Saudia will purchase 300 AL-KHALID tank

[shooter]

hi guys, im from pakistan. we have been getting this information for a long time, that SA has provided a huge chunk of finance in this project . There defence personels have been to taxila a lot. Even they have seen the performance of the tank in the desert some 3 years back.I think this time around they want a bit of teck also, as they have been depending on the other countries alot.Also heard the news that SA has also provided some $ in fc-1 project, like they gave us money to buy A_7s is 70s

 

[Glider]

I'm not saying that they will, I'm saying that its possible due to a number of issues:

• US relationship is fractious - they've been moving away from the US since the relationship started to degrade. Thats why there is an open willingness and clearly articulated display of political symbolism to go out and actively court UK and French weapons/systems manufacturers
• The Chally2 is regarded as the superior MBT
• Too many difficulties selling off the AMX-30's. They either get sold back to the french as a trade in (and GIAT is more likely to do that than anyone else as they can onsell them to other AMX client users like the Sth Americans) - or arms dealers buy them - whcih exacerbates the current frostiness between them and the US and brings in the other irritant of the UN oversiting good citizenship issues. etc...
• Their Abrams are export models anyway - so are detuned and less comprehensively armoured - easier to sell them to an existing M1 export user like the Kuwaitis and at least get some return on investment.
• Buying Al Khalids is expected as it supports the Pakistani economy and for not much outlay on their part. It reinforces support for each other (Pakistan and SA) without costing them a bundle to do so.
• If they keep the Abrams and buy the Chally2's then they effectively have 4 x MBT types in service. 2 of type is bearable. 4 is idiotic as it makes a nonsense of efficiency and provides no extra capability. The days of having grades of tank for types of expected warfighting died after WW2, and certainly when airborne warfare was revisted.

In real terms its dumb to have 2 types of MBT's in service - but they have an idealogical and geopolitical component to attend to so it can be "justified".

ME arms trading is a nightmare in progress generally. Its not and never has been cut and dried. The ones who seem to have consistency of purpose and process are the Jordanians. for the others, it can be a shambles (harsh but true)

There is a lot of sense in this statement. I cannot see the Saudi's buying second hand Challangers for the above logistical reasons and to be honest, can anyone ever remember the Saudi's buying second hand anything!!

Its possible that they might be willing to help Jordan buy second hand Challangers to replace some of their Chieftains which are getting a little long in the tooth. Its just a guess but has some logic as Jordan is on the front line with Israel and has a history of taking second hand armour from the UK.

 

[Izzy1]

What doctrine is driving the requirement for the numbers of tanks here. I've read SA can't even man the ones they have. Iraq no longer poses a military threat and I can't see any of SA's near neighbours posing a conventional military threat in the near or medium term.

As with a lot of defence issues in this region, doctrine and security don't necessarily drive the arms procurment process. Politics, influence and prestige more often than not are the impetus for most purchases. Saudi has some classic cases of this - the CSS-2 DF-3 missile buy from China, the Fahd 240 APCs bought from Egypt and if you believe what you read in the media the upcoming Typhoon deal is far from being solely about security.

In the case of the Al Khalid, if it is bought by Saudi, the motives will be political. She has little tactical need for them, indeed 125mm main guns will only add to RSLF's documented logistical problems. Saudi has however provided funding to Pakistan for various military projects and it is good statesmanship in Saudi eyes to procure weapons from fellow Islamic nations (apart from Iran of course). I would not be surprised however if the Saudi Al Khalids also ended up being passed on to another nation in the region.

 

[umair]

The export variant of the Al-Khalid actually has the Rhinemettal 120 mm rifled tank gun. The 125 smoothbore is used only for our local production.

 

[Izzy1]

Sorry Umair, I thought I had read something different further up the thread.

It certainly would make more sense for RSLF to use a western 120mm. Does the export model incorporate any other western-origin systems (fire control, powerplant etc)??

