What's new

PAKISTAN MAY NEGOTIATE WITH UKRAINE FOR 100 OPLOT-M MAIN BATTLE TANKS

Agreed. We need joint R&D so that China-Pak can emerge as the new centre of low cost, yet high quality products. Too long the West has maintained an 'aura' of being high-tech and invincible. This shall change.
PA had achieved great progress in producing Ak tanks. Yesterday I checked the Altay thread, few Turkish members are very unsatisfied with Altay's progress. They even suspicious whether Altay uses free loader or not. You shall proud of yourself.l, cause few countries in this world can't produce advanced MBT by themselves.

AK is good model of China and Pakistan weapon development collaboration, So as JF17.
 
Regarding attack helicopters.

We had been hammering the Z-10 a little bit, but to be honest, there are no attack helicopters besides the Viper and Apache that benefit from the Z-10's economies of scale (via PLA requirements). If we couple this with China's lower-cost manufacturing costs, then the Z-10 is the affordable option for building up numbers, full stop.

The T-129 could be great for operations in the north to back our infantry, a valid role for sure, but for covering our armour along the vast eastern front in Punjab and Sindh, there's nothing more affordable than the Z-10.

I think an up-rated turboshaft could assure us of a top-rotor mmW radar and more than 8 ATGM (together). Yes, we need to make sure this thing tolerates heat and has good resistance to sand intrusion. But I think CAIC and AVIC can resolve these issues, especially since there is direct benefit for the PLA.

Adding on this.....

The requirement of a MmW-radar and datalink is essential as it opens up new avenues like controlling UAV from the Gunship.
bf9180cd78de49a19f8a75136b66c3b4.jpg

Such a capability will give Gunship advantage of advance recon (maybe upto 20,30,40 Km ahead) before it enters the area to attack enemy. This will enhance survivability of Gunship as it will be saved from ambushes and nasty surprises. The pilot and WSO will need to make a plan accordingly from the info from the UAV and make amends where needed.
In future, this capability can be stretched to controlling UCAV's, then the firepower in the air will be doubled with both Gunships and UCAV's carrying missiles and working in conjunction.

If the requirement is given by Pakistan for these capabilities then CAIC and AVIC probably could come up with something tailor made.
http://www.janes.com/article/61058/us-army-developing-mum-tx-for-apache-control-of-all-uavs
 
Given Pakistan has signed a $600 million deal with Ukraine to upgrade Pakistans MBTs I'd be hopeful for Pakistans next MBT to be Oplot M.

If nothing else it would be good to see the existing T80UD fleet brought up to this standard.
 
In recent exercises it was seen that Gunships were used with armour so it can be expected that AH-1 may accompany armoured formations in an attack. However, deploying a gunship squadron or detachment in enemy area(across the border in India) is not an easy job. The amount of maintenance crew + parts + weapons+ spares+fuel (fuel trucks) etc means another 150-300 men and lots of equipment into enemy territory to keep the gunships flying and attacking enemy armour when required. Its not feasible to send gunships back into Pakistan for re-arming, refuelling and general maintenance. They need to be deployed minutes away from own armoured force to give cover, not hours away. Secondly, the ability of gunships to cover alot of distance in minimum time makes it an excellent defensive platform. It can be in the desert and after sometime, hundreds of km away to a threatened sector near Okara, where enemy armour will be about to break into Pakistani front lines. So it really depends how PA commanders want to utilise this asset. Probably if numbers were around 100, sending 20 or so across shouldn't be a problem.

