What's new

Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool

DeusExAstra

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Jul 28, 2021
26
0
27
Country
Russian Federation
Location
Russian Federation
Hello! Some time ago drew attention to the ERA protection of AK-1 tank, so I have some questions with the identification of the type of ERA protection on the AK-1, could anyone to clarify these nuances?:

1) This ERA protection looks a bit close to FY-1 and FY-2, so Is it possible to consider it for, for example, FY-2 in it's origin?

2) As far as I understand, it has some influence on the APFSDS, is it possible to evaluate the protection it provides? Approximately КОНТАКТ-5 ERA, about 10-15% reducing penetration level?

3) Is there any information about it's internal schema? As far as I understand, a metal throwing plate is used, but what it's thickness, compared to КОНТАКТ-5 ERA, for example? Since I suggested some common with FY-1 or FY-2 ERA, thickness of the block is within 28-35mm, I suppose?
 

iLION12345_1

SENIOR MEMBER
May 1, 2016
2,142
14
6,622
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Hello! Some time ago drew attention to the ERA protection of AK-1 tank, so I have some questions with the identification of the type of ERA protection on the AK-1, could anyone to clarify these nuances?:

1) This ERA protection looks a bit close to FY-1 and FY-2, so Is it possible to consider it for, for example, FY-2 in it's origin?

2) As far as I understand, it has some influence on the APFSDS, is it possible to evaluate the protection it provides? Approximately КОНТАКТ-5 ERA, about 10-15% reducing penetration level?

3) Is there any information about it's internal schema? As far as I understand, a metal throwing plate is used, but what it's thickness, compared to КОНТАКТ-5 ERA, for example? Since I suggested some common with FY-1 or FY-2 ERA, thickness of the block is within 28-35mm, I suppose?
The ERA is Pakistani AORAK. It is a locally improved version of FY-2 made by Dr. AQ Khan research labs and NDC. Yes, It apparently reduces the penetration of KE rounds. but I’ve never seen any official source to back that up, I’ve only seen official sources talk about it effecting the performance of CE rounds and not KE. However there may have been upgrades/changes in it during its service to change that, it wouldn’t be entirely unbelievable because if it was too much worst than K-5, then PA wouldn’t have opted for it, they did have access to K-5 while making AK. However weight constraints may also have been a factor.

Most of the information on it is lost to time unfortunately, it’s likely better in performance to FY-2, but by how much, I don’t know, either way, it’s in need of an upgrade, and the ERA coverage is more of an issue than the ERA itself.

it’s set up a few different ways, either single or double stacked on both turret and hull (usually only single bricks are seen on service tanks, I’ve only ever seen double on early tanks or display models, I assume weight plays a part here as the engine is not too strong, either way, we know it can be double or single stacked as needed for improved performance).

There aren’t really any protection numbers for it available, but dimensions are as follows;

The Dr AQ Khan Research Laboratories, well known for the design, development and production of missile and rocket systems, have developed the AORAK Mk 1 explosive reactive armour (ERA) system to improve the combat survivability of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles against attack from Chemical Energy (CE) projectiles.
So far, the Dr AQ Khan Research Laboratories have developed three different sizes of ERA modules to meet different user requirements.
They are known as Type A, B and C and differ only in their size. Each module consists of two thin steel plates between which the explosive is inserted. This in turn is inserted in a box which is then bolted on to the hull or turret of the vehicle.
Efforts have also been made to reduce the risk of accidental detonation of the ERA modules by small arms fire, shell fragments and lightning strikes as well as reducing the sympathetic detonation of surrounding ERA modules.
This armour system is claimed to have a shelf-life of 10 years and an operational temperature range of -40 to +52 º C.


Specifications

Type A
Type B
Type C

Size
305 × 305 mm
229 × 229 mm
152 × 152 mm

Weight
16 kg
9 kg
8 kg

Weight of explosive sheet
1.2 kg
0.75 kg
0.35 kg
 

DeusExAstra

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Jul 28, 2021
26
0
27
Country
Russian Federation
Location
Russian Federation
The ERA is Pakistani AORAK. It is a locally improved version of FY-2 made by Dr. AQ Khan research labs and NDC. Yes, It apparently reduces the penetration of KE rounds. but I’ve never seen any official source to back that up, I’ve only seen official sources talk about it effecting the performance of CE rounds and not KE. However there may have been upgrades/changes in it during its service to change that, it wouldn’t be entirely unbelievable because if it was too much worst than K-5, then PA wouldn’t have opted for it, they did have access to K-5 while making AK. However weight constraints may also have been a factor.

