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

[CriticalThought]

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.

 

[帅的一匹]

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

 

[Signalian]

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.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

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.

 

[My-Analogous]

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

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

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..

 

[CriticalThought]

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...

 

[khanmubashir]

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]

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.

 

[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 .

 

[Naif al Hilali]

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

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."

 

[帅的一匹]

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.......

 

[CriticalThought]

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...

 

[帅的一匹]

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

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.

 

[CriticalThought]

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.