THOUGH SLOW, PAKISTAN’S ARMOUR AND ARTILLERY MODERNIZATION IS MOVING

[Mrc]

Syrian T72's are of the old soviet export quality....

Underneath all the upgrades is still a t 72 ... It does not become M1A5

It cannot fire on move for instance .

 

[CHI RULES]

I dont think t 72 has a chance against any of the ones u mentioned even upgraded t 72...

T 90 is a different ball game .. I expect alkhalid to fare favorably against it . Not the rest

It shall be much appreciated if any member may provided data comparison of T90s and AK and then we may conclude the chances of AK. On other hand Pak AZ and T80 UD are also almost front line MBTs so they must also be upgraded to counter Indian MBTs. Meanwhile challenge or threat level for Indian T72s are much lesser as they shall be mostly used by them more for bombing rather one to one combat with Pak MBTs.

Sir ji, their t-72 upgrade is slower than our Arty upgrades..

View attachment 582581

Sir in case of any future conflict especially if MBTs involved we should also check the superior Attack helicopter capabilities of India after induction of AH-64 Apache along with their own domestic attack hellis. Meanwhile our own attack helis virtually have no A2A capabilities meanwhile their service ceiling is not more than 11,000 feet so are pretty much vulnerable to attacks by not only ground based enemy SAMs but also by A2A missiles deployed by opposing attack helicopters.

 

[Mrc]

It shall be much appreciated if any member may provided data comparison of T90s and AK and then we may conclude the chances of AK. On other hand Pak AZ and T80 UD are also almost front line MBTs so they must also be upgraded to counter Indian MBTs. Meanwhile challenge or threat level for Indian T72s are much lesser as they shall be mostly used by them more for bombing rather one to one combat with Pak MBTs.



Sir in case of any future conflict especially if MBTs involved we should also check the superior Attack helicopter capabilities of India after induction of AH-64 Apache along with their own domestic attack hellis. Meanwhile our own attack helis virtually have no A2A capabilities meanwhile their service ceiling is not more than 11,000 feet so are pretty much venerable to atatcks by not only ground based enemy SAMs but also by A2A missiles deployed by opposing attack helicopters.

We need attack helis urgently

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Al Khalid 2 has been under development since many people were born

 

[SABRE]

Al Khalid 2 has been under development since many people were born

I visited HIT in 2007-2008 when I was told of Al-Khalid II. They were planning to roll out the tank in 2019. So far nothing.

 

[Signalian]

It shall be much appreciated if any member may provided data comparison of T90s and AK and then we may conclude the chances of AK.

Search PDF, you will find threads for the data comparison that you are looking for. MBT Vs MBT is much more than data comparison.

 

[Signalian]

Brother, plus the rebuilding of the T85IIAP and the "restart" of the Al-Zarrar program.
It probably means no new "Al-Haider" tank. They will upgrade those T59MII to Al-Zarrar with the Infantry Divisions at North and T85IIAP with those at South.

I so much wish that PA starts raising armored brigades with Infantry divisions, instead of one armored regiment only.
2 x Armored regiments
1 x Mechanized Infantry Battalion
1 x Light Anti Tank Company

This is why the PA is now looking for a new MIFV. HIT is proposing the Viper (developed from the M113/Talha), but there are other contenders, namely from China, Turkey and Ukraine. The latter has a clean-sheet project through the BMP-U, which is interesting. Besides that, the PA stocked up on second-hand M109Ls from Italy, and -- conveniently perhaps -- Leonardo created an upgrade program that can turn those into 155/52-cal SPHs. There is also the wheeled SPH program which, though hitting a snag with apparently so-so trials, can factor in again.

Obviously, we have fiscal constraints. That said, I do think there's a way to gradually build out, the key is for the PA to avoid ad hoc procurement and formulate a plan for platforms that can work for the next 40-50 years. And gradually modernize from there.

PA tried M-113 based IFV variants before, it will be interesting to see how PA introduces IFV in its mechanized forces.

 

[Trango Towers]

Is Al Khaild getting any night version which DRDO has made for IA's T 90s?

DRDO.....PAKISTAN'S SECRET WEAPON AGAINST THE INDIANS

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

I so much wish that PA starts raising armored brigades with Infantry divisions, instead of one armored regiment only.
2 x Armored regiments
1 x Mechanized Infantry Battalion
1 x Light Anti Tank Company


PA tried M-113 based IFV variants before, it will be interesting to see how PA introduces IFV in its mechanized forces.

