PA's New Haider MBT is the T99A- Type 99 MBT

[mingle]

I posted this yesterday in the thread started by Rafi. So interestingly according to H Khan, VT-4 offered by China is nothing more than advanced AK-1 but with the same issues, and hence Pak not interested and AK-1 project being shelved. It is a pity that after so many years, no progress has been made. And I am very surprised that no funding was given to the tank project.

Malik sb thanks to Dar Nawaz and zardari. DAR has 560million $ for media houses and rental jurnos but don't have money for 300 million for 8F16s. It's all priorties.

 

[HRK]

Thanks HRK. I hope you are right, and something good eventuates between Pak-Ukraine.

I also hope HRK is correct but it is also possible that agreements with ukraine hit some problems with changing situation. One hopes for the best.

its not just about Ukraine I see it as model for our Al-Haider program which mean even if we chose VT-4 or T-90MS we would get some TOT related to tank engines, BTW following are the posts of @Arsalan related to T-90

Date: Jul 26, 2017

Russians are NOT playing ball. This have been confirmed by multiple sources both on and off this forum, as reliable as they come (second to Facebook friends only ) Now if someone still want to keep talking about Su35, T90, AKs, Pantsir S-1, S300/350/400, TOR, Mi-28 etc etc, well i can do NOTHING but feel sorry for their sanity or the lack of it!!

A majority of these deals/offers were figment of imaginations and a couple of them though real never went through due to reluctance on part of Russians and something our fear of betrayal by them.

Date: Nov 7, 2017

Not sure. T90s were not here for testing but still i was told that a delegation did visited Russia to discuss the project. I just hope it is not right and i think there are better and bigger things to go after for PA.

Yes!
Plus from the discussion i had with someone at HIT, the major problem PA have with Al-Khalid is lack of proper modern crew availability setup. Like a separate compartment with blow out panels or something. Cant see how T90 will address that. From my discussion there, it seem like THIS one factor will play a key role in future tank selection.

We are not interested in buying ammo from them.
They are not interested in sale without ammo.

That is where it is right now!

I was informed about it by two different people. One from HIT and other from POF. According to POF guy, it is the ammo deal that is a problem otherwise rest is all ok (but how? what about evaluation and trials?)


You are RIGHT but it is useless to try to argue and convince some people.


OPLOT opens up the options for an indigenous system in future, a tank chassis fitted with different sub systems to make a tank to meet our needs and may be use the platform as basis of APC, IFV, SAM Carrier and other such roles.

T-90 wont offer that.


Yes, it should mean that. The guy MUST have been wrong when he said that everything is done except this one point. I am not sure how it is possible (without proper evaluation and trials)


That is what i have been told. Currently, it is just about a final agreement on ammo! Russians do not want to commit any performance aspects if we do not buy ammo from them.

 

[HRK]

it is also possible that agreements with ukraine hit some problems with changing situation. One hopes for the best.

it is still in under negotiation but it seems now the current focus is more related AK-I and T-80UD in armoured segment

UkrOboronProm said they also discussed prospects for collaboration on the production of the Al Khalid-Improved (I) main battle tank (MBT), which has been developed by Pakistan's Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) as a follow-on to the baseline Al-Khalid MBT, and the provision of MRO and modernisation support for the Pakistan Army's Soviet-era T-80UD MBTs.

LINK: Ukraine highlights expanding opportunities in Pakistan

 

[Fieldmarshal]

All this talk of shelfing the AK program is nothing but crap.
For the last few year hmc has been producing them at full tilt ie their highest production rate since inception.
At the same time HMC is being retooled to double its production capacity

 

[Rafi]

If you just read the Mod report 16 AK1s we're produced 2017.

 

[Fieldmarshal]

If you just read the Mod report 16 AK1s we're produced 2017.

The production rate of AK series is a lot higher than wt u have quoted, more AK have been produced every year for the last couple of years than the no. U have quoted above.

 

[Arsalan]

its not just about Ukraine I see it as model for our Al-Haider program which mean even if we chose VT-4 or T-90MS we would get some TOT related to tank engines, BTW following are the posts of @Arsalan related to T-90

Date: Jul 26, 2017



Date: Nov 7, 2017

Wow, man you are good at keeping track of old posts.

Anyway, no update here but it seems we are stuck at same point as before.

 

[HRK]

Just to keep the record straight

Special program on-aired by a local news channel at 7 Sep-2017 showed us Chassis#22 of AK-I tank under construction

and then as per Jane Defence Weekly we were supposed to received 30 AK-I till end of 2017

 

[Fieldmarshal]

Just to keep the record straight

Special program on-aired by a local news channel at 7 Sep-2017 showed us Chassis#22 of AK-I tank under construction
View attachment 531087

and then as per Jane Defence Weekly we were supposed to received 30 AK-I till end of 2017
View attachment 531094

The report is both right n wrong.
HIT did hand over a regiment strength of AK to the army but due to a problem the Chinese sights the army refused to accept them.
It took 6 months for the whole prob. To be sorted out as initially the supplier blamed the HIT for faulty installation, while HIT through out maintained that the problem was with the sights.
After thorough tests. It was established that the sights were indeed faulty and thus replaced.
And only than did the army except the shipment which by the time had doubled in no.

 

[HRK]

The report is both right n wrong.
HIT did hand over a regiment strength of AK to the army but due to a problem the Chinese sights the army refused to accept them.
It took 6 months for the whole prob. To be sorted out as initially the supplier blamed the HIT for faulty installation, while HIT through out maintained that the problem was with the sights.
After thorough tests. It was established that the sights were indeed faulty and thus replaced.
And only than did the army except the shipment which by the time had doubled in no.

Aren't we using sight made by Shibli electronics under licence of french company ...??

 

[Fieldmarshal]

Aren't we using sight made by Shibli electronics under licence of french company ...??

Yes shibli is making sightz

 

[Asian.Century]

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

So which tank are we making at home with subsystems from Turkey/China/Ukraine??

So much confusion regarding this??
@Bilal Khan (Quwa)

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

So which tank are we making at home with subsystems from Turkey/China/Ukraine??

So much confusion regarding this??
@Bilal Khan (Quwa)

It looks like the PA bought VT4s off-the-shelf from China.

Meanwhile, HIT is manufacturing AK1s and developing the AK2. The AK2 may see collaboration from Ukraine and/or Turkey, but at this point, I think China's fair game too (basically bring some VT4 tech to the AK2).

 

[Ahmet Pasha]

So far I've only seen the indigenous RWS

It looks like the PA bought VT4s off-the-shelf from China.

Meanwhile, HIT is manufacturing AK1s and developing the AK2. The AK2 may see collaboration from Ukraine and/or Turkey, but at this point, I think China's fair game too (basically bring some VT4 tech to the AK2).