Al - Haider VT-4 MBT - The Premier PA Ground Asset [Developments]

[Lion]

Respected sir,

I am not questioning your credibility but I also heard something similar that in HIT we break latest tank, take its component and combine with other tanks and call it an upgrade. then later the upgraded tank faces issues. AK1 faced same. But as far as I remember AK1 issue was rectified before Al Haider was inducted or its contract signed.

Less than issued and Errors, the project was delayed by nearly a decade. This means that when the first batch is ready for delivery, a bunch of its systems are already outdated and need upgrades, so they’re sent back to the factory and upgraded before induction.

We saw the first production AK-1 in like 2011, but they entered service in like 2020, all of this delay was due to fund shortages where the program remained paused, when it came time for delivery of the first batch, PA wanted it to be upgraded. The first AK-1 was a lot closer to base AK than it was to the AK-1 that entered service in 2020.

 

[Mohid Afzal]

It’s not that China didn’t give us the required designs and blueprints, they did, they were just not translated (or translated well), had errors and a lot of missing details. HIT in several cases found it easier to reverse engineer a part and make their own blueprints than try to decipher Chinese ones.

Most of the things they didn’t give blueprints for we didn’t get ToT for in the first place, at least in the case of Haider. For AK it was sort of a different situation, there were several parts on it HIT should have been make to design which they simply didn’t and kept ordering them from China.

And yes, Ukraine offered Engine ToT, we didn’t take it because it wasn’t economically feasible - refer to my previous post about engine ToT on this thread regarding that.

forgive my lack of knowledge but what exactly is meant by "not being economically feasible"? I ask this bc sometime back I was reading about PA importing costly MRAP's and someone asked why they can't be made locally since there is demand and the answer was that is was not economically feasible.

Side note, I have read many previous posts both from current and formur forum but due to my lack of knowledge and understanding, I get confused too much.

 

[Lion]

The ToT from Ukraine doesn’t make sense not because Ukraine wouldn’t give it, if anything I believe we could have gotten it from them at any point since we started AK production up until today. The reason we haven’t gotten the ToT is because HIT has no tooling, machinery or expertise to produce Power plants and engines, nobody in Pakistan does, there is not a single ICE engine made anywhere in Pakistan. Not even for a CD70, let alone a tank. This means that producing the engines locally after buying ToT and all the required training and tooling would give us a per-engine cost that’s nearly the same as an entire Al-Khalid tank, it simply doesn’t make financial sense. That’s also the reason Engines and transmissions weren’t included in the ToT for the Haider and they’re still imported from China. While my personal belief is that HIT should have gone through with it anyways and paid the extra cost if only to get engine R&D started in any firm in Pakistan for the first time in history, I understand the need for saving the money.

@Mohid Afzal

This is what I mean by economic feasibility. Let’s say you want to make a million cars in a country, at that amount it makes sense to make the engines locally, even if setting up a plant to produce the engine is a big one time cost, overtime, as vehicles are sold and you save money on imports, the cost is paid back.

This isn’t the case when you’re producing a few hundred tanks. The amount of money it would take to set up capabilities to produce engines will be so high that it’s cheaper to import the engines..

 

[Toxic]

forgive my lack of knowledge but what exactly is meant by "not being economically feasible"? I ask this bc sometime back I was reading about PA importing costly MRAP's and someone asked why they can't be made locally since there is demand and the answer was that is was not economically feasible.

Side note, I have read many previous posts both from current and formur forum but due to my lack of knowledge and understanding, I get confused too much.

Because we had no base for engine production so everything would need to be built from the ground up and would cost us more to build engine here than importing engine from Ukraine, but this thinking is very shortsighted, countries pay any price just to build at home, if we had taken up the offer in a decade or so the engine produced locally would have been cheaper than imported ones.

 

[Mohid Afzal]

@Mohid Afzal

This is what I mean by economic feasibility. Let’s say you want to make a million cars in a country, at that amount it makes sense to make the engines locally, even if setting up a plant to produce the engine is a big one time cost, overtime, as vehicles are sold and you save money on imports, the cost is paid back.

This isn’t the case when you’re producing a few hundred tanks. The amount of money it would take to set up capabilities to produce engines will be so high that it’s cheaper to import the engines..

Because we had no base for engine production so everything would need to be built from the ground up and would cost us more to build engine here than importing engine from Ukraine, but this thinking is very shortsighted, countries pay any price just to build at home, if we had taken up the offer in a decade or so the engine produced locally would have been cheaper than imported ones.

Understood, thank you both

 

[Psyko70]

Tank on tank warfare is rare. I’m not sure what you mean by an AZ turret defeating an Indian tank, but the ammunition carried by all 125MM armed tanks in the PA is generally the same, though the Haiders are getting new Ammunition that will later trickle down to the other tanks.

Barring things like range and accuracy, the penetration figures for all of them will be the same as long as they’re firing the same ammo.

The T90S and MS have very good frontal armor protection, the best in the region actually, rivaling the Haider in certain aspects. The one who wins the duel is the one who fires first (generally), so it’s sensors, sights and crew training more than anything else that matters here.

Most MBT losses in a conflict will be down to ATGMs, UCAVs, gunships etc and not tanks shooting at tanks.

My point was our tanks are adequate enough, should not procure more tanks, just upgrade them and incorporate more and more features of Haider on Al Khalid tanks. Surely the era on Haider can be installed on Al Khalid

 

[Toxic]

Neither, China gave Pakistan a production license and ToT for most of the tank, however the design manuals and plans were rather…bad. HIT to reverse engineer a lot of things, many other parts were replaced with locally designed ones too.

It started out with HIT only assembling Chinese kits, slowly indigenization has been brought up to 40%. The eventual goal is to indigenize everything economically feasible, so maybe around 70-80% of the tank by parts? This is a much larger % than AK. For reference the newest T90MS India produced locally had 83% indigenous content, including the entire engine, however due to licensing issues some very basic parts like gun barrels and tracks are still made in Russia for those.

It’s highly unlikely we’ll see Pakistan make engines and gearboxes for these, and certain high-end steels and composites might still come from China. All of these can technically be made locally, but it won’t be economically feasible.​

What comprises that 40%?

 

[ARMalik]

As I mentioned in another thread, these VT-4 MBTs are "Netcentric" Compatable meaning that they are equipped with C4ISR, and so are Army's Sh-15 guns.

 

[Lion]

What comprises that 40%?

Gun barrel, tracks, wire harnesses, driver nights sights, digital panels for all three crew, IBMS system, parts of the FCS and FCC, LWRs, a bunch of other electronics. Next up they will indigenize the bigger parts like steel panels and composites I assume.

 

[Lion]

My point was our tanks are adequate enough, should not procure more tanks, just upgrade them and incorporate more and more features of Haider on Al Khalid tanks. Surely the era on Haider can be installed on Al Khalid

PA still needs more tanks because it has a lot of older types to replace. Type 59s and 69s are still serving and need to be retired, the T80UDs will also need to be retired sooner or later because Ukraine can no longer supply parts for them. The Al-Zarrar is going to need replacement eventually too because the underlying chassis is obsolete.

 

[Toxic]

Gun barrel, tracks, wire harnesses, driver nights sights, digital panels for all three crew, IBMS system, parts of the FCS and FCC, LWRs, a bunch of other electronics. Next up they will indigenize the bigger parts like steel panels and composites I assume.

What about the RCWS? Do we have the Metalurgy to make composites here?

 

[Lion]

What about RCWS? Do we have the Metalurgy to make composites here?

1. There’s a couple of Pakistani companies actively working on RCWS systems, some have already been presented to the army and tested, PA wants them on its older tanks too, they’ll eventually pick one to be mounted on all their MBTs, when that is picked, we should see it on future Haiders too. Standardization lowers cost.
2. Yes, HMC and HIT have the capability to make and work with composites, Pakistani made composites have been in Al-Zarrar, Type 85UG and AK, however a good portion was still sourced from China. Hopefully with Haider they'll indigenize this more too.

 

[Oscar]

As I mentioned in another thread, these VT-4 MBTs are "Netcentric" Compatable meaning that they are equipped with C4ISR, and so are Army's Sh-15 guns.

So were any AKs once upgraded with new radios and BMS.
Question is not just equipment but bringing education level to a point where you have operators that can employ it to the maximum.

 

[ARMalik]

So were any AKs once upgraded with new radios and BMS.
Question is not just equipment but bringing education level to a point where you have operators that can employ it to the maximum.

Very good question - I am not sure. But I imagine if they were upgrades done then something must have been done about netcentric capability. PAF and Army establised a combined netcentric HQ, and PN more recently become part of it. A lot of testing was done for this combined HQ. I imagine as part of this doctrine, the Army is busy upgarding its equioment.

 

[CSAW]