiced up with Indian supplied weapons attack from the west. A scenario that MUST be prepared for. Of course, the preparations can be in the form of preemptively eliminating the Afghan threat at the source...


How come India dare come in waves to invade Pakistan this time? With China eye on them, they have to behave themself. Don't forget Pakistan has nukes as well. Now China nearly induct thousand new attacking helis, we are he'll for India if they act rashly. The only way to deter India is a strong China Pakistan alliance, not some Apache, Vipers, OplotM. It doesn't work when Indian zombie comes.

When you sheerly outnumbered, the quality of the weapon could be ignored. Just like T34 VS the Tiger

Every time India want to plot something dirty on Pakistan. When he rises his head, China is just right there. Pity Indians!

But in the same time, if Pakistan can get some super advanced tech from Turkey or west, China willing to see that cause you know.......

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CriticalThought

wanglaokan said:


> How come India dare come in waves to invade Pakistan this time? With China eye on them, they have to behave themself. Don't forget Pakistan has nukes as well. Now China nearly induct thousand new attacking helis, we are he'll for India if they act rashly. The only way to deter India is a strong China Pakistan alliance, not some Apache, Vipers, OplotM. It doesn't work when Indian zombie comes.
> 
> When you sheerly outnumbered, the quality of the weapon could be ignored. Just like T34 VS the Tiger
> 
> Every time India want to plot something dirty on Pakistan. When he rises his head, China is just right there. Pity Indians!



Thanks! Definitely, the way forward is an iron bond between Pakistan and China.

But from a planning perspective, you are not done until you have planned for extreme scenarios. I was trying to analyze one extreme scenario. In general, there is a science behind this:

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/documents/meetings/roundtable/white_papers/zimmerman_wp.pdf

And I am proposing that the Pakistan Army should invest in simulation software that allows them to analyze their strategies within extreme scenarios. That way, we can be mentally prepared for various outcomes. Actually, I am definitely sure an organization of Pakistan Army's stature already does that, so for me its like taking a burden off my chest when I say it out loud on the public forum. Its almost the feeling when you are watching a cricket match of the Pakistani team and you just wish you could go and tell them what to do... except they are professionals and already know what to do...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

What I want emphasize here is PA need to address the quantity problem, no matter tanks or helis.



CriticalThought said:


> Thanks! Definitely, the way forward is an iron bond between Pakistan and China.
> 
> But from a planning perspective, you are not done until you have planned for extreme scenarios. I was trying to analyze one extreme scenario. In general, there is a science behind this:
> 
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/documents/meetings/roundtable/white_papers/zimmerman_wp.pdf
> 
> And I am proposing that the Pakistan Army should invest in simulation software that allows them to analyze their strategies within extreme scenarios. That way, we can be mentally prepared for various outcomes. Actually, I am definitely sure an organization of Pakistan Army's stature already does that, so for me its like taking a burden off my chest when I say it out loud on the public forum. Its almost the feeling when you are watching a cricket match of the Pakistani team and you just wish you could go and tell them what to do... except they are professionals and already know what to do...


PLA is doing those simulation frequently.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CriticalThought

wanglaokan said:


> What I want emphasize here is PA need to address the quantity problem, no matter tanks or helis.



Agreed. We need joint R&D so that China-Pak can emerge as the new centre of low cost, yet high quality products. Too long the West has maintained an 'aura' of being high-tech and invincible. This shall change.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

CriticalThought said:


> Agreed. We need joint R&D so that China-Pak can emerge as the new centre of low cost, yet high quality products. Too long the West has maintained an 'aura' of being high-tech and invincible. This shall change.


PA had achieved great progress in producing Ak tanks. Yesterday I checked the Altay thread, few Turkish members are very unsatisfied with Altay's progress. They even suspicious whether Altay uses free loader or not. You shall proud of yourself.l, cause few countries in this world can't produce advanced MBT by themselves.

AK is good model of China and Pakistan weapon development collaboration, So as JF17.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Signalian

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Regarding attack helicopters.
> 
> We had been hammering the Z-10 a little bit, but to be honest, there are no attack helicopters besides the Viper and Apache that benefit from the Z-10's economies of scale (via PLA requirements). If we couple this with China's lower-cost manufacturing costs, then the Z-10 is the affordable option for building up numbers, full stop.
> 
> The T-129 could be great for operations in the north to back our infantry, a valid role for sure, but for covering our armour along the vast eastern front in Punjab and Sindh, there's nothing more affordable than the Z-10.
> 
> I think an up-rated turboshaft could assure us of a top-rotor mmW radar and more than 8 ATGM (together). Yes, we need to make sure this thing tolerates heat and has good resistance to sand intrusion. But I think CAIC and AVIC can resolve these issues, especially since there is direct benefit for the PLA.



Adding on this.....

The requirement of a MmW-radar and datalink is essential as it opens up new avenues like controlling UAV from the Gunship.





Such a capability will give Gunship advantage of advance recon (maybe upto 20,30,40 Km ahead) before it enters the area to attack enemy. This will enhance survivability of Gunship as it will be saved from ambushes and nasty surprises. The pilot and WSO will need to make a plan accordingly from the info from the UAV and make amends where needed. 
In future, this capability can be stretched to controlling UCAV's, then the firepower in the air will be doubled with both Gunships and UCAV's carrying missiles and working in conjunction. 

If the requirement is given by Pakistan for these capabilities then CAIC and AVIC probably could come up with something tailor made. 
http://www.janes.com/article/61058/us-army-developing-mum-tx-for-apache-control-of-all-uavs

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## JK!

Given Pakistan has signed a $600 million deal with Ukraine to upgrade Pakistans MBTs I'd be hopeful for Pakistans next MBT to be Oplot M.

If nothing else it would be good to see the existing T80UD fleet brought up to this standard.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Tipu7

Sarge said:


> In recent exercises it was seen that Gunships were used with armour so it can be expected that AH-1 may accompany armoured formations in an attack. However, deploying a gunship squadron or detachment in enemy area(across the border in India) is not an easy job. The amount of maintenance crew + parts + weapons+ spares+fuel (fuel trucks) etc means another 150-300 men and lots of equipment into enemy territory to keep the gunships flying and attacking enemy armour when required. Its not feasible to send gunships back into Pakistan for re-arming, refuelling and general maintenance. They need to be deployed minutes away from own armoured force to give cover, not hours away. Secondly, the ability of gunships to cover alot of distance in minimum time makes it an excellent defensive platform. It can be in the desert and after sometime, hundreds of km away to a threatened sector near Okara, where enemy armour will be about to break into Pakistani front lines. So it really depends how PA commanders want to utilise this asset. Probably if numbers were around 100, sending 20 or so across shouldn't be a problem.



Gunships along Eastern border are basically meant for anti armor role. So ability to carry maximum anti tank payload of 16 ATGM was one of demands of PA while evaluating Z10/T129/Mi28. Currently AH1F can carry 8 ATGM which is good payload considering its size and fact that its a single engine gun ship. AH1Z can carry 16 twice as much as AH1F can. One of the thing I have noticed is that our Cobra fleet operate in desert terrain where some covers are available in the form of hills or trees. Pilots fly gunship very low few meters abve ground while moving towards target. Find a cover and remain hovering at same ground level until enemy comes in range. They engage enemy and move to another cover then repeat the cycle once again until they are out of ammo or mission is achieved. Its kind of ''hit & hide'' tactic and it suits very well for gunship with nimble frame like Cobra has or in future Viper will have. This is major plus point in favor of Viper as our pilots & strategy makers are already well aware of this chopper and for them it will be very handy to utalize these units to maximum with any trouble. This make me believe that AH1Z once arrive will be deployed in South Punjab as we will no longer need dedicated Gunships for our Western borders by that time. Rest T129/Z10 are meant to full fill our ''quantity'' demands with sufficient quality over AH1S we got. IMO it was better idea to go for more AH1Z instead of T129 (like 24 of them) and follow up Z10 as cheap but capable replacement of Cobras for full filling our Gunship demands. (44 of them).




Sarge said:


> The APC's that PA operates are M-113 and Talha. @Ulla and @Zarvan will kill me here, lol, i dont jump into APC discussion much now. check the engine HP's of Talha and M-113. PA is matching 1200 HP engine AK with a 330 HP engined Talha. Talha's hp/ton figure is good, but its the add on armor that could affect it. Probably PA is satisfied with 330 HP engine and 25 HP/Ton P/W ratio because IA BMP-2 has a 300 HP engine with 19 HP/Ton P/W ratio.
> There is another APC Saad with a 400-450 HP engine and an extra road wheel. With a 100-130 hp more than AL-Talha and an extra road wheel which gives the vehicle increased internal volume and payload, SAAD would have been a better platform to make tracked APC derivatives. ADD on Armour has become a trend in all AFV's nowadays and SAAD wouldnt have faltered. Sakb Tracked Logistics vehicle and Hadeed ARV uses Saad configuration of road wheels and engine.
> Wheeled Hamza has a 600 HP engine and a bigger cannon 30mm, which now shows that PA is going towards bigger HP engines as well as cannons.



Our M113 and its clones are ''tin cans''. So many troops packed in small tin box with one 12.7 on roof to defend. This APC IMO should either be developed with more armor, modern gadgetry, better weapon & power full engine or we should link them up with some heavy IFV. I do wish to see heavy IFV (T59 converted) armed with more fire power & better protection accompanying these M113 in a mechanized assault. Bcoz if a mechanized unit is flanked or attacked from rare then these poor M113 will be easy victims as with out tank cover they are nothing. Even BMP is big threat for these poor souls. Presence of few heavy IFV will better protect these APCs in such desperate situations.



DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Bro.. T-80UD Birch isn't T-80....
> 
> The chasis are similar yes but not the welded turret,gun and other systems equipping he UD.. Those are more similar to the Oplot (which was under development back than)...
> 
> 
> P.S;T-80 was the best tank and the most expensive tank USSR produced... it suffered because the Russians used it for urban combat in cities ...
> 
> The T-90 is essentially an upgraded T-72... The Russians had a large stock of those and hence the upgrade was more plausible rather than producing an expensive tank in large numbers...
> 
> Also the T-80 was also produced in Ukraine (which was the armour hub of USSR)... When Ukraine broke away from USSR it also contributed to the premature demise of T-80 in Russian inventory...
> 
> A lot has been written on T-80 by tank experts who still declare it better than the T-90.
> 
> The Oplot also is superior to the new Russian "Tegril"/MS..



I need your opinion on up gradation of T80UD into T84 Oplot (not OplotM). How feasible is that if OplotM finds its way in PA?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

So can I say that Oplot M already had won the bidding?


----------



## nomi007

we need to consider 
*K2 Black Panther*
&
*Leopard 2A7+*
also


----------



## Muhammad Omar

wanglaokan said:


> So can I say that Oplot M already had won the bidding?



Nope


----------



## 帅的一匹

nomi007 said:


> we need to consider
> *K2 Black Panther*
> &
> *Leopard 2A7+*
> also


I thought Leopard 2A7 is nearly 20 millions USD?

@ptldM3 why Russia didn't send in T90MSC for bidding?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## .

Boy if this oplot tenk were in WOT then the Gold thing sticking out of cupola would be a nice target


----------



## Muhammad Omar

wanglaokan said:


> I thought Leopard 2A7 is nearly 20 millions USD?
> 
> @ptldM3 why Russia didn't send in T90MSC for bidding?



Cause India is buying T-90 MS i think i read somewhere

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## .

IMHO the oplot M is being reconsidered due to Pakistan's Generations of T-80UD .
It would be great if the huge numbers of T-80UD are replaced/upgraded ,then get the Chinese MBT nice and easy

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reichmarshal

BondedByBlood said:


> IMHO the oplot M is being reconsidered due to Pakistan's Generations of T-80UD .
> It would be great if the huge numbers of T-80UD are replaced/upgraded ,then get the Chinese MBT nice and easy


Their major overhaul/upgrade has already begun some one year ago

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Signalian

Tipu7 said:


> Gunships along Eastern border are basically meant for anti armor role. So ability to carry maximum anti tank payload of 16 ATGM was one of demands of PA while evaluating Z10/T129/Mi28. Currently AH1F can carry 8 ATGM which is good payload considering its size and fact that its a single engine gun ship. AH1Z can carry 16 twice as much as AH1F can. One of the thing I have noticed is that our Cobra fleet operate in desert terrain where some covers are available in the form of hills or trees. Pilots fly gunship very low few meters abve ground while moving towards target. Find a cover and remain hovering at same ground level until enemy comes in range. They engage enemy and move to another cover then repeat the cycle once again until they are out of ammo or mission is achieved. Its kind of ''hit & hide'' tactic and it suits very well for gunship with nimble frame like Cobra has or in future Viper will have. This is major plus point in favor of Viper as our pilots & strategy makers are already well aware of this chopper and for them it will be very handy to utalize these units to maximum with any trouble. This make me believe that AH1Z once arrive will be deployed in South Punjab as we will no longer need dedicated Gunships for our Western borders by that time. Rest T129/Z10 are meant to full fill our ''quantity'' demands with sufficient quality over AH1S we got. IMO it was better idea to go for more AH1Z instead of T129 (like 24 of them) and follow up Z10 as cheap but capable replacement of Cobras for full filling our Gunship demands. (44 of them).


Ah-1F/S has three shortcomings.

1. TOW missile needs to be guided all the way till it hits the target. 
The problem surfaces when AH-1S is targeting an MBT and gets painted by a mobile SAM protecting MBT. Fire and Forget Missiles like HJ-10, hell fire etc are the need to engage, fire, forget and engage new target.

2. No Air to Air missile.
This is very useful against enemy helicopters and probably against UAV/UCAV. Not sure if IR-guided AAM can bring stealthy UAV down, laser guided missiles like RBS-70 system maybe. 

3. No MmW FCR Radar e.g Long Bow
This helps detect, classify and prioritise ground targets day or night, in poor weather and obscured conditions; then attack those targets with pinpoint accuracy from long range.It helps conduct precision attacks in adverse weather conditions, automatically engage multiple targets, provide fire and forget missile capability, and operate on the digital battlefield

Im not sure if it has RWR, ECM etc though it has night fighting capability.

Z-10, AH-1Z and T-129 have at least two of the above capabilities. 

AH-1Z can operate Long Bow, can carry Aim-9 and Hell Fire ATGM.
T-129 has Aim-9 and Hell fire ATGM capability. MmW FCR is in making.
Z-10 has PL-X AAM and HJ-10/AKD-10 firing capability. MmW FCR is in making.


Z-10 is currently being tested so it seems PA will induct this and then play around with its systems and ask for design according to its needs.



> Our M113 and its clones are ''tin cans''. So many troops packed in small tin box with one 12.7 on roof to defend. This APC IMO should either be developed with more armor, modern gadgetry, better weapon & power full engine or we should link them up with some heavy IFV. I do wish to see heavy IFV (T59 converted) armed with more fire power & better protection accompanying these M113 in a mechanized assault. Bcoz if a mechanized unit is flanked or attacked from rare then these poor M113 will be easy victims as with out tank cover they are nothing. Even BMP is big threat for these poor souls. Presence of few heavy IFV will better protect these APCs in such desperate situations.



These are APC,s, the battle taxis, they are not meant to engage head on like IFV. 

They are used to keep up with tanks for hundreds of km and then dis mount infantry. APC stay behind tanks and even stay behind when infantry dismounts and attacks. This makes them dependant upon MBT protection for movement and deployment.

APC convoy can have ATGM-carriers for protection.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Inception-06

Sarge said:


> Thank you.
> 
> its good that members share their thoughts openly and this is why PDF is an awesome forum.
> 
> In recent exercises it was seen that Gunships were used with armour so it can be expected that AH-1 may accompany armoured formations in an attack. However, deploying a gunship squadron or detachment in enemy area(across the border in India) is not an easy job. The amount of maintenance crew + parts + weapons+ spares+fuel (fuel trucks) etc means another 150-300 men and lots of equipment into enemy territory to keep the gunships flying and attacking enemy armour when required. Its not feasible to send gunships back into Pakistan for re-arming, refuelling and general maintenance. They need to be deployed minutes away from own armoured force to give cover, not hours away. Secondly, the ability of gunships to cover alot of distance in minimum time makes it an excellent defensive platform. It can be in the desert and after sometime, hundreds of km away to a threatened sector near Okara, where enemy armour will be about to break into Pakistani front lines. So it really depends how PA commanders want to utilise this asset. Probably if numbers were around 100, sending 20 or so across shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> The APC's that PA operates are M-113 and Talha. @Ulla and @Zarvan will kill me here, lol, i dont jump into APC discussion much now. check the engine HP's of Talha and M-113. PA is matching 1200 HP engine AK with a 330 HP engined Talha. Talha's hp/ton figure is good, but its the add on armor that could affect it. Probably PA is satisfied with 330 HP engine and 25 HP/Ton P/W ratio because IA BMP-2 has a 300 HP engine with 19 HP/Ton P/W ratio.
> There is another APC Saad with a 400-450 HP engine and an extra road wheel. With a 100-130 hp more than AL-Talha and an extra road wheel which gives the vehicle increased internal volume and payload, SAAD would have been a better platform to make tracked APC derivatives. ADD on Armour has become a trend in all AFV's nowadays and SAAD wouldnt have faltered. Sakb Tracked Logistics vehicle and Hadeed ARV uses Saad configuration of road wheels and engine.
> Wheeled Hamza has a 600 HP engine and a bigger cannon 30mm, which now shows that PA is going towards bigger HP engines as well as cannons.
> 
> PAF has its own plans regarding war times and truthfully support for Army and Navy comes as second priority for it. There are examples in the past, but PAF dedicating its top of the line jets like F-16 or JF-17 for an armoured offensive by PA, i doubt it.
> 
> The infantry divisions are sometimes attached with independent armoured brigades (90 tanks). This way the tank to battalion ratio can be increased. i told ratio in previous post to just give an idea. Do bear in mind that not all units go into combat together. The commander sends a few units into combat and keeps some reserve to send in where required. He may send the whole armoured brigade (2 armor regiments) with an infantry brigade (3 infantry battalions) to penetrate into enemy positions. The infantry brigade can then hold that position and entrench while the armoured brigade is called back and sent into action next with another infantry battalion or infantry brigade.
> 
> The Infantry Battalions in infantry Divisions dont get APC's for movement but motorised transport(jeeps,pick ups,trucks), which also if available. The Supply and Transport (S&T) Battalion takes care of that for the whole division. Transport can also be also be arranged from Corps HQ. In some scenarios, civilain trucks are provided by Log HQ (Logistics HQ).
> Most western and gulf armies have more mechanised infantry battalions (MIB's) compared to Plain Infantry Battalions. PA has MIB's but usually attached with armoured divisions and armoured brigades apart from Mechanised Divisions in desert.
> 
> Infantry combat is meant to be as stealthy as possible and get as close as possible to engage the enemy. Its too early to say about CZ-806. Things vary however, if calling a 15 min pre-attack artillery strike to suppress enemy infantry in entrenched bunkers or fortified positions, then distance needs to be kept to keep out of friendly fire. Engagement can begin after bombardment stops. More often or not, things dont go the text book style. Every plan has a different terrain, different threat level, different weapons to be utilised when and where etc. A combination of a good assault rifle, soldier training, tanks, artillery and other factors combined to bring a good result.



Excellent written article !

Can someone give this guy a positive rating for his analyses here in PDF !

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gryphon

*



Pakistan may buy 100 ukrainian tank "Oplot"*

Thu, 20.04.2017 14:35






Pakistan's ambassador Atar Abbas said that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan may purchase 100 ukrainian "Oplot" tanks.

"Today experts are holding testing and evaluation, there is an agreement on the purchase of the Ukrainian battle tank"Oplot". And in case of its signing Pakistan will purchase them at Kharkov plant more than a hundred units of this technique," - said ambassador.

According to him, the defense sector was one of the main areas of cooperation between Pakistan and Ukraine.
"This concerned procurement of heavy equipment and its maintenance in particular" the ambassador said.

According to him, mutual visits of the defense ministers of Pakistan and Ukraine were held recently.

"A few months ago an agreement was signed on the joint production of engines for the Al-Khalid tanks and military helicopters, all production will be carried out on Pakistani territory," he stressed.

Read this article in russian.

_Source: arab.com.ua
_
Pakistan may buy 100 ukrainian tank "Oplot" | Ukraine in Arabic

@Glavcom

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Zarvan

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> Thu, 20.04.2017 14:35
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan's ambassador Atar Abbas said that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan may purchase 100 ukrainian "Oplot" tanks.
> 
> "Today experts are holding testing and evaluation, there is an agreement on the purchase of the Ukrainian battle tank"Oplot". And in case of its signing Pakistan will purchase them at Kharkov plant more than a hundred units of this technique," - said ambassador.
> 
> According to him, the defense sector was one of the main areas of cooperation between Pakistan and Ukraine.
> "This concerned procurement of heavy equipment and its maintenance in particular" the ambassador said.
> 
> According to him, mutual visits of the defense ministers of Pakistan and Ukraine were held recently.
> 
> "A few months ago an agreement was signed on the joint production of engines for the Al-Khalid tanks and military helicopters, all production will be carried out on Pakistani territory," he stressed.
> 
> Read this article in russian.
> 
> _Source: arab.com.ua
> _
> Pakistan may buy 100 ukrainian tank "Oplot" | Ukraine in Arabic
> 
> @Glavcom


No surprise at all OPLOT M will be our AL HAIDER Tank

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## WebMaster

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> "A few months ago an agreement was signed on the joint production of engines for the Al-Khalid tanks and military helicopters, all production will be carried out on Pakistani territory," he stressed.



Joint production of helicopter engines?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

WebMaster said:


> Joint production of helicopter engines?


Well I think if we try we can get it

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Original source: http://www.dsnews.ua/economics/poso...het-pererasti-v-voynu-za-vodu--19042017220000

*DS: First contracts in military-technical cooperation between Pakistan and Ukraine were signed in 1996, in particular the tank contract. Do continue cooperation with Ukraine now?*

AA: The defense sector has been one of the main areas of cooperation between Pakistan and Ukraine. It concerned the procurement of heavy equipment and its maintenance (particularly tanks "Al-Khalid"). Recently held mutual visits of Defense Ministers of Pakistan and Ukraine. A few months ago, signed an agreement on joint production of engines for tanks "Al-Khalid" and military helicopters. All production will be carried out on Pakistani soil. Today, in the final testing and evaluation phase is an agreement on the purchase of Ukrainian battle tanks "Hold". And if it is signed by Pakistan will buy the Kharkov enterprise "Zavod im. V. A. Malysheva" more than a hundred units of this technique. 
We are now working with our Ukrainian colleagues on broadening and deepening of mutually beneficial cooperation.​

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## HRK

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> A few months ago, signed an agreement on *joint production of engines *for tanks "Al-Khalid" and *military helicopters. *All production will be carried out on Pakistani soil.



what ....??? joint production of Military Helicopter Engine .....??

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hell hound

HRK said:


> what ....??? joint production of Military Helicopter Engine .....??


a deal sweetener may be

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

HRK said:


> what ....??? joint production of Military Helicopter Engine .....??


Collaborating on the Motor Sich MS-500V could be interesting. I'm not sure if Pakistan has any 3.5 to 6-ton helicopters in need of new engines right now. However, if Motor Sich can develop a 1,000+ kW version (they're at 800+ kW right now), then we'd have an alternative for the T-129...

http://www.motorsich.com/eng/products/aircraft/turboshaft/ms500v/

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Kompromat

Oplot had engine problems during tests. Let's see if they've since been fixed up.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

Horus said:


> Oplot had engine problems during tests. Let's see if they've since been fixed up.


OPLOT M and T-90MS were supposed to come for tests have they come ????

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BetterPakistan

Zarvan said:


> No surprise at all OPLOT M will be our AL HAIDER Tank



Oplot-M as al haider?

Al Khalid 2 is expected to weigh more than 52 tonnes and Oplot-M weighs 51 tonnes?? What is this? First we are going for 200 heavy weight tanks and after that again returning to lighter weight..

Oplot- M is cheaper, is this the reason for purchasing it?


----------



## graphican

Horus said:


> Oplot had engine problems during tests. Let's see if they've since been fixed up.



Pakistan is using Ukranian Engines in AlKhalid.. There is no reason why another Engine from Ukaraine would not meet Pakistan's requirements. Hoping for the best.

but that also means - Pakistan is feeling it will undergo a war with India in the near future.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

BetterPakistan said:


> Oplot-M as al haider?
> 
> Al Khalid 2 is expected to weigh more than 52 tonnes and Oplot-M weighs 51 tonnes?? What is this? First we are going for 200 heavy weight tanks and after that again returning to lighter weight..
> 
> Oplot- M is cheaper, is this the reason for purchasing it?


AL HAIDER and AL KHALID will be two different projects and AL HAIDER will be mainly to replace all our old Tanks


----------



## graphican

Zarvan said:


> AL HAIDER and AL KHALID will be two different projects and AL HAIDER will be mainly to replace all our old Tanks



If Al-Haider is to replace "all old tanks" than 100 units is nothing. Is it the other way around that Al-Khalid will replace old tanks instead?


----------



## Gryphon

Horus said:


> Oplot had engine problems during tests. Let's see if they've since been fixed up.



It can use Al-Khalid's 6TD-2 as well as the 1500 hp 6TD-3.


----------



## Cool_Soldier

OPlot M comparatively better than Alkhalid OR Nor?


----------



## BetterPakistan

Zarvan said:


> AL HAIDER and AL KHALID will be two different projects and AL HAIDER will be mainly to replace all our old Tanks



T-85lllP and Type 69ll?


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Engine commonality with the al-Khalid and the possibility of re-manufacturing the Army's T-80UDs into Oplots might also be reasons for interest.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## hacker J

I dun see why would they buy them anyways, they have al khalid 2 and it contains most advance technologies. Why to waste money on relativly expensive platform when you even promised semi automated secondry weapon in al khalid 3


----------



## BetterPakistan

hacker J said:


> I dun see why would they buy them anyways, they have al khalid 2 and it contains most advance technologies. Why to waste money on relativly expensive platform when you even promised semi automated secondry weapon in al khalid 3



Not Al Khalid 3 but Al Khalid 2. Secondly PA wants to support Al Khalid series with one more powerful tank series which was named as Al Haider. Oplot-M was tested for Al Haider but the tests failed due to engine failure for which Ukraine assured to resolve the issues.

Thirdly, Oplot-M is not expensive than Al Khalid may be equal or cheaper because Al Khalid 2 is expected to cost at least $5 million/unit and Oplot-M cost was less than $5 million.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> OPLOT M and T-90MS were supposed to come for tests have they come ????


Hazrat why would we go for T90 when Oplot fits the bill perfectly?


----------



## Army research

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> Thu, 20.04.2017 14:35
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan's ambassador Atar Abbas said that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan may purchase 100 ukrainian "Oplot" tanks.
> 
> "Today experts are holding testing and evaluation, there is an agreement on the purchase of the Ukrainian battle tank"Oplot". And in case of its signing Pakistan will purchase them at Kharkov plant more than a hundred units of this technique," - said ambassador.
> 
> According to him, the defense sector was one of the main areas of cooperation between Pakistan and Ukraine.
> "This concerned procurement of heavy equipment and its maintenance in particular" the ambassador said.
> 
> According to him, mutual visits of the defense ministers of Pakistan and Ukraine were held recently.
> 
> "A few months ago an agreement was signed on the joint production of engines for the Al-Khalid tanks and military helicopters, all production will be carried out on Pakistani territory," he stressed.
> 
> Read this article in russian.
> 
> _Source: arab.com.ua
> _
> Pakistan may buy 100 ukrainian tank "Oplot" | Ukraine in Arabic
> 
> @Glavcom


Remember long ago I told you something's coming ? It was from a source and some doubted my credibility when I said things are in motion.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Path-Finder

Army research said:


> Remember long ago I told you something's coming ? It was from a source and some doubted my credibility when I said things are in motion.


What is happening on the rifle selection front?


----------



## Army research

Path-Finder said:


> What is happening on the rifle selection front?


Dekho I had credible sources about this, I don't know bat shit about rifle selection tho sorry. Links in armour confirmed that oplot is likely and stuff is advancing tho disclosing this at the time was prohibited

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hassan Guy

They can barely deliver 50 to Thailand.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Path-Finder

Army research said:


> Dekho I had credible sources about this, I don't know bat shit about rifle selection tho sorry. Links in armour confirmed that oplot is likely and stuff is advancing tho disclosing this at the time was prohibited

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CHACHA"G"

I am very happy to see the realization , Army knows the threat and that is "Indian Army's huge Armour Advantage". _f this news it true , It also make all the sense._
Hopefully all the problems with OP-84 are resolved , Engine was not that big problem as we are using Ukrainian made Engines in T-80 and AK. 
A perfect Brother in Arm for Ak , Both tanks (AK-2 and OP-84) are 50T+ weight category , And as I said PA need 1500+ of this category , It make sense ,its Better to have 2 Great Tanks instead of One .
And One main reason for OP-84 is similarities with T-80UD , PA will not have much problem for maintenance and training. And this move will allow us to upgrade T-80s to OP-84 stander and increase there life and usability.
*And If things work well We might see 55T+ Tank in near future. But first we need 50T+ so we can counter Indian Army and put our old Tanks(*which are not upgraded) *In storages . 
I bleed Green , All the best PA.*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## PAR 5

OPLOT had failed field trials in Pakistan. The engine was unable to withstand the desert heat in Saleh Put Ranges near Sukker. The same had happened many years ago during the selection process of T-80UD as well as the engine had cracked under intense heat. I would take this news with a pinch of salt

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Army research

PAR 5 said:


> OPLOT had failed field trials in Pakistan. The engine was unable to withstand the desert heat in Saleh Put Ranges near Sukker. The same had happened many years ago during the selection process of T-80UD as well as the engine had cracked under intense heat. I would take this news with a pinch of salt


Yet 320 t 80 s are thundering over Pakistani sand dunes

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Army research

PAR 5 said:


> OPLOT had failed field trials in Pakistan. The engine was unable to withstand the desert heat in Saleh Put Ranges near Sukker. The same had happened many years ago during the selection process of T-80UD as well as the engine had cracked under intense heat. I would take this news with a pinch of salt


Issues are solved , local engine manufacturing and improvements


----------



## Shabi1

BetterPakistan said:


> Oplot-M as al haider?
> 
> Al Khalid 2 is expected to weigh more than 52 tonnes and Oplot-M weighs 51 tonnes?? What is this? First we are going for 200 heavy weight tanks and after that again returning to lighter weight..
> 
> Oplot- M is cheaper, is this the reason for purchasing it?



From the recent IDEAS exhibition it was learnt that PA is in talks with Ukraine for upgrading its T-80UD tanks bringing them upto OPLOT level. So OPLOT induction in PA was supposed to happen. Now what is not confirm is whether the 100 tanks mentioned here are upgraded T-80UDs to OPLOT or new builds.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## CHACHA"G"

PAR 5 said:


> OPLOT had failed field trials in Pakistan. The engine was unable to withstand the desert heat in Saleh Put Ranges near Sukker. The same had happened many years ago during the selection process of T-80UD as well as the engine had cracked under intense heat. I would take this news with a pinch of salt


Yet we are using same engine and other engines from same country almost in all of Our Tanks  . So don't you think the Issue is resolved , I do hope so!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## SecularNationalist

Good news russian military tech and ukrainian military tech is actually the same thing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Army research

Shabi1 said:


> From the recent IDEAS exhibition it was learnt that PA is in talks with Ukraine for upgrading its T-80UD tanks bringing them upto OPLOT level. So OPLOT induction in PA was supposed to happen. Now what is not confirm is whether the 100 tanks mentioned here are upgraded T-80UDs to OPLOT or new builds.


I disclosed it in October [emoji4], yet a few mocked me

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> Hazrat why would we go for T90 when Oplot fits the bill perfectly?


OPLOT M had issues in first test so it was supposed to come after sometime and also T-90 was supposed to come for testing



PAR 5 said:


> OPLOT had failed field trials in Pakistan. The engine was unable to withstand the desert heat in Saleh Put Ranges near Sukker. The same had happened many years ago during the selection process of T-80UD as well as the engine had cracked under intense heat. I would take this news with a pinch of salt


Yes it failed first tests but Ukraine than promised to resolve the issue soon so after they resolve the issue the Tank will return for testing again also T-90 MS was supposed to come for testing who will win will become our AL HAIDER.


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> OPLOT M had issues in first test so it was supposed to come after sometime and also T-90 was supposed to come for testing
> 
> 
> Yes it failed first tests but Ukraine than promised to resolve the issue soon so after they resolve the issue the Tank will return for testing again also T-90 MS was supposed to come for testing who will win will become our AL HAIDER.


Hazrat I would place my bet on Oplot as we already operate the same chassis in T84 which will be upgraded and brought to Oplot level. T90 is based on T72 chassis and I don't think we need T90 but there is no harm in testing it.

But based on engine the Ukrainian option is far better as they have better engines to offer than T90 which comes with a 1000HP engine only.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> Hazrat I would place my bet on Oplot as we already operate the same chassis in T84 which will be upgraded and brought to Oplot level. T90 is based on T72 chassis and I don't think we need T90 but there is no harm in testing it.
> 
> But based on engine the Ukrainian option is far better as they have better engines to offer than T90 which comes with a 1000HP engine only.


I also bet on OPLOT M I am only giving news of what I have that OPLOT M was supposed to come for testing


----------



## punit

AL_what ?


----------



## PAR 5

Army research said:


> Yet 320 t 80 s are thundering over Pakistani sand dunes



T-80UDs were intentionally shoved down the throats of Pakistan Army by Gen. Jehangir Karamat for reasons now know to everyone. Pakistan Army is still unsatisfied with T-80UD simply because of unavailability of the GALOL oil from anywhere but Ukraine! Seems like the same mafia is pressuring the Army into another corner



Zarvan said:


> I also bet on OPLOT M I am only giving news of what I have that OPLOT M was supposed to come for testing



The last OPLOT M failed. They are yet to send another one. Until that happens and the Army goes through formal summer and winter trials no selection or purchase can come through. Rest everything is up to the imagination of the kiddies here


----------



## kathiyawadi khamir

PAR 5 said:


> T-80UDs were intentionally shoved down the throats of Pakistan Army by Gen. Jehangir Karamat for reasons now know to everyone. Pakistan Army is still unsatisfied with T-80UD simply because of unavailability of the GALOL oil from anywhere but Ukraine! Seems like the same mafia is pressuring the Army into another corner
> 
> 
> 
> The last OPLOT M failed. They are yet to send another one. Until that happens and the Army goes through formal summer and winter trials no selection or purchase can come through. Rest everything is up to the imagination of the kiddies here


yahi tenk ko to tum logo ne 2-3 saal pehle Reject nahi kia tha engine problems ki wajah se ? is it an upgraded version with new Engine ?


----------



## Army research

PAR 5 said:


> T-80UDs were intentionally shoved down the throats of Pakistan Army by Gen. Jehangir Karamat for reasons now know to everyone. Pakistan Army is still unsatisfied with T-80UD simply because of unavailability of the GALOL oil from anywhere but Ukraine! Seems like the same mafia is pressuring the Army into another corner
> 
> 
> 
> The last OPLOT M failed. They are yet to send another one. Until that happens and the Army goes through formal summer and winter trials no selection or purchase can come through. Rest everything is up to the imagination of the kiddies here


Having personally had a ride in a T-80UD I would like to inform you the army is more than pleased

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## 帅的一匹

When will the delivery begin?


----------



## Blue Marlin

are the current 320 t80-ud's being upgraded to the oplot standard?


----------



## Shabi1

Even if test T-84 OPLOT had a engine failure could be a rectifiable issue as already its in widespread use in Pakistan and beat German, French and Chinese alternatives when chosen for Al-Khalid.
Ukrainian KMDB 6TD variant engines power the T-80UD, T-84 OPLOT and the Al-Khalid. It's already being fielded in huge numbers in PA and Pakistan is in process of getting TOT for it.
A newer 1500HP 6TD-3 variant has been offered to Pakistan.
http://quwa.org/2017/02/21/idex-2017-pakistan-ukraine-sign-agreement-co-produce-engines-tanks/

It's a very good tank, issue with Thailand delivery happened because of unstable situation in Ukraine. In event of a Pakistan order it is likely that there will be alot of tech transfer and local manufacture in Pakistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## aamirzs

http://quwa.org/2017/05/02/pakistan-may-negotiate-ukraine-100-oplot-m-main-battle-tanks/

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Zarvan

PAR 5 said:


> T-80UDs were intentionally shoved down the throats of Pakistan Army by Gen. Jehangir Karamat for reasons now know to everyone. Pakistan Army is still unsatisfied with T-80UD simply because of unavailability of the GALOL oil from anywhere but Ukraine! Seems like the same mafia is pressuring the Army into another corner
> 
> 
> 
> The last OPLOT M failed. They are yet to send another one. Until that happens and the Army goes through formal summer and winter trials no selection or purchase can come through. Rest everything is up to the imagination of the kiddies here


YES it failed but will return soon Ukraine claims to have resolved the issue so it would return for testing and even 1200 HP which we use in AL KHALID failed but later UKRAINE resolved the issue

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Gryphon

Army research said:


> Remember long ago I told you something's coming ? It was from a source and some doubted my credibility when I said things are in motion.



I don't remember anything like that 

The Oplot contract has not been signed yet. As Athar Abbas mentioned, it is still under trials / evaluation.


----------



## Army research

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> I don't remember anything like that
> 
> The Oplot contract has not been signed yet. As Athar Abbas mentioned, it is still under trials / evaluation.


It was in the haider mbt thread or something anyways , deal is advancing and most likely to conclude with the purchase of oplot


----------



## Gryphon

Army research said:


> It was in the haider mbt thread or something anyways , deal is advancing and most likely to conclude with the purchase of oplot



It seems the VT4 has failed badly...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HannibalBarca

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Collaborating on the Motor Sich MS-500V could be interesting. I'm not sure if Pakistan has any 3.5 to 6-ton helicopters in need of new engines right now. However, if Motor Sich can develop a 1,000+ kW version (they're at 800+ kW right now), then we'd have an alternative for the T-129...
> 
> http://www.motorsich.com/eng/products/aircraft/turboshaft/ms500v/



So if Heli engine is on the table... could we see a T-129 ToT (Frame) to Pakistan in the near future? Meaning Pakistan with a ToT from Turkey on the frame + new PAK engine = Indegenious Heli?
or for the Chinese one?

Maybe I'm lost...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## My-Analogous

punit said:


> AL_what ?


Al Arjun Habibi

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

Shabi1 said:


> Even if test T-84 OPLOT had a engine failure could be a rectifiable issue as already its in widespread use in Pakistan and beat German, French and Chinese alternatives when chosen for Al-Khalid.
> Ukrainian KMDB 6TD variant engines power the T-80UD, T-84 OPLOT and the Al-Khalid. It's already being fielded in huge numbers in PA and Pakistan is in process of getting TOT for it.
> A newer 1500HP 6TD-3 variant has been offered to Pakistan.
> http://quwa.org/2017/02/21/idex-2017-pakistan-ukraine-sign-agreement-co-produce-engines-tanks/
> 
> It's a very good tank, issue with Thailand delivery happened because of unstable situation in Ukraine. In event of a Pakistan order it is likely that there will be alot of tech transfer and local manufacture in Pakistan.


Nonsense, there are still large number of machinery and tools need to be transfer from Ukraine. The unstable situations in Ukraine will still affect everything. The Ukrainian is desperate in all situation and therefore make a lot of tall promise that is very unlikely to be delivered.



TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> It seems the VT4 has failed badly...


Nonsense. RTA has claimed VT-4 is superior and even buying additional 10 mores. Thailand claim Ukraine tank is nothing but thrash. They regret buying Ukrainian stuff.

Same as Iraq army who claimed M1A2 serving them is very inferior. Even ISIS can easily knock them out. Iraq army are very impress with VT-4 and going for a big order together with HQ-9 SAM and CH-5 UCAV.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## tarrar

Is the Oplot coming with ToT?


----------



## Hassan Guy

tarrar said:


> Is the Oplot coming with ToT?


it should, no way Ukraine has the capacity to deliver 100.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kompromat

If im not wrong, the biggest interest in Oplot is not the tank but the 6TD-3 engine because we need a locally produced 1500hp engine for AK-2 and Ukrainians won't sell the engine tot without an oplot purchase. There's absolutely no interest in using 6TD-2 engine for upcoming tanks. 



TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> It can use Al-Khalid's 6TD-2 as well as the 1500 hp 6TD-3.

Reactions: Like Like:
17


----------



## hussain0216

Horus said:


> If im not wrong, the biggest interest in Oplot is not the tank but the 6TD-3 engine because we need a locally produced 1500hp engine for AK-2 and Ukrainians won't sell the engine tot without an oplot purchase. There's absolutely no interest in using 6TD-2 engine for upcoming tanks.



Its all about the engine 

If we can get hands on that engine we are well set

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Arsalan

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> It seems the VT4 has failed badly...


When they talk about Oplot read 6TD-3. The "interest" is mainly in that engine and it seems the Ukranians are not letting it go unless we buy a few tanks too. Oplot is a good tank too so i do not think army will mind it a lot either and *we may* see a few supporting those T-80s in PA with a new tank taking shape of AK-II or Al-Haider or whatever they end up calling it. Our T-80 do have some component commonality with the T-84s as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gryphon

Horus said:


> If im not wrong, the biggest interest in Oplot is not the tank but the 6TD-3 engine because we need a locally produced 1500hp engine for AK-2 and Ukrainians won't sell the engine tot without an oplot purchase. There's absolutely no interest in using 6TD-2 engine for upcoming tanks.



Yes, there is nothing as good as Ukrainian 6TD-3 which Pakistan can procure for AK-2, Al-Haider MBTs.

Ukraine has also been contracted to upgrade and overhaul Pakistani T-80UDs.T-80UD maintenance proved difficult for PA in the past.

As media reported earlier, Pakistan will manufacture spares for Ukrainian engines. Maybe, they want local production of Oplot's to simplify T-80UD maintenance to some extent in parallel.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## YeBeWarned

very sensible choice, This tank is freakingly beauty and the Beast

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Starlord said:


> very sensible choice, This tank is freakingly beauty and the Beast


I agree but it will have to first pass tests


----------



## YeBeWarned

Zarvan said:


> I agree but it will have to first pass tests



It will, we give them list of things which need to be modified or change and they will do it to sale their tank ..most probably they already fix it and offer us again ..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ssethii

Zarvan said:


> I agree but it will have to first pass tests


papoo pass hogya smjho.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

ssethii said:


> papoo pass hogya smjho.


It hasn't returned yet for trials but soon will return and if it passes tests only than we would go for it


----------



## ssethii

Zarvan said:


> It hasn't returned yet for trials but soon will return and if it passes tests only than we would go for it


It's all hogwash unless based purely on merit.


----------



## razgriz19

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Engine commonality with the al-Khalid and the possibility of re-manufacturing the Army's T-80UDs into Oplots might also be reasons for interest.


That's what i suspect. PA wants to convert UD to OplotM standard and they might be asking to get that work done in-house. Buying 100 or so Oplot M off the shelf might be a way to sweeten the deal for Ukranians. 
Oplot M will serve thar deserts, while Al-Khalid will roam the fields of punjab.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RealNapster

punit said:


> AL_what ?



AL-OPLOT .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Basel

PAR 5 said:


> OPLOT had failed field trials in Pakistan. The engine was unable to withstand the desert heat in Saleh Put Ranges near Sukker. The same had happened many years ago during the selection process of T-80UD as well as the engine had cracked under intense heat. I would take this news with a pinch of salt



Then how T-80UD problem was solved? Or Pakistan purchased them with problems due to some kick bags?



Zarvan said:


> I also bet on OPLOT M I am only giving news of what I have that OPLOT M was supposed to come for testing



What is different between 80-UD and Oplot-M?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Army research

What APS does this use again ?


----------



## Gryphon

Army research said:


> What APS does this use again ?



Varta

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

hacker J said:


> I dun see why would they buy them anyways, they have al khalid 2 and it contains most advance technologies. Why to waste money on relativly expensive platform when you even promised semi automated secondry weapon in al khalid 3


Even AK I has a RCWS.'

Oplot may chosen cox we are upgrading T-80UD tanks bringing them upto OPLOT level.

And have alot of tanks to replace.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## omega supremme

Basel said:


> Then how T-80UD problem was solved? Or Pakistan purchased them with problems due to some kick bags?




My Brother Al Khalid, Al Zarrar and T80UD all are present in Sindh deserts as well as in Punjab. If there was a heating problem in T80 it wouldn't be present in Sindh.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

*OPLOT in Pak*













*AK and UD*








*UD*














Basel said:


> Then how T-80UD problem was solved? Or Pakistan purchased them with problems due to some kick bags?
> 
> 
> 
> What is different between 80-UD and Oplot-M?


And we use the same engine is AK!

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## YeBeWarned

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> *OPLOT in Pak*
> 
> View attachment 394305
> 
> 
> View attachment 394306
> 
> 
> 
> *AK and UD*
> 
> View attachment 394307
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *UD*
> 
> View attachment 394308
> View attachment 394309
> View attachment 394310
> 
> 
> 
> And we use the same engine is AK!
> 
> View attachment 394311
> View attachment 394312
> View attachment 394313



bro, in a nut shell ... how our Al-Khalid 1 is compared to Oplot-M ?


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Starlord said:


> bro, in a nut shell ... how our Al-Khalid 1 is compared to Oplot-M ?



AK superior when it comes to firepower etc.

Possible Slightly inferior when it comes to protection.

AK II will rectify that... while retaining its firepower and electronic/gadgetry strength it shall be heavier,more protected armour and a bigger 1500hp engine.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## YeBeWarned

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> AK superior when it comes to firepower etc.
> 
> Possible Slightly inferior when it comes to protection.
> 
> AK II will rectify that... while retaining its firepower and electronic/gadgetry strength it shall be heavier,more protected armour and a bigger 1500hp engine.



Thanks Brother

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## CHI RULES

Beast said:


> Nonsense, there are still large number of machinery and tools need to be transfer from Ukraine. The unstable situations in Ukraine will still affect everything. The Ukrainian is desperate in all situation and therefore make a lot of tall promise that is very unlikely to be delivered.
> 
> 
> Nonsense. RTA has claimed VT-4 is superior and even buying additional 10 mores. Thailand claim Ukraine tank is nothing but thrash. They regret buying Ukrainian stuff.
> 
> Same as Iraq army who claimed M1A2 serving them is very inferior. Even ISIS can easily knock them out. Iraq army are very impress with VT-4 and going for a big order together with HQ-9 SAM and CH-5 UCAV.


Abram MBTs provided to Arabs are downgraded moreover the incompetency on the part of Iraqi army also resulted in MBT losses same like KSA lost many in Yemen.
Further many factors count in selection of MBTs and other military stuff.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BetterPakistan

Shabi1 said:


> From the recent IDEAS exhibition it was learnt that PA is in talks with Ukraine for upgrading its T-80UD tanks bringing them upto OPLOT level. So OPLOT induction in PA was supposed to happen. Now what is not confirm is whether the 100 tanks mentioned here are upgraded T-80UDs to OPLOT or new builds.



Pakistan recently signed $600 Million deal with Ukraine for 200 engine for Al-khalid 2 and other equipment for up gradation of T-80UD and I don't think these 100 could be the upgraded one because up gradation was supposed to happen in Pakistan. I feel its Al-Haider tank.

Are you sure to Oplot-M level? I guess PA was going to upgrade T-80UD to T-84 not oplot-m level because Oplot-M weighs 51 tonnes while T-80UD and T-84 weighs 46 tonnes.


----------



## Penguin

CHI RULES said:


> Abram MBTs provided to Arabs are downgraded moreover the incompetency on the part of Iraqi army also resulted in MBT losses same like KSA lost many in Yemen.
> Further many factors count in selection of MBTs and other military stuff.


In what ways? IMHO the only difference being yes/no uranium armor inserts. Besides, if customers choose a certain armor or equipment level, at a certain cost, then that's their business. That's tailoring your product to customer wishes, not necessarily downgrading per se.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PakShaheen79

I will happily say welcome to Oplot M if ToT for 1500 HP is coming along with it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Muhammad Omar

what??? it have engine issues?? and they were offering ToT what happened to that??

where did Altay go??? did PA cancelled Altay tank ???


----------



## Zarvan

Muhammad Omar said:


> what??? it have engine issues?? and they were offering ToT what happened to that??
> 
> where did Altay go??? did PA cancelled Altay tank ???


Altay was never supposed to come it's way to heavy for us. OPLOT M failed the first test but Ukraine promised to resolve the issue soon so OPLOT M now will return soon for summer tests and if it passes tests Pakistan will go for it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Zarvan said:


> Altay was never supposed to come it's way to heavy for us. OPLOT M failed the first test but Ukraine promised to resolve the issue soon so OPLOT M now will return soon for summer tests and if it passes tests Pakistan will go for it.



Hard to believe that Oplots engine face issues .. considering the same engine (6 TD-2) is powering all of our frontline tanks and performing wonderfully, no wonder 1500 HP engine for AK II is on the cards.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## C130

100 Oplot-M +2000 Kombat missile would be nice


----------



## Saifullah Sani

In an interview on April 20 with the Ukrainian newspaper Delovaya Stolitsa, Pakistan’s ambassador to Ukraine Athar Abbas revealed that Pakistan could buy more than 100 Oplot-M main battle tanks (MBT) from the Malyshev Factory. As per Abbas, negotiations will start once final tests are complete.
Responding to a question about Pakistan’s willingness to pursue defence ties with Ukraine, Abbas outlined that Pakistan was seeking Ukraine’s cooperation in modernizing the Pakistan Army’s armour.
Abbas noted the U.S. $600 million memorandum-of-understanding (MoU) overhaul and modernization deal signed in November during IDEAS 2016 in Karachi. He also brought up the MoU signed during IDEX 2017 in Abu Dhabi on the co-production of tank engines.
As per Ukrainian News Agency Interfax, the first set of contracts under these MoUs have also been issued – in March, Ukraine received an order to supply 88 tank sights for Pakistan’s T-80UD MBTs.
*Notes & Comments:*
The Oplot-M was one of the tanks competing for the Pakistan Army’s Haider MBT requirement, which was envisaged to help propel the Army’s armour modernization goals and support the al-Khalid MBT. Athar Abbas’ comments to Delovaya Stolitsa may indicate that the Haider program is still alive, though this has yet to be confirmed by Pakistan Army officials.
Since Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building’s (KMDB) 1,200 hp 6TD-2 engine powers Pakistan’s al-Khalid MBT (and the 1,500 hp 6TD-3 is likely the leading option for the al-Khalid 2), buying the Oplot-M would require less in terms of added maintenance, logistics and training investment compared to another platform.
The Oplot-M is a variant of the T-84, which itself is an upgrade of the T-80UD in use by Pakistan. Weighing 48 tons, the Oplot-M is powered by a KMDB 1,200 hp 6TD-2 diesel engine. It is armed with a 125 mm KBA3 smoothbore gun, which can fire anti-tank guided missiles, armour-piercing discarding sabot fin-stabilized (APDSFS) shells and high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells.
One of the Oplot-M’s differentiating features (compared to the T-80UD and T-84) is its new welded turret, which accompanies KMDB’s latest in explosive reactive armour (ERA).
Currently, Thailand is the Oplot-M’s sole export buyer. The Royal Thai Army ordered 49 Oplot-Ms in March 2011, though Ukraine’s strife with Russia resulted in several major delays, causing Bangkok to supplement its Oplot-M order with a purchase of VT-4 MBTs from China. However, the purchase was not cancelled and Thailand is in the process of receiving the Oplot-Ms from Ukraine.
http://quwa.org/2017/05/02/pakistan-may-negotiate-ukraine-100-oplot-m-main-battle-tanks/

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## wali87

It's about time we acquired a new tank platform. Need something new and cutting edge to supplement AL Khalid 2. 4th generation Era, 30hp+ power to weight ratio.. something along those lines.


----------



## Super Falcon

I think Turk ALTAY is best option derived from state of the art German and Korean technological marvel


----------



## HAIDER

WebMaster said:


> Joint production of helicopter engines?


Ukraine make engine for Mi17/Mi-28 ,Ukraine's Motor Sich plant

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Useless project if we are not aquiring Engine Tech


----------



## HAIDER

Super Falcon said:


> I think Turk ALTAY is best option derived from state of the art German and Korean technological marvel


Engine not decided yet. still in testing phase. Russian engines are best bet for PA. Cheap to maintained, not pricey. Best performance in all terrain . PA using old t55 and 62s to combat terrorism. Still going smoothly .


----------



## monitor

It's 


BetterPakistan said:


> Pakistan recently signed $600 Million deal with Ukraine for 200 engine for Al-khalid 2 and other equipment for up gradation of T-80UD and I don't think these 100 could be the upgraded one because up gradation was supposed to happen in Pakistan. I feel its Al-Haider tank.
> 
> Are you sure to Oplot-M level? I guess PA was going to upgrade T-80UD to T-84 not oplot-m level because Oplot-M weighs 51 tonnes while T-80UD and T-84 weighs 46 tonnes.




Oplot-M, uses _Duplet_ Nozh-2 reactive armor, which involves layers of knife-shape charges weights 500 KG per square meters could be reason why it's weight more then T-84U . I think all existing T-84U can upgraded to political-M series.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pzfz

Altay too heavy and expensive. Built more for the Eurasian battlefield. Basically too western. Besides the Turks have to figure out the engine issues - I'm confident they will.


----------



## tarrar

Oplot is one of the best tank & is in best top 10 tanks in the world but Oplot did fail the trials conducted by PA in Pakistan, so why is PA opting for Oplot? I believe it is maybe because after the trials Ukraine was able to fix the problems Oplot was having. What do you guys think?

I hope they come with ToT but engine might be a issue.


----------



## Army research

By getting this beast we not only get engine tech but it would be a deal sweetener for sub subsystems like the VARTA

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MIR RAZA HUSSAIN

BetterPakistan said:


> Oplot-M as al haider?
> 
> Al Khalid 2 is expected to weigh more than 52 tonnes and Oplot-M weighs 51 tonnes?? What is this? First we are going for 200 heavy weight tanks and after that again returning to lighter weight..
> 
> Oplot- M is cheaper, is this the reason for purchasing it?



Don't go on weight performance is the main key besides light weight do have advantage of agility and running easily in swamp areas

Al-Haider will be some new platform PA will not go for oplot as a AL-Haider. AL-Haider will be the most powerful tank of PA it will be superior to all the tanks available in PA arsenal

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Path-Finder

Is Turkey still seeking the 6TD engines for Altay?


----------



## IHK_PK

How can I give him a positive rating?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gryphon



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

C130 said:


> 100 Oplot-M +2000 Kombat missile would be nice


We use a modified Kombat missile (with a larger warhead) for our tanks.

UD
AK
AZ

All are capable of firing gun launched missiles.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## maximuswarrior

The Oplot-M is a good all round MBT that certainly fits our profile from a cost and value for money perspective. It is agile, has good sensors, and is well protected by active and passive defensive systems. It has a solid ammunition package. This tank will likely complement our existing fleet. For the mentioned price tag this tank offers excellent value. When we look at other tanks with similar capabilities the cost is significantly higher. I think we can expect some level of ToT. Pakistan should certainly push for as much ToT as possible, but we can expect the Ukrainians to demand a significant order. I wouldn't be surprised if we went through with the deal. It remains to be seen what the actual numbers are.



Saifullah Sani said:


> In an interview on April 20 with the Ukrainian newspaper Delovaya Stolitsa, Pakistan’s ambassador to Ukraine Athar Abbas revealed that Pakistan could buy more than 100 Oplot-M main battle tanks (MBT) from the Malyshev Factory. As per Abbas, negotiations will start once final tests are complete.
> Responding to a question about Pakistan’s willingness to pursue defence ties with Ukraine, Abbas outlined that Pakistan was seeking Ukraine’s cooperation in modernizing the Pakistan Army’s armour.
> Abbas noted the U.S. $600 million memorandum-of-understanding (MoU) overhaul and modernization deal signed in November during IDEAS 2016 in Karachi. He also brought up the MoU signed during IDEX 2017 in Abu Dhabi on the co-production of tank engines.
> As per Ukrainian News Agency Interfax, the first set of contracts under these MoUs have also been issued – in March, Ukraine received an order to supply 88 tank sights for Pakistan’s T-80UD MBTs.
> *Notes & Comments:*
> The Oplot-M was one of the tanks competing for the Pakistan Army’s Haider MBT requirement, which was envisaged to help propel the Army’s armour modernization goals and support the al-Khalid MBT. Athar Abbas’ comments to Delovaya Stolitsa may indicate that the Haider program is still alive, though this has yet to be confirmed by Pakistan Army officials.
> Since Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building’s (KMDB) 1,200 hp 6TD-2 engine powers Pakistan’s al-Khalid MBT (and the 1,500 hp 6TD-3 is likely the leading option for the al-Khalid 2), buying the Oplot-M would require less in terms of added maintenance, logistics and training investment compared to another platform.
> The Oplot-M is a variant of the T-84, which itself is an upgrade of the T-80UD in use by Pakistan. Weighing 48 tons, the Oplot-M is powered by a KMDB 1,200 hp 6TD-2 diesel engine. It is armed with a 125 mm KBA3 smoothbore gun, which can fire anti-tank guided missiles, armour-piercing discarding sabot fin-stabilized (APDSFS) shells and high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) shells.
> One of the Oplot-M’s differentiating features (compared to the T-80UD and T-84) is its new welded turret, which accompanies KMDB’s latest in explosive reactive armour (ERA).
> Currently, Thailand is the Oplot-M’s sole export buyer. The Royal Thai Army ordered 49 Oplot-Ms in March 2011, though Ukraine’s strife with Russia resulted in several major delays, causing Bangkok to supplement its Oplot-M order with a purchase of VT-4 MBTs from China. However, the purchase was not cancelled and Thailand is in the process of receiving the Oplot-Ms from Ukraine.
> http://quwa.org/2017/05/02/pakistan-may-negotiate-ukraine-100-oplot-m-main-battle-tanks/



*Since Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building’s (KMDB) 1,200 hp 6TD-2 engine powers Pakistan’s al-Khalid MBT (and the 1,500 hp 6TD-3 is likely the leading option for the al-Khalid 2), buying the Oplot-M would require less in terms of added maintenance, logistics and training investment compared to another platform.*

This reveals a lot. There is more to this potential deal than meets the eye.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## war&peace

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Collaborating on the Motor Sich MS-500V could be interesting. I'm not sure if Pakistan has any 3.5 to 6-ton helicopters in need of new engines right now. However, if Motor Sich can develop a 1,000+ kW version (they're at 800+ kW right now), then we'd have an alternative for the T-129...
> 
> http://www.motorsich.com/eng/products/aircraft/turboshaft/ms500v/


Well, if that's true, which it seems to be, at least I'm not surprised but of course really satisfied since in the recent time Pakistani military has realised the significance of helicopters and the demand will increase in future so it is very much possible that program to develop a helicopter indigenously through a blend of JVs, ToT's and co-production may have already taken a shape behind the scenes as is the case with most of the defence production programs in Pakistan. 

JF-17 (super 7) came to public knowledge at least a few years after the program was initially launched.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## _NOBODY_

If PA buys Oplot then will PA be able to integrate Chinese/Turkish ("superior") equipments on it?
@Quwa


----------



## Path-Finder

TheGreatOne said:


> If PA buys Oplot then will PA be able to integrate Chinese/Turkish ("superior") equipments on it?
> @Quwa


Yes.


----------



## Muhammad Omar

IHK_PK said:


> How can I give him a positive rating?



You can't only Mods administrators Etc can


----------



## IHK_PK

Muhammad Omar said:


> You can't only Mods administrators Etc can


Thanks. ....[emoji4]


----------



## Arsalan

Zarvan said:


> I agree but it will have to first pass tests





ssethii said:


> It's all hogwash unless based purely on merit.



As i said, when they say Pakistan may buy Oplot read 6TD-3.

From what i have heard at HIT, 6TD-3 have proven toooooo much of an attraction. Remember there is an AK-II/Al Haider program that will get a new life.

So dont be surprised if it is PASSED and 100 odd are bought along with ToT of subsystems like . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the engine! 



Horus said:


> If im not wrong, the biggest interest in Oplot is not the tank but the 6TD-3 engine because we need a locally produced 1500hp engine for AK-2 and Ukrainians won't sell the engine tot without an oplot purchase. There's absolutely no interest in using 6TD-2 engine for upcoming tanks.


 You are spot on janab!



hacker J said:


> I dun see why would they buy them anyways, they have al khalid 2 and it contains most advance technologies. Why to waste money on relativly expensive platform when you even promised semi automated secondry weapon in al khalid 3


We LOVE that engine and rightly so. If you know a bit about these things and read about this engine yoy will get an idea. 100 odd tanks will make the deal sweeter for Ukarine.

Our T80s have many same components and we are looking to upgrade those. Adding tank with parts commonality will be an added advantage.

Reactions: Like Like:
 3


----------



## Zarvan

Arsalan said:


> As i said, when they say Pakistan may buy Oplot read 6TD-3.
> 
> From what i have heard at HIT, 6TD-3 have proven toooooo much of an attraction. Remember there is an AK-II/Al Haider program that will get a new life.
> 
> So dont be surprised if it is PASSED and 100 odd are bought along with ToT of subsystems like . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the engine!
> 
> 
> You are spot on janab!


The engine was the only issue OPLOT M had during trials so testing OPLOT M again means testing the engine basically and if it fails again than we won't go for engine


----------



## Arsalan

TheGreatOne said:


> If PA buys Oplot then will PA be able to integrate Chinese/Turkish ("superior") equipments on it?
> @Quwa


But it is likely to come fully loaded as well. Lets see.



Zarvan said:


> The engine was the only issue OPLOT M had during trials so testing OPLOT M again means testing the engine basically and if it fails again than we won't go for engine


YES, that is why it was sent back. It faced some problems in hot conditions and sand/dust partical issues. However if you follow the reports and talks coming out it seems that have been fixed and the engine remains the most interesting part of OPLOT for Pakistan as there are other programs that depend on that.

As said, lets see. 
Once the engine is put through its paces again it will give us a better idea.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## CHI RULES

Penguin said:


> In what ways? IMHO the only difference being yes/no uranium armor inserts. Besides, if customers choose a certain armor or equipment level, at a certain cost, then that's their business. That's tailoring your product to customer wishes, not necessarily downgrading per se.


Sir ur statement may be right abt Iraq but what abt KSA



AZADPAKISTAN2009 said:


> Useless project if we are not aquiring Engine Tech



Actually we are acquiring as depicted from recent MOUs

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BetterPakistan

MIR RAZA HUSSAIN said:


> Don't go on weight performance is the main key besides light weight do have advantage of agility and running easily in swamp areas
> 
> Al-Haider will be some new platform PA will not go for oplot as a AL-Haider. AL-Haider will be the most powerful tank of PA it will be superior to all the tanks available in PA arsenal



BTW do you know how much Al Khalid 2 weigh?


----------



## Basel

C130 said:


> 100 Oplot-M +2000 Kombat missile would be nice



How you rate their effectiveness against Indian army?


----------



## JK!

Looking back the 1996 deal to buy T80UD tanks cost $650 million in total which resulted in 320 systems being inducted into the army.

The recent MoU signed in November 2016 for armour upgrades was $600 million so a similar investment. 

If 100 Oplot MBTs are purchased would they be included as part of this deal or is it an additional purchase?

@Path-Finder - look an example of a product sent for trial being sent back for feedback to be improved and retested to meet army requirements. I wonder if this could be done with say a rifle


----------



## Path-Finder

JK! said:


> Looking back the 1996 deal to buy T80UD tanks cost $650 million in total which resulted in 320 systems being inducted into the army.
> 
> The recent MoU signed in November 2016 for armour upgrades was $600 million so a similar investment.
> 
> If 100 Oplot MBTs are purchased would they be included as part of this deal or is it an additional purchase?
> 
> @Path-Finder - look an example of a product sent for trial being sent back for feedback to be improved and retested to meet army requirements. I wonder if this could be done with say a rifle


i think you tagged me by mistake. you are meant to tag Hazrat @Zarvan on this issue!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JK!

*Ukraine and Pakistan Move Forward With Armor Deal*

*Ukraine will supply tanks sights and overhaul the Pakistan Army’s fleet of T-80UD MBTs as part of a bilateral agreement*

*By Franz Stefan Grady *
*March 07 2017*

Ukraine and Pakistan have started implementing a bilateral agreement for the upgrade of the Pakistan Army’s T-80UD Main Battle Tank (MBT), according to Ukrainian media reports.

Ukraine’s _Interfax _news agency reveals that representatives of Ukraine’s largest state-run defense contractor have met with Pakistan defense industry officials at this year’s International Defense Exhibition and Conference (IDEX) in Abu Dhabi in late February and concluded a number of agreements.

According to two signed contracts, Ukraine is slated to supply 88 tank sights and kick off a pilot project for the overhaul of an initial batch of five Pakistan Army T-80UD MBTs, which, depending on Islamabad’s satisfaction with the upgrade work on the first five tanks, will extend to the army’s entire inventory of around 300 T-80UD MBTs

_Interfax_ reports that the implementation of the agreements has begun this month, although no details were given as to the specific timeframe of the pilot project nor a delivery date supplied for the tanks sights.

The T-80UD, an improved variant of the Soviet-made T-64 MBT, was first introduced into service with the Pakistan Army in the late 1990s in order to counter the Indian Army’s newly acquired T-90 MBT. From 1997 to 2002, Pakistan received a total of 320 tanks from Ukraine.

Unlike their Russian counterparts, the Ukrainian version is powered by a diesel engine, features a new welded turret, and is armed with the KBA3 125 millimeter smoothbore gun, a Ukrainian version of the Russian 125 millimeter 2A46M-1 cannon originally manufactured for the T-64 MBT.

Pakistan’s T-80UD tanks could be upgraded to the standards of the T-84 ‘Oplot-M’ MBT, a much improved variant of the T-84 (which in turn is an improved version of the T-80), featuring a larger turret mounting sophisticated sensors and, among other things, a panoramic thermal-imaging system.

In November 2016, Pakistan’s Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) and Ukraine’s Ukrspecexport signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) covering prospective agreements with an approximately total worth of $600 million for the modernization of Pakistan’s tank force.

Among other things, Ukraine and Pakistan agreed to the sale of 200 Kharkiv Morozov Machine Building (KMDB) 6TD-2 engines for the Pakistan Army’s al-Khalid MBT, jointly developed by Pakistan and China in the 1990s.

The Pakistan Army currently operates around 350 al-Khalid MBTs and is expected to substantially expand its MBT force in the years ahead. According to some sources, Pakistan is working on an upgraded variant of the MBT, dubbed al-Khalid II, and plans to build as many as 600 tanks of this improved variant.

Given the recent uptick in Ukraine-Pakistan defense cooperation, Ukrainian technical support for the al-Khalid II program may appear likely.

Source: http://thediplomat.com/2017/03/ukraine-and-pakistan-move-forward-with-armor-deal/

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Fledgingwings

What about Al Khalid and Al Zarrar?


----------



## MIR RAZA HUSSAIN

BetterPakistan said:


> BTW do you know how much Al Khalid 2 weigh?


its 50-51 tons


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Need to move away from Ukraine gadget .. security risk unstable country


Any day Russia will bomb the shit out of it and we will be stuck with no engines for any Tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## PAR 5

Horus said:


> If im not wrong, the biggest interest in Oplot is not the tank but the 6TD-3 engine because we need a locally produced 1500hp engine for AK-2 and Ukrainians won't sell the engine tot without an oplot purchase. There's absolutely no interest in using 6TD-2 engine for upcoming tanks.



Absolutely. HIT cannot get the 1200 HP 6TD3 engines from Ukraine to develop the AK 2. But I doubt they will buy the full OPLOT tank for just the engines


----------



## Zarvan

PAR 5 said:


> Absolutely. HIT cannot get the 1200 HP 6TD3 engines from Ukraine to develop the AK 2. But I doubt they will buy the full OPLOT tank for just the engines


They are not just buying 100 OPLOT M. 100 will be the ones which we would get from Ukraine others will be produced in Pakistan. This is part of AL HAIDER project.


----------



## Path-Finder

PAR 5 said:


> Absolutely. HIT cannot get the 1200 HP 6TD3 engines from Ukraine to develop the AK 2. But I doubt they will buy the full OPLOT tank for just the engines


6TD-3 is 1500hp


----------



## JK!

In my opinion this could be one of the most significant and important acquisitions in Pakistans armour plans. It has the potential to lay foundations that can be built upon for years to come.

Western MBTs are built with crew safety in mind. The logic being even if hit they can keep fighting whereas Russian-Soviet doctrine which to an extent China used focussed on mass numbers to overwhelm the enemy. As such these were more basic rugged machines.

The T84 Oplot despite having that legacy has built upon it.

This could be the first MBT Pakistani tankers operate with blow out panels and a separate ammunition compartment. They can have that reassurance of being in a vehicle that has crew safety in mind. When General Creighton Abrams helped design and build the Abrams MBT he commented recalling his fear in Normandy WW2 being in a Sherman tank against German Tigers the superior machine. He didn't want future generations of American tank crews to have that. What a morale boost this can be for a Pakistani tanker knowing he is an advanced machine that has features to increase his odds of survival.

The T84 Yatagan was a proposed design to be Turkeys new MBT in the early 2000s. It was tailored to Turkish Army requirements and had a NATO standard 120mm gun to fire NATO standard ammunition. It was slated to have and feature indigenous Turkish systems.

Again this is of benefit to Pakistan as if Oplot will be the Haider MBT it is a platform to bring in and become familiar with Turkish subsystems in Pakistani MBTs. The perk of having the engine brought in under ToT has been discussed already by other members.

Essentially this is just a win for a Pakistan in my opinion. The scope to bring the existing T80UD fleet up to Oplot standard. Advanced thermal sighting systems. Crew safety features that could be adopted in the rest of the MBT fleet. A platform that can adopt foreign systems like the ones from Turkey. The 1500hp engine that can become standard in Haider and AK2. 

That last point is the most important. It is why this could lay that foundation I mentioned because all this good stuff can be considered and used in designing and building Al Khalid 2.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
10


----------



## maximuswarrior

JK! said:


> In my opinion this could be one of the most significant and important acquisitions in Pakistans armour plans. It has the potential to lay foundations that can be built upon for years to come.
> 
> Western MBTs are built with crew safety in mind. The logic being even if hit they can keep fighting whereas Russian-Soviet doctrine which to an extent China used focussed on mass numbers to overwhelm the enemy. As such these were more basic rugged machines.
> 
> The T84 Oplot despite having that legacy has built upon it.
> 
> This could be the first MBT Pakistani tankers operate with blow out panels and a separate ammunition compartment. They can have that reassurance of being in a vehicle that has crew safety in mind. When General Creighton Abrams helped design and build the Abrams MBT he commented recalling his fear in Normandy WW2 being in a Sherman tank against German Tigers the superior machine. He didn't want future generations of American tank crews to have that. What a morale boost this can be for a Pakistani tanker knowing he is an advanced machine that has features to increase his odds of survival.
> 
> The T84 Yatagan was a proposed design to be Turkeys new MBT in the early 2000s. It was tailored to Turkish Army requirements and had a NATO standard 120mm gun to fire NATO standard ammunition. It was slated to have and feature indigenous Turkish systems.
> 
> Again this is of benefit to Pakistan as if Oplot will be the Haider MBT it is a platform to bring in and become familiar with Turkish subsystems in Pakistani MBTs. The perk of having the engine brought in under ToT has been discussed already by other members.
> 
> Essentially this is just a win for a Pakistan in my opinion. The scope to bring the existing T80UD fleet up to Oplot standard. Advanced thermal sighting systems. Crew safety features that could be adopted in the rest of the MBT fleet. A platform that can adopt foreign systems like the ones from Turkey. The 1500hp engine that can become standard in Haider and AK2.
> 
> That last point is the most important. It is why this could lay that foundation I mentioned because all this good stuff can be considered and used in designing and building Al Khalid 2.



Excellent post. This post explains all the benefits and wins and there are many indeed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

JK! said:


> In my opinion this could be one of the most significant and important acquisitions in Pakistans armour plans. It has the potential to lay foundations that can be built upon for years to come.
> 
> Western MBTs are built with crew safety in mind. The logic being even if hit they can keep fighting whereas Russian-Soviet doctrine which to an extent China used focussed on mass numbers to overwhelm the enemy. As such these were more basic rugged machines.
> 
> The T84 Oplot despite having that legacy has built upon it.
> 
> This could be the first MBT Pakistani tankers operate with blow out panels and a separate ammunition compartment. They can have that reassurance of being in a vehicle that has crew safety in mind. When General Creighton Abrams helped design and build the Abrams MBT he commented recalling his fear in Normandy WW2 being in a Sherman tank against German Tigers the superior machine. He didn't want future generations of American tank crews to have that. What a morale boost this can be for a Pakistani tanker knowing he is an advanced machine that has features to increase his odds of survival.
> 
> The T84 Yatagan was a proposed design to be Turkeys new MBT in the early 2000s. It was tailored to Turkish Army requirements and had a NATO standard 120mm gun to fire NATO standard ammunition. It was slated to have and feature indigenous Turkish systems.
> 
> Again this is of benefit to Pakistan as if Oplot will be the Haider MBT it is a platform to bring in and become familiar with Turkish subsystems in Pakistani MBTs. The perk of having the engine brought in under ToT has been discussed already by other members.
> 
> Essentially this is just a win for a Pakistan in my opinion. The scope to bring the existing T80UD fleet up to Oplot standard. Advanced thermal sighting systems. Crew safety features that could be adopted in the rest of the MBT fleet. A platform that can adopt foreign systems like the ones from Turkey. The 1500hp engine that can become standard in Haider and AK2.
> 
> That last point is the most important. It is why this could lay that foundation I mentioned because all this good stuff can be considered and used in designing and building Al Khalid 2.


You explained it very well, thank you. 

Plus the Oplot deal will not only give us access to the engine and will help the modernization drive of 300 odd T80s, it will also spark a new life in Al Haider project as the 100 tanks are likely to be followed with Al Haider tanks. The AK-II and Al Haider projects are quite stagnant as of now and this deal could get the ball rolling again. 

OPLOT is a good tank but what it brings in much more important and significant than the tank itself as the benefits are multi-dimensional. From T80 upgrade facilitation to a modern tank technology for better crew safety to a new power pack that can become the life line of our future tank projects.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## BetterPakistan

MIR RAZA HUSSAIN said:


> its 50-51 tons



Al Haider also weigh 51 tonnes


----------



## Path-Finder

320 T80UD brought up to Oplot standard + 100 Oplot = 420 Oplot tanks.


----------



## JK!

Path-Finder said:


> 320 T80UD brought up to Oplot standard + 100 Oplot = 420 Oplot tanks.



Deal includes 200 engines for more Al Khalid MBTs too. So going to be near 550 to 600 Al Khalids in the future.

If India is deploying 1000 odd T90s to its Eastern border for CSD then Pakistan is going to have a good shield up in place in terms of armoured divisions.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Super Falcon

Pakistan should induct Altay Oplot ALKHALID etc and buy good air cover for these beasts in air defencive


----------



## ghazi52

Excellent post.


----------



## Fawadqasim1

why is chinese t99 out of this race is it it's weight or china is not offering it to pakistan?


----------



## BetterPakistan

Fawadqasim1 said:


> why is chinese t99 out of this race is it it's weight or china is not offering it to pakistan?



Pakistan was interested in vt-4 as Al Haider tank and VT-4 possess lots of qualities of type 99a2


----------



## monitor

BetterPakistan said:


> Pakistan was interested in vt-4 as Al Haider tank and VT-4 possess lots of qualities of type 99a2



Vt-4 was developed for export customer based on MBT-3000 on the other hand Type-99A2 is for Chinese Army . Pakistan probably based Al Haider on Type-99A2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ziaulislam

i f the deal involves 100% tot for engine/licence production than its a good deal(as all future mbt will need an engine we dont have)


----------



## JK!

@Glavcom is there any further news or information from Ukrainian media or sources about all this?

We need you to be inside man dude!


----------



## CrusherChamp

monitor said:


> Vt-4 was developed for export customer based on MBT-3000 on the other hand Type-99A2 is for Chinese Army . Pakistan probably based Al Haider on Type-99A2.


This vdo shows these tech r in indian arjum MBT is that wright


----------



## Hassan Guy

Though the Oplot-M is probably a really good, if we are going to import tanks then you might as well do it from Germany instead.


----------



## CrusherChamp

Hassan Guy said:


> Though the Oplot-M is probably a really good, if we are going to import tanks then you might as well do it from Germany instead.


Do u think germany will offer it with a compleat technology transfer.......


----------



## niaz

Understand German Economic Ministry has to approve arms exports in accordance with the political guidelines. The guideline also set down that German arms are not to be exported to "Conflict" zones. However in case of “Special foreign and security interests” approval may be granted.

It is evident that political considerations play an important part. In case of Pakistan, export of small arms such as rifles and anti-tank missiles, or non-lethal military transport would face no problem but high value items such as tanks would probably need to clear political hurdles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Super Falcon

We should not go for oplot or use oplot as smaller tank unit for desert use but as a main battle heavy tank we need ALTAY main battle tank which have power of leopard tand and less maintenance of South Korean panther tank Program

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Fieldmarshal

Oplot is coming in for tests along with vt4 n t90 within the next two months n in all probability end of this month.....nothing has been selected let alone finalised, all news saying otherwise is just wishful thinking.
On a side note the chances of selecting the oplot by PA r the least compared to the other tanks due to the poor record of the Ukrainians across the board....so unless they offer something very significant oplot is out.
An other western engine is the front runner for AK2

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Fieldmarshal said:


> Oplot is coming in for tests along with vt4 n t90 within the next two months n in all probability end of this month.....nothing has been selected let alone finalised, all news saying otherwise is just wishful thinking.
> On a side note the chances of selecting the oplot by PA r the least compared to the other tanks due to the poor record of the Ukrainians across the board....so unless they offer something very significant oplot is out.
> An other western engine is the front runner for AK2


western engine ? german or SKs new 1500hp'[technically not western].


----------



## Hassan Guy

Fieldmarshal said:


> Oplot is coming in for tests along with vt4 n t90 within the next two months n in all probability end of this month.....nothing has been selected let alone finalised, all news saying otherwise is just wishful thinking.
> On a side note the chances of selecting the oplot by PA r the least compared to the other tanks due to the poor record of the Ukrainians across the board....so unless they offer something very significant oplot is out.
> An other western engine is the front runner for AK2


completely wrong man

The entire tank force of the army runs on Ukrainian engines (T-80UD, AK)
They've been in service for a long time now and are powerful, durable and work in tough conditions. Even Turkey is considering Ukrainian engines for its tanks.
They've been willing to sell engines to Pakistan and are now agreeing to co-production for tank engines.
The problem Ukraine has is not their tanks or technology (the Oplot-M is a very good tank), the problem is with Ukraine being able to produce them for export. They've barely been able to sell 50 to thailand.
If Pakistan does go for the Oplot-M, there better be some joint production otherwise they wont be coming.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Gryphon

*Taming the beast: Ukraine showcases new Oplot tanks (Video)*

Economy
16:23, 28 May 2017

Director of the Defense Express consulting firm Serhiy Zgurets has posted footage showcasing the technical capabilities of the Ukrainian-made Oplot main battle tank.






_MBT Oplot is a development of Kharkiv's Malyshev plant / Photo from UNIAN_

"Kharkiv-based Malyshev plant, Ukraine, continues fulfilling a contract to supply new Oplot tanks to Thailand!" he wrote on Facebook on Sunday, May 28.

"This footage features both the plant's workshop with the next batch of Oplot tanks for the Thai army. And the one "Pakistani" Oplot that is getting ready to fight a tank battle for a new contract," he said.






As UNIAN reported, chief engineer at Kharkiv-based Malyshev Plant Oleksandr Sheiko announced on May 25 that a new batch of the Ukrainian-made Oplot main battle tanks would be supplied under a contract to Thailand the following week.

Taming the beast: Ukraine showcases new Oplot tanks (Video) | unian.info

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Gryphon

Main battle tank T-84 Oplot-P for Pakistan

































































































Thanks to @Glavcom for the pics.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## bananarepublic

Does this mean Pakistan has opted for oplot tank


TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> Main battle tank T-84 Oplot-P for Pakistan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to @Glavcom for the pics.


----------



## KN-1

Pakistan should not buy whole tank, we should only buy parts which we can't produce on our own, like engines with complete ToT.


----------



## Arsalan

KN-1 said:


> Pakistan should not buy whole tank, we should only buy parts which we can't produce on our own, like engines with complete ToT.


May be its about a need to make the deal for multiple engines sweeter by going for some tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## KN-1

Arsalan said:


> May be its about a need to make the deal for multiple engines sweeter by going for some tanks.



if its happens it will be good for local industry.


----------



## Muhammad Omar

So we are getting 100?? will Army increase the order??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

News article with video of the Oplot-P. Apparently the plant workers told the media that the tank is for Pakistan.

https://kh.depo.ua/rus/kh/harkivski...ovi-yakosti-novogo-tanku-oplot-20170623594415

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Hassan Guy

Ukraine itself is only plans on buying around 10 oplot-m tanks next year. 

http://defence-blog.com/army/ukraine-to-buy-10-new-oplot-main-battle-tanks-in-2018.html


----------



## Zarvan

Fieldmarshal said:


> Oplot is coming in for tests along with vt4 n t90 within the next two months n in all probability end of this month.....nothing has been selected let alone finalised, all news saying otherwise is just wishful thinking.
> On a side note the chances of selecting the oplot by PA r the least compared to the other tanks due to the poor record of the Ukrainians across the board....so unless they offer something very significant oplot is out.
> An other western engine is the front runner for AK2


I can assure you OPLOT has most chances not only we are getting the engines from them but also we are quite satisfied with them. Yes they failed to meet orders of many countries but we are getting Tank with TOT and we plan to produce them in Pakistan.

@Tipu7 @WarFariX


----------



## Zarvan

Super Falcon said:


> We should not go for oplot or use oplot as smaller tank unit for desert use but as a main battle heavy tank we need ALTAY main battle tank which have power of leopard tand and less maintenance of South Korean panther tank Program


Altay is way to heavy thus difficult to transport


----------



## Zarvan

I am tagging two people @Tipu7 @WarFariX

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Path-Finder

Zarvan said:


> I am tagging two people @Tipu7 @WarFariX


What for Hazrat? do they have sources?


----------



## Zarvan

Path-Finder said:


> What for Hazrat? do they have sources?


No they asked me members of my facebook group


----------



## Tipu7

Compare both versions head on.
1: Oplot M
2: Oplot P











Most obvious visual difference is add on armor in front of Turret, side armor on hull and lack of Varta APS in second unit.

I wonder what type of engine Oplot P will be using. Hopefully 6TD3 diesel engine with 1500 HP out put.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Path-Finder

Tipu7 said:


> Compare both versions head on.
> 1: Oplot M
> 2: Oplot P
> 
> View attachment 406758
> View attachment 406760
> 
> 
> 
> Most obvious visual difference is add on armor in front of Turret, side armor on hull and lack of Varta APS in second unit.
> 
> I wonder what type of engine Oplot P will be using. Hopefully 6TD3 diesel engine with 1500 HP out put.


can/will the electronics be Turkish?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## monitor

Tipu7 said:


> Compare both versions head on.
> 1: Oplot M
> 2: Oplot P
> 
> View attachment 406758
> View attachment 406760
> 
> 
> 
> Most obvious visual difference is add on armor in front of Turret, side armor on hull and lack of Varta APS in second unit.
> 
> I wonder what type of engine Oplot P will be using. Hopefully 6TD3 diesel engine with 1500 HP out put.


Why varta APS is absent? Whither Pakistan will use other APS?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Tipu7

Path-Finder said:


> can/will the electronics be Turkish?


Turkish / French.
It's safe to assume that Aselsan will be actively involved in Oplot P / Al Haider project too as they are participating in AK2 project also. Aselsan C4ISR related products are promising. Who knows we go for similar electronic package for both Ak2 & AH for system commonality.

Akkor or Varta will not be coming however.



monitor said:


> Why varta APS is absent? Whither Pakistan will use other APS?


APS/PPS tech is yet to mature.
In Pakistan threat environment where we intend to use our modern MBTs in tank vs tank combat, untested, expensive & unreliable systems have little role to play.
It's better to have better armor for better protection instead of installing soft kill / hard kill protection systems.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Path-Finder

Tipu7 said:


> Turkish / French.
> It's safe to assume that Aselsan will be actively involved in Oplot P / Al Haider project too as they are participating in AK2 project also. Aselsan C4ISR related products are promising. Who knows we go for similar electronic package for both Ak2 & AH for system commonality.
> 
> Akkor or Varta will not be coming however.
> 
> 
> APS/PPS tech is yet to mature.
> In Pakistan threat environment where we intend to use our modern MBTs in tank vs tank combat, untested, expensive & unreliable systems have little role to play.
> It's better to have better armor for better protection instead of installing soft kill / hard kill protection systems.


but the entire world is moving towards APS systems and neither Akkor or Varta will be placed on the tanks? that is strange!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

Path-Finder said:


> but the entire world is moving towards APS systems and neither Akkor or Varta will be placed on the tanks? that is strange!



Didn't Pakistan has been working on their own Domestic APS ? i remember i read it here on AK thread

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Path-Finder

Starlord said:


> Didn't Pakistan has been working on their own Domestic APS ? i remember i read it here on AK thread


That is news to me, all i know is possibly varta was going to be placed on the tank!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## YeBeWarned

Path-Finder said:


> That is news to me, all i know is possibly varta was going to be placed on the tank!



I was looking but i will again look to confirm , but its not confirmed that PA is working of domestic APS system ..
but lets say they are not for now, Turkish are already offering us help to integrate systems in to possible future AK-2 , but i wonder which APS system Ukraine is using in their own Oplot's ?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Zarvan said:


> Altay is way to heavy thus difficult to transport



Altay weigh 65 Tons while Our Army Trucks can carry 70 tons weight easily 
so weight won't be an issue

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## SQ8

Muhammad Omar said:


> Altay weigh 65 Tons while Our Army Trucks can carry 70 tons weight easily
> so weight won't be an issue
> 
> View attachment 406772


Weight means being able to use existing infrastructure and bridges along with ability to cross boggy areas

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cabatli_53

Zarvan said:


> Altay is way to heavy thus difficult to transport



Altay (~65t) and AHT version (~70t) (Asymmetric Warfare Tank)





In terms of transportation, Altay (63-65t) and Oplet-P (~51-55t) doesn't make much differences since Both tanks will be carried by military transportation truck having a trailer capacity of ~70t weight in additions to railway networks. I think It is terrain profile of countries designating the weight of tanks required. Turkey has both large flats in Central Anatolia region along with mountainous regions on North/South/East and West so Turkish Army requires heavy weight/protected 65t class tanks, ~70t class AHT more heavily protected tanks carrying advanced 360 degree surveillance sensor/self protection unit for urban warfare, along with 30-35t heavy armored IFV units to be able to fight next to mentioned heavy class tanks to benefit mobility issues/smaller caliber advantages of IFV's on rough/flat terrains. I think Pakistan will also update the requirements in accordance with power projection and needs of latest battlefield environment that lessons taken from latest Syria urban tank fights and ATGM effectiveness against classic tanks having no active protection systems/advanced heavy protection units. Otherwise, A few terrorist with a comparatively cheap ATGM in their hands will keep wasting million $ tanks operated by 3-4 crew inside so It is protection level which should be considered vital to survive/surpass instead of transporting issues. Almost all latest generation tanks are being unveiled with their heavier weight than older generations. It is because of the developments on latest armor technology doesn't catch developments/penetration capabilities of warhead technology so Engineers sacrifice the mobility issues to protect the tank and crew. Until Hard-kill systems mature enough to reach a proper/superior reaction time to hunt the fastest anti-tank missiles fired from very close ranges, The countries would drive heavier monsters on field. 

Leopard-2 Urban version (~70t)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Oscar said:


> Weight means being able to use existing infrastructure and bridges along with ability to cross boggy areas



So we don't have infrastructure to support Altay Tank???


----------



## SQ8

Muhammad Omar said:


> So we don't have infrastructure to support Altay Tank???


Not a correct statement. We do, but what the Altay was built for and costs we don't have a cost effective need for.
Essentially, we need mobile forces to counter Indias Mobile forces. Almost like mass dances over the desert because anywhere else we have trench and bunker warfare all along LoC and Punjab. There it is steamroller dig, hold and move warfare, while the actual territory grab is in Thar and lower Sindh as the Indians did in 71(most of it is tradh desert but has strategic mobility value)

There we need forces capable of rapid pincers and flanks with hit and run capability- that is where tanks like our T-80 and Ak flying at high speed in the desert are at ther best. The same goes for Indian T-90s and BMps; their forces are more capable at moving combined forces as compared to ours but have range issues that our apcs do not.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

From 2014, this was Ukraine's proposal for a future MBT. Most of the subsystems have been developed or are nearing completion, e.g. 6TD-3 engine, Zaslon APS, etc. The main thing that has yet to be seen is the arrow-welded turret (which looks like that of the K2 Black Panther). Otherwise, this seems to be pretty close to what the Pakistan Army is imagining for the al-Khalid 2 (minus APS?).






@TheOccupiedKashmir @Oscar @Arsalan

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## pzfz

eastern/soviet design derived tanks desperately need a protected turret mantlet like the one shown on the future MBT. The oplot does not have it, neither do any of the Sino tanks.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

*Pakistan Likely To Test Ukrainian Oplot MBT*







Oplot Main Battler Tank (Image: Ukroboronprom)


Ukraine’s Oplot main battle tank which will soon be taken into service by the country’s army is likely to be tested by Pakistan.

Ukrainian news portal, Depo.Harkov stated citing Malyshev Plantlast week that the recently rolled out MBT is set for delivery to Pakistan.

Oplot is to be taken into service by the Ukrainian Army, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynov stated during his visit to UKROBORONPROM SE ”Malyshev Plant.

“Today, the whole line of Ukrainian tanks is manufactured at the plant, including the best domestic tank “Oplot “, which – due to its high cost – is produced only under export contracts. Ukrainian troops are to have these tanks to reliably protect our country” -said Oleksandr Turchynov.

He added that the new State Defense Order 2018 must necessarily provide for the delivery of “Oplot” tanks to the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

“The State Concern” UkrOboronProm” established batch production of “Oplot” tanks. This product is the result of Ukraine’s national production: 100+ domestic enterprises are involved in the production of these tanks. Such an order will allow to equip the Army with powerful armored vehicles, providing work for the enterprises, “- stressed UKROBORONPROM (UOP) representatives.

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/19696/Pakistan_Likely_To_Test_Ukrainian_Oplot_MBT#.WVODU5DytPY


----------



## imranyounus

to day on FB I read an artical where they pointed to the MBT as Oplot P so why dont we call it sa same


----------



## Arsalan

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> From 2014, this was Ukraine's proposal for a future MBT. Most of the subsystems have been developed or are nearing completion, e.g. 6TD-3 engine, Zaslon APS, etc. The main thing that has yet to be seen is the arrow-welded turret (which looks like that of the K2 Black Panther). Otherwise, this seems to be pretty close to what the Pakistan Army is imagining for the al-Khalid 2 (minus APS?).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @TheOccupiedKashmir @Oscar @Arsalan


You know what i WANT for the future MBT of Pakistan. I know we are not to indulge in speculation but what we have discussed in the past is quite realistic and do-able. Still i wish list however. Lets just hope they can think of it or something even better.


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

Arsalan said:


> You know what i WANT for the future MBT of Pakistan. I know we are not to indulge in speculation but what we have discussed in the past is quite realistic and do-able. Still i wish list however. Lets just hope they can think of it or something even better.


Keep watching the video. You'll see the Future IFV platform. I suspect the FMBT and FIFV are derived from the baseline. Just throw in a tracked SPH and you have a family.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Arsalan

Muhammad Omar said:


> So we don't have infrastructure to support Altay Tank???


NI bahi, UNN WALAY bridges and fly overs mein rait bajri puri ni dali gai kabhi bhe 

On a serious note, it is more about a mix of number things that will factor in and which make a heavy tank not suitable for us. 



Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> Keep watching the video. You'll see the Future IFV platform. I suspect the FMBT and FIFV are derived from the baseline. Just throw in a tracked SPH and you have a family.


The problem is,

ARE THE AUTHORITIES LOOKING AT IT FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE AS WELL. 

Let us hope they are!


----------



## Muhammad Omar

Is Pakistan getting this version?





__ https://www.facebook.com/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gryphon

*Secretary defence visits Ukraine to attend meeting*

ISLAMABAD: Secretary Defense Lt Gen Zamir ul Hassan Shah (retd) is on an official visit to Ukraine in order to attend the second meeting of joint commission on military and defense production fields. 

Secretary Defense has also visited the defense industry of Ukraine. He mentioned that Pakistan values its relations with Ukraine and believes that the relationship will strengthen with the passage of time, says a press release issued here on Wednesday.—PR 

http://epaper.brecorder.com/2017/07/06/2-page/886918-news.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Muhammad Omar

TheOccupiedKashmir said:


> *Secretary defence visits Ukraine to attend meeting*
> 
> ISLAMABAD: Secretary Defense Lt Gen Zamir ul Hassan Shah (retd) is on an official visit to Ukraine in order to attend the second meeting of joint commission on military and defense production fields.
> 
> Secretary Defense has also visited the defense industry of Ukraine. He mentioned that Pakistan values its relations with Ukraine and believes that the relationship will strengthen with the passage of time, says a press release issued here on Wednesday.—PR
> 
> http://epaper.brecorder.com/2017/07/06/2-page/886918-news.html



If let say Oplot-P is selected by Pakistan will Pakistan produce them locally as well???


----------



## Mitho1980

What more does oplot offer than our current mbt? Or Chinese current mbt?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## The SC

Mitho1980 said:


> What more does oplot offer than our current mbt? Or Chinese current mbt?



- It can accurately destroy tanks and planes flying at low altitudes. And provide a high protection system for the crew






- Armour can be added around the cabin
- A built-in protection system with passive shield
- A 125-mm Caliber cannon, 46-mm artillery shells with automatic feed system
- A 12.7 mm sub-machine gun with 450 rounds
- A 7.62 mm machine gun with 1250 rounds

- The cannon can fire laser-guided missiles against tanks and aircraft
- The missile range is 5 km

- The Oplot-M can hit fixed and moving targets with the same precision
- A television cameras and thermal night-time/day-time
- A modern fire control system and a panoramic view with thermal vision for the leader






- It also has an early warning system and a laser-guided missile jamming system
- A smoke curtain and an infrared grill system
- And a mine detection system






- Speed is 70 km
- Range 500 km without refueling

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## alimobin memon

When will homming missiles be added on tanks. Since they fire ATGM a infrared seeker missile should be present with 3 to 4 km range for greater probability of small aircraft like heli.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mitho1980

Good are we getting tot or just 100 tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

I don't see a future for this, Ukraine is in a terrible state.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## The SC

Pakistan is buying the Oplot because PA wants ToT for some very specific tech that Pakistan will only get if PA buys some off-the shelf tanks, so it is paying for the MBTs as well as for some ToT.. and this might go further to local production.. the Engine ToT will be a good addition too..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakikat ve Hikmet

waz said:


> I don't see a future for this, Ukraine is in a terrible state.


Please don't discount a country and her people when they are in terrible states!!! Rather, that's the right time to build some lasting relationships!!! After the collapse of the USSR, things were really tough in many of the former republics. Some couldn't even pay their public servants. _Rahmetli_ Presidents Turgut Ozal and Suleyman Demirel went all out to help them out as much as possible, and also encouraged the NGOs and the common folks to do so. They sent free wheat etc. And, they asked the Turkish research institutes and universities to hire their professors specially in the fields of science and technologies related to defense fields. Turkey today is reaping some fruits of their efforts!!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

HAKIKAT said:


> Please don't discount a country and her people when they are in terrible states!!! Rather, that's the right time to build some lasting relationships!!! After the collapse of the USSR, things were really tough in many of the former republics. Some couldn't even pay their public servants. _Rahmetli_ Presidents Turgut Ozal and Suleyman Demirel went all out to help them out as much as possible, and also encouraged the NGOs and the common folks to do so. They sent free wheat etc. And, they asked the Turkish research institutes and universities to hire their professors specially in the fields of science and technologies related to defense fields. Turkey today is reaping some fruits of their efforts!!!!



I agree with what you say and I'm all for keeping strong relations, but thinking pragmatically (delivery, production, design) Pakistan needs an urgent replacement for an ageing tank fleet, and this idea is not productive. Pakistan is best going for a good Chinese option and looking at the Altay.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Incog_nito

better to get license to produce @ HIT.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ashok321

Ukraine in talks to sell Pakistan 100 tanks








WARSAW, Poland — Ukraine is negotiating the sale of 100 T-84 Oplot main battle tanks to Pakistan, and plans to use the funds to modernize the production capacities of its state-owned defense industry and invest in research and development, according to daily Gazeta Wyborcza.

The potential deal, which is to be handed to Ukraine defense group Ukroboronprom, would mark another export contract for the supply of the tanks following a deal signed in 2011 with Thailand. Bangkok is to obtain a total of 49 Oplots.

In the 1990s, the Ukrainian defense industry supplied 320 T-84UD tanks to Pakistan’s military under a deal worth some $600 million.



In addition to export sales, Ukroboronprom is also producing Oplots for the country’s armed forces. Last month, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced that more than 300 million hryvnia (U.S. $12 million) will be allocated to acquire an undisclosed number of tanks for the Ukrainian land forces.

A “lion’s share of the money” will be allocated to purchase Oplots “so that our soldiers can effectively fight,” Poroshenko said in a statement by Ukroboronprom. The Ukrainian military is combating Russia-backed insurgents in the country’s east. In March 2014, Moscow annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.

The Oplot has a weight of some 51 ton. The tank can carry a crew of three, and it is enabled with a maximum speed of 70 kph, according to data from Ukroboronprom. The Oplot is produced by the group’s subsidiary Malyshev at its plant in Kharkiv.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## flamer84

ashok321 said:


> Ukraine in talks to sell Pakistan 100 tanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WARSAW, Poland — Ukraine is negotiating the sale of 100 T-84 Oplot main battle tanks to Pakistan, and plans to use the funds to modernize the production capacities of its state-owned defense industry and invest in research and development, according to daily Gazeta Wyborcza.
> 
> The potential deal, which is to be handed to Ukraine defense group Ukroboronprom, would mark another export contract for the supply of the tanks following a deal signed in 2011 with Thailand. Bangkok is to obtain a total of 49 Oplots.
> 
> In the 1990s, the Ukrainian defense industry supplied 320 T-84UD tanks to Pakistan’s military under a deal worth some $600 million.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to export sales, Ukroboronprom is also producing Oplots for the country’s armed forces. Last month, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko announced that more than 300 million hryvnia (U.S. $12 million) will be allocated to acquire an undisclosed number of tanks for the Ukrainian land forces.
> 
> A “lion’s share of the money” will be allocated to purchase Oplots “so that our soldiers can effectively fight,” Poroshenko said in a statement by Ukroboronprom. The Ukrainian military is combating Russia-backed insurgents in the country’s east. In March 2014, Moscow annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula.
> 
> The Oplot has a weight of some 51 ton. The tank can carry a crew of three, and it is enabled with a maximum speed of 70 kph, according to data from Ukroboronprom. The Oplot is produced by the group’s subsidiary Malyshev at its plant in Kharkiv.


Ukraine allocates 12million to acquire tanks? How many are they getting, ? 2 and a half?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## bananarepublic

flamer84 said:


> Ukraine allocates 12million to acquire tanks? How many are they getting, ? 2 and a half?


maybe three if they get a discount.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Signalian

Muhammad Omar said:


> Altay weigh 65 Tons while Our Army Trucks can carry 70 tons weight easily
> so weight won't be an issue
> 
> View attachment 406772



Thats 70 ton for tank + truck with its trailer on a bridge. It doesnt necessarily mean that the trailer is capable of carrying a 65 Ton tank.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

100 Tanks is a modest Order we are better off getting the transport planes from them instead of tanks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

Fieldmarshal said:


> Oplot-M is comming back for trials in June or July 2017
> Along with VT 4
> According to the manufacturers the faults identified by PA in both the tanks have been fixed.


Any new report about retrial of Oplot-M tank ....??

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## Ahmet Pasha

No we pretty much selected the Chinese VT-4


HRK said:


> Any new report about retrial of Oplot-M tank ....??


----------



## Cookie Monster

Ahmet Pasha said:


> No we pretty much selected the Chinese VT-4


Last I saw somewhere on PDF...no new tanks are coming...at least not foreign tanks. Al-Khalid II is supposedly going to be the new tank. Personally though I love the look of Oplot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HRK

- No news of retrial of Oplot-M in Pakistan
- VT-4 clear the second trials but no official announcement for its induction in Pakistan Army is made till to date

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## PAR 5

You cannot buy and induct anything major unless your pockets are full. Today, major purchases like OPLOT P or VT-4 are out of question thanks to Pakistan’s busted image and economy

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bilal Khan (Quwa)

HRK said:


> - No news of retrial of Oplot-M in Pakistan
> - VT-4 clear the second trials but no official announcement for its induction in Pakistan Army is made till to date


NORINCO was telling some folks at IDEAS 2018 that it won the bid, but it didn't get any orders. So, it makes me wonder, were those tank trials a rouse to gather performance info for AK2 tests?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## HRK

Bilal Khan (Quwa) said:


> were those tank trials a rouse to gather performance info for AK2 tests?


one of the possibility if we keep PK-18 and PK-21 example in mind ....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## M.AsfandYar

HRK said:


> one of the possibility if we keep PK-18 and PK-21 example in mind ....


Would you explain a bit more about those? For those who dont know.


----------



## HRK

M.AsfandYar said:


> Would you explain a bit more about those? For those who dont know.


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/pk-1...k-21-ak-103-and-pk-10-are-way-forward.640913/

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------

