We produce submarine steel so perhaps
Pakistan Army's VT-4 Main Battle Tank | Updates & Discussions
- Thread starter SBUS-CXK
- Start date
Bilal Khan (Quwa)
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2016
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 97
- Country
- Location
From a project standpoint, where did the AK become so difficult? Was it because it was an original-ish design (Chinese platform with lots of PA customization)? Was it due to difficulties in sourcing Chinese inputs? I'm asking because if, hypothetically, we could engage specific input vendors ourselves (for engine, transmission, etc), what would be the most difficult part of an original, clean sheet MBT project?
What a difference a good host makes. Very good program.
It started with a Chinese power train, which did not meet requirements and was replaced by a Ukrainian engine and French transmission. Integration took time. This was more than 30 years ago so why worry now.
iLION12345_1
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 1, 2016
- Messages
- 2,604
- Reaction score
- 32
- Country
- Location
I mean no offense, but nearly all of that is wrong.
Al-Khalid never “started” with a Chinese powertrain, one wasn’t even considered for it. The three options were British, German and Ukrainian.
It does not have a French transmission, that is another common misconception. It’s transmission is Ukrainian, you can’t just hook up a Ukrainian engine to a French transmission. There’s a reason these things are called powerpacks. The engine and transmission are made for each other and cannot be swapped randomly.
Yes.
iLION12345_1
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 1, 2016
- Messages
- 2,604
- Reaction score
- 32
- Country
- Location
I didn’t fully understand this question. Which era of the AK project are you referring to? (as in, do you mean at inception, during production or at the end?).
I’ll answer the second part of the question first however. For a ground-up design, in Pakistans scenario in 2023, the powertrain would remain the most difficult part. The most obvious reason for this is that we have absolutely no R&D in this sector, not even commercially for automobiles and motorcycles. But to go deeper into this, I posed a few questions to the chairman of the tank manufacturing factory at HIT regarding the powertrain for the VT4.
My question was simply that if in the past it had remained unfeasible to locally produce powertrains for tanks due to cost, would it not make sense to finally start with the VT4 given the huge number on order by the PA? (This was also me indirectly asking if there were any plans at all or even locally produce said powertrain).
The response was that even at these numbers; Nearly 700 tanks. It would still be significantly cheaper to import the powertrains, and that there were no plans to produce them locally, as of now, there aren’t even plans for local assembly, but this may be considered in the future.
For a country like Pakistan, where there are absolutely no options for a local vendor for these things, the only way going through local R&D and then production for a powertrain would be feasible is if it could be put in a whole series of machines, instead of being a single project for a single tank. AKs parts can’t be put in any other tank PA operates, it was extremely necessary for the project to continue if we hoped to localize more tank related parts.
This is one of the reasons I have lamented the death of the AK project, the more AKs HIT produced, the more fiscal sense it would have made to locally produce parts. The AK project is what taught HIT to make Gun barrels, it started local vendors for ERA, FCS, GCS, Auto-loaders, Stab systems, tank optics and sights, mine flails, RWS systems, meteorological sensors, laser warning receivers, composite armors, the list goes on.
There is little doubt in my mind that if the AK project had not ended prematurely/turned into Haider, and the next step in the project had been AK-2, then the Ukraine-Russia war would have forced Pakistan to develop its first local Powertrain, or even if we used a Chinese one for it, to produce it locally (Since we’d have to spend far less on the project overall as compared to the entire acquisition project of VT4s).
As you can see, we have a habit of waiting for projects to make fiscal sense before we undertake them instead of looking at the industrial and developmental benefits and treating them as tangible things alongside money, of course, part of this is due to actual shortages of funds, but part of it is also due to shortsightedness of the decision makers, as we have discussed often
I’ll answer the second part of the question first however. For a ground-up design, in Pakistans scenario in 2023, the powertrain would remain the most difficult part. The most obvious reason for this is that we have absolutely no R&D in this sector, not even commercially for automobiles and motorcycles. But to go deeper into this, I posed a few questions to the chairman of the tank manufacturing factory at HIT regarding the powertrain for the VT4.
My question was simply that if in the past it had remained unfeasible to locally produce powertrains for tanks due to cost, would it not make sense to finally start with the VT4 given the huge number on order by the PA? (This was also me indirectly asking if there were any plans at all or even locally produce said powertrain).
The response was that even at these numbers; Nearly 700 tanks. It would still be significantly cheaper to import the powertrains, and that there were no plans to produce them locally, as of now, there aren’t even plans for local assembly, but this may be considered in the future.
For a country like Pakistan, where there are absolutely no options for a local vendor for these things, the only way going through local R&D and then production for a powertrain would be feasible is if it could be put in a whole series of machines, instead of being a single project for a single tank. AKs parts can’t be put in any other tank PA operates, it was extremely necessary for the project to continue if we hoped to localize more tank related parts.
This is one of the reasons I have lamented the death of the AK project, the more AKs HIT produced, the more fiscal sense it would have made to locally produce parts. The AK project is what taught HIT to make Gun barrels, it started local vendors for ERA, FCS, GCS, Auto-loaders, Stab systems, tank optics and sights, mine flails, RWS systems, meteorological sensors, laser warning receivers, composite armors, the list goes on.
There is little doubt in my mind that if the AK project had not ended prematurely/turned into Haider, and the next step in the project had been AK-2, then the Ukraine-Russia war would have forced Pakistan to develop its first local Powertrain, or even if we used a Chinese one for it, to produce it locally (Since we’d have to spend far less on the project overall as compared to the entire acquisition project of VT4s).
As you can see, we have a habit of waiting for projects to make fiscal sense before we undertake them instead of looking at the industrial and developmental benefits and treating them as tangible things alongside money, of course, part of this is due to actual shortages of funds, but part of it is also due to shortsightedness of the decision makers, as we have discussed often
Apart from the decision not to (and money), there aren’t actually any solid obstacles in the way for HIT to not be able to both design and produce its own powertrain.
Talking about why the AK project actually ended prematurely; the main reason remains the WoT, the funding cuts for production during those years halted not only AK production, but also R&D. The first prototype of the AK-1 was presented in 2011 if memory serves me correctly, the first one entered service in 2021, after further upgrades of course, because the one from 2011 was already falling behind. By 2021, AK-2 was meant to be production ready.
Yes there were other factors like the usual corruption and bad decision making, but they played far less of a role this time than just simply not having the money to produce; the original plan for AK production was to have 600 units of the base Al-Khalid delivered by the time AK-1 was production ready (around 2013). And HIT absolutely had this capacity if it ran at peak production rates from 2001 to 2012, as it did in the first few years.
The whole R&D budget was based around HIT selling said 600 tanks (only 321 ended up being produced). AK-1 barely made it into production before the army decided that the project was falling too far behind its goals to stay feasible and the VT4 was picked. Now it made no sense to further develop the AK, at least not at the same pace.
If all had gone according to plan, the potential AK-2 in 2020-2023 would have been equally if not more capable to the VT4, but significantly cheaper due to local design elements (if you think about it, the VT-4 really is just an upgraded AK series tank). Keep in mind that if HIT had developed a local powertrain for the VT-4, it would actually look and operate quite like the Chinese ones anyways, given tanks are designed around their powertrain to a certain extent (once again, the VT4 literally looks like it does from the rear three quarters because of its powertrain, otherwise it would be identical to the AK).
So really, the AK project never became difficult because it was a Chinese hull with foreign and local parts, that was always the intention, and it wasn’t because we couldn’t source Chinese parts, there were really no high value Chinese parts left in the AK by 2011 to begin with, it all boiled down to the tank not being produced enough for the projects R&D to be funded to a point where it could be kept going beyond the point where it died, and the bullet had to be bit lest the PA lose its armor advantage to the IA.
Yes there were other factors like the usual corruption and bad decision making, but they played far less of a role this time than just simply not having the money to produce; the original plan for AK production was to have 600 units of the base Al-Khalid delivered by the time AK-1 was production ready (around 2013). And HIT absolutely had this capacity if it ran at peak production rates from 2001 to 2012, as it did in the first few years.
The whole R&D budget was based around HIT selling said 600 tanks (only 321 ended up being produced). AK-1 barely made it into production before the army decided that the project was falling too far behind its goals to stay feasible and the VT4 was picked. Now it made no sense to further develop the AK, at least not at the same pace.
If all had gone according to plan, the potential AK-2 in 2020-2023 would have been equally if not more capable to the VT4, but significantly cheaper due to local design elements (if you think about it, the VT-4 really is just an upgraded AK series tank). Keep in mind that if HIT had developed a local powertrain for the VT-4, it would actually look and operate quite like the Chinese ones anyways, given tanks are designed around their powertrain to a certain extent (once again, the VT4 literally looks like it does from the rear three quarters because of its powertrain, otherwise it would be identical to the AK).
So really, the AK project never became difficult because it was a Chinese hull with foreign and local parts, that was always the intention, and it wasn’t because we couldn’t source Chinese parts, there were really no high value Chinese parts left in the AK by 2011 to begin with, it all boiled down to the tank not being produced enough for the projects R&D to be funded to a point where it could be kept going beyond the point where it died, and the bullet had to be bit lest the PA lose its armor advantage to the IA.
Last edited:
Jango
SENIOR MODERATOR
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,530
- Reaction score
- 99
- Country
- Location
Do both the tanks use different types of alloys?
If so, why is this the case that they are still being imported? We cannot manufacture it from the start, or do we have capacity issues?
No idea if you can divulge this info or not, but are these vendors private companies or govt orgs?
Development
An early version was armed with a Chinese gun and fire-control system, but had a German-designed MTU-396 diesel engine which was built under licence in China. Another version was equipped with a more advanced western digital fire-control system and powered by a Perkins 1,200 hp (890 kW) Condor diesel engine (as in the British Challenger) and SESM ESM500 automatic transmission (as in the French Leclerc). This version was considered too expensive, and under-performed in the extreme heat of southern Pakistan. Finally, a version was tested with the compact Ukrainian 6TD-2 1,200 hp diesel engine.[18]This configuration was chosen by Pakistan for the production version of the tank and came to be known as Al-Khalid. Ukraine also sold T-80UD tanks to Pakistan which were powered by a similar engine.Yet another version—employing more western technology had been envisaged as an export product for Pakistan. The prototype had a 1,200 hp (890 kW) German MTU-871/TCM AVDS-1790 diesel engine and an LSG-3000 transmission. It was abandoned due to the arms embargo imposed on Pakistan after the 1998 Pakistani nuclear tests.[citation needed]
The final tank design resulting from a decade of co-operative development was designated Type 90-IIM. The Chinese company Norinco showed the new Type 90-IIM during the March 2001 Abu Dhabi Defense Expo, under the export name MBT 2000. The version powered by the Ukrainian engine, intended for domestic production in Pakistan, was named Al-Khalid.[19]
CivilianSupremacy
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2022
- Messages
- 681
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
The US military technology did go slower or stagnant, I just did not mentioned the obvious reason that why they stopped pursuing advance military tech in the 90's and 2000s. Reason is the same which you and @arslank03 have mentioned that they had no peer competition at that time.
Producing B-21 raider today is not a leap forward. The leap forward was making B-2 aircraft in 1989 and making F-22 Raptor in the 90's . Point I am making is that US was at its peak in the 90's with absolutely no competition in sight. Today that status quo has been challenged. The Americans accept and acknowledge that they got a near peer competition and you guys accepted it too. The americans have accepted the projection of rising chinese power that's why they have started their next gen projects, that's why arleigh burke destroyers are being built again, that's why they are buying constellation class (FFGX frigates ) from the Europeans, etc.
However, I believe nation's industrial & technological capabilities cannot jump start at rapid pace all of a sudden. For instance United states put a man on the moon in 1969. Now they simply cannot do it next year (2024) even if they wanted too. They left the pace as soon as space race was over. It will take years again to catch same momentum. But China's momentum at this point in time is at another level, their technological trajectory will eventually meet US with such steep rise. That's my opinion.
Last edited:
iLION12345_1
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 1, 2016
- Messages
- 2,604
- Reaction score
- 32
- Country
- Location
For the first, yes, definitely, different composition of both base armor and composites on both tanks. There is similarity in the less essential armor at the rear and sides, but the front is entirely different.
As for reasons for not locally manufacturing them, part of it is the aforementioned difference in materials that HIT does not yet have the capability to manufacture (they have most if not all of the required machinery and processes, but training engineers, setting up new QC and testing standards and sourcing enough raw materials in the right quality takes time). The other part is simply how the deal with China has been negotiated, the initial order for 176 tanks is meant to be bought directly from China, the next order of 110 is meant to only be assembled locally. I believe the initial batch of 176 was likely re-negotiated to also be like the second batch, either way, there is a certain amount we must buy directly from China (keep in mind that this is important to uphold as there is significant profit for China if it sells us the tanks directly, rather than us making them). These initial orders were to act as buffers for HIT to be able to keep producing tanks (and for PA to keep receiving them) until HIT is ready to make the tank locally (because despite being able to make and assemble the tank, it cannot produce most of the electronics locally, and is reverse engineering them. Refer to my previous posts about how this is taking a lot of time because the manuals provided by the Chinese are unhelpful or incomplete).
As for your second question, both. The FCS and GCS was made by HIT itself at AvRID (it’s Processor however is of Turkish origin, STM I believe, because we don’t have the capability to produce those yet), the autoloader was made by CARE, a private company. The integration and production of thermal sights (under license) was done by SHIBLI, another private company. The ERA was made by NDC/KRL, The LWRs were offered by ALTCOP etc.
As for reasons for not locally manufacturing them, part of it is the aforementioned difference in materials that HIT does not yet have the capability to manufacture (they have most if not all of the required machinery and processes, but training engineers, setting up new QC and testing standards and sourcing enough raw materials in the right quality takes time). The other part is simply how the deal with China has been negotiated, the initial order for 176 tanks is meant to be bought directly from China, the next order of 110 is meant to only be assembled locally. I believe the initial batch of 176 was likely re-negotiated to also be like the second batch, either way, there is a certain amount we must buy directly from China (keep in mind that this is important to uphold as there is significant profit for China if it sells us the tanks directly, rather than us making them). These initial orders were to act as buffers for HIT to be able to keep producing tanks (and for PA to keep receiving them) until HIT is ready to make the tank locally (because despite being able to make and assemble the tank, it cannot produce most of the electronics locally, and is reverse engineering them. Refer to my previous posts about how this is taking a lot of time because the manuals provided by the Chinese are unhelpful or incomplete).
As for your second question, both. The FCS and GCS was made by HIT itself at AvRID (it’s Processor however is of Turkish origin, STM I believe, because we don’t have the capability to produce those yet), the autoloader was made by CARE, a private company. The integration and production of thermal sights (under license) was done by SHIBLI, another private company. The ERA was made by NDC/KRL, The LWRs were offered by ALTCOP etc.
Last edited:
iLION12345_1
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 1, 2016
- Messages
- 2,604
- Reaction score
- 32
- Country
- Location
Wikipedia is a terrible source and is what misguides most people to actual history.
That being said, I do not get why you posted this, as it does not state the usage of a Chinese engine for the AK at any point, nor of the usage if a French transmission in the final product.
However, there are some fundamental errors with this article, as it is mixing up the Type 90-II, Type 90-IIM (later VT-1) and Al-Khalid.
All the versions (named prototypes P1-P4) listed here are of the Al-Khalid, and this was all done by Pakistan, China was a lot less involved at this stage of the project, because the aforementioned Type 90-II was the project on which Pakistan and China jointly worked. As that tank proved inadequate for both nations, Pakistan further worked on it in the Al-Khalid program (now possessing IP as it was a partner in the Type 90-II project), trying to make it better using western tech, while China went back to the drawing board and came up with the ZTZ-96, Only offering the VT-1 later for export.
The description of the four prototypes however is accurate. One had Chinese gun systems and a German engine and transmission combo. This one didn’t perform well enough and lacked key features like auto-tracking.
One had a British engine and a French transmission along with a Chinese-French-Pakistani FCS/GCS combo (which is what ended up in the final product). This one got embargoed due to Britain’s anti-communist political stance, but was before that the forerunner.
One had an entirely Ukrainian powertrain and FCS/GCS internals.
One had an entirely german powertrain and internals. This was the forerunner after the British/French proposal was blocked, but this too ended up blocked due to our nuclear tests. Leaving only the third option, which was modified and then accepted into service.
There was no Chinese engine in the prototypes, nor any French transmissions in the completed models.
The description of the four prototypes however is accurate. One had Chinese gun systems and a German engine and transmission combo. This one didn’t perform well enough and lacked key features like auto-tracking.
One had a British engine and a French transmission along with a Chinese-French-Pakistani FCS/GCS combo (which is what ended up in the final product). This one got embargoed due to Britain’s anti-communist political stance, but was before that the forerunner.
One had an entirely Ukrainian powertrain and FCS/GCS internals.
One had an entirely german powertrain and internals. This was the forerunner after the British/French proposal was blocked, but this too ended up blocked due to our nuclear tests. Leaving only the third option, which was modified and then accepted into service.
There was no Chinese engine in the prototypes, nor any French transmissions in the completed models.
Army Guide
Army Guide - information about the main battle tanks, armoured vehicles and armament of the land forces and also the information concerning other army subjects - Al-Khalid, Main battle tank, Armoured Vehicles
www.army-guide.com
The powerpack and transmission description of MBT Al-Khalid
The Al Khalid derived from Norinco Type 90IIM MBT. It was in the early 90s, when India started to test their Arjun MBT. Pakistanis looked for a MBT design that could be produced by herself. Norinco provided their own Type 90IIM prototype, this is an MBT design which comprised many Western compone...
Last edited:
MIRauf
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2018
- Messages
- 886
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Are we sure about that ? my understanding was that to produce further A-90Bs the steel had to be procured from France or elsewhere as Pak Steel couldn't make HY-80 or similar type.
If they can now then awesome news.
People’s steel
Similar threads