Gunships along Eastern border are basically meant for anti armor role. So ability to carry maximum anti tank payload of 16 ATGM was one of demands of PA while evaluating Z10/T129/Mi28. Currently AH1F can carry 8 ATGM which is good payload considering its size and fact that its a single engine gun ship. AH1Z can carry 16 twice as much as AH1F can. One of the thing I have noticed is that our Cobra fleet operate in desert terrain where some covers are available in the form of hills or trees. Pilots fly gunship very low few meters abve ground while moving towards target. Find a cover and remain hovering at same ground level until enemy comes in range. They engage enemy and move to another cover then repeat the cycle once again until they are out of ammo or mission is achieved. Its kind of ''hit & hide'' tactic and it suits very well for gunship with nimble frame like Cobra has or in future Viper will have. This is major plus point in favor of Viper as our pilots & strategy makers are already well aware of this chopper and for them it will be very handy to utalize these units to maximum with any trouble. This make me believe that AH1Z once arrive will be deployed in South Punjab as we will no longer need dedicated Gunships for our Western borders by that time. Rest T129/Z10 are meant to full fill our ''quantity'' demands with sufficient quality over AH1S we got. IMO it was better idea to go for more AH1Z instead of T129 (like 24 of them) and follow up Z10 as cheap but capable replacement of Cobras for full filling our Gunship demands. (44 of them).


The APC's that PA operates are M-113 and Talha. @Ulla and @Zarvan will kill me here, lol, i dont jump into APC discussion much now. check the engine HP's of Talha and M-113. PA is matching 1200 HP engine AK with a 330 HP engined Talha. Talha's hp/ton figure is good, but its the add on armor that could affect it. Probably PA is satisfied with 330 HP engine and 25 HP/Ton P/W ratio because IA BMP-2 has a 300 HP engine with 19 HP/Ton P/W ratio.
There is another APC Saad with a 400-450 HP engine and an extra road wheel. With a 100-130 hp more than AL-Talha and an extra road wheel which gives the vehicle increased internal volume and payload, SAAD would have been a better platform to make tracked APC derivatives. ADD on Armour has become a trend in all AFV's nowadays and SAAD wouldnt have faltered. Sakb Tracked Logistics vehicle and Hadeed ARV uses Saad configuration of road wheels and engine.
Wheeled Hamza has a 600 HP engine and a bigger cannon 30mm, which now shows that PA is going towards bigger HP engines as well as cannons.

Our M113 and its clones are ''tin cans''. So many troops packed in small tin box with one 12.7 on roof to defend. This APC IMO should either be developed with more armor, modern gadgetry, better weapon & power full engine or we should link them up with some heavy IFV. I do wish to see heavy IFV (T59 converted) armed with more fire power & better protection accompanying these M113 in a mechanized assault. Bcoz if a mechanized unit is flanked or attacked from rare then these poor M113 will be easy victims as with out tank cover they are nothing. Even BMP is big threat for these poor souls. Presence of few heavy IFV will better protect these APCs in such desperate situations.

Bro.. T-80UD Birch isn't T-80....

The chasis are similar yes but not the welded turret,gun and other systems equipping he UD.. Those are more similar to the Oplot (which was under development back than)...


P.S;T-80 was the best tank and the most expensive tank USSR produced... it suffered because the Russians used it for urban combat in cities ...

The T-90 is essentially an upgraded T-72... The Russians had a large stock of those and hence the upgrade was more plausible rather than producing an expensive tank in large numbers...

Also the T-80 was also produced in Ukraine (which was the armour hub of USSR)... When Ukraine broke away from USSR it also contributed to the premature demise of T-80 in Russian inventory...

A lot has been written on T-80 by tank experts who still declare it better than the T-90.

The Oplot also is superior to the new Russian "Tegril"/MS..

I need your opinion on up gradation of T80UD into T84 Oplot (not OplotM). How feasible is that if OplotM finds its way in PA?
 
Boy if this oplot tenk were in WOT then the Gold thing sticking out of cupola would be a nice target
 
IMHO the oplot M is being reconsidered due to Pakistan's Generations of T-80UD .
It would be great if the huge numbers of T-80UD are replaced/upgraded ,then get the Chinese MBT nice and easy
 
