HJ 12 E Anti Tank Next Gen Fire and forget missile launchers for Pakistan army

[Zarvan]

I find news to be doubtful because what I know is they failed tests. @PanzerKiel

Finally Pakistan has ordered these state of the art ATGMS which are the first to have fire and forget capability deadly than TOW and Alcotans of US and spain

These are been copied from Javelian technology but has superior range and hit probability rate than javelan

Pakistan is the first nation in region to get these fire and forget capability for atgms

 

[iLION12345_1]

If the performance of light anti-tank NLAWS in Ukraine is anything to go by you are 100% correct. It really does seem as if modern light western anti-tank rounds are making mincemeat out of Russian Armour. I think PA is learning these lessons as you look at how AK II and VT-4 are armoured now, in the past I think PA was more focused on speed of it's tanks but a combination of heavy armour tanks and ambush teams equipped with ALCOTANs may prove very effective against the Indian Army

AK-1 has rather poor overall armor, the AK series in general does. It has decent base armor (HHS steel+composites) but outdated ERA and an extremely poor design. This means that while it’s frontal arc is pretty well protected, anything even slightly to the side will go right through it like butter. This is perhaps the only thing the T90S might outdo the Al-Khalid series in; armor protection. AK has plenty of other strengths however.

VT-4 has very strong base armor and modern ERA, giving it rather exceptional frontal protection, but Carries forward the same extremely poor design, so it has that exact same issue as above; poor side armor. This is imo the only flaw in the VT-4, otherwise it’s an exceptional tank for the region.

Neither will withstand any sort of hit from an ATGM unless it impacts the thickest part of the armor/ERA. Only Hard kill active protection systems can save a tank from that. Keep in mind this equally applies to Indias Russian-origin tanks, which while having much better designs (which means their frontal armor arcs, the thickest part of their armor, is considerably larger than Pakistani tanks), also lack modern ERA and have only marginally better side protection, and both countries lack active protection systems.

The Silver lining for the PA here is that IA does not employ any sort of modern APFSDS ammo on its tanks, meaning Indian T90S and T72 tanks will have trouble penetrating anything that’s not a 1st or 2nd generation tank. OTOH PA employs modern APFSDS on all of its tanks, which means even an Al-Zarrar can penetrate a T90S under most conditions. Then again, IA has an advantage in the ATGMs and gunships right now, but PA and PAF has the advantage in UCAVs.

As you can see, there are many factors at play, the balance keeps shifting, nothing is definitive, a lot of it comes down to planning.

 

[iLION12345_1]

Everyone is just straight-up forgetting the difference between a reusable and a Single-shot system. I think this discussion should unfortunately end right here no point in carrying on.

Alcotan, NLAW, AT4 are all single-shot disposable systems they have their place on the battlefield.

Whereas RPG, Carl Gustav and this Chinese system are reusable meaning more than one shot.

I did not forget that distinction, I simply meant that it may not matter as much as you think. One-shot systems are obviously cheaper than multi-shot ones and the capabilities are similar. It’s more a doctrinal decision. It costs a lot more to introduce a new system, even if it’s better, than to keep buying more of an older one, even if it’s not as good, if PA feels availability is a bigger issue than performance, keeping in view the armor possessed by the other side, then it may decide to not buy any more reusable launchers at all.

The RPG-7 actually still poses a considerable threat to armor with its tandem charges, given 600+ MM of penetration with ERA. Those, paired with Altocan 100s are imo enough. Any money should instead be invested in proper ATGMs like HJ-10, those will be a lot more useful In Dealing with enemy armor. PA is yet to deploy ATGMs with top attack and fire-and-forget capabilities, those are bigger force multipliers than a new reusable launcher.

 

[Yasser76]

AK-1 has rather poor overall armor, the AK series in general does. It has decent base armor (HHS steel+composites) but outdated ERA and an extremely poor design. This means that while it’s frontal arc is pretty well protected, anything even slightly to the side will go right through it like butter. This is perhaps the only thing the T90S might outdo the Al-Khalid series in; armor protection. AK has plenty of other strengths however.

VT-4 has very strong base armor and modern ERA, giving it rather exceptional frontal protection, but Carries forward the same extremely poor design, so it has that exact same issue as above; poor side armor. This is imo the only flaw in the VT-4, otherwise it’s an exceptional tank for the region.

Neither will withstand any sort of hit from an ATGM unless it impacts the thickest part of the armor/ERA. Only Hard kill active protection systems can save a tank from that. Keep in mind this equally applies to Indias Russian-origin tanks, which while having much better designs (which means their frontal armor arcs, the thickest part of their armor, is considerably larger than Pakistani tanks), also lack modern ERA and have only marginally better side protection, and both countries lack active protection systems.

The Silver lining for the PA here is that IA does not employ any sort of modern APFSDS ammo on its tanks, meaning Indian T90S and T72 tanks will have trouble penetrating anything that’s not a 1st or 2nd generation tank. OTOH PA employs modern APFSDS on all of its tanks, which means even an Al-Zarrar can penetrate a T90S under most conditions. Then again, IA has an advantage in the ATGMs and gunships right now, but PA and PAF has the advantage in UCAVs.

As you can see, there are many factors at play, the balance keeps shifting, nothing is definitive, a lot of it comes down to planning.

Nice and informative response, many thanks

 

[araz]

There appears to be no confirmation of this news from any source. I respect the source of the OP but forum rules dictate news to have been corroborated from confirmed sources. I would therefore recommend we lock the thread till such time we can confirm the news. If confirmed credit can go to the OP.
regards
A

 

[Khan vilatey]

AK-1 has rather poor overall armor, the AK series in general does. It has decent base armor (HHS steel+composites) but outdated ERA and an extremely poor design. This means that while it’s frontal arc is pretty well protected, anything even slightly to the side will go right through it like butter. This is perhaps the only thing the T90S might outdo the Al-Khalid series in; armor protection. AK has plenty of other strengths however.

VT-4 has very strong base armor and modern ERA, giving it rather exceptional frontal protection, but Carries forward the same extremely poor design, so it has that exact same issue as above; poor side armor. This is imo the only flaw in the VT-4, otherwise it’s an exceptional tank for the region.

Neither will withstand any sort of hit from an ATGM unless it impacts the thickest part of the armor/ERA. Only Hard kill active protection systems can save a tank from that. Keep in mind this equally applies to Indias Russian-origin tanks, which while having much better designs (which means their frontal armor arcs, the thickest part of their armor, is considerably larger than Pakistani tanks), also lack modern ERA and have only marginally better side protection, and both countries lack active protection systems.

The Silver lining for the PA here is that IA does not employ any sort of modern APFSDS ammo on its tanks, meaning Indian T90S and T72 tanks will have trouble penetrating anything that’s not a 1st or 2nd generation tank. OTOH PA employs modern APFSDS on all of its tanks, which means even an Al-Zarrar can penetrate a T90S under most conditions. Then again, IA has an advantage in the ATGMs and gunships right now, but PA and PAF has the advantage in UCAVs.

As you can see, there are many factors at play, the balance keeps shifting, nothing is definitive, a lot of it comes down to planning.

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

 

[Zarvan]

@PanzerKiel Sir is the news true ?

 

[iLION12345_1]

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.

 

[Super Falcon]

There are some rumors PA inducted them but kept the induction secret

 

[FuturePAF]

Also, I think it is high time we find a "Partner" system to work alongside the RPGs we have in our inventory. Let's be real RPG is best used for harassing and general ambushes it loses accuracy when engaging at medium to long distances.

For that, we need something like the Carl Gustav but sadly since we play the game of 'not buying the same weapon my enemy has' we can seriously evaluate the "Chinese" Carl Gustav.

For now, it's in its final testing process heck it has not even gotten a name just an XYZ project stamped on. However, some details have been released like it is an 84mm weapon system capable of bunker-busting, anti-tank role with a range of 1000m including a ballistics computer capable of day and night engagement.

Am not saying we phase out the RPGs but we should at least have something heavy to rectify where the RPG falls short mainly that pesky 40mm RPG warhead.


@Sainthood 101 @Zarvan @Areesh
@iLION12345_1

A system we should look into is the 3 km range Chinese micro-missile said to be relatively affordable and light weight enough (4 kg each) that a single soldier can carry six rounds in a backpack.

I hope this missile has top attack flight profile to maximize its utility against all enemy vehicles; considering all the world has learned about Russian origin armored vehicles over the last six months of the Ukraine war.

 

[FuturePAF]

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.

Hopefully a future variant of the VT-4 can apply some of the lessons learned from the Ukraine war. Some features shown by a Russian engineering student in upgrading the T-90 design look promising and possibly not as expensive as a design similar to the Altay, and should be studied for application on a tank like the VT-4.

 

[Signalian]

Hopefully a future variant of the VT-4 can apply some of the lessons learned from the Ukraine war. Some features shown by a Russian engineering student in upgrading the T-90 design look promising and possibly not as expensive as a design similar to the Altay, and should be studied for application on a tank like the VT-4.

Probably build numbers through an economical line of production with gradual upgrades, meanwhile keep force structure as combined arms instead of buying an expensive MBT outright

 

[FuturePAF]

Probably build numbers through an economical line of production with gradual upgrades, meanwhile keep force structure as combined arms instead of buying an expensive MBT outright

But addressing inherent design flaws with economical modifications in possible future frontline designs is the best way to make tanks survivable, IMHO. That is probably what the student was trying to do with the T-90 design.

 

[Super Falcon]

No proof of procurement so far, but definitely interest shown. We will likely see HJ-10 enter service first because those will be bought alongside Z-10ME and will hence likely end up in general army service as well.

Brother Pakistan has bought few for testing months ago soon we will get them but these kept news under the carpet for shock in war for enemy

 

[blain2]

Does it have top attack, direct-hit capability?

It is top-attack.