Most of the information on it is lost to time unfortunately, it’s likely better in performance to FY-2, but by how much, I don’t know, either way, it’s in need of an upgrade, and the ERA coverage is more of an issue than the ERA itself.

it’s set up a few different ways, either single or double stacked on both turret and hull (usually only single bricks are seen on service tanks, I’ve only ever seen double on early tanks or display models, I assume weight plays a part here as the engine is not too strong, either way, we know it can be double or single stacked as needed for improved performance).

There aren’t really any protection numbers for it available, but dimensions are as follows;

The Dr AQ Khan Research Laboratories, well known for the design, development and production of missile and rocket systems, have developed the AORAK Mk 1 explosive reactive armour (ERA) system to improve the combat survivability of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles against attack from Chemical Energy (CE) projectiles.
So far, the Dr AQ Khan Research Laboratories have developed three different sizes of ERA modules to meet different user requirements.
They are known as Type A, B and C and differ only in their size. Each module consists of two thin steel plates between which the explosive is inserted. This in turn is inserted in a box which is then bolted on to the hull or turret of the vehicle.
Efforts have also been made to reduce the risk of accidental detonation of the ERA modules by small arms fire, shell fragments and lightning strikes as well as reducing the sympathetic detonation of surrounding ERA modules.
This armour system is claimed to have a shelf-life of 10 years and an operational temperature range of -40 to +52 º C.


Specifications

Type A
Type B
Type C

Size
305 × 305 mm
229 × 229 mm
152 × 152 mm

Weight
16 kg
9 kg
8 kg

Weight of explosive sheet
1.2 kg
0.75 kg
0.35 kg
Thank you for the clarification! It must be assumed, according to GJB 2336A "Specifications for reactive armor", if FY-4 ERA is able to reduce 600mm armor piercing shot about 30%
1643121886218.png

Then, I guess, AORAK throwing plate (at least in type A ERA) should be approximately ~16mm and it will be able to reduce level for ~20% against APFSDS like 3БМ32, DM33, and so on level
 

iLION12345_1

SENIOR MEMBER
May 1, 2016
2,142
14
6,622
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Thank you for the clarification! It must be assumed, according to GJB 2336A "Specifications for reactive armor", if FY-4 ERA is able to reduce 600mm armor piercing shot about 30%

Then, I guess, AORAK throwing plate (at least in type A ERA) should be approximately ~16mm and it will be able to reduce level for ~20% against APFSDS like 3БМ32, DM33, and so on level
According to some Chinese sources, new version of FY4 reduces penetration of BTA-4 APFSDS (600MM penetration) by 40% or 250MM. However some other sources also say 30% for same ammo, apparently there is a difference in the versions of FY4 here due to thickness.

But yes, that 20% maybe safe assumption for AORAK in case of older ammo. Maybe slightly less potent against BM42, but still better than nothing. Pakistans main adversary (india), only uses BM42 or BM-17 APFSDS.

11A891D6-4390-4CF1-8DC2-9C6E5484E26C.jpeg


Here is Aorak when double stacked. Or maybe that is ERA frame, but if it is a frame that would be weird because usually it’s mounted without frame. So I assume it’s double stacked ERA.
84184656-60F8-4296-A465-55C20720C2E2.jpeg
 
Last edited:

DeusExAstra

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Jul 28, 2021
26
0
27
Country
Russian Federation
Location
Russian Federation
According to some Chinese sources, new version of FY4 reduces penetration of BTA-4 APFSDS (600MM penetration) by 40% or 250MM. However some other sources also say 30% for same ammo, apparently there is a difference in the versions of FY4 here due to thickness.

But yes, that 20% maybe safe assumption for AORAK in case of older ammo. Maybe slightly less potent against BM42, but still better than nothing. Pakistans main adversary (india), only uses BM42 or BM-17 APFSDS.

View attachment 811118

Here is Aorak when double stacked. Or maybe that is ERA frame, but if it is a frame that would be weird because usually it’s mounted without frame. So I assume it’s double stacked ERA. View attachment 811119

About BTA4 reducing, I may suggest that the main difference between FY-IV versions lies between amount of throwing plates or their thikness. I mean, If there were ~30% reducing in such conditions for APFSDS


Machine translated


4. 4. 4. 1.3 Type III Reactive armor

The schematic diagram of the anti-armor-breaking test layout of FY-IV reactive armor is shown in Figure 3.

Other Type III reactive armor can be implemented with reference to:

a) The test adopts a static armor-breaking test, and the impact point is set to the center of the reactive armor.;
b) Rolled homogeneous armored steel plate: thickness 150mm, placement normal angle 68";
c) Reactive armor: the normal angle of placement is 68°, and the upper surface is 105mm±5mm from the upper surface of the armored steel plate.:
d) Armor-breaking bomb: type 800 standard armor-breaking bomb with a blast height of 375mm±5mm.

-Armored steel plate
FY-IV reaction pack:
Type 800 armor-breaking bomb
Figure 3 Schematic diagram of FY-IV reactive armor breaking test layout


1643141802937.png

and

Machine translated


4.4. 5.1.2 Type III Reactive Armor:

The schematic diagram of the anti-armor-piercing test arrangement of FY4 reactive armor is shown in Figure 5. Other Type II reactive armor can be implemented with reference to:

a) Rolled homogeneous armored steel plate: thickness 220mm, placement normal angle 68°;
b) Reactive armor: the normal angle of placement is 68°, and the upper surface of the reactive armor is 105mm±5mm from the upper surface of the armored steel plate.;
c) Armor-piercing bullet: 125mm armor-piercing bullet, the velocity of the projectile is 1583m/s±10m/s;
d) Determine the impact point according to the center position of the armor-piercing bullet crater; 150mm~385mm from the lower edge of the indentation of the armored steel plate, and 25mm from the left and right areas (the non-shaded area shown on the left) are valid areas, and the others are invalid areas; when the impact point is in the effective area, they are all effective bombs; when the invalid area is hit and the reactive armor is detonated, qualified as valid, and unqualified as invalid.

(That's about left-side picture)
Armored steel plate
Effective area edge device
Press the boundary
FV4 reverse armor
25
68°

Armor-piercing bullets
Figure 5 Left: Schematic diagram of the effective area (the shaded area is the invalid area, and the dotted line is the effective area), right: Schematic diagram of the test layout

1643142003186.png

So, my guesses are there:

Probably first versions of FY-IV used some plates about ~16mm first and secondary plate about ~10mm thickness, then it was incresed to ~16-20mm, that could be made in 85mm height block. But, there may be difference between height of early FY-IV and possibly "new one", so it's only guesses. In addition, they could change throwing time for secondary plate, to make it more reliable in terms of damaging rod of APFSDS
 

DeusExAstra

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Jul 28, 2021
26
0
27
Country
Russian Federation
Location
Russian Federation
If possible, I would like to clarify, according to the brochure on the first page there is a thermal imaging for gunner (second generation?) and an independent commander's sight with thermal imaging (second generation)?
 

iLION12345_1

SENIOR MEMBER
May 1, 2016
2,142
14
6,622
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
If possible, I would like to clarify, according to the brochure on the first page there is a thermal imaging for gunner (second generation?) and an independent commander's sight with thermal imaging (second generation)?
In the base model Al Khalid, The gunner has a second generation thermal sight (Catherine FC) along with his normal day sight. The commander has an independent, stabilized and magnified day and night panoramic sight with second generation IIT (night vision) but no thermal sight of his own. He can access the gunners thermal from his screen.

In Newer Al khalids and Al khalid-I, the gunner has a third generation thermal sight (SAGEM MATIS). While the commander again has a similar independent panoramic sight as above but now with third generation IIT (night vision) and similar access to gunners thermals through his screen.

Al Khalid doesn’t have proper CITV in either case, but it has the next best thing. I believe Al Khalid is or was offered by HIT with a commanders independent thermal viewer (CITV) but the army did not buy it with that because they considered it an unnecessary cost, which makes sense considering the adversary doesn’t have any tanks with commanders independent sights at all.

CITV is however present on VT4P and is expected to be present on the upcoming new version of Al Khalid.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom