T-80UD better than Al Khalid?

[nightrider_saulat]

even russian can't rate t-80 and t-90 better then each other
both are best in their own perspectives
but american on the other hand consider t-80 much more heavily armed and built as compare to t-90
and also consider t-90much more agile,lethal and effective
as compare to t-80
for me al-khalid is equaly or some less agile as t-90
and as equaly or less equally armored as t-80

 

[Developereo]

If the PAF where really that concerned about US sanctions, they why did they go in for the purchase of additional F-16's??

It's called diversification to spread the risk. F-16 is a good plane, but we can't put all our eggs in one basket, and the JF-17 is an economical, albeit less capable, alternative.

Do tell me what custom features not available on the F-16 are availble with the JF-17?????

FLIR and DSI, to name a couple off the top of my head.

Feel free to read the JF-17 threads on this forum or elsewhere for more info.

From the amount of access this guy enoyed i would only be surprised if he did know the PA as well they knew themselves, if not better. It takes a lot of knowledge to write a book especially about the history of an army especially with inside information. I dont see anyone from the PA trying to contradict him based on what he has published in the book. If the PA themselves thought that he was wrong about the Al Khalid remark, they would have pointed it out to him. Which certainly has not happened.And the from the looks of it the PA wanted to impress the Austarlian Defence Attache otherwise they would not have given him such privliged access to themselves.

What part of 'not all details were revealed' do you have trouble understanding?

 

[hj786]

If As he seems to be considerably better placed than any of us to form an factual opinion about the matter. Unless something more credible comes out.

The author of the article I posted (http://usmanansari.com/id40.html), Usman Ansari, is just as well placed as the Australian author; he cites two officers of the ISPR and soldiers/officers of a PA armoured division. You are dismissing it simply because it is written by a Pakistani?

It is very well know that the Pakistan Military is short on funding and thus are unable to purchase the equipment that they will like to. An clear example for this is the JF-17 programme, the PAF is going for this bird in large numbers primarily for reasons of economy. Its an open secret that they would have preferred the F-16 had they been able to afford it.

An open secret among people who don't know what they're talking about. They're going for JF-17 for many reasons, not just because it is cheap. It is produced in Pakistan, it can be customised with electronics and weapons of any origin, it can't be embargoed, its performance is comparable to the F-16. If they went for F-16 in numbers, the PAF would be crippled if/when the U.S.A. decides to put an arms embargo on Pakistan.

Now the PA just doesnot allow anybody for that matter into its sensitive installations.

If HIT is such a sensitive installation, how come I know of two civilians who were given tours of the facilities and had their questions answered by HIT personnel? One of them is known as Bezerk, he was recently made a moderator here. The other is known as Sabre, he posts at another forum (google "defence talk") and claims he was told by the director of HIT that a new tank (Al-Khalid II) would roll out in 2019.

If the PAF where really that concerned about US sanctions, they why did they go in for the purchase of additional F-16's?? Did the US congress guarantee that they will be no sanctions imposed on them!!!?Do tell me what custom features not available on the F-16 are availble with the JF-17?????

From the amount of access this guy enoyed i would only be surprised if he did know the PA as well they knew themselves, if not better. It takes a lot of knowledge to write a book especially about the history of an army especially with inside information.

I dont see anyone from the PA trying to contradict him based on what he has published in the book. If the PA themselves thought that he was wrong about the Al Khalid remark, they would have pointed it out to him.
Which certainly has not happened.And the from the looks of it the PA wanted to impress the Austarlian Defence Attache otherwise they would not have given him such privliged access to themselves.

If they aren't concerned about US sanctions, why didn't they buy more F-16s? They could buy plenty of F-16s for the same price as 250-300 JF-17 and 36 J-10, so cost can't be the only reason. Why should the PAF trust the word of the US congress? Custom features available on JF-17 and not on F-16: Pakistani electronics, weaponry. Chinese radars, electronics, weaponry, engines. French radars, electronics, weaponry, engines. German weaponry. South African electronics, weaponry. Russian engines. In-flight refuelling probe for tankers equipped with hose/drogue. The list goes on. Other advantages: produced in Pakistan, can be exported to other countries (the only fighter in its class currently available on the market).

The author of the article I posted has plenty of inside access too.

So you're basing your claims on conjecture and this discussion is a waste of time because you've made your mind up already, right?

 

[Renegade]

Sometimes ordering a military equipment from abroad is more economical then getting an indigenous one. And the world knows Russian origin or CAS origin weapon systems are not expensive. If PA had gone for a huge order, it would have been economical or they may have gotten then ToT too.

Plus once a book is written, it doesn't means the author has to keep printing edition after edition to keep it updating. You mentioned the Zia thing & the author corrected it because he was wrong in the first one. But in the case of AK, i repeat once again, he was right when writing the book that its inferior. So no need to make any correction in later editions as his fact was right at that time. Plus he has now no information to the current AK as he is no more in Pakistan nor access to HIT or senior level people.

I requested you to provide me where is he mentioning that NOW in 2006 the AK is inferior to T-80UD.
As for his visit, i don't have any issue with that as Defense Attache's do go to the manufacturing units of their posting country or are taken on goodwill visit to enhance bilateral ties.

But he is talking about the 90s design of AK, not that one in current service.

If you are familiar with publication of books you will understand that the authors keep updating the information as the situation evolves and new facts come to light. Had the author felt resonaibly convinced that his statement about the Khalid had gone oudated with time he would have certainly updated the information in the latest edition, the one from which i have quoted. Lack of understanding of this fundamental fact, lies behing your attitude to believe the authors statement.

 

[Developereo]

If you are familiar with publication of books you will understand that the authors keep updating the information as the situation evolves and new facts come to light. Had the author felt resonaibly convinced that his statement about the Khalid had gone oudated with time he would have certainly updated the information in the latest edition, the one from which i have quoted.

The author cannot update any edition with information he does not have. The fact that he didn't update outdated statements reflects either his laziness or intellectual dishonesty.

Lack of understanding of this fundamental fact, lies behing your attitude to believe the authors statement.

You want to believe something so badly that you ignore basic common sense. Whatever helps you sleep better at night, knock yourself out...

 

[emotionless_teenage]

F-16 does have FLIR

when someone said feature that is available in JF-17 but not F-16 i was thinking about chinese weapon integration

 

[Renegade]

FLIR and DSI, to name a couple off the top of my head.

The F-16 does has FLIR. and pray what is DSI???

 

[Renegade]

The author cannot update any edition with information he does not have. The fact that he didn't update outdated statements reflects either his laziness or intellectual dishonesty.



You want to believe something so badly that you ignore basic common sense. Whatever helps you sleep better at night, knock yourself out...

Can you give me one credible source which validates yor argument. Till now you havent. Come out with some credible proof which clearly states that the Khalid is better than the T-80UD.

Till now you havent shown anything to prove your argument. It only rests on a blind belief that the Khalid is better come what may, your belief is just based on blind faith. Show me proof instead of just prattling on that the author is lazy and uses outaded information.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Can you give me one credible source which validates yor argument. Till now you havent. Come out with some credible proof which clearly states that the Khalid is better than the T-80UD.

Till now you havent shown anything to prove your argument. It only rests on a blind belief that the Khalid is better come what may, your belief is just based on blind faith. Show me proof instead of just prattling on that the author is lazy and uses outaded information.

First of all in one of my previous posts i gave you some of the additional features which AK has lacking in T-80UD, & these facts have not been invented by me, they are from the hundreds of sources maximum of which are official ones, info released by HIT guys in defense exhibitions or by people having inside knowledge. Kindly don't wait for spoon feeding, as i said its up to you to counter check the facts as its now very old information, more then a dozen threads are there in this forum about AK & its capabilities & performance to other tanks.

But from the stubborn attitude which you have been showing with your comments, its clear you wanna keep thinking that AK is inferior.

Your comments about the edition of books hold no ground as in the book the author comments are still of the 90s, he has not mentioned anything about 2006. Edition of 2006 does not means to print information of 2006. Plus, as said before he has no access to AK or its information in 2006. He was defense attache in the 90s. Not 2006.

So be happy thinking that AK is inferior to T-80UD.

 

[Developereo]

Till now you havent shown anything to prove your argument.

Other posters have repeatedly provided you with facts which you ignore since they don't suit your prejudice. You really don't seem to have a clue about the discussion.

The F-16 does has FLIR. and pray what is DSI???

I know you are used to a lifetime of Indian media brainwashing and spoonfeeding, but it's a healthy exercise to use your own brain once in a while. Use google, use the other threads on this forum, use the library...

I'll start you off. Divertless (or Diverterless) Supersonic I...

The last bit is left as an exercise for you. Use your brain for a change. It'll do you good in the long run.

 

[hj786]

Can you give me one credible source which validates yor argument. Till now you havent.

Bullsh!t, I posted an article that p!sses all over your argument as well as your source.

Show me proof instead of just prattling on that the author is lazy and uses outaded information.

T-80UD
KMDB - T80UD Main Battle Tank
Power-to-weight ratio 21.7 hp/t
Max road speed 65 km/h
Engine 1,000 hp 6TD-1 diesel
Ammunition for:
main 125 mm gun 45 rds
coaxial machine gun 1,250 rds
anti-aircraft machine gun 450 rds
Grenades 4 each side (total 8)
"Mounted on either side of the turret is a bank of four electrically operated smoke grenade launchers."

Al-Khalid
::: DEPO - Defence Export Promotion Organization :::
Army Guide - Al-Khalid, Main battle tank
Power to Weight ratio 25 hp / ton
Max Speed 70 km/h
Engine 1,200 hp 6TD-2 diesel
Ammunition for:
Main 125 mm gun 49 rounds
Co-axial MG 4000
AAMG 750
Grenades 16 (12 Smoke, 4 HE)

Let me guess, the tank manufacturers are not credible sources.

 

[beckham]

even russian can't rate t-80 and t-90 better then each other
both are best in their own perspectives
but american on the other hand consider t-80 much more heavily armed and built as compare to t-90
and also consider t-90much more agile,lethal and effective
as compare to t-80
for me al-khalid is equaly or some less agile as t-90
and as equaly or less equally armored as t-80

ahem ahem..... Actually Russians do have their ratings !

Indian Army's T-90 Bhishma tanks taking part in a military training exercise.

The Russian Defence Ministry made a selection of a single Main Battle Tank (MBT) in 1995. The T-80 was more expensive and its delicate, fuel-hungry gas turbine engine provided a questionable advantage. It was also notorious for the poor showing of older T-80BV tanks in Chechnya. In January 1996, Col.-Gen. Aleksandr Galkin, Chief of the Main Armor Directorate of the Ministry of Defense, announced that the T-90 had been selected as the sole Russian MBT. However newer and upgraded T-80s will remain in Russian service until the end of their service life. Plans called for all earlier models to be replaced with T-90s by the end of 1997, subject to funding availability.

By September 1995, some 107 T-90 tanks had been produced, located in the Siberian Military District. By mid-1996 some 107 T-90s had gone into service in the Far Eastern Military District . Several hundred of these tanks have been produced, with various estimates suggesting that between 100 and 300 are in service, primarily in the Far East.

1999 saw the appearance of a new model of T-90, featuring the fully welded turret of the Obyekt 187 experimental MBT instead of the original T-90's cast turret. This new model is called "Vladimir" in honour of T-90 Chief Designer Vladimir Potkin, who died in 1999. It is unknown how this design affects the protection and layout of the turret, or whether the tank's hull armour layout was changed.

The T-90S saw combat action during the 1999 Chechen invasion of Dagestan. According to Moscow Defense Brief, one T-90 was hit by seven RPG anti-tank rockets but remained in action. The journal concludes that with regular equipment T-90S seems to be the best protected Russian tank, especially if Shtora and Arena defensive protection systems are integrated in it.

In 2006, there were about 279 T-90 tanks serving in the Russian Ground Forces' 5th Guards Tank Division, stationed in the Siberian Military District, and seven T-90 tanks in the Navy. Some 31 new T-90 tanks were expected to enter service in 2007, and 60 in 2008.

The T-90 is an interim solution, pending the introduction of the new Russian Main Battle Tank (MBT) which is currently under development.Meanwhile, the T-90 will probably remain in low-rate production to keep production lines open until newer designs become available.

 

[Glavcom]

for me al-khalid is equaly or some less agile as t-90
and as equaly or less equally armored as t-80

Till now you havent shown anything to prove your argument. It only rests on a blind belief that the Khalid is better come what may, your belief is just based on blind faith. Show me proof instead of just prattling on that the author is lazy and uses outaded information.

Bullsh!t, I posted an article that p!sses all over your argument as well as your source.

Rating TOP 10 best tanks of the world for an independent evaluation of the Glavcom blog !

http://glavcom.blogspot.com/2017/12/rating-top-10-best-tanks-of-world.html?m=0

 

[帅的一匹]

They accepted it because it is a quality product that does its job properly, not simply because it is "indigenous".

Well said