 

[extern]

The Saudi's Abrams' are pretty downgraded (armor, FCS, ammo). I cannot imagine when and how the Saudies can get DU Armor, DU projectiles, Israel's additional ERA and active defence system like israeli Trophy, Israel gun-launch missiles etc...

With that, the Al-Khalid open for them alot of options and the access to the bests of Russian/Ukranian/China technology, that partly better, partly hasnt western analogs at all.
1) ERA: Ukranian 'Nozh' - the analog of the Russian Kontact-5, somebodies say even a bit better... Good also against UD projectiles.
2) Laser-Guided gun-launching missiles: Ukrainian 'Kombat' adopted for 120mm - the analog of the russian system.
3) Laser-jamming system: a lot of options from Ukranian analog of 'Shtora' up to the Chineese 'laser-weapons' system that still has not western analog .
4) Active protection system: the Ukranian analog of russian 'Arena' and 'Drozd'. Are Defending against RPG and precisely-guided subsonic anti-tank missils. Something close to this have appeared first time on the West only in 2005 (the Israel 'Trophy')
5) Engine: Ukrainian diesel TD-6 1200hp is better that any western analog because of its high efficacy coefficient (2cycle, 2 forcer in 1 cup), light weight and reliability in hot dusty condition. Early Pakistan has preferred it over Chineese licension-made Germany tank engines.
6) Probably access to China/Pak DU ammo (in the future)

- All the equipment is sanction-proof unlike its western analogs... Admin: text deleted - plse read the forum rules. the kind of comments that were deleted are unacceptable

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Saudi's Abrams' are pretty downgraded (armor, FCS, ammo). I cannot imagine when and how the Saudies can get DU Armor, DU projectiles, Israel's additional ERA and active defence system like israeli Trophy, Israel gun-launch missiles etc...

whats the point of mentioning israeli enhancements when you know that none of the arab states accept israeli equipment?

With that, the Al-Khalid open for them alot of options and the access to the bests of Russian/Ukranian/China technology, that partly better, partly hasnt western analogs at all.

The most recent russian tank tests in combat have been in chechnya where the chechyans absolutely neutralised the MBT effectiveness - I find it hard to see equivalency or superiority when abrams and chally2 (eg) have over 16 years of combat tested development and engaged on tank battles as close as 200m. No US or UK tank has been lost to another enemy tank. on the basis of actual tested data - the "western" MBT's have demonstrated superior survivability than their russian counterparts in chechnya (even the russians admit to that)

1) ERA: Ukranian 'Nozh' - the analog of the Russian Kontact-5, somebodies say even a bit better... Good also against UD projectiles.

Thats just rubbish - there is no ERA system able to stand up against 1200+rpm DU rounds or top down JDAMs attack. it also ignores the fundamental but critical point that armour engagement is preferred by arty, MLRS and aircraft dominance over MBT engagement. Arty at 30km, MLRS at up to 40km and top down attacks by aircraft with clusters, JDAMs or 1200-6000rpm DU. Guess how long the MBT will surivive if they don't manouvre in a battlepsace without total air dominance? arguing about active defence is academic at that point. A number of years ago in Iraq the US called in SPH support. At 20+miles the Abbotts were able to completely destroy massed armour which had been spotted by UAV's. It's now to a point where you can set up a lot tighter than a grid kill.

2) Laser-Guided gun-launching missiles: Ukrainian 'Kombat' adopted for 120mm - the analog of the russian system.

The Americans experimented with gun launched missile systems about 20 years ago. main gun launched missiles were rejected years ago due to specific reasons - a lot of which has to do with doctrine and how some armies support their MBT's in battle. In case you hadn't noticed the reasons for Russian and Ukrainian development are based on doctrine issues.

3) Laser-jamming system: a lot of options from Ukranian analog of 'Shtora' up to the Chineese 'laser-weapons' system that still has not western analog .

The lasers are disruptors - they are not jammers - the tanks don't have the onboard power to jam anything. laser technology is useless on PGM's like JDAMs or cluster munitions top down attacks. laser disruptors are useless against an Abbott firing 155mm air burst munitions at 20-30km - which is how they destroyed a lot of the Republican Guard T-72's.

4) Active protection system: the Ukranian analog of russian 'Arena' and 'Drozd'. Are Defending against RPG and precisely-guided subsonic anti-tank missils. Something close to this have appeared first time on the West only in 2005 (the Israel 'Trophy')

If chally2's have demonstrated survivability against multiple team attacks - and there is evidence that one chally2 survived up to 23 RPG attacks - what scenario are you proposing that they can't cope with? For russian tank successes look at Grozny - not the best advertising material for capability. The west has 3 different active defence systems. none of them are fielded. funnily enough - no chally2's with dorchester have been destroyed - and no abrams have been armour penetrated and destroyed. The Abrams that have been destroyed have been due to rear engine compartment penetrations where leaking fuel fires could not be stopped by the onboard halon system. Again, no abrams or chally2's have been armour penetrated.

5) Engine: Ukrainian diesel TD-6 1200hp is better that any western analog because of its high efficacy coefficient (2cycle, 2 forcer in 1 cup), light weight and reliability in hot dusty condition. Early Pakistan has preferred it over Chineese licension-made Germany tank engines.

The Ukrainian diesels have 4 times higher maint rates than MTU's. The horsepower rating also means nothing against power to weight and ground pressure issues.

6) Probably access to China/Pak DU ammo (in the future)

and there is no pakistani DU armour fielded. you do realise that the chinese and russians went to 125mm main guns as they couldn't get the same efficiencies as the german 120mm main guns? again, talking about DU penetrators means little when there are more important fundamentals to consider.

- All the equipment is sanction-proof unlike its western analogs...

what analogs? the western tanks are using digital fire controls - if you're talking about analogies between platforms, then there are some compelling reasons as to why there aren't comparitive systems. You can start with issues of doctrine and prev exp.

The Israelis developed main gun missile systems due to likely engagenent geographies for their needs - and because of the way that they support and use their tanks. Its very very different from UK, German, French or US tank doctrine.

arguing capability based on "widgets" ignores the fundamentals.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

The export variant of the Al-Khalid actually has the Rhinemettal 120 mm rifled tank gun. The 125 smoothbore is used only for our local production.

Are you sure that its the Rhinemettal 120 mm rifled tank gun (L30), rather than the L44 smoothbore gun, which is similar to the M256 used on the M1A1.

This would help their logistics problems.

Chris

 

[tatra]

The export variant of the Al-Khalid actually has the Rhinemettal 120 mm rifled tank gun. The 125 smoothbore is used only for our local production.

Never heard of this before. What is your source for this?

Obvious problem would be ammunition stowage since 125mm uses autoloader like russian MBTs, which has 2 piece ammo stored directly below the turret and basket. Could be thought that export variant adopts Ukranian autoloader with bustlemounted ammo magazine for the larger one-piece 120mm ammo.

 

[umair]

My source(one of a few) is a civilian(a mechanical eng) working at HIT.
There are atleast two prototypes at HIT with 120mm rifled tank guns.
AFAIK, both guns are available for export customers. Export Al-Khalids are slated to use the German engine, as well as a Ukrainian autoloader configured for 120mm ammo.
Infact this configuration was also considered for the main production run in the early 90s, but the army opted for the 125mm version.(as Gary said, doctrinal issues, IMHO cost may also have been a factor).
BTW the DU ammo produced in Pakistan is strictly for local consumption..No exports have been made or authorised and indications are that it'll remain so.

 

[extern]

gf0012-aust,

No tanks are invincible, and T-72's in Grozny have brought in fire due to rear engine compartment penetrations and the fire from the top of buildings, just like as Abrams' in Baghdad.

About ERA: it is only way to make the armor stronger with minimal rise of the weight. Contact-5 is 5 time better, that regular passive armor of the same weight (cumulative) and 50% (projectiles). The key-word for understanding: 'the same protection with lesser weight'. That's all...

About ukranian engine sorry about disappointing you, but just in power to weight ratio the ukrainian TD-6 is far ahead of any german tank engine I know. Even less advanced russian tank diesel V-92S2 (T-90S) weight only 1020 kg that more than 2 folds lesser, that AVDS-1790 (USA), C12V (GB) and UDV-12-1100 (France). Thus the power/weight ratio of the Russian engine better up to 1.5-4.5 times than the same of the western diesels. The Fuel consumption also is something better on 5 - 25%. The Ukranian TD-6 even more tighter and more compact. Im wonder from where is that myth about allegedly inferiority of Ru/UA tank engines...

 

[gf0012-aust]

gf0012-aust,

No tanks are invincible, and T-72's in Grozny have brought in fire due to rear engine compartment penetrations and the fire from the top of buildings, just like as Abrams' in Baghdad.

If you read my comments I have never said that "x" tank is invincible - thats just patent nonsense.

About ERA: it is only way to make the armor stronger with minimal rise of the weight. Contact-5 is 5 time better, that regular passive armor of the same weight (cumulative) and 50% (projectiles). The key-word for understanding: 'the same protection with lesser weight'. That's all...

The whole purpose of ERA is that it provides additional symathetic armour solutions - ERA is not the defensive measure of choice in modern MBT's. It's a supportive addon for specific scenario's. ERA is also designed to compensate for inherent weaknesses in existing armour.

About ukranian engine sorry about disappointing you, but just in power to weight ratio the ukrainian TD-6 is far ahead of any german tank engine I know. Even less advanced russian tank diesel V-92S2 (T-90S) weight only 1020 kg that more than 2 folds lesser, that AVDS-1790 (USA), C12V (GB) and UDV-12-1100 (France). Thus the power/weight ratio of the Russian engine better up to 1.5-4.5 times than the same of the western diesels. The Fuel consumption also is something better on 5 - 25%. The Ukranian TD-6 even more tighter and more compact. Im wonder from where is that myth about allegedly inferiority of Ru/UA tank engines...

The myth is based on evidence from some countries who bought them. The Ukrainian engines are typically 1/5th the cost of an equiv MTU (I know because I've had to sanity check a tender document for a middle eastern client). The problem has always been that the Ukrainian engines were appalling in maint cycles and logistics support. If you also look at the Indian exp with Ukrainian engines - they were demonstrably failing in desert conditions. The Thar Desert tests showed that the engines were substandard. Thats a real client - with real tests.

To look at power to weight on its own is ridiculous - and you know that. It is but one subset of what defines an effective tank. Thats like claiming that the absolute torque advantage of a Brabus V12 makes it the best V12 in the world. Sounds good - means nothing.

You can have all best PW, best GP etc... but if you can't field that tank autonomously with a high sense of survival then it means naught. The days of Kursk type confrontations are highly unlikely ever again.

You're completely ignoring the reality that a tanks very survival in a set piece construct is who owns the battlespace - and if you don;t own it - the chances of losing your armour just went through the roof.

Why do you think that the std way to kill tanks is via artillery or stand off PGM's? If you seriously think that ERA provides an advantage to a tank that is attacked by registered artillery - then you're conveniently ignoring how modern warfare works.

Using Bagdhad as a reference is a bit rich - prior to 73 Easting US doctrine was to avoid committing tanks to urban warfare as they were considered a death trap. After the Thunder Run tank doctrine changed - why do you think TUSK was developed? 73E is also when the russians decided to try using their MBT's in Grozny under similar conditions. It didn't work for them - and thats a doctrine issue. Why is that so? well, the US uses registered artillery to take out MBT's whereas the Russian philosophy was to use arty to crush buildings so as to remove high placed anti-tank teams.

You also conveniently ignore that the basic response for dealing with ERA in confined spaces is to attack with AT teams and volley at the same spot - once ERA is contacted - then the hull is exposed. Thats why the Singaporeans and Finns use volley teams (for example). If you're not in a confined area then you attack tanks from 10+km with registered weapons.

eg, the whole issue is one of doctrine and combined arms issues