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

[Psyko70]

Easy to procure and also only easy to procure that is very suited for infrastructure in Pakistan.

Since the Oplot is a gone question for now and Russia isn’t a supplier - while Altay or Leo for that matter are ridiculously expensive at scale while potentially having track footprints that wont work on Pakistani logistics lines.

Thats what I am saying. Also that quickly buying tanks from china helped Pak compensate for numbers in outdated tanks. its not replacing AK.

 

[Lion]

Mark this, Haider program wont go numbers like t80UD, 300 only or maybe even less. Times have changed and Haider MBT is basically boosted AK or AK1.

This is just entirely wrong.…the numbers of Haider/VT4 will be exceeding AK very soon, they’ve likely already exceeded UD numbers. Then Haider is not just a “boosted” AK, there’s a similar underlying design and that’s about it.

 

[Psyko70]

This is just entirely wrong.…the numbers of Haider/VT4 will be exceeding AK very soon, they’ve likely already exceeded UD numbers. Then Haider is not just a “boosted” AK, there’s a similar underlying design and that’s about it.

Its always good to have different sides about something. I dont see Haider as a successor to AK thats all I say. Numbers wont exceed 500 or 600 if its already ahead t80, there is no evidence to that.

 

[Lion]

I dont know, I meant all AK's will have at same modular items of Haider that are doable. Al Khalid production was slow and then Ukraine war happened means no more Ukrainian engines has got us to Al Haider. Pakistan had the idea of AK2 as heavier and more powerful AK. Which is not possible now. Chinese engines are good or not will decide if HIT needs to continue with AK 2.

The AK production line has already been dismantled and replaced with the Haider line, again, this is entirely false, Ukraine and the war had nothing to do with the AK program being canceled, it got cancelled before the war even started. HIT already had engines and parts to complete the full order of 220 AK-1s but only 120 were produced and then the production line switched to Haider.

No parts of the Haider are “modular” or whatever you said to be slapped on to the AK, the AK series will see upgrades to bring it closer to the Haider so they can be kept relevant for the next decades. The UDs will need to be retired far earlier than the AK series. The AK-2 was not a “heavier and more powerful” AK - The Haider is essentially the AK-2 mow.

Chinese engines are good, HIT already tried to put one into the AK.

 

[PakistaniDefender]

This is just entirely wrong.…the numbers of Haider/VT4 will be exceeding AK very soon, they’ve likely already exceeded UD numbers. Then Haider is not just a “boosted” AK, there’s a similar underlying design and that’s about it.

Are we looking into VT4A1?

 

[Lion]

It’s always good to have different sides about something. I dont see Haider as a successor to AK thats all I say. Numbers wont exceed 500 or 600 if it’s already ahead t80, there is no evidence to that.

There is already evidence of that posted in this thread, there are no two sides here. The Haider is the successor of the AK according to everyone, including HIT & the PA, your opinion unfortunately does not change that.

There are only 421 AKs & AK-1s in PA service and ~300UDs. The UDs will need retirement due to lack of powertrain spares, hence the restarting of AZ program, UG program etc, theres a chance they’ll need to be retired before the Type 85s and AZs, and guess whah replaces them? More Haiders.

 

[Lion]

Are we looking into VT4A1?

PAs VT4s/Haiders are already VT4A1s (in some aspects they’re even better than the A1). The VT-4A1 was unveiled for the public and other nations after PA got its first two batches of VT4 (which I sometimes refer to as VT4P), said VT4Ps had the A1 upgrades at delivery. Sort of similar to the Z-10ME situation.

 

[Psyko70]

There is already evidence of that posted in this thread, there are no two sides here. The Haider is the successor of the AK according to everyone, including HIT & the PA, your opinion unfortunately does not change that.

There are only 421 AKs & AK-1s in PA service and ~300UDs. The UDs will need retirement due to lack of powertrain spares, hence the restarting of AZ program, UG program etc, theres a chance they’ll need to be retired before the Type 85s and AZs, and guess whah replaces them? More Haiders.

Ok, but still will it replace AK? No. T80UD yes. If you are right that makes it even better as then it will reach 500 to 600. which is good. Thanks for clearing however, I still to fact that AK is going to have same Optics as Haider soon and will make it closer. since its 1200hp the power to weight ratio favors ak. so ak has its good points as well.

 

[Lion]

If you can't break through this step, it means you'll always be dependent on imports and will never be able to build a truly advanced system of your own.
If you're certain you can't break through this step, you should change your direction.

No matter how friendly two countries may be, a technologically superior nation will only tell you what to do, but never why.
China-Soviet, China-US, China-Russia... all technology transfers, collaborations, or what you might call "stealing"—they only yield knowledge about "how to do something," never "why to do it."

For example:
Russia can teach Pakistan how to build the RD-93 engine. They'll tell you how to make turbofan blades and nozzles, but they'll never tell you, "Why are the blades designed this way? Why is the nozzle angle this way?"
China can teach Pakistan how to build the JF-17 fighter jet. But by the same token, we won't tell you the reasons behind every detail of its design parameters.

