ANALYSIS: PAKISTAN’S VT4 ACQUISITION

[Zarvan]

Quwa Premium Excerpt
ANALYSIS: PAKISTAN’S VT4 ACQUISITION
ShareTweet

Author Profile: Usman Ansari is a journalist specializing in defence issues and presently based in Pakistan. He is Pakistan Correspondent for the US media group Defense News, and Chief Analyst for the British naval news monthly Warships – International Fleet Review. He has a BA in International History and International Politics, and MA in Global Security, both from Keele University, UK.

By Usman Ansari

Pakistani MBT modernization programs since the 1980s successfully focused on countering India’s T-72M1. While India’s Arjun MBT program is largely irrelevant and had a negligible impact on further Pakistani developments, T-90MS purchase dictated a stopgap counter acquisition due to Pakistan’s MBT upgrade program running behind schedule.

Pakistan’s MBT modernization program involved incremental Type-59 upgrades culminating in the Al-Zarrar, an opportunistic stopgap T-80UD acquisition, and localized Type-69II and Type-85APII production leading to the development and manufacturing of the Al-Khalid-series.

The Al-Khalid is based on the NORINCO Type-90II, but customized in line with Pakistan’s requirements. Its more advanced variants, namely the Al-Khalid I and Al-Khalid II, should have met Pakistan’s future MBT needs. In fact, the ongoing Al-Khalid II development indicates that this program is still active.

The VT-4 purchase is purely a stopgap measure dictated by the investment shortfalls that stymied Al-Khalid production[1], and therefore, its continued development.

News | China’s state-owned NORINCO announced that it will deliver two customized VT4 main battle tanks to an undisclosed customer. Reports suggest that the VT4s are meant for the Pakistan Army… | Read More

While the T-80UD and Al-Khalid had varying degrees of parity with India’s T-90S, the considerably better protected T-90MS demanded a counter response the cash-starved Al-Khalid program could not readily provide.

While Ukraine’s Oplot-P has comparable protection to the T-90MS, questions over Kiev’s ability to basically deliver an order (as proven with the Thai contract[2]), ultimately decided the competition in favour of the VT-4.

However, as a counter to the T-90MS, the VT-4’s effectiveness is debateable.

In the triad of armour, mobility, and firepower MBT design characteristics, Pakistan values firepower and mobility over protection. This approach is partially dictated by the weight limits of bridge and road infrastructure.

End of Excerpt (258/1,322 words)

You can read the complete article by logging in (click here) or subscribing to Quwa Premium (click here).


https://quwa.org/2020/05/31/analysis-pakistans-vt4-acquisition-2/

 

[Beast]

Quwa Premium Excerpt
ANALYSIS: PAKISTAN’S VT4 ACQUISITION
ShareTweet

Author Profile: Usman Ansari is a journalist specializing in defence issues and presently based in Pakistan. He is Pakistan Correspondent for the US media group Defense News, and Chief Analyst for the British naval news monthly Warships – International Fleet Review. He has a BA in International History and International Politics, and MA in Global Security, both from Keele University, UK.

By Usman Ansari

Pakistani MBT modernization programs since the 1980s successfully focused on countering India’s T-72M1. While India’s Arjun MBT program is largely irrelevant and had a negligible impact on further Pakistani developments, T-90MS purchase dictated a stopgap counter acquisition due to Pakistan’s MBT upgrade program running behind schedule.

Pakistan’s MBT modernization program involved incremental Type-59 upgrades culminating in the Al-Zarrar, an opportunistic stopgap T-80UD acquisition, and localized Type-69II and Type-85APII production leading to the development and manufacturing of the Al-Khalid-series.

The Al-Khalid is based on the NORINCO Type-90II, but customized in line with Pakistan’s requirements. Its more advanced variants, namely the Al-Khalid I and Al-Khalid II, should have met Pakistan’s future MBT needs. In fact, the ongoing Al-Khalid II development indicates that this program is still active.

The VT-4 purchase is purely a stopgap measure dictated by the investment shortfalls that stymied Al-Khalid production[1], and therefore, its continued development.

News | China’s state-owned NORINCO announced that it will deliver two customized VT4 main battle tanks to an undisclosed customer. Reports suggest that the VT4s are meant for the Pakistan Army… | Read More

While the T-80UD and Al-Khalid had varying degrees of parity with India’s T-90S, the considerably better protected T-90MS demanded a counter response the cash-starved Al-Khalid program could not readily provide.

While Ukraine’s Oplot-P has comparable protection to the T-90MS, questions over Kiev’s ability to basically deliver an order (as proven with the Thai contract[2]), ultimately decided the competition in favour of the VT-4.

However, as a counter to the T-90MS, the VT-4’s effectiveness is debateable.

In the triad of armour, mobility, and firepower MBT design characteristics, Pakistan values firepower and mobility over protection. This approach is partially dictated by the weight limits of bridge and road infrastructure.

End of Excerpt (258/1,322 words)

You can read the complete article by logging in (click here) or subscribing to Quwa Premium (click here).


https://quwa.org/2020/05/31/analysis-pakistans-vt4-acquisition-2/

I highly doubt this article.... First of all, it claim it Pakistan values firepower and mobility over protection. Then why for order the VT-4 with lvl4 reactive armour which added weight.

If VT-4 needed to go with mobility , firepower over weight. The VT-4 shall have lesser lvl protection to increase speed, mobility.

 

[TNT]

Active protection along with reactive armor is the way forward.

Active protection along with reactive armor is the way forward.

 

[Reichmarshal]

B.s article, usman ansari needs to stick with naval matters, rather than make a fool of him self with half cocked crap pulled out where the sun don't shine.

 

[Dazzler]

90MS is nowhere near the capable system this article made it out to be. VT-4 will own the MS any day for a number of reasons, including firepower, mobiity, and that next gen command and control, real time datalink are features that rival systems in the T-14 Armata.

 

[Cornered Tiger]

90MS is nowhere near the capable system this article made it out to be. VT-4 will own the MS any day for a number of reasons, including firepower, mobiity, and that next gen command and control, real time datalink are features that rival systems in the T-14 Armata.

And what about protection? Please shed some light. Thanks

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

Going for tanks in modern day is stupid. It's best to go for drones and Pakistan can really use those in mountainous regions.

 

[Bossman]

Going for tanks in modern day is stupid. It's best to go for drones and Pakistan can really use those in mountainous regions.

How would drones hold territory?

 

[Stannis Baratheon]

How would drones hold territory?

They will destroy any enemy advance. Tanks don't hold territory either. They are too vulnerable and entrenched infantry are better.

 

[CHI RULES]

They will destroy any enemy advance. Tanks don't hold territory either. They are too vulnerable and entrenched infantry are better.

MBTs are always effective if used in a combo, not a stand alone weapon.

 

[Rafi]

The Pakistani, Chinese relationship across the board has become very important for both countries, but the defense side now is so close that the defence forces have the ability to coordinate themselves in the same theatre, this is revolutionary.

Expect more closeness and acquisition of platforms and systems from China to Pakistan.

But behind the scenes their is cooperation in other forms of defence including EW, C4I2SR, Cyber and Space.

Keep your eyes on the net centric capability of the Armed Forces, you ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[Dazzler]

And what about protection? Please shed some light. Thanks

Turret and hull front without ERA in both has similar protection. Oplot is another story

 

[Foxtrot Delta]

Vt-4 might not be as good as oplot m however it is there to be taken.

While 90ms and oplot M cant be procured at all.

Until turkish Altay becomes reality VT-4 as a stop gap is a good choice.

I hope it is mot designated as Al haider programme though and instead a more powerful indegenous or Altay MBT is more suitable for Haider title.

My two cents on the matter.

 

[LeGenD]

I highly doubt this article.... First of all, it claim it Pakistan values firepower and mobility over protection. Then why for order the VT-4 with lvl4 reactive armour which added weight.

If VT-4 needed to go with mobility , firepower over weight. The VT-4 shall have lesser lvl protection to increase speed, mobility.

Protection is an essential aspect of each main battle tank, but protection level vary across main battle tanks. VT-4 is a good product in its own right but it cannot be better than others in every aspect imagined. There are limitations to any machine.

Building an advanced main battle tank is a difficult and demanding task, particularly with limited resources on hand and limited number of markets being accessible to source vital components from.

Therefore, it make sense to buy some, to replace older ones. Machines have an operational life and an expiry date.

 

[Armchair]

I disagree with the fundamental premise that this is a stop gap measure. I think it is far more than that. 600 VT-4s are not stop gap and that is the net number Pak will get. VT-4 will allow Pak to get parts for the future AK variants that would be better and cheaper, and supply far more secure than fledgling Ukrainian industries and their rapidly deteriorating ability to provide quality equipment.