What's new

HAIDER: UNDERSTANDING PAKISTAN’S NEXT-GENERATION TANK

Type-59 and Type-69 share many common component in fact we can say that they are variant of same baseline, while Type-85II AP also share common components from these two tanks ..... so these are not totally different tanks but upgrades of subsystems, armours etc

so what you'r implying is that type59/69/85 are various version of the same tank with gradual upgradation put in place over decades of innovation to the base line T55 of that type59 was drafted from.

if that is true then AZ upgrade/ update could be applied all 3 of them? is that possible/ true?
 
.
so what you'r implying is that type59/69/85 are various version of the same tank with gradual upgradation put in place over decades of innovation to the base line T55 of that type59 was drafted from.

if that is true then AZ upgrade/ update could be applied all 3 of them? is that possible/ true?
this is the case if you notice we are now upgrading Type-85II which have same engine as AZ and have FCS and GCS of Al-Khalid tank
 
. .
Type 55, 59 and 85 iii are gradual development of same basic design.

this fact also makes sense to go for VT 4.
if AK II is a completely different design than we need to up grade our old tanks 55 59 85 and AK also. A universal upgrade package which fits all these will be most economical. And if its based on VT 4 it could be even more effective and economical to upgrade all our existing tanks to such level with the help of China.

At the same time developing a completely indigenous design for AK ii whit inputs from Turkey and China.
 
. . .
Oplot-M Rejected due to Engine issues

MBT-3000 Also rejected

Get Altay from Turkey we can also add Altay systems to out Al-Khalid Tank which will increase the capabilities of it..
Altay is too heavy for Pakistani terrains... from muddy fields of Punjab to Desert of Sindh
 
.
Pak should go for lighter ZVT 5 tanks for mountain operations and for Pak marines no need to have 4 different type of tanks for one purpose we need to divide the capabilities marines also need tanks even in small number to defend our shores from enemy landings VT 5 will make a better choice as Haider rather than same heavy m t which we already have in numbers
 
. . . . .
But, PA is still not happy with overall performance. It s all stopgap measure ...

Imagine it Turkey most latest Leopard A2 in Syria . Nothing is safe from the wrath of ATGM
9ac392e5a567d4a50a013c74a3a8b72e.jpg
Combines arms Ops are a must in urban areas instead of sending in recon and combat elements of armor.
 
.
geya Bhutto...:hitwall:
Nah, more like jiay DHA...

PPP and Bhutto ain't $h!t without the blessings for plot peddling colonial sepoys..

They even sabotaged the Bundal Island development which would have brought in $40 bn in FDI, just so that their DHA can remain the premium real estate...
 
.
Before a meaningful discussion can be initiated on this subject, one has to understand why the Al Khalid -2 is not being pursued and what are the capabilities required of the 'Haider' tank.

Currently, Pak Army frontline MBT’s are T-80 UD & Al Khalid. Looking at it from the outside, on can only conclude that upgrading of T-80 UD and/or Al-Khalid would not produce a tank that would meet Pak Army requirement beyond next 10 years, hence the need for a new tank nicknamed Al-Haider.

Assuming that with the Western systems, Al Khalid is at par with the Western MBTs in terms firepower and control systems; comparing Al-Khalid to the modern western tanks such as Leopard -2, M1-Abrams & Challenger, first item one notices is the weight. Western MBTs are in the 60 tons class versus Alkhalid's 46 tons. Even the Indian Arjun weighs in at about 58 ton.

As a simple rule, more armour protection means better survivability but more weight and hence more cost. However, a heavier tank makes it less agile. Hence it is a compromise between agility versus survivability. M1-Abrams is an exception because of a shorter response time of the gas turbine engine, but it is a gas guzzler

The other difference is that Western tanks have a crew of 4 whereas Alkhalid has only 3. With more automation, one can possibly manage with 3 crew members. However, in the battle situation, additional crew member means less workload per crew member. Since a lot depends upon the proficiency of the crew, it is logical that crew of 4 would be preferable.

I, therefore, conclude that Al Haider would be a heavier tank with a crew 4 and with much better armour protection.
Possibly an urban armor kit like TUSK upgrade can be considered for the new PA MBTs
 
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom