What's new

Al-Khalid tank (Type 90-IIM / MBT-2000) Information Pool

What kind of APFSDS was that? 125-I, I guess? And what distance was simulated? 2 000 m as usual?

2500 meters. Its a SOP being followed for some time as far as i know. Here is something interesting. Two types of rounds were fired and penetrated each time. APT-1 and APT-2 (i assume 460mm and 550mm rounds). Plates appear to similar to Armox 500 HHS or better and there are multiple plates. Rounds were fired from Alzarrar.
apt1 2.JPG
 
. . .
@iLION12345_1 what's the value of moving towards electric motors, hybrid power packs, etc? I'm just guessing, but would it help with reducing the thermal signature? Or drastically reduce the noise generated by the tank? However, if they load up on batteries, wouldn't that drastically add to the weight? So, would electric motor tanks need to be hybrid (e.g., using gas or diesel-powered power generator?) to control for such drawbacks?

Is this something the PA would consider? I.e., using diesel-electric-powered tanks, IFVs, etc?
 
.
How is this relevant to the thread?
Wanted to point out the sub systems and concepts which are being adopted through this 54 Tonnes tech demonstrator, in an era where Cost heavy battle Tanks are being over whelmed by various threats in modern war theater.

1665462482197.png


AK-evolution is required .

An indirect relevance ,
 
Last edited:
.
Active Protection Systems (APS) vary in terms of capabilities.

Trophy APS intercepts for reference:


These intercepts were produced in 2011.

Trophy APS was pitted against Kornet in 2014 and defeated it just like any other:


Other solutions are more hype and less substance in comparison.

For example:


Russian T-90M is equipped with the very best of Russian technologies including Afghanit APS* and armor protection package, but it was knocked out by an ATGM in a battle. Ukrainian forces use Stugna-P and Javelin ATGMs.

*This is true; Ukranian forces managed to capture another Russian T-90M unit in another battle and found it to be equipped with Afghanit APS.


Trophy APS offers 360 degree protection but Afghanit does not.



Depleted Uranium (DU) is about twice as dense and hard than lead and even moreso than steel in its properties. Incoming projectile(s) loose much of its energy while trying to punch through a mesh created with DU. It is not pointless but Russians wouldn't understand.

None of our tanks are DU-equipped armor, and we didn’t learn the lessons from the first Gulf War of having Russian-styled tanks after seeing the Iraqis. Our tanks are nothing but meshed and welded steel. Their death traps incase a full blown conflict.
 
Last edited:
.
@iLION12345_1 what's the value of moving towards electric motors, hybrid power packs, etc? I'm just guessing, but would it help with reducing the thermal signature? Or drastically reduce the noise generated by the tank? However, if they load up on batteries, wouldn't that drastically add to the weight? So, would electric motor tanks need to be hybrid (e.g., using gas or diesel-powered power generator?) to control for such drawbacks?

Is this something the PA would consider? I.e., using diesel-electric-powered tanks, IFVs, etc?
It’s certainly a future possibility if not an inevitability. It’ll definitely reduce noise and heat but it’ll do much more too;

In tanks the torque output matters more than then horsepower, and low-end torque even more so. Current electric powertrains excel at acceleration and torque but not at top speed, tanks need just that, Electric motors and batteries excel at that, so mobility wise, an electric tank sounds like quite the idea.

But there are a ton of factors to consider before that. The first is size and weight, electric cars on average are considerably heavier than their ICE counterparts due to the batteries, I’m not sure how that scales to tanks but in cars the battery packs are usually in the floor. Even if the tanks engine is taken out and batteries put in there, you’d need more space to get enough to power a tank, and if they’re put below, then you also need to add armor to protect them. They would certainly have enough power to propel the tank, but in an already 60 ton Abrams, is 20 tons of additional weight feasible? What about transport?
That means a new electric tank would have to be designed from the ground up with weight reduced elsewhere.

The second problem would be range, while electric cars have great range nowadays, they absolutely suck at towing, that’s why electric trucks aren’t catching on like cars, towing something reduces a 300 mile range to a 150 mile range. Now tanks aren’t towing anything, but they’re not aerodynamic at all and the friction between a tire and a smooth road is much lower than between a track and rough sand, so that’s two more places where tanks would be losing range. How do we compensate for that? Would making a tank aerodynamic mess with its internal room and armor profile?

The third would be refueling, or rather charging. With the fastest chargers it takes about 45-60 minutes to fully charge a consumer EV. How does that scale up to tanks in battlefield conditions? we can replace a fuel truck with a charging vehicle, but how long will it take to get the machine back into action?

If you’re noticing a pattern, it’s that all these problems can be linked to consumer EVs too, more efficient and smaller batteries, faster charging all of this is being worked on to improve consumer EVs, which have indeed seen massive improvements in the last decade.

Just like with the development of car engines, tank engines improved, with the development of consumer EVs, EV tanks will start to seem more realistic too. So the bottom line is that while right now an EV tank isn’t feasible beyond a tech demonstrator (it’s certainly possible, just not feasible) 10,20,30 years down the line, it seems like a very real possibility. And just like when the tank first came into existence and the entire armies (especially logistics and field engineering) evolved with it, we will see that again. Logistics will go from fuel and spare parts to batteries and chargers, engineers will go from mechanics to electricians, the entire support system will evolve around it, so too will other armored vehicles. Let’s say the US starts inducting electric trucks to carry around its troops instead of humvees, that will already start the development of massive EV infrastructure in the military, how long before it Carries over to the rest of the vehicles? (look at GMs electric hummer, now imagine an electric military truck)

Until then, hybrid systems also seem like a good option. The APUs in tanks are already pretty powerful, one way could be to link the APU to the engine with some larger batteries to create a sort of hybrid gas-electric system. Another way is just as it’s done in cars as in the AbramsX.

