Why Pakistan Army Ignoring the importance of Proper Next gen IFV and APC'S

[Super Falcon]

I don't understand why Pakistan Army Ignoring the importance of İnfantry Fighting Vehicles and armoured personal carriers and keep investing more and more in tanks when we already have them in sufficient numbers and which capability we lack it's IFV and APC

Without proper IFV and APC armour core cannot move and perform such platforms not only give flexibility of weapons integration of different types but can out flank enemies with their speeds and can give remarkable support to MBT in battlefield both against air and land enemy targets which will ensure the safety of our main battle tanks and can move our troops swiftly and risk free direct enemy firing range

Currently we have M113 based APC which are peace of tins and inside room is not comfortable and they lack proper armour package always at mercy of next gen ATGM of enemies we have few Serbian older İFV or Fahad class İFV which are very old and don't have better weapons integration

At other hand Indian army upgrading their BMP with loitering munition firing capabilities and buying new TATA Whrap For IFV roles and more are in development phases

Pak either consider Chinese VN 22 which are based on VT 4 Chassis Which we can get very cheaply and with same chassis it will give us a cheap maintenance due to similar class chassis and they are best available tracks based platforms with one of the best protected vehicle will not only enhance our capability but can work and move with VT 4 tanks and these can be used as short range Air Defence anti tank roles and anti personal roles giving out MBT much needed cover against enemies air and land based threats

From turkey Otokar Arma, Tulpar, and FNSS Pars are best suited for pak as well they bring much needed support

 

[FuturePAF]

Money?

 

[Super Falcon]

Pakistan army stop wasting money on unnecessary MBT of same classes Haider and VT 4 are the same if we are buying 380 VT 4 than there is no need with AK 2 upgrades becoz Haider tanks also developing so we get that capability where we lack rather than increasing the same capability number

Ag

Money?

Agreed stop AK 2 modification save money there becoz already 380 VT 4 are coming Haider tank in development so stop the flow of money on AK 2 buy IFV

Pak making a big mistake today army around the world induct more IFV APC AFV more than the ratio of tanks due to their effivness and we are going other way

 

[sparten]

Firstly, our most numerous APC is the Talha, which while based on an M113 chassies, is a Completely different vehicle, with much better protection, against splinters and HMG fire. We have the Viper IFV entering service I believe (right @PanzerKiel)

Secondly, FATA battles have shown that the PA can simply keep putting ERA and bolt on armour onto its AFVs to increase protection when needed.

Thirdly, everyone gets equipments for a war that they expect to fight. The Narmer is a very well protected APC, but its for the postage stamp sized battlefied in Golan and the West Bank. One of our requirements for our armoured and mechanised formations is the ability to be transported quickly over hundreds of even thousands of KM to deal with enemy activity (over a near 3000 km long border). For instance it’s a 1400 km long road trip to move from Mangla (I Corps) to Badin (the southern most part of V Corps) and frankly 1800 km if as likely the Indus highway is used.
If we had our own Narmer equivalent (and there was a proposal a few years ago to build one from an AK hull)., it complicates matters.

 

[Great Janjua]

Firstly, our most numerous APC is the Talha, which while based on an M113 chassies, is a Completely different vehicle, with much better protection, against splinters and HMG fire. We have the Viper IFV entering service I believe (right @PanzerKiel)

Secondly, FATA battles have shown that the PA can simply keep putting ERA and bolt on armour onto its AFVs to increase protection when needed.

Thirdly, everyone gets equipments for a war that they expect to fight. The Narmer is a very well protected APC, but its for the postage stamp sized battlefied in Golan and the West Bank. One of our requirements for our armoured and mechanised formations is the ability to be transported quickly over hundreds of even thousands of KM to deal with enemy activity (over a near 3000 km long border). For instance it’s a 1400 km long road trip to move from Mangla (I Corps) to Badin (the southern most part of V Corps) and frankly 1800 km if as likely the Indus highway is used.
If we had our own Narmer equivalent (and there was a proposal a few years ago to build one from an AK hull)., it complicates matters.

Vipers dead move on army is no mood to replace m113s and we shouldnt expect anything in terms of IFVs for a good while. Apart from the odd showpiece products nothing will come.

 

[sparten]

Vipers dead move on army is no mood to replace m113s and we shouldnt expect anything in terms of IFVs for a good while. Apart from the odd showpiece products nothing will come.

Yeah, cite?
It took until 2006 for Talha to enter frontline service in significant numbers, even though it was introduced in 1998 and inductions began in 2002.

Even if we presume the same for Viper it would be until the middle of this decades until we start seeing in in numbers.

A new AFV isn’t like buying a new car, that you can just roll it off the production line to units. You need to get everyone trained in the vehicle and its sub-systems and have repair and maintaence assets set up at both unit and depot level.

 

[Riz]

I don't understand why Pakistan Army Ignoring the importance of İnfantry Fighting Vehicles and armoured personal carriers and keep investing more and more in tanks when we already have them in sufficient numbers and which capability we lack it's IFV and APC

Without proper IFV and APC armour core cannot move and perform such platforms not only give flexibility of weapons integration of different types but can out flank enemies with their speeds and can give remarkable support to MBT in battlefield both against air and land enemy targets which will ensure the safety of our main battle tanks and can move our troops swiftly and risk free direct enemy firing range

Currently we have M113 based APC which are peace of tins and inside room is not comfortable and they lack proper armour package always at mercy of next gen ATGM of enemies we have few Serbian older İFV or Fahad class İFV which are very old and don't have better weapons integration

At other hand Indian army upgrading their BMP with loitering munition firing capabilities and buying new TATA Whrap For IFV roles and more are in development phases

Pak either consider Chinese VN 22 which are based on VT 4 Chassis Which we can get very cheaply and with same chassis it will give us a cheap maintenance due to similar class chassis and they are best available tracks based platforms with one of the best protected vehicle will not only enhance our capability but can work and move with VT 4 tanks and these can be used as short range Air Defence anti tank roles and anti personal roles giving out MBT much needed cover against enemies air and land based threats

From turkey Otokar Arma, Tulpar, and FNSS Pars are best suited for pak as well they bring much needed support

Because blood of our jawans is worthless, lives of generals are more important then poor soldiers

 

[PanzerKiel]

Firstly, our most numerous APC is the Talha, which while based on an M113 chassies, is a Completely different vehicle, with much better protection, against splinters and HMG fire. We have the Viper IFV entering service I believe (right @PanzerKiel)

Secondly, FATA battles have shown that the PA can simply keep putting ERA and bolt on armour onto its AFVs to increase protection when needed.

Thirdly, everyone gets equipments for a war that they expect to fight. The Narmer is a very well protected APC, but its for the postage stamp sized battlefied in Golan and the West Bank. One of our requirements for our armoured and mechanised formations is the ability to be transported quickly over hundreds of even thousands of KM to deal with enemy activity (over a near 3000 km long border). For instance it’s a 1400 km long road trip to move from Mangla (I Corps) to Badin (the southern most part of V Corps) and frankly 1800 km if as likely the Indus highway is used.
If we had our own Narmer equivalent (and there was a proposal a few years ago to build one from an AK hull)., it complicates matters.

M113 and its variants are much more in number than Talhas (only in specialized units).

 

[sparten]

M113 and its variants are much more in number than Talhas (only in specialized units).

But Talhas are in all the Army armoured and mechanized formations if memory serves.

There are more M113 than Bradley’s in the US Army, still. Just not in the armoured spearheads. The M113 is a very versatile vehicle.

 

[PanzerKiel]

But Talhas are in all the Army armoured and mechanized formations if memory serves.

Nopes. Not in all, rather not even the majority. Just some specialized units with special roles which require Talha.

 

[Indos]

You can innovate and use cheaper solution.

Indonesian soldiers in Papua

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

You can innovate and use cheaper solution.

Indonesian soldiers in Papua

We did that in Swat.
What the guy meant is a dedicated IFV.

You can innovate and use cheaper solution.

Indonesian soldiers in Papua

This was the viper that was meant to be our new IFV

 

[sparten]

Nopes. Not in all, rather not even the majority. Just some specialized units with special roles which require Talha.

Why?
It’s about 20 battalions of MIB in the two armored and two mechanized divisions.
That’s about 1200 vehicles.
It’s been in service 20 years.

 

[Indos]

We did that in Swat.
What the guy meant is a dedicated IFV.



This was the viper that was meant to be our new IFV

View attachment 910072

Must be quite expensive

 

[DESERT FIGHTER]

Must be quite expensive

We have thousands of M113s and variants based on them.