Gunships along Eastern border are basically meant for anti armor role. So ability to carry maximum anti tank payload of 16 ATGM was one of demands of PA while evaluating Z10/T129/Mi28. Currently AH1F can carry 8 ATGM which is good payload considering its size and fact that its a single engine gun ship. AH1Z can carry 16 twice as much as AH1F can. One of the thing I have noticed is that our Cobra fleet operate in desert terrain where some covers are available in the form of hills or trees. Pilots fly gunship very low few meters abve ground while moving towards target. Find a cover and remain hovering at same ground level until enemy comes in range. They engage enemy and move to another cover then repeat the cycle once again until they are out of ammo or mission is achieved. Its kind of ''hit & hide'' tactic and it suits very well for gunship with nimble frame like Cobra has or in future Viper will have. This is major plus point in favor of Viper as our pilots & strategy makers are already well aware of this chopper and for them it will be very handy to utalize these units to maximum with any trouble. This make me believe that AH1Z once arrive will be deployed in South Punjab as we will no longer need dedicated Gunships for our Western borders by that time. Rest T129/Z10 are meant to full fill our ''quantity'' demands with sufficient quality over AH1S we got. IMO it was better idea to go for more AH1Z instead of T129 (like 24 of them) and follow up Z10 as cheap but capable replacement of Cobras for full filling our Gunship demands. (44 of them).
Ah-1F/S has three shortcomings.

1. TOW missile needs to be guided all the way till it hits the target.
The problem surfaces when AH-1S is targeting an MBT and gets painted by a mobile SAM protecting MBT. Fire and Forget Missiles like HJ-10, hell fire etc are the need to engage, fire, forget and engage new target.

2. No Air to Air missile.
This is very useful against enemy helicopters and probably against UAV/UCAV. Not sure if IR-guided AAM can bring stealthy UAV down, laser guided missiles like RBS-70 system maybe.

3. No MmW FCR Radar e.g Long Bow
This helps detect, classify and prioritise ground targets day or night, in poor weather and obscured conditions; then attack those targets with pinpoint accuracy from long range.It helps conduct precision attacks in adverse weather conditions, automatically engage multiple targets, provide fire and forget missile capability, and operate on the digital battlefield

Im not sure if it has RWR, ECM etc though it has night fighting capability.

Z-10, AH-1Z and T-129 have at least two of the above capabilities.

AH-1Z can operate Long Bow, can carry Aim-9 and Hell Fire ATGM.
T-129 has Aim-9 and Hell fire ATGM capability. MmW FCR is in making.
Z-10 has PL-X AAM and HJ-10/AKD-10 firing capability. MmW FCR is in making.


Z-10 is currently being tested so it seems PA will induct this and then play around with its systems and ask for design according to its needs.

Our M113 and its clones are ''tin cans''. So many troops packed in small tin box with one 12.7 on roof to defend. This APC IMO should either be developed with more armor, modern gadgetry, better weapon & power full engine or we should link them up with some heavy IFV. I do wish to see heavy IFV (T59 converted) armed with more fire power & better protection accompanying these M113 in a mechanized assault. Bcoz if a mechanized unit is flanked or attacked from rare then these poor M113 will be easy victims as with out tank cover they are nothing. Even BMP is big threat for these poor souls. Presence of few heavy IFV will better protect these APCs in such desperate situations.

These are APC,s, the battle taxis, they are not meant to engage head on like IFV.

They are used to keep up with tanks for hundreds of km and then dis mount infantry. APC stay behind tanks and even stay behind when infantry dismounts and attacks. This makes them dependant upon MBT protection for movement and deployment.

APC convoy can have ATGM-carriers for protection.
 
Thank you.

its good that members share their thoughts openly and this is why PDF is an awesome forum.

In recent exercises it was seen that Gunships were used with armour so it can be expected that AH-1 may accompany armoured formations in an attack. However, deploying a gunship squadron or detachment in enemy area(across the border in India) is not an easy job. The amount of maintenance crew + parts + weapons+ spares+fuel (fuel trucks) etc means another 150-300 men and lots of equipment into enemy territory to keep the gunships flying and attacking enemy armour when required. Its not feasible to send gunships back into Pakistan for re-arming, refuelling and general maintenance. They need to be deployed minutes away from own armoured force to give cover, not hours away. Secondly, the ability of gunships to cover alot of distance in minimum time makes it an excellent defensive platform. It can be in the desert and after sometime, hundreds of km away to a threatened sector near Okara, where enemy armour will be about to break into Pakistani front lines. So it really depends how PA commanders want to utilise this asset. Probably if numbers were around 100, sending 20 or so across shouldn't be a problem.

