Recently had a conversation with some knowledgeable Chinese members on another platform about the FY-4 ERA present on our VT-4s.
Some photos have suggested that the performance of FY-4 is similar to later models of Kontakt 5 ERA used on T80UD and T90S.
View attachment 763281
Particularly this image on the right. This performance would make it decent but not anything new.
However according to them the performance claimed in this photo is for an older style of FY4 that had a thickness of 85MM, whereas the one used on Type 99A and VT-4P is thicker, 100MM and more in some areas.
Secondly, They said that the FY4 is tested Against modern ammunition, namely BTA-4 APFSDS, which more penetration, which makes the testing characteristics much stricter than that of K-5.
Lastly the performance quoted for it is “
No less than 30% reduction of penetration against APFSDS and
no less than 70% against HEAT.
As well as Protection against tandem warheads”
Where as the K-5 claimed protection of
upto 30% against APFSDS and
upto 70% against HEAT. The difference in usage of words can be substantial here.
K-5 also does not provide any proper protection against tandem warheads, and it was tested against older ammo with less penetration.
All of This already means that the FY-4 provides substantially better protection than the Kontakt-5 ERA equipped on T90S and T80UD. Even more so if the numbers provided in the picture are for the thinner 85MM version.
Bottom line is, not much is getting through this armor. Now I hope this ERA (or if possible, even better Ukrainian ERA) is used on the Al-Khalid-2. Both of these tanks could also do with ERA or added protection on the sides, that, or give them both an APS, then these already well protected tanks will be basically Immune to most things our adversary can throw at them.