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

[Scorpiooo]

Ukraine would give the engine if we wanted it, they need any money they can get, plus given their historical co-operation with Pakistan (and other procurements with them in regards to APCs, T80UD upgrades, AK-1 engines and maybe even T929 in the future) means they might be willing to give us a better deal.

With China, the ToT seems more unlikely, Pakistan tried to get it already and was denied, but no doubt the Chinese engine is really good, if it happens to be more logical I feel they might just buy engines from China for AK-2. Though I sincerely hope ToT is involved one way or another to give us that capability. Then again we all know how Pakistan-China relations are. Something could be worked out somewhere. The money will be there when needed, it can’t be more expensive to get ToT than to order hundreds of engines directly. If we can do one we can do the other.

Yes sir, thatway i asked as Chinese ToT in unlikely the case specifically in case of VT-4,
For PA future i think if Ukrainian engine can satisfied AK2 need and available with full ToT, is best case for time.
Once Chinese developed better engine then then this Vt4 engine then they might consider TOT (which is very much away)

 

[iLION12345_1]

Yes sir, thatway i asked as Chinese ToT in unlikely the case specifically in case of VT-4,
For PA future i think if Ukrainian engine can satisfied AK2 need and available with full ToT, is best case for time.
Once Chinese developed better engine then then this Vt4 engine then they might consider TOT (which is very much away)

I believe PA was really impressed with the Chinese engine due to its torque figures, it makes a lot of torque for its size.

On paper Ukraine 5TD and 6TD series (Al-Zarrar, Al-Khalid, T80UD) seem like great engines because of the horsepower figures but in reality they are rather weak.
They are Very reliable, durable and easy to maintain, very compact as well, work great in our hot environments, probably slightly more reliable than the Chinese options. but they make poor torque.
In tank engines the torque figure and the RPMs at which the torque is available matters a lot more than horsepower.

For example the torque produced by AKs 1200 horsepower 6TD-2 engine is closer to the torque produced by Russian 1000 horsepower engines in T90A/S models, the torque produced by a similar Russian 1200HP engine is a lot more than the 6TD-2. Due to this reason T90A/S models have similar mobility to Al-Khalid despite having 200 less horsepower and similar weight. Similarly our T80UDs are not that mobile when compared to Russian T80U tanks, granted those had turbine engines with much higher fuel consumption and were better suited to Russia’s cold climates, but they gave the T80 the moniker of “the flying tank”, something that doesn’t Hold true with the UD. This doesn’t mean Al-Khalid or UD isn’t mobile, theyre very mobile, but not as much as they could be. On the other hand VT-4P is probably the most mobile tank in its class with its 1500HP engine. Thankfully these issues have been addressed to some extent in new 6TD-3 1500HP engine. (the Chinese engine still has better power output, but if HIT decides they want to maintain the compact nature of AK-2s engine, they can go for 6TD-3, and the Chinese engine has proven to be reliable enough in VT-4 to be an equally decent option. The choice will be down to cost, ease and ToT I presume.) it shouldn’t be hard to put the Chinese engine in AK-2 either, AK was originally designed to have a much larger engine, a Perkins or an MTU engine, but due to sanctions HIT was forced to go with The Ukrainian option. Maybe this was a blessing in disguise considering how reliable the 6TD series has proven to be. There is a large storage compartment between the crew and engine compartment in the AK, leftover space from the larger engines, currently used for ammo storage.

In short both options have their ups and downs and both are equally appealing, the choice will be down to what’s cheaper, easier, more readily available and hopefully down to which engine we can make locally. Both of them will be major upgrades regardless.

 

[Scorpiooo]

I believe PA was really impressed with the Chinese engine due to its torque figures, it makes a lot of torque for its size.

On paper Ukraine 5TD and 6TD series (Al-Zarrar, Al-Khalid, T80UD) seem like great engines because of the horsepower figures but in reality they are rather weak.
They are Very reliable, durable and easy to maintain, very compact as well, work great in our hot environments, probably slightly more reliable than the Chinese options. but they make poor torque.
In tank engines the torque figure and the RPMs at which the torque is available matters a lot more than horsepower.

