Serious Problems With Oplot Surfaced During Trials..

[Umair Nawaz]

A bit of history on Chinese MBT's to understand AK.

Type-85 --->turned to Type-88. Type-88 MBT was exported to 3 other countries apart from Pakistan and China.
Further on Type-88 was the basis of Type-90 and Type-90 II.
Type-90 II formed the basis of an export tank, MBT-2000 which turned in AK for Pakistan.
Chinese started working towards Type-96 from the Type-90.

MBT-2000 (AK) has been produced in large numbers. In fact, MBT-2000 has also been exported as VT-1A to 4 countries apart from Pakistan.

Export doesn't happen for "lemons".

Al-Haider MBT program is speedy induction of an MBT on basis of T-84 or Chinese MBT, which can be compatible with existing PA MBT's.

AK-II program, is the reason for Al-Haider MBT program, because it ran in delays. So one local MBT induction line and one MBT export source are required to cover the delay. More AK's or AK-1's do not bring in the new tech expected from AK-II. PA eyes AK-II has future and mainstay of PA MBT's.

yeah but atleast produce those AK-2s in future then, and dont come with a new excuse to buy another foreign tank for commission.

Use AL Haider's money to produce AK-1s, and replace those 300 un-upgraded ''type'' tanks. Close this AL haider drama!

 

[Shabi1]

Not true at all. Had that be the case, they would have capped the production of Ak with the base model (450 mbts). That didnt happen. In fact, the AK-1 production is now in full swing.

The biggest concern is budget along with the fact that despite working in three shifts, HIT will still churn out 50 tanks a year.

PA needs to replace at least 300 obsolete mbts (non upgraded 59s and 69s) with third generation assets. At 50 mbt per year, how many years will it take to replace them all?

Six damn years!



Malashev plant only manufacturers t-84 Oplots, no other variant is in production. Yes, the Oplot is a radically modernized t-84.

True all current builds will be Oplot but this particular unit does not look to be built recently and Oplot not written any place in the article so could likely be a T-84U. Also they have just 10 Oplots in inventory, those 10 aren't too old and should be in good condition.

 

[Dazzler]

Manufacturing the Al khalid from scratch may take up to three weeks using current resources, technology and manpower. Note that it is a complex weapon system that combines technologies from both East and West. Integration of subsystems into the tank alone may take weeks. It is ironic that people commenting on things have no clue what they are talking about.

How many of you have been a part of a manufacturing a complex weapon system? There comes technical as well as financial challenges during and even post manufacturing stages that need to be negotiated. Sitting on an internet forum and criticizing things you have no clue about is the easiest thing to do.

I mentioned before that the production of major weapon systems like Al khalid suffered due to diversion of funds to operations to negotiate terrorist organisations. We are talking about billions, not just millions. Naturally, the army took the biggest hit and manufacturing of several systems either completely stopped or slowed down significantly.

And then we have armchair generals trying to pluck conspiracy theories out of it without knowing an iota of how difficult things are on the ground.

Even in its basic form, the Al khalid is an excellent weapon system with was designed to take on every single t-72/ 90/ Arjun xyz thrown at it. The FCS alone offers multiple options to the commander and gunner both.

I might have to open a new thread to discuss the tank in detail. Gosh!

 

[Signalian]

Problem with that argument is that the AK is different in many of its key subsystems from the MBT-2000. The MBT-2000 is a mediocre tank that is cheap, and was readily available in the international market. AK tried to be better, but by doing so, introduced a host of subsystems.

Additionally, AK is manufactured by HIT. Is HIT incompetent? Are the subsystems faulty?

We know that even Toyotas that were being manufactured in Thailand were worse in terms of quality than those in the US, which were worse than those in Japan.

Secondly, it is clear that the Oplot is a close substitute to the AK. AK has a capacity to be produced in larger numbers. In theory, it should be cheaper to produce these. But for some "unknown reasons" AK production is slow.

Now, if money was the problem, they would not be searching for a foreign tank, which by dint of being a foreign tank would be more expensive and would cost precious forex.

This means that the reasons are other than that which is being given.

If PA felt that certain subsystems are not optimal or outdated, it could simply update those systems.

What is the real reason? Because HIT's very anemic production is not natural or normal. It borders on the ridiculous "oh we don't have any money to produce enough tanks" but "lets buy a foreign tank to makeup for the gap in tanks".

What does the Oplot offer that an AK could not?

The rational doesn't seem to fit. This points to only one possible conclusion - that the AK is a lemon. It has constant mechanical failures, either due to careless manufacturing or due to subsystems or both. We also have some indication of this from the Saudi Arabia trials, where the Saudis found the AK to have many breakdowns.

This would naturally cause HIT to slow down production and try to improve quality control. Then they faced issues of faulty and sub-standard parts being supplied by Ukraine. Including engine oil that broke down over 30 AKs. Possibly damaging the engines.

Now, HIT, being the ridiculously incompetently run organization it probably is, has not been able to iron out these issues, or increase production rates. It has therefore made up an excuse that it doesn't have enough money to increase production. Which flies in the face of the far more expensive option of purchasing a new tank from abroad.

Now, I don't mean to be harsh, I'm sure if they put their mind to it they could get this done. I'm just trying to use the available information and come to the rather obvious conclusion.



Thanks, but HIT has not been meeting the 50 tank per year target and has not done so in a long time... I seriously doubt they are working 3 shifts a day... seriously doubt this. Is there any proof of it?



By 2015 it only had 310 AKs! That's remarkably slow! Unbelievable actually. By now they probably would be at 400 (given past rate).

Buddy,

Don't concentrate too hard on things which are straight forward.

The base model (in this case, MBT-2000) has been modified to a large extent, but its better than starting from nothing.

Now come to upgrades of tanks as well as new variants, nearly all modern MBT's have been upgraded to certain variants. Take examples of:
1. M1A1. A2, SEP.
2. Challenger 1 and 2
3. T-90 itself has many variants. T-14 is a completely new MBT.
4. T-72 upgraded to M, B, B3 evolved into PT-91, and then T-72B went on to make T-90.

Was T-90 not good enough that T-14 was required?
Was Challenger 1 not good enough that Challenger 2 was required?
The K-1 88 MBT of ROK can stand on its own against any MBT of DPRK, then why K-2 Black Panther was made?

Oplot or lets say Al-Haider program is to speed up procurement as replacement of T-59, T-69, T-85 is required and these are some 800-1000 MBT's by themselves. AK-II program has been delayed. The interim solution is AK-1. Target of replacement of older MBT's is not being met. This has affected exercises and doctrines.

Lets take one component as example, the engine, If 1000 more AK are made, they will again need upgrades especially 1500 Hp engine. So First HIT produces 1000 more 1200 HP AK and then upgrades it to 1500 HP engine.

is that economically viable?

 

[Arsalan]

PA needs to replace at least 300 obsolete mbts (non upgraded 59s and 69s) with third generation assets. At 50 mbt per year, how many years will it take to replace them all?

Six damn years!

And we are always wanting to export a few to earn some $$!
Perhaps we should invest in expanding production capability. 100 units per year in two shifts? 140 in three?
Run three shifts for now and once the Pak Army requirement is met we can switch to 2 shifts, try and get some foreign customers, heck even use the line for some IFV/APC. This is not like aircraft where you can just induct a very limited number and then there is not a continuously running project. The lines can easily be kept running with new models, different vehicles, upgrades etc.

To me, this makes the most sense. 50 units per year is NOTHING! HIT is such a massive institute, spends so much, the numbers just are stupidly low. Must work on that and get it up to at least 80-100 in two shifts.

 

[Armchair]

Meanwhile, only about 400 AKs have been produced so far. Far below 50 a year...

Fact remains, no other country that produces a tank, buys a very similar capability tank from a foreign source. There is no major capability gap between an Oplot and an AK. That's just the stark truth. And it has no meaningful explanation other than the one given.

What @Armchair says has validity. HIT production has been anemic over the last decade and certainly there are no 3 shifts operating there on the production line. The reason behind it are probably multiple, but AK not meeting the capabilities of T-90 is probably one of them as as to why PA is looking at an off-the-shelf purchase. If we are to replace 300 tanks in 6 years, that is a very short time actually and would be great. Lets not forget the trials for new MBTs themselves have been going on for 2 years now.
There was a mahaz episode on HIT recently where the army official in charge admitted that the production was slow due to low numbers of orders placed, hence the budget allocation being small, as well as HIT being involved in upkeep and refurbish work for PA inventory.
That does allude to two things ... PA does not want to produce more Al-Khalids, hence have not allocated enough funds for their production, and secondly there is a shortage of trained personnel as well perhaps to keep both operations running parallel. Neither are insurmountable problems really and one is as a result of the other.
There has been mention of the need to upgrade the machinery and automate some of the production line, but there is no indication so far of whether such an upgrade has been implemented or if it is still on paper. But if we don't have a tank to produce and are going to be buying one from a third party, such an upgrade would be a waste of money anyways.
We have already discussed one other reason for the slow production in other threads as well, and that relates to perhaps the inability of Pakistan to make specialized steel (or in quantity) to support the full ramp production but AK or the idea of AKII/III is not a new one and PA should have seen it coming ten years ago.
Any other speculations as to the reason behind slow induction of AK and no AKII.

Thanks Griffin, that is some interesting angles you bring in. Here is the problem with the argument of not having enough tank-grade steel - you can simply import that. Would cost a lot less than importing a new tank. So the logic of that also falls on its face.

Let us also take that further - if there is a bottleneck in a particular part, you could simply outsource that to China. Give the blueprint and get a contractor. Its literally as simple as that.

Now, I may not have run a production line of a weapon system, but I'm educated enough to know how equipment is manufactured and what best practices are used in manufacturing. The arguments being put forward just doesn't make sense IMHO. Which suggests that the real reason is being hidden deliberately.

 

[Asian.Century]

Sorry but when the heck are our very own MBT Haider Programme going to materialize and we start selling tanks to world while AK II is stuck somewhere between old design with new subsystems and can’t be upgraded anymore.

Now an agile Oplot tank has serious problems.

A modular Al Haider Programme with radically new design and battle options was required to be built by HIT and Pak Army. Different in class from AK.

If it was not for the civilains and scientist designing our Nuclear bomb and ballistic missiles, Pak Army and HIT would still be doing trials of missiles.

Pak Army and HIT needs to pick up its gamee on AK II and Al Haider project....since AK-1 is a dead end.

 

[Armchair]

AK-I is Al Khalid Improved not 1. Sorry for the side-track.

It is hard for a country without a solid armored warfare philosophy to build meaningful tanks. Because they end up being a list of specs derived from foreign designs.

HIT, KSEW need to be put under a technocratic rule similar to the nuclear programme. Without that change, they simply will remain service depots.

I saw a supposed "first qualified tank designer" who supposedly works with HIT. I mean who advertises themselves like that? Shows the level of immaturity and ego. Such people cannot work in an effective tank R&D setup, as teamwork is key, and giant egos never allow that.

The whole setup seems wrong, but that's from far away, perhaps reality is a lot better.

Or so its hoped.

 

[MastanKhan]

Good point but JV lets you select different partners for different subsystems. So engine from Ukraine while autoloader system from AK-II, while electronics from T-99 of China.. So you need strong project management and visionary leadership.

Hi,

And then you have to make all these equipment talk to each other in a common language---which gets equally challenging as well---.

As the technology advances---the problems also increase by a multipllier factor---.

 

[war&peace]

Hi,

And then you have to make all these equipment talk to each other in a common language---which gets equally challenging as well---.

As the technology advances---the problems also increase by a multipllier factor---.

Well you define a common frame work and language, and all the stakeholders / partners have to follow that. If C++ or Ada

 

[MastanKhan]

Well you define a common frame work and language, and all the stakeholders / partners have to follow that. If C++ or Ada

Hi,

Would be interesting to know someone with firsthand knowledge---.

@denel --- what do you think---what does your experience say about it---.

 

[araz]

Meanwhile, only about 400 AKs have been produced so far. Far below 50 a year...

Fact remains, no other country that produces a tank, buys a very similar capability tank from a foreign source. There is no major capability gap between an Oplot and an AK. That's just the stark truth. And it has no meaningful explanation other than the one given.



Thanks Griffin, that is some interesting angles you bring in. Here is the problem with the argument of not having enough tank-grade steel - you can simply import that. Would cost a lot less than importing a new tank. So the logic of that also falls on its face.

Let us also take that further - if there is a bottleneck in a particular part, you could simply outsource that to China. Give the blueprint and get a contractor. Its literally as simple as that.

Now, I may not have run a production line of a weapon system, but I'm educated enough to know how equipment is manufactured and what best practices are used in manufacturing. The arguments being put forward just doesn't make sense IMHO. Which suggests that the real reason is being hidden deliberately.

The Chinese contractor bit I strongly disagree with . There are factors holding production back which need tackling but where are the funds going to come from? The lee hes have sucked this country dry and 12 yrs of continuing conflict has not helped. This angle need resolution.
I think the utility of Oplot is the engine tech that PA wants. Even if we buy the faulty tanks but get the engine tech it would be worth it. Faults can be sorted latsr.
A

 

[denel]

Hi,

Would be interesting to know someone with firsthand knowledge---.

@denel --- what do you think---what does your experience say about it---.

Absolutely, this requires an massive investment in laying down the foundations of standards - starting with IEEE or various respected ones as a then layering your specific environment requirements to evolve it further. For communications across multiple spectrum you need a cohesive approach to allow a common interface at the end; in terms of languages - stay away from Ada as it is US based standard; writing a language is non issue; even with embedded systems you have to get certification and mathematical proofs that the solutions are engineered to specification and not hacked by programmers (a programmer is NOT an engineer)- note I am specifically writing programmers - software engineering discipline requires formal proofs of certification. When ZA-Link was created, it was a lifetime opportunity to be part of it - the beauty - right from a uhf manpack to hf manpack to a far flung corvette; it allowed to layered independent secure nets to operate and yet to have capability to connect into HQ.
Back to standards, once laid, each contracting agency has to adhere to it which is monitored as part of QA/Certification; even if an outsider party is able to provide a solution, they need to provide all details micro-code and demonstrate where local standards are complied with. Rate of failure is extremely high and parties unable to provide details are shown the door.
In terms of larger integrated systems such as a tank or aircraft, the sheer complexity gets larger and larger; which is why we were very fortunate to have a huge pool of graduates who came into our research areas of interest from various discplines.

 

[MastanKhan]

Absolutely, this requires an massive investment in laying down the foundations of standards - starting with IEEE or various respected ones as a then layering your specific environment requirements to evolve it further. For communications across multiple spectrum you need a cohesive approach to allow a common interface at the end; in terms of languages - stay away from Ada as it is US based standard; writing a language is non issue; even with embedded systems you have to get certification and mathematical proofs that the solutions are engineered to specification and not hacked by programmers (a programmer is NOT an engineer)- note I am specifically writing programmers - software engineering discipline requires formal proofs of certification. When ZA-Link was created, it was a lifetime opportunity to be part of it - the beauty - right from a uhf manpack to hf manpack to a far flung corvette; it allowed to layered independent secure nets to operate and yet to have capability to connect into HQ.
Back to standards, once laid, each contracting agency has to adhere to it which is monitored as part of QA/Certification; even if an outsider party is able to provide a solution, they need to provide all details micro-code and demonstrate where local standards are complied with. Rate of failure is extremely high and parties unable to provide details are shown the door.
In terms of larger integrated systems such as a tank or aircraft, the sheer complexity gets larger and larger; which is why we were very fortunate to have a huge pool of graduates who came into our research areas of interest from various discplines.

Hi,

Thank for the detailed answer---. Could not find a better person to answer it---.

 

[saltyashell]

I doubt it even in Al Khalid we changed everything Chinese in it. From engine to other stuff. Same will happen with OPLOT or VT 4 or which ever Tank will be selected we would have lot of changes in them before we induct them

I totally understand what you mean.
Even in the non military sector , all critical parts are sourced from non chinese companies , even if the main equipment has a chinese make.

Manufacturing the Al khalid from scratch may take up to three weeks using current resources, technology and manpower. Note that it is a complex weapon system that combines technologies from both East and West. Integration of subsystems into the tank alone may take weeks. It is ironic that people commenting on things have no clue what they are talking about.

How many of you have been a part of a manufacturing a complex weapon system? There comes technical as well as financial challenges during and even post manufacturing stages that need to be negotiated. Sitting on an internet forum and criticizing things you have no clue about is the easiest thing to do.

I mentioned before that the production of major weapon systems like Al khalid suffered due to diversion of funds to operations to negotiate terrorist organisations. We are talking about billions, not just millions. Naturally, the army took the biggest hit and manufacturing of several systems either completely stopped or slowed down significantly.

And then we have armchair generals trying to pluck conspiracy theories out of it without knowing an iota of how difficult things are on the ground.

Even in its basic form, the Al khalid is an excellent weapon system with was designed to take on every single t-72/ 90/ Arjun xyz thrown at it. The FCS alone offers multiple options to the commander and gunner both.

I might have to open a new thread to discuss the tank in detail. Gosh!

Lots of kids here who have never seen a manufacturing setup.