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

[Afif]

1. The VT5 isn’t an MBT.

Yes, but you said 'no Tank'. That is why I brought it up.

2. Sights aren’t sensors. However I do believe VT5 has the same TIs

FLIRs are definitely considered sensors.

4. Lacks several other features from VT4 like the RWS (not sure why BD got those removed considering the tank normally has them).

It was removed for terrain specific enhancement. Manual gun was deemed better suited in vegetation areas in Chittagong hill track. The same reason APS was ditched.

 

[Admiral General Aladin]

HIT unveiled HAIDER Tank March 2024​

Rollout ceremony of HAIDER tank (Pilot Project).The ceremony was attended by Ambassador of the Peoples Republic of #China, key officials of Chinese state company NORINCO, high officials of Government of Pakistan & #Pakistan Army

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765522617627230210

View attachment 24061
View attachment 24060

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765372464844947943

View attachment 24062

How it is a Pakistani design tank??it is literally a vt-4 tank designed and manufactured by norinco(china).when did Pakistan designed this tank?anyone care to explain?

 

[Admiral General Aladin]

The video quotes a report that makes these claims. In the world of OSINT, we never know for sure, but if the report is true, then the projectiles are said to be going faster. Believe it or not believe it. We won’t ever know until both the US manufacturer and the Chinese manufacturer release data.

As for upgrading the Al-Zarrar; it’s not just about upgrading the turret but creating a small tank force around Turkish style of armor warfare, which could allow the PA to take on Turkish ammo in times of war, and employ the tank in COIN just as Turkey has done against the YPG. Lessons learned from the design and operation of a Turkish upgraded Al-Zarrar such as the main gun, or how the tank fits into the Turkish way of C4ISR, could be applied to a future variant of the Al-Haider tank.

With duo respect, you need to stop bringing Turkey everywhere.turkey is not that special the way you portrays them.their coin is as same as Pakistan.nothing special.no one knows the quality of Turkey’s tank ammunition.and Pakistan also produce tank ammunition.so,no need to always bring Turkey.

 

[JohnWick]

Yes, but you said 'no Tank'. That is why I brought it up.



FLIRs are definitely considered sensors.



It was removed for terrain specific enhancement. Manual gun was deemed better suited in vegetation areas in Chittagong hill track. The same reason APS was ditched.

How you can run in a swamp ?

 

[Afif]

How you can run in a swamp ?

What?

 

[JohnWick]

What?

How a tank can run in swamp i.e marsh lands of Bangladesh?

 

[studsmart]

will all the VT4 be upgraded to Haider standards

 

[FuturePAF]

With duo respect, you need to stop bringing Turkey everywhere.turkey is not that special the way you portrays them.their coin is as same as Pakistan.nothing special.no one knows the quality of Turkey’s tank ammunition.and Pakistan also produce tank ammunition.so,no need to always bring Turkey.

It’s not that the Turkish tanks are necessarily better, but different.

An earlier reply to one of my posts said Chinese Ammo isn’t nearly as good as Russian or NATO tank ammo. If we assume that is the case, for the sake of argument, than Turkish tank ammo, which probably had been influenced by their Leopard tanks and input from the South Koreans, means they have a decent “western” pedigree to their equipment, and therefore better.

IMHO, Pakistan needs to be able to maintain access and experience with the trends in Western and western adjacent military developments
It’s not all about the gun or ammo, although I’m sure some new things could be learned by giving a “Turkish” modernization to say 200-300 Al-Zarrars. It’s now turkey operates its tanks, from the comms to the way they integrate the use of tanks in their operations, to being interoperable with NATO or countries that operate NATO standard equipment such as the GCC.

I bring turkey into the discussion because Pakistan continuing utility will be its good mil-mil relations with both China and the West. Turkey (and to a lesser extent Italy) are Pakistan’s Western partners to help keep Pakistan in the loop of western modernization trends, at a reasonable price; look only at the TFX KAAN and the influence working with Lockheed had on TAI.

 

[KingQamaR]

Regarding Pakistani tanks ERA is add on plate armour, and is not necessary in the shaping of the tank itself. therefore, you have an operating tank without the plating. this means there should only be ERA on plates that get shells dumped on by the enemy. and most tanks only fight forwards or slightly angled, so it is unnecessary to have ERA plating over the rear. These plates also are heavy and get in the way of maintenance if it covers the engine compartment on all sides

 

[Lion]

Yes, but you said 'no Tank'. That is why I brought it up.



FLIRs are definitely considered sensors.



It was removed for terrain specific enhancement. Manual gun was deemed better suited in vegetation areas in Chittagong hill track. The same reason APS was ditched.

Tank is basically used for MBT these days owing to how rare light tanks are.

“FLIRs” (not the correct term to use in the case of a tank, they’re not forward looking) are generally not considered “sensors”, they’re considered sights/optics, but I get where you came from, not entirely incorrect usage.