As for the PA, it’s too early to say, since this technology is at least a decade off for developed countries and more so for a country like Pakistan, but again I’d say that it’s just an inevitability as fossil fuels get less available and electric powertrains get more efficient, I imagine a couple of decades down the line, militaries will be in the process of going electric.
 
.
@iLION12345_1 what's the value of moving towards electric motors, hybrid power packs, etc? I'm just guessing, but would it help with reducing the thermal signature? Or drastically reduce the noise generated by the tank? However, if they load up on batteries, wouldn't that drastically add to the weight? So, would electric motor tanks need to be hybrid (e.g., using gas or diesel-powered power generator?) to control for such drawbacks?

Is this something the PA would consider? I.e., using diesel-electric-powered tanks, IFVs, etc?
I don't have any concrete evidence...but my guess is that it's possibly to improve torque(like drastically).

Battery tech isn't at the level yet where it can replace traditional fuel type engines for tanks.
 
.
@iLION12345_1 what's the value of moving towards electric motors, hybrid power packs, etc? I'm just guessing, but would it help with reducing the thermal signature? Or drastically reduce the noise generated by the tank? However, if they load up on batteries, wouldn't that drastically add to the weight? So, would electric motor tanks need to be hybrid (e.g., using gas or diesel-powered power generator?) to control for such drawbacks?

Is this something the PA would consider? I.e., using diesel-electric-powered tanks, IFVs, etc?
Fuel cell would make more sense.
 
.
None of our tanks are DU-equipped armor, and we didn’t learn the lessons from the first Gulf War of having Russian-styled tanks after seeing the Iraqis. Our tanks are nothing but meshed and welded steel. Their death traps incase a full blown conflict.
So are our enemies.
 
.
I don't have any concrete evidence...but my guess is that it's possibly to improve torque(like drastically).

Battery tech isn't at the level yet where it can replace traditional fuel type engines for tanks.
Let me get a little technical here then.

The issue with electric power currently isn’t that it cannot produce torque, it can produce plenty of torque, but it cannot produced sustained torque without losing charge quickly. In this case, batteries aren’t the problem at all, they can hold enough charge and power, the issue is that we cannot use said power efficiently enough.

Basically in an ICE vehicle with a transmission, the low gears have higher torque, you use those to get upto speed or pull a load and then once you’re at speed you go to a higher gear which uses less fuel since you have the momentum to keep moving, you don’t need to be pulling with the same amount of torque to go at a constant speed of 70 as you did when you were accelerating from 0-70.

In an EV there are no gears, and hence the torque and power is always instant and constant, while this greatly helps power output and acceleration, it means that wether you’re cruising at 70 or pulling from 0 you’re using nearly the same amount of torque and charge from the battery. This drains battery very very quickly when you’re pulling loads.

Now one may ask, “why not just add a gearbox to an EV?” Because then you ruin the entire point of the EVs instant torque, reduced mechanical parts. And an EV needs a motor to drive the wheels, not a gearbox, a gearbox and a motor at once isn’t as feasible as it may sound.

So we need a system where EVs can cruise more efficiently while carrying heavier loads before we start considering them for military applications.

Fuel cell would make more sense.
Elaborate.
 
.
Ak-1 driver uses TI based sight DTI instead of IIR based Codris-E which was used in the baseline AK.
DTI
Screenshot_2022-11-13-00-56-33-91.jpg
 
. .
I don't see any meaningful modification on new AK 1 because if any tank goes under modification it's main purpose is to upgrades it's engines so better armour supporting systems and ammunition can be integrated in number therefore tanks weight may increase so more powerful engines will bring down the power to weight ratio which will be effected by more weight of systems

There fore non of anything done armour is very very little in front and on top of the tank which in today's war where enemy standoff liotering munitions ready to hit them any time we seen the devastation of most capable Russian tanks due to lack of armour and enemies will keep hitting that area of tank even with era they are still be penetrated Pak must put too attack armour and sides of the tanks

 
.
I don't see any meaningful modification on new AK 1 because if any tank goes under modification it's main purpose is to upgrades it's engines so better armour supporting systems and ammunition can be integrated in number therefore tanks weight may increase so more powerful engines will bring down the power to weight ratio which will be effected by more weight of systems

There fore non of anything done armour is very very little in front and on top of the tank which in today's war where enemy standoff liotering munitions ready to hit them any time we seen the devastation of most capable Russian tanks due to lack of armour and enemies will keep hitting that area of tank even with era they are still be penetrated Pak must put too attack armour and sides of the tanks

“I don’t see any meaningful modification on AK-1” that’s because you know nothing about tanks (or any other defense tech for that matter) and didn’t bother to read the thread.

“If a tank goes under modification it’s main purpose is to upgrade its engine”, really? feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, but how many times has the Abrams and Leopard 2s engine been upgraded since their inception? Do you know how old those tanks are and how many upgrades they’ve received? How and why do you need new engines to add weight and supporting systems? (something the AK-1 upgrade added in large amounts). Do you not think they take into account future upgrades when picking engines?

The only reason you come to these threads is to post your poorly researched and source-less YouTube videos in the hopes of clicks and views, you’ve done it time and again by making baseless claims about literally Everything and anything. Please, keep your this stuff out of the technical channels, this thread or forum is not an advertisement board, especially not for low quality stuff like this. And If you’re not going to bother to do any research at all, at least just read the thread itself before you post.

If I were you I’d delete this post, and if I were a moderator I’d delete all your posts. All of them are just so bad.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom