I was under the impression that the Pakistani VT-4 has an active protection system and a 1500 hp engine. Please correct me if I am wrong
look forward to your response
k
The VT-4 is offered with a hard kill active protection system called the GL-5 but the PA has not bought it. I’ve heard they tested the system and liked it, but they haven’t bought it, probably because of cost issues, those systems are very expensive and PAs first priority is to retire it’s obsolete tanks, so they’d rather spend that money to buy more VT-4s and AK-1s.
I’m sure PA will buy this or some other APS system eventually as they’re clearly the future, and then they can equip said system on their other tanks as well, particularly the Al-Khalid series, however i personally believe we’re quite a few years off from PA (or IA) purchasing these systems and they’ll slowly be adopted in the future on both sides (india and Pakistan).
India also has similar plans to equip an APS system on its tanks, and its currently developing one locally, but their progress is not going that well, and I don’t blame them, a reliable hard kill APS system is one of the the hardest things to make right now.
Even Chinas GL-5 system has a major drawback, given it cannot defend against top-attack munitions, something that the Israeli trophy system can do, hence its popularity with the European and US army, still, having any sort of modern hard kill APS increases a tanks survivability by several magnitudes, so GL-5 would be a very good future acquisition for the PA.
There are also passive active protection systems, like the Shtora found on older T90S and T80 tanks, but they are obsolete. PA once trialed this system for the Al-Khalid but rightfully and smartly rejected it.
Other passive protection systems include laser warning receivers which alert a crew when their tank is being targeted and will even automatically engage the source of the threat in certain conditions, as well as auto-smoke deployment systems to hide the tank ( The VT-4 and Indian T90S employ all of these systems, and despite being claimed as such for years, the Al-Khalid and Al-Zarrar do not, but the Al-Khalid might in the very near future).
As for VT-4s 1500HP engine, I don’t think I said anything to discredit that, but I’ll make it clear that we have absolutely zero actual confirmation of PAs VT-4s using this engine apart from the word of a couple of members on this forum (who are usually trusted, so I take their word for it).
Although after more research, I have some doubts about this claim too, because the 1500HP engine made by China for use in its ZTZ-99A is somewhat larger than the 1300HP engine normally used in the VT-4, and China doesn’t make any other 1500HP tank engines.
I can’t say for certain, but The engine might not fit in the VT-4 without modifications to the hull, and hence our VT-4s may just have the 1300HP engine. However, it may be possible that the engine can indeed fit without modification and our VT-4s have them, which given how many other upgrades they have, is not entirely impossible either, so I’d say I can’t confirm that our VT-4s have 1500HP engines, but it is likely they do.
Either way, having the 1300HP engine over the 1500HP one is not a big issue, the 1300HP engine is already powerful enough for the VT-4 (in tanks, horsepower numbers don’t tell much, torque numbers do, the 1200HP engine of the Al Khalid makes nearly half the torque of the 1500HP engine of the ZTZ-99A, despite only 300HP of difference)
The 1300HP engine that usually powers the VT-4 is
very good and has more than enough power, if anything, the VT-4 is one of the most mobile full sized MBTs In service anywhere in the world right now even with its normal engine, and if ours has the 1500HP one (which would be a logical choice given it’s increased weight from the upgraded ERA), then it’s just even more mobile.
Bottom line is: mobility is not an issue for the VT-4, and thankfully the same engine it’s using is going to end up on the Al-Khalid soon.