Third point makes no sense to be Frank, RWS can be controlled manually too, with far more accuracy than a manual MG. I don’t see how having safer internal control where your commander can’t be hit by some sniper or ambush in the thick vegetation is a bad idea, especially because the RWS comes with its own sights and stabilizers. Same for the APS. Vegetation won’t stop it from working, if anything it would be more useful there as enemy infantry can hide and engage suddenly from cover and there’s little place for the tank to hide. Foliage won’t stop the APS from protecting the tank.
I’d wager it’s a cost issue and not a “we don’t need it issue”. Which is fair, APS systems are expensive to buy and maintain, particularly when they need to be sent off to OEM every time they need maintenance.

 

[Lion]

will all the VT4 be upgraded to Haider standards

There is no “upgrade”. All VT4s in Pakistani service already have all but a couple of the (minor) modifications that Haider has. For all intents and purposes, they are the same tank as of now, but as Pakistan localizes more parts Haider will divert from VT4. As VT-1 and Al khalid did.

 

[Lion]

It’s not that the Turkish tanks are necessarily better, but different.

An earlier reply to one of my posts said Chinese Ammo isn’t nearly as good as Russian or NATO tank ammo. If we assume that is the case, for the sake of argument, than Turkish tank ammo, which probably had been influenced by their Leopard tanks and input from the South Koreans, means they have a decent “western” pedigree to their equipment, and therefore better.

IMHO, Pakistan needs to be able to maintain access and experience with the trends in Western and western adjacent military developments
It’s not all about the gun or ammo, although I’m sure some new things could be learned by giving a “Turkish” modernization to say 200-300 Al-Zarrars. It’s now turkey operates its tanks, from the comms to the way they integrate the use of tanks in their operations, to being interoperable with NATO or countries that operate NATO standard equipment such as the GCC.

I bring turkey into the discussion because Pakistan continuing utility will be its good mil-mil relations with both China and the West. Turkey (and to a lesser extent Italy) are Pakistan’s Western partners to help keep Pakistan in the loop of western modernization trends, at a reasonable price; look only at the TFX KAAN and the influence working with Lockheed had on TAI.

Pakistan has a lot to gain from Turkey in many fields, tanks are just not one said field. I too think that Pakistan needs to and at least in the Air Force and navy is trying to keep up with western technology wherever feasible, it’s just that China almost always offers the better deal and it’s hard for our rather shortsighted brass to consider the more expensive but potentially more beneficial in the future external options.

That being said, I’ll reiterate, when it comes to tank technology, it is not a good idea to adopt any technology that mixes your fleet ideology. India has made that major mistake with the Arjun, Pakistan absolutely should not make it, especially not with “200-300” Al Zarrars. I’m sure there’s training to be gained and technology to be used (which again, we can likely make ourselves or get from China significantly cheaper and easier, so why would we go for the Turkish option? Especially when it’s not better in this case), but adopting anything at all, training or technology, that changes the doctrine of a few hundred tanks to western and trying to mix that with a few thousand Russian/Chinese designs is a bad idea and should not be considered. Turkish tank doctrine and design doesn’t apply well to the subcontinent and our doctrines anyways, and that’s by design.

 

[Fox]

Seems like no GL-5 yet but hopefully some upgrade program in future may include equipping it with GL-5.

Clearly the priority for PA is to localize and operationalize VT-4 than get caught up in minor details like APS. Not saying APS isn't important just that it isn't as important as other goals PA may have in mind. Frankly I don't think it is the wrong approach. There is a whole set of benefits here for HIT and downstream upgrades for platforms like the Al-Khalids and Al-Zarrars.

The APS will come in time.

Perhaps when the Chinese have solved their chips problem, it may become relatively cheaper for PA to induct APS in large numbers. In the meantime, a good enough local system would do.

 

[Afif]

Tank is basically used for MBT these days owing to how rare light tanks are.

“FLIRs” (not the correct term to use in the case of a tank, they’re not forward looking) are generally not considered “sensors”,

They do call it FLIR though.

https://www.rtx.com/news/news-center/2023/07/05/rtx-awarded-117-5-million-by-us-army-for-advanced-targeting-sensor-systems

"RTX (NYSE: RTX) was awarded a $117.5 million contract by the U.S. Army for low-rate initial production of 3rd Generation Forward Looking Infrared (3GEN FLIR) B-Kit sensors.

Under the contract, RTX will deliver 3GEN FLIR B-Kit sensors for the United States Army's combat platforms, which includes the advanced Abrams Main Battle Tanks and an option for optionally manned fighting vehicles."


Anyway, here is the main thing-

Tank is basically used for MBT these days owing to how rare light tanks are.

“FLIRs” (not the correct term to use in the case of a tank, they’re not forward looking) are generally not considered “sensors”, they’re considered sights/optics, but I get where you came from, not entirely incorrect usage.

Third point makes no sense to be Frank, RWS can be controlled manually too, with far more accuracy than a manual MG. I don’t see how having safer internal control where your commander can’t be hit by some sniper or ambush in the thick vegetation is a bad idea, especially because the RWS comes with its own sights and stabilizers. Same for the APS. Vegetation won’t stop it from working, if anything it would be more useful there as enemy infantry can hide and engage suddenly from cover and there’s little place for the tank to hide. Foliage won’t stop the APS from protecting the tank.
I’d wager it’s a cost issue and not a “we don’t need it issue”. Which is fair, APS systems are expensive to buy and maintain, particularly when they need to be sent off to OEM every time they need maintenance.

The short answer is no.

Long answer- There are mainly two reason why are VT-5 doesn't have APS.

1. First and foremost, where it is intended to fight, ATGM employment would be very limited due to natural constrain. I.e. vegetation. (Both in direct and top attack mode)

Just check out our border with barma and you can easily find out why.

It is mostly forest.

2. Secondly, in a jungle environment tank operates in a different manner.

Conventional manuver Is extremely difficult due to the natual contrain of trees. So, a lot of time tank is employed as an strong point, and infantry tend take their position around the tank within close proximity.
In that case, an APS interception may result in friendly casualties.


Now, about not having RWS....well, the thing is in jungle your line of sight is pretty limited anyway.
And it is more important to have a wider field of view rather than zooming ability.
And human eye has wider field of view compared to RWSs sensor.

 

[Lion]

They do call it FLIR though.

https://www.rtx.com/news/news-center/2023/07/05/rtx-awarded-117-5-million-by-us-army-for-advanced-targeting-sensor-systems

"RTX (NYSE: RTX) was awarded a $117.5 million contract by the U.S. Army for low-rate initial production of 3rd Generation Forward Looking Infrared (3GEN FLIR) B-Kit sensors.

Under the contract, RTX will deliver 3GEN FLIR B-Kit sensors for the United States Army's combat platforms, which includes the advanced Abrams Main Battle Tanks and an option for optionally manned fighting vehicles."


Anyway, here is the main thing-



The short answer is no.

Long answer- There are mainly two reason why are VT-5 doesn't have APS.

1. First and foremost, where it is intended to fight, ATGM employment would be very limited due to natural constrain. I.e. vegetation. (Both in direct and top attack mode)

Just check out our border with barma and you can easily find out why.

It is mostly forest.

2. Secondly, in a jungle environment tank operates in a different manner.

Conventional manuver Is extremely difficult due to the natual contrain of trees. So, a lot of time tank is employed as an strong point, and infantry tend take their position around the tank within close proximity.
In that case, an APS interception may result in friendly casualties.


Now, about not having RWS....well, the thing is in jungle your line of sight is pretty limited anyway.
And it is more important to have a wider field of view rather than zooming ability.
And human eye has wider field of view compared to RWSs sensor.

it’s not commonly called FLIR when referring to tanks. But I suppose the names are interchangeable if you don’t look into the details.
It’s in the name, forward looking infra-red. FLIR is most commonly used for aircraft pods because they need to differentiate it from Push-broom type imagers. I believe that’s where the name originated and now it’s generally used for other thermal imaging systems too. Moot point though, it’s just a name.


Once again, both points about RWS and APS make little sense.

I’ve been to the border you’re talking about, it’s a standard forest environment. I do not see how not having an APS there is any advantage at all. It is always an advantage. If your position does not call for it, you simply turn it off. Yes, you can do that.

ATGMs can still be very easily deployed there, if anything it’s kind of the perfect place to set up an ambush. Besides, an APS isn’t only stopping ATGMs, the VT5 is a light tank, it can be taken out by much more portable AT weapons too, including RPGs. An APS would help there.

It’s a no brainer that tanks operate differently in different environments, deploying a tank at a strong point to hold it isn’t exactly unique to forest environments, nor is infantry taking cover around a tank. Infantry is supposed to be trained to recognize the threat of Incoming and outgoing projectiles from a tank, removing it isn’t an actual way to fix that. By that same logic, ERA is much more dangerous to infantry around a tank than an APS (which engages projectiles at a distance that would be away from infantry), should we remove that from the VT5 too? And if the tank is hit, you’re losing the crew inside and if the explosion is bad enough or if there’s infantry on the sides or front of the tank they’re getting hurt too, so how exactly is this safer for infantry in any way? If that really is the logic the army applied while buying them then I’d be worried about their planning and training.

About the RWS, yes, line of sight is limited in the jungle, so would it not help to have an RWS which is stabilized and hence more accurate, has its own magnification and WFOV sights with thermals to scan through foliage and can keep the commander safe from enemy sniper fire? The human eye is going to see Jack compared to modern optics in most environments, regardless of the FOV.
And the FOV goes to shit anyways if the commander has to use his vision blocks while remotely operating a normal Turret instead of an RWS, which he is likely to do if the tank comes under fire. Besides, the RWS can be used with the MK1 eyeball too if that’s really a problem.

Both arguments simply don’t stack up. Regardless of the usage environment.