They might look at a new design too. One of the goals of the MIFV is to deploy ATGMs, SAMs, mortar, and possibly even a 105 mm gun (optionally, they might not go ahead with tank destroyers in the end). So, power-to-weight is a real concern. Cost is obviously an issue, but by opening HIT up a bit, there's the option for an overseas OEM to just pay for the ToT of producing the new design (as a front-load investment) if the PA commits to a sufficient order.

But a major point here is that they're at the cusp of things. They can move onto clean sheet designs across a few areas, though at a very high cost (which they can amortize over the next 35-50 years). I'm glad they shelved the Haider MBT program, it might give them reason to think of a proper next-gen MBT platform now.

 

[JPMM]

They might look at a new design too. One of the goals of the MIFV is to deploy ATGMs, SAMs, mortar, and possibly even a 105 mm gun (optionally, they might not go ahead with tank destroyers in the end). So, power-to-weight is a real concern. Cost is obviously an issue, but by opening HIT up a bit, there's the option for an overseas OEM to just pay for the ToT of producing the new design (as a front-load investment) if the PA commits to a sufficient order.

But a major point here is that they're at the cusp of things. They can move onto clean sheet designs across a few areas, though at a very high cost (which they can amortize over the next 35-50 years). I'm glad they shelved the Haider MBT program, it might give them reason to think of a proper next-gen MBT platform now.

You understand that the "premier" problem of the IFVs is the low number of rifleman carry. This problem is also actual in Portugal, we have 8 men Rifle Sections, Pakistan have 10 men Rifle Sections. With all the paks, individual equipments, ATWs, Ammo and rádios, you dont have space on the vehicle to ride the field at high speed, whithout casualties for those men.
Both Armies Mechanised Infantry fight dismounted from their vehicules, so their objective is to carry a full Rifle Section (Por8/Pak10).
We (veterans) real understand that moment "at night", wen wy have to go out of the vehicle and ocupate an house, that we are by ourselvs, half of the men will be sleeping. That moment means the presence of a full Rifle Section, solid, able of fire and maneuver, a men to get ammo from the vehicle, "casualties" will be presente, etc...
We need vehicles with space to carry all we need.
Thanks

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

You understand that the "premier" problem of the IFVs is the low number of rifleman carry. This problem is also actual in Portugal, we have 8 men Rifle Sections, Pakistan have 10 men Rifle Sections. With all the paks, individual equipments, ATWs, Ammo and rádios, you dont have space on the vehicle to ride the field at high speed, whithout casualties for those men.
Both Armies Mechanised Infantry fight dismounted from their vehicules, so their objective is to carry a full Rifle Section (Por8/Pak10).
We (veterans) real understand that moment "at night", wen wy have to go out of the vehicle and ocupate an house, that we are by ourselvs, half of the men will be sleeping. That moment means the presence of a full Rifle Section, solid, able of fire and maneuver, a men to get ammo from the vehicle, "casualties" will be presente, etc...
We need vehicles with space to carry all we need.
Thanks

I don't think the Pakistan Army will replace the traditional APC with the MIFV (for exactly the reasons you stated). Rather, they're probably looking at using the IFV as an additional asset to accompany mechanized formations, and that too for specific roles such as firing ATGMs, SAMs, etc. Basically, use M113/Talha as pure APCs for infantry, and use IFVs for everything else (anti-tank, anti-air, command vehicle, etc).

 

[TheNoob]

Underneath all the upgrades is still a t 72 ... It does not become M1A5

It cannot fire on move for instance .

Just cuz it looks like a T72 doesn't make it a T72.

 

[Signalian]

They might look at a new design too. One of the goals of the MIFV is to deploy ATGMs, SAMs, mortar, and possibly even a 105 mm gun (optionally, they might not go ahead with tank destroyers in the end). So, power-to-weight is a real concern. Cost is obviously an issue, but by opening HIT up a bit, there's the option for an overseas OEM to just pay for the ToT of producing the new design (as a front-load investment) if the PA commits to a sufficient order.

But a major point here is that they're at the cusp of things. They can move onto clean sheet designs across a few areas, though at a very high cost (which they can amortize over the next 35-50 years). I'm glad they shelved the Haider MBT program, it might give them reason to think of a proper next-gen MBT platform now.

Al Talha based Mouz and Maaz are already equipped with ATGM and SAM. There is Al Hamza, an IFV, armed with a cannon. Viper IFV puts cannon and ATGM together on APC SAAD Chassis. There is also an Interesting APC, which is known as Multi Purpose Tracked Vehicle (MPTV) - RAAD. The main purpose of this vehicle is reconnaissance, surveillance, and Anti-Tank. RAAD can be armed with a 50 caliber and Baktar Shikan. It's shape is a bit different from Al Talha and M-113. PA has extensively tested M-113 as Anti Tank RR carrier as well as TOW missile carrier, apart from M-901 ITV.

There is a requirement for a wheeled APC/IFV, which can be fulfilled with a MRAP type vehicle to fulfill both purposes. Its again an interesting discussion, wheeled IFV or Tracked IFV or just an MRAP with bigger armament?. The 105 mm option is the L-7 gun available but wouldnt an ATGM be better to face modern MBT than a 105 mm gun ? Stryker has both versions. The T-59s are not expected to face MBTs unless its absolutely necessary, instead they give fire support to the infantry. If a heavy cannon like 105 mm is to be used, then putting it in top of M-113 might seem awkward. I think Aussies put Saladin turret 76 mm on M-113. So the debate of 25 mm, 30 mm, 76 mm or 105 mm cannon continues. So far its just 12.7 mm for PA.

You understand that the "premier" problem of the IFVs is the low number of rifleman carry. This problem is also actual in Portugal, we have 8 men Rifle Sections, Pakistan have 10 men Rifle Sections. With all the paks, individual equipments, ATWs, Ammo and rádios, you dont have space on the vehicle to ride the field at high speed, whithout casualties for those men.
Both Armies Mechanised Infantry fight dismounted from their vehicules, so their objective is to carry a full Rifle Section (Por8/Pak10).
We (veterans) real understand that moment "at night", wen wy have to go out of the vehicle and ocupate an house, that we are by ourselvs, half of the men will be sleeping. That moment means the presence of a full Rifle Section, solid, able of fire and maneuver, a men to get ammo from the vehicle, "casualties" will be presente, etc...
We need vehicles with space to carry all we need.
Thanks

MIBs may need to be re-structured.
4 x Rifle companys [ 2 x APC coys + 2 x IFV coys]
1 x Support weapon platoon [ATGM/Mortar or Mortar based on IFV]

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Haider MBT program,

Can you tell me in brief what Haider MBT was to be?

 

[JPMM]

Al Talha based Mouz and Maaz are already equipped with ATGM and SAM. There is Al Hamza, an IFV, armed with a cannon. Viper IFV puts cannon and ATGM together on APC SAAD Chassis. There is also an Interesting APC, which is known as Multi Purpose Tracked Vehicle (MPTV) - RAAD. The main purpose of this vehicle is reconnaissance, surveillance, and Anti-Tank. RAAD can be armed with a 50 caliber and Baktar Shikan. It's shape is a bit different from Al Talha and M-113. PA has extensively tested M-113 as Anti Tank RR carrier as well as TOW missile carrier, apart from M-901 ITV.

There is a requirement for a wheeled APC/IFV, which can be fulfilled with a MRAP type vehicle to fulfill both purposes. Its again an interesting discussion, wheeled IFV or Tracked IFV or just an MRAP with bigger armament?. The 105 mm option is the L-7 gun available but wouldnt an ATGM be better to face modern MBT than a 105 mm gun ? Stryker has both versions. The T-59s are not expected to face MBTs unless its absolutely necessary, instead they give fire support to the infantry. If a heavy cannon like 105 mm is to be used, then putting it in top of M-113 might seem awkward. I think Aussies put Saladin turret 76 mm on M-113. So the debate of 25 mm, 30 mm, 76 mm or 105 mm cannon continues. So far its just 12.7 mm for PA.



MIBs may need to be re-structured.
4 x Rifle companys [ 2 x APC coys + 2 x IFV coys]
1 x Support weapon platoon [ATGM/Mortar or Mortar based on IFV]

There is a solution "Portuguese Way" in MIB using the Pandur II 8x8.
The Rifle Company TO&E is:
3x Rifle Plattons (37men each) with 4 Pandur APCs each:
3x Rifle Sections (10men (2 crew + 8 dismounts))
PHQ Vehicle (7men (2 crew + 5 dismounts))
1x Cannon Section (14men (3 crew + 4 dismounts)) with 2 Pandur IFVs 30mm
CHQ with 2 Pandur APCs