The APC's that PA operates are M-113 and Talha. @Ulla and @Zarvan will kill me here, lol, i dont jump into APC discussion much now. check the engine HP's of Talha and M-113. PA is matching 1200 HP engine AK with a 330 HP engined Talha. Talha's hp/ton figure is good, but its the add on armor that could affect it. Probably PA is satisfied with 330 HP engine and 25 HP/Ton P/W ratio because IA BMP-2 has a 300 HP engine with 19 HP/Ton P/W ratio.
There is another APC Saad with a 400-450 HP engine and an extra road wheel. With a 100-130 hp more than AL-Talha and an extra road wheel which gives the vehicle increased internal volume and payload, SAAD would have been a better platform to make tracked APC derivatives. ADD on Armour has become a trend in all AFV's nowadays and SAAD wouldnt have faltered. Sakb Tracked Logistics vehicle and Hadeed ARV uses Saad configuration of road wheels and engine.
Wheeled Hamza has a 600 HP engine and a bigger cannon 30mm, which now shows that PA is going towards bigger HP engines as well as cannons.

PAF has its own plans regarding war times and truthfully support for Army and Navy comes as second priority for it. There are examples in the past, but PAF dedicating its top of the line jets like F-16 or JF-17 for an armoured offensive by PA, i doubt it.

The infantry divisions are sometimes attached with independent armoured brigades (90 tanks). This way the tank to battalion ratio can be increased. i told ratio in previous post to just give an idea. Do bear in mind that not all units go into combat together. The commander sends a few units into combat and keeps some reserve to send in where required. He may send the whole armoured brigade (2 armor regiments) with an infantry brigade (3 infantry battalions) to penetrate into enemy positions. The infantry brigade can then hold that position and entrench while the armoured brigade is called back and sent into action next with another infantry battalion or infantry brigade.

The Infantry Battalions in infantry Divisions dont get APC's for movement but motorised transport(jeeps,pick ups,trucks), which also if available. The Supply and Transport (S&T) Battalion takes care of that for the whole division. Transport can also be also be arranged from Corps HQ. In some scenarios, civilain trucks are provided by Log HQ (Logistics HQ).
Most western and gulf armies have more mechanised infantry battalions (MIB's) compared to Plain Infantry Battalions. PA has MIB's but usually attached with armoured divisions and armoured brigades apart from Mechanised Divisions in desert.

Infantry combat is meant to be as stealthy as possible and get as close as possible to engage the enemy. Its too early to say about CZ-806. Things vary however, if calling a 15 min pre-attack artillery strike to suppress enemy infantry in entrenched bunkers or fortified positions, then distance needs to be kept to keep out of friendly fire. Engagement can begin after bombardment stops. More often or not, things dont go the text book style. Every plan has a different terrain, different threat level, different weapons to be utilised when and where etc. A combination of a good assault rifle, soldier training, tanks, artillery and other factors combined to bring a good result.

Excellent written article !

Can someone give this guy a positive rating for his analyses here in PDF !
 
Last edited:




Pakistan may buy 100 ukrainian tank "Oplot"


Thu, 20.04.2017 14:35

15191.jpg


Pakistan's ambassador Atar Abbas said that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan may purchase 100 ukrainian "Oplot" tanks.

"Today experts are holding testing and evaluation, there is an agreement on the purchase of the Ukrainian battle tank"Oplot". And in case of its signing Pakistan will purchase them at Kharkov plant more than a hundred units of this technique," - said ambassador.

According to him, the defense sector was one of the main areas of cooperation between Pakistan and Ukraine.
"This concerned procurement of heavy equipment and its maintenance in particular" the ambassador said.

According to him, mutual visits of the defense ministers of Pakistan and Ukraine were held recently.

"A few months ago an agreement was signed on the joint production of engines for the Al-Khalid tanks and military helicopters, all production will be carried out on Pakistani territory," he stressed.

Read this article in russian.

Source: arab.com.ua

Pakistan may buy 100 ukrainian tank "Oplot" | Ukraine in Arabic

@Glavcom
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom