Arsalan
THINK TANK CHAIRMAN
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 18,178
- Reaction score
- 65
- Country
- Location
IHS Jane’s has projected that Pakistan could spend $12 billion U.S. on big-ticket weapon systems in the period of 2016 to 2024. For prospective arms vendors, the market of focus in Pakistan will likely center on a number of major land armament programs, such as main battle tanks (MBT), self-propelled howitzer (SPH), armoured personnel carriers (APC), and light armoured vehicles.
In terms of MBTs, the al-Khalid II is expected to be the leading program (at a projected value of $1 billion U.S.). The Talha tracked APC will continue to be inducted as well (at a value of $1.1 billion U.S.). According to Jane’s, possible “opportunities exist for a self-propelled mortar, an APC and a SPH” at values of $1.5 billion, $1.1 billion and $844 million, respectively.
Jane’s also noted that Pakistan’s economy is projected to continue struggling, with its GDP growth rate anchored to a little over 3.5% over the next five years. Despite that, Pakistan has increased its defence expenditure for the coming year from 2.3% of its GDP to 2.54%.
Comment and Analysis
Although Pakistan’s projected expenditure rate is on the lower side compared to that of other powers in Asia and the Middle East, it is a sizable amount in its own right. Pakistan is evidently looking to reinvest most of that money back into its domestic industry, specifically existing solutions.
The al-Khalid II main battle tank (MBT) has returned to the development pipeline. It is not a new program, but changes in the technology market will likely impact the improvements it will exhibit over the al-Khalid and al-Khalid I MBTs. For example, Pakistan could potentially consider acquiring Ukraine’s recently revealed 1500hp diesel engine, which is derived from the KMDB 6TD-2 currently used on the al-Khalid. Pakistan may also try to procure some of the technology onboard Turkey’s Altay MBT, most notably its electronics and Akkor self-protection suite, which is capable of soft and hard-kill defensive measures.
Well it is good to know that some source as respectable as Janes have thought on the same lines. I have been saying this for quite some time amid all those talks of Type99 and MBT 3000 and T84 and Altay.
This approach is the one that makes more sense than any other proposal our enthusiasts came up with. Just select a main body that is stable and fit your required specification for logistics etc. Fit in an engine from Ukraine, get Altay team on board for some electronics and other sub system, integrate sights, select protection systems and then fit it all in to make one compatible machine that serves you best. Excellent idea with lots of benefits other than this new talk itself. One thing that I would love to be added to this, as I have pointed in all those previous posts, is platform commonality. I hope the same engine supplier can supply a relatively smaller engine to be used in essentially same chassis/body to form the base of IFV, APC or mechanized mortar!! That would be perfect. Our own little Armata!
The expense of doing all this will be in same range as buying some hundred tanks from a supplier as some people have been suggesting but the benefits will be much more than getting a new tank. Just to highlight a few, selecting from all those subsystems available to find one that suites our needs the best will be a learning process in itself. The technical know how and insight in procuring and then making that system at home or even integrating with with the tank will be of great value. It will help make possible homemade derivatives and to also can be used to upgrade the existing pool of tanks. Not to mention if we can include that platform commonality which will be a huge achievement and will address our needs for quite some time to come.
This is what I have been trying to communicate with you @Zarvan
@Dazzler @Quwa @fatman17 you will find this article interesting.
@Slav Defence @TaimiKhan