For example the torque produced by AKs 1200 horsepower 6TD-2 engine is closer to the torque produced by Russian 1000 horsepower engines in T90A/S models, the torque produced by a similar Russian 1200HP engine is a lot more than the 6TD-2. Due to this reason T90A/S models have similar mobility to Al-Khalid despite having 200 less horsepower and similar weight. Similarly our T80UDs are not that mobile when compared to Russian T80U tanks, granted those had turbine engines with much higher fuel consumption and were better suited to Russia’s cold climates, but they gave the T80 the moniker of “the flying tank”, something that doesn’t Hold true with the UD. This doesn’t mean Al-Khalid or UD isn’t mobile, theyre very mobile, but not as much as they could be. On the other hand VT-4P is probably the most mobile tank in its class with its 1500HP engine. Thankfully these issues have been addressed to some extent in new 6TD-3 1500HP engine. (the Chinese engine still has better power output, but if HIT decides they want to maintain the compact nature of AK-2s engine, they can go for 6TD-3, and the Chinese engine has proven to be reliable enough in VT-4 to be an equally decent option. The choice will be down to cost, ease and ToT I presume.) it shouldn’t be hard to put the Chinese engine in AK-2 either, AK was originally designed to have a much larger engine, a Perkins or an MTU engine, but due to sanctions HIT was forced to go with The Ukrainian option. Maybe this was a blessing in disguise considering how reliable the 6TD series has proven to be. There is a large storage compartment between the crew and engine compartment in the AK, leftover space from the larger engines, currently used for ammo storage.

In short both options have their ups and downs and both are equally appealing, the choice will be down to what’s cheaper, easier, more readily available and hopefully down to which engine we can make locally. Both of them will be major upgrades regardless.

Thanks for sharing in such a detail. In short PA can go for any of it in future by considering multiple factors you shared, but main factor will be cost as well

 

[Inception-06]

Not true.


AZ production capped at 500 mbts.

but why capped, I dont understand ?

 

[Dazzler]

I believe PA was really impressed with the Chinese engine due to its torque figures, it makes a lot of torque for its size.

On paper Ukraine 5TD and 6TD series (Al-Zarrar, Al-Khalid, T80UD) seem like great engines because of the horsepower figures but in reality they are rather weak.
They are Very reliable, durable and easy to maintain, very compact as well, work great in our hot environments, probably slightly more reliable than the Chinese options. but they make poor torque.
In tank engines the torque figure and the RPMs at which the torque is available matters a lot more than horsepower.

For example the torque produced by AKs 1200 horsepower 6TD-2 engine is closer to the torque produced by Russian 1000 horsepower engines in T90A/S models, the torque produced by a similar Russian 1200HP engine is a lot more than the 6TD-2. Due to this reason T90A/S models have similar mobility to Al-Khalid despite having 200 less horsepower and similar weight. Similarly our T80UDs are not that mobile when compared to Russian T80U tanks, granted those had turbine engines with much higher fuel consumption and were better suited to Russia’s cold climates, but they gave the T80 the moniker of “the flying tank”, something that doesn’t Hold true with the UD. This doesn’t mean Al-Khalid or UD isn’t mobile, theyre very mobile, but not as much as they could be. On the other hand VT-4P is probably the most mobile tank in its class with its 1500HP engine. Thankfully these issues have been addressed to some extent in new 6TD-3 1500HP engine. (the Chinese engine still has better power output, but if HIT decides they want to maintain the compact nature of AK-2s engine, they can go for 6TD-3, and the Chinese engine has proven to be reliable enough in VT-4 to be an equally decent option. The choice will be down to cost, ease and ToT I presume.) it shouldn’t be hard to put the Chinese engine in AK-2 either, AK was originally designed to have a much larger engine, a Perkins or an MTU engine, but due to sanctions HIT was forced to go with The Ukrainian option. Maybe this was a blessing in disguise considering how reliable the 6TD series has proven to be. There is a large storage compartment between the crew and engine compartment in the AK, leftover space from the larger engines, currently used for ammo storage.

In short both options have their ups and downs and both are equally appealing, the choice will be down to what’s cheaper, easier, more readily available and hopefully down to which engine we can make locally. Both of them will be major upgrades regardless.

Can you please tell the world three reasons why PA likes TD series engines?

but why capped, I dont understand ?

Priorities, lack of funds.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Can you please tell the world three reasons why PA likes TD series engines?


Priorities, lack of funds.

They’re in the post you quoted.

It’s not like they had any other options for the AK after the sanctions. Prior tank related deals with Ukraine and commonality with UD made the choice acceptable. It was Probably the cheapest one too. Otherwise it’s well know to be underpowered.
What are you trying to ask exactly?

 

[Inception-06]

@Dazzler

View attachment 622868

@iLION12345_1
Why this camouflage system wasn’t implemented on the AK-1 and VT-4 ?

 

[iLION12345_1]

@iLION12345_1
Why this camouflage system wasn’t implemented on the AK-1 and VT-4 ?

Those pictures are from the testing phase of INTERMAT thermal coating on AK.
The coating isn’t the camouflage, the coating can be used with any sort of camo, it is in the paint. Tanks are present In different camos depending on their location, but the thermal coating is already in use on PA tanks.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Possibly one of the only known pictures of the turret armor pack for AK?
note that the composites are listed as indigenous.

 

[iLION12345_1]

For Naiza-1 it’s 220MM/66.5 degrees at 2 KM. For Naiza-2 it’s 220MM/68.5 Degrees at 2KM. Using simple LOS conversions these numbers are around 570-600MM/0 degrees and 630-650+MM/0 degrees at 2KM respectively. Naiza-1 is used on Al-Zarrar and Al-Khalid. Naiza-2 can be used on Type 85UG, T80UD/T84, Al-Khalid-1 and VT-4.

For comparison the standard Indian Ammunition for its T90S tanks, the BM42, has a penetration of around 460MM/0 degrees at 2 KM. The standard ammo for Indian T72, the BM17 has about 300MM/0 Degrees at 2KM.
The standard ammunition in Russian service (excluding the T-14), The Svinets APFSDS, has similar penetration numbers to Naiza-2, while their optional Svinets-1 (and newer designs for T-14) have higher numbers.

Keep in mind all of these numbers at 0 degrees are rough LOS calculations and in real life they are generally lower, these are kinda calculated under ideal standards, in real life there’s so many more factors, but these can give an estimate of performance.

Recently got the chance to talk to a few knowledgeable Chinese members on another platform, also did some digging myself, got some more clarification regarding APFSDS used by PA.

The first type is the APFSDS/T which has been produced locally by POF since the 90s, this is actually the Chinese 125-I APFSDS produced in Pakistan under license.

This is backed up by comparing all of its specifications to the ones mentioned for the 125-I in old Janes articles. Which makes sense considering the tanks Pakistan was using back then. Unfortunately it’s penetration is given in MM of RHA which is quite useless to gauge its performance against modern tanks, however since PA has since indicted Naiza this matters little, it is likely still comparable to the BM-42 used by Indian T90S and definitely superior to the BM-17 used by Indian T72.
The Janes articles I mentioned can Be found on this thread already:

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

Norinco Type-II M APFSDS RHA penetration @ the typical target under the fire range condition---RHA, 220mm thickness , angle of inclination: 60-70, and in this case, the angle is the 68 deg, no much difference with "international standard.. NOTE: this is a tungsten round, not a DU round

defence.pk

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

should be between 600-700mm @ 2 km estimated. Enough to knock out any adversary AZ means t-72 autoloader, AK and Type-99 both fire this round so their autoloader is modified. The round is known as Norinco Type-2 M 125 mm NORINCO APFSDS-T ammunition (China), Tank and anti-tank guns...

defence.pk

The second round is the Naiza DU APFSDS. I’ve mistakenly said before that it is based off Chinese 125-IIM or is related to it. According to my Chinese friends they never used DU ammunition (as in the 125-IIM is tungsten alloy). The Naiza is infact similar in dimensions to the APFSDS/T (which means it’s smaller than the 125-IIM, which explains how it’s usable on the original AK and AZ without changes to auto-loader) however has much improved performance due to the materials in use, the confusion regarding its relation to the Chinese 125-IIM by me and others before seem to have arisen from the similar penetration values of the two (570-600MM/0 degrees at 2KM range).
If anything this lends more credence to the NDC for developing Ammunition comparable to that of China and other countries at the time on its own. This ammo is still far superior than anything used across the eastern border.

(In the image too it is visible that it is rather similar size and shaped to the APFSDS/T)


The third ammunition is of course the BTA-4/DTW-125 APFSDS being inducted with the VT-4P which has penetration values 650+MM/0 degrees at 2KM ranges. This round has similar dimensions to the Chinese 125-IIM but improved performance.

There is also some confusion between what the difference between Chinese 125-II and 125-IIM APFSDS is. Apparently 125-II is not a thing, the DTW-125/BTA-4 has been mistakenly referred to as 125-II before, despite it being better than the 125-IIM and having its own designation.

So Chinese ammo lineage is something like 125-1>125-IIM>DTW-125>125-III
While Pakistani usage is APFSDS/T (125-1), Naiza DU and now BTA-4. I believe all three are still in use, with the former two being present on most tanks and the latter standard on only the VT-4 for now but is compatible with other tanks too (AK-1, UD, Type 85UG). We may see it being used on them too in the future.

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

AK II is sounding more like a pipe dream.

 

[iLION12345_1]

AK II is sounding more like a pipe dream.

in a recent interview the HIT chairman confirmed that a new version of AK will be in production soon (I assume after AK-1 deliveries are complete) and that it may be using technologies from the VT-4. I don’t think this will be the major redesign we were hoping for, not new Gen AK, but an incremental improvement to bring it closer to VT-4P, it shows RnD in the project is continuing to some extent.

I believe the project will continue alongside the VT-4 procurements, PA needs a local tank project too given that after the Type 59 and 69, the Al-zarrars will someday need to be replaced too, and PA doesn’t have ToT for VT-4. It makes sense to keep it going.

The HIT: More than just tanks

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/the-hit-more-than-just-tanks/?fbclid=IwAR2zgidzzaA2Fzi7XkjPSY3H9_rpzmcWGora0AU8iH6C9sE-TB3Sq55-5PM The HIT: More than just tanks Journey of a Thousand Miles begins with one single step! Following the advice of philosopher Lao Tzu, Pakistan and China initiated...

defence.pk

If the PA does ever want to make an entirely next Generation tank, then it needs to ditch the MBT-2000 platform, it has reached its limits with the VT-4.
The new platform needs better turret geometry for better ERA coverage and a better frontal arc for composites (maybe as in Russian tanks), this is doable on the current AK platform. However the hull design needs changes too, mainly the size of the lower front plate, which is rather large in all tanks of the platform, including VT4 (for comparison, the type 99 uses a newer hull design, it has a smaller lower front plate than both AK and VT4- despite being a larger tank). It also needs better side protection (again, can be added to AK and VT4), but at that point it may be smarter to start from a new design, which is what I hope they do to replace the Al-Zarrar fleet in the distant future.

 

[Scorpiooo]

in a recent interview the HIT chairman confirmed that a new version of AK will be in production soon (I assume after AK-1 deliveries are complete) and that it may be using technologies from the VT-4.
I believe the project will continue alongside the VT-4 procurements, PA needs a local tank project too given that after the Type 59 and 69, the Al-zarrars will someday need to be replaced too, and PA doesn’t have ToT for VT-4. It makes sense to keep it going.

The HIT: More than just tanks

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/the-hit-more-than-just-tanks/?fbclid=IwAR2zgidzzaA2Fzi7XkjPSY3H9_rpzmcWGora0AU8iH6C9sE-TB3Sq55-5PM The HIT: More than just tanks Journey of a Thousand Miles begins with one single step! Following the advice of philosopher Lao Tzu, Pakistan and China initiated...

defence.pk

You mean something advance then AK1 like Ak1a

 

[iLION12345_1]

You mean something advance then AK1 like Ak1a

Exactly, those are the vibes I’m getting from it, they may called it AK-2 or something else, but we don’t know just how big the upgrade is going to be. It could just be the same design with added tech from the VT-4 among other upgrades like CITV, better ERA and engine etc, or it could also include certain elements being redesigned, like the turret. They have certainly been at it for a while, and have a couple of years more until the AK-1 deliveries are complete.
I’ve covered what they can and should do in another post.

Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions

They are used independently hence create flexibility and add complications for the enemy. Armour component is same. Any special role armoured used in them or general utility purpose

defence.pk

(#2884)

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

in a recent interview the HIT chairman confirmed that a new version of AK will be in production soon (I assume after AK-1 deliveries are complete) and that it may be using technologies from the VT-4. I don’t think this will be the major redesign we were hoping for, not new Gen AK, but an incremental improvement to bring it closer to VT-4P, it shows RnD in the project is continuing to some extent.

I believe the project will continue alongside the VT-4 procurements, PA needs a local tank project too given that after the Type 59 and 69, the Al-zarrars will someday need to be replaced too, and PA doesn’t have ToT for VT-4. It makes sense to keep it going.

The HIT: More than just tanks

https://www.globalvillagespace.com/the-hit-more-than-just-tanks/?fbclid=IwAR2zgidzzaA2Fzi7XkjPSY3H9_rpzmcWGora0AU8iH6C9sE-TB3Sq55-5PM The HIT: More than just tanks Journey of a Thousand Miles begins with one single step! Following the advice of philosopher Lao Tzu, Pakistan and China initiated...

defence.pk

If the PA does ever want to make an entirely next Generation tank, then it needs to ditch the MBT-2000 platform, it has reached its limits with the VT-4.
The new platform needs better turret geometry for better ERA coverage and a better frontal arc for composites (maybe as in Russian tanks), this is doable on the current AK platform. However the hull design needs changes too, mainly the size of the lower front plate, which is rather large in all tanks of the platform, including VT4 (for comparison, the type 99 uses a newer hull design, it has a smaller lower front plate than both AK and VT4- despite being a larger tank). It also needs better side protection (again, can be added to AK and VT4), but at that point it may be smarter to start from a new design, which is what I hope they do to replace the Al-Zarrar fleet in the distant future.

I think AK2 could be the 'next AZ' -- i.e., a low-cost force builder. Ideally, the PA would want to apply the VT4's engine and electronics, but add to the armour/protection without cutting into mobility.