Trying to master this knowledge requires constantly experimenting with certain data points to explore the effects of these changes. However, for fighter jets, this approach is extremely risky.

China's early imitations of Soviet-era fighter jets didn't have a high crash rate. Starting in the 1990s, China began experimenting with this technology. Early models like the J-10, JH-7, and Y-8 all suffered numerous crashes. The military testing phase is not public, but the actual accident rate is very high. To date, the PLAAF's test pilot unit has lost a total of 32 elite pilots...
View attachment 146458
View attachment 146457
No one would dare to trade this knowledge, earned with the blood of heroes, for money.

As for your complaints about China, you need to first understand the basic rules of international politics. I don't want this thread to turn into a verbal battleground.

Again, I don’t disagree with the first message, Pakistan has a lot more to do than just change direction, it needs a whole revolution. There are too many things wrong.

Your second message has all the same problems the first one did - you said it yourself, no technologically advanced country will give up it’s knowledge - you can sugarcoat it as you want, but the truth of the matter is China stole everything under the sun to develop its industry because it knew this fact. There should be no shame in that because it was for national interests, but you cannot twist the facts either, China stole designs, plans, licenses, ToTs, R&D and straight up produced unlicensed copies to get started, they were not China’s hard work. In many cases the Chinese versions were poorer copies purely because China reproduced things without understanding them.

At the same time, China also learned from it and learned why things had been designed and made that way to eventually design its own things. There are no “sacrifices” involved here in the sense you want to portray (not to say that the Chinese state and people haven’t sacrificed for their development, they probably have more so than anyone else, but this is a poor example to use, every country loses test pilots when developing new tech).

There are historical cases where China has done well in accepting knowledge from external sources including suggestions from customers, China has valued the Pakistani armed forces experiences with western technology and how it can be incorporated into the Chinese design philosophy for an overall better product (F6, Q5, F7, VT-1 etc), this was at the time where Chinese industry was still in its infancy and was eager to learn from other industries, but ever since China has developed its own industry, such examples have become rarer and China has become extremely terrible at negotiating defense procurements, to the point where they are straight up petty.

In many cases China has wanted to teach Pakistan, but Pakistan has refused to learn, but in the same breath, Even when Pakistan has wanted to learn from China, China has refused to teach to make a little more money.

It goes both ways. I will never ever fault China for guarding its national interests so staunchly even while ignoring laws and morals, but I can and do fault them for forgetting the shortcuts they took in their own early stages and expecting other countries to develop without taking them.

China killed several million of its own people to become what it is today, if a country is not willing to follow suit, it is perhaps not a shortcoming, extreme example I suppose, but the idea is the same, China is the last country to lecture anyone about “basic rules of Politics”

 

[nang2]

Again, I don’t disagree with the first message, Pakistan has a lot more to do than just change direction, it needs a whole revolution. There are too many things wrong.

Your second message has all the same problems the first one did - you said it yourself, no technologically advanced country will give up it’s knowledge - you can sugarcoat it as you want, but the truth of the matter is China stole everything under the sun to develop its industry because it knew this fact. There should be no shame in that because it was for national interests, but you cannot twist the facts either, China stole designs, plans, licenses, ToTs, R&D and straight up produced unlicensed copies to get started, they were not China’s hard work. In many cases the Chinese versions were poorer copies purely because China reproduced things without understanding them.

At the same time, China also learned from it and learned why things had been designed and made that way to eventually design its own things. There are no “sacrifices” involved here in the sense you want to portray (not to say that the Chinese state and people haven’t sacrificed for their development, they probably have more so than anyone else, but this is a poor example to use, every country loses test pilots when developing new tech).

There are historical cases where China has done well in accepting knowledge from external sources including suggestions from customers, China has valued the Pakistani armed forces experiences with western technology and how it can be incorporated into the Chinese design philosophy for an overall better product (F6, Q5, F7, VT-1 etc), this was at the time where Chinese industry was still in its infancy and was eager to learn from other industries, but ever since China has developed its own industry, such examples have become rarer and China has become extremely terrible at negotiating defense procurements, to the point where they are straight up petty.

In many cases China has wanted to teach Pakistan, but Pakistan has refused to learn, but in the same breath, Even when Pakistan has wanted to learn from China, China has refused to teach to make a little more money.

It goes both ways. I will never ever fault China for guarding its national interests so staunchly even while ignoring laws and morals, but I can and do fault them for forgetting the shortcuts they took in their own early stages and expecting other countries to develop without taking them.

China killed several million of its own people to become what it is today, if a country is not willing to follow suit, it is perhaps not a shortcoming, extreme example I suppose, but the idea is the same, China is the last country to lecture anyone about “basic rules of Politics”

I don't think China has any interests in lecturing anyone about "basic rules of Politics", regardless what Chinese online members are saying. Before those who are imbued with the western propaganda, that kind of interest further drops to negative.

 

[Lion]

Ok, but still will it replace AK? No. T80UD yes. If you are right that makes it even better as then it will reach 500 to 600. which is good. Thanks for clearing however, I still to fact that AK is going to have same Optics as Haider soon and will make it closer. since its 1200hp the power to weight ratio favors ak. so ak has its good points as well.

What has replacing AK got to do with anything - AK-1 didn’t replace AK either, we have Type 59s to replace still, we can’t do anything until those are gone, just replacing them will give us several hundred VT4s & Haiders.

AK is not going to have the same optics as Haider. AK has a third generation SAGEM MATIS TI for the gunner, unless Chinese thermals have improved drastically in 5 years, I would rate it above the gunners thermals in the VT4 (both are third Gen). AK currently does not have a CITV - it is getting one eventually, sure, but this doesn’t mean it will have the same optics as Haider, it might have the same generation of TIs, there’s a lot more that goes into a tanks optics.

1200HP is a meaningless term here - both tank engines make 1200HP, the Haider is several tons heavier, but will drive circles around the AK because it makes much higher torque. The AK is only decently mobile because of its low weight, otherwise it’s engine is pretty underpowered torque wise and is a big reason the AK platform hasn’t seen major design Changes.

 

[Lion]

I don't think China has any interests in lecturing anyone about "basic rules of Politics", regardless what Chinese online members are saying. Before those who are imbued with the western propaganda, that kind of interest further drops to negative.

I understand your point and agree, Just to be clear, I do not have negative views about China at all, nor do I believe for a second any of the BS western propaganda peddled against China constantly, the west has no place to lecture anyone about morality either.
I only believe in historical facts. No country has clean hands - as I’ve mentioned for the sake of national interests, getting hands dirty is a necessity, there should be no shame at all for the Chinese in the things they’ve had to do to bring their country to the stage it is at today, they should only be proud in the example they’ve set - one can be proud of their country and also acknowledge the way they got there, that’s all I say.

 

[nang2]

I understand your point and agree, Just to be clear, I do not have negative views about China at all, nor do I believe for a second any of the BS western propaganda peddled against China constantly, the west has no place to lecture anyone about morality either.
I only believe in historical facts. No country has clean hands - as I’ve mentioned for the sake of national interests, getting hands dirty is a necessity, there should be no shame at all for the Chinese in the things they’ve had to do to bring their country to the stage it is at today, they should only be proud in the example they’ve set - one can be proud of their country and also acknowledge the way they got there, that’s all I say.

Actually, when I saw you mentioned that China stole technologies, I knew you are heavily influenced by the western propaganda, which promotes heavily the fundamentalist view of intellectual property. I don't blame you. Most people are influenced such. However, this view will definitely hinder any less technologically developed country to catch up. That is the whole purpose of that propaganda.

 

[Lion]

Actually, when I saw you mentioned that China stole technologies, I knew you are heavily influenced by the western propaganda, which promotes heavily the fundamentalist view of intellectual property. I don't blame you. Most people are influenced such. However, this view will definitely hinder any less technologically developed country to catch up. That is the whole purpose of that propaganda.

So you’re telling me that if you invented something and then I started making it and using it for my own purposes without asking you for permission or paying you for it that is not stealing? Is property ownership western propaganda now?

If so maybe Pakistan should reverse engineer J-10C and produce it locally and also sell the designs to other countries without Chinese permission? Or Pakistan should not have Paid China for ToT and production license for VT4 and produced it locally anyways without Chinese permission because it ended up having to reverse engineer it anyways despite paying for the license?

It’s only propaganda when China is doing it, if someone did it to Chinese IPs, China would be just as unhappy and probably sanction the country.

If IPs are western propaganda, why does China guard its IPs more aggressively than any country on the planet? When was the last time we saw China make an invention and then make it license-free or open source?

 

[nang2]

So you’re telling me that if you invented something and then I started making it and using it for my own purposes without asking you for permission or paying you for it that is not stealing?

First of all, intellectual property is not like regular property, which, if consumed by somebody else, cannot be consumed by the owner. Calling it "property" achieves the purpose of misleading. Keep that in mind.

Second, the most practice of protecting "intellectual property" serves the purpose of hindering the spread of the use. Check the history of how James Watt's patent on steam engine prevented its wide adoption.

Lastly, all developed countries went through the phase of "stealing" such "intellectual properties", which were jealously guarded by the more developed countries. US, Japan, for example. Once they become developed, they start to promote the protection of "intellectual properties" just like the country from which they stole before. Check the early history of US patent practice, which effectively promoted the theft of British know-hows by protecting the "thieves" in US.

BTW, as a side note, software industry largely saved itself from the wrath of intellectual property by the open source movement. So, no paying while using something invented by someone else isn't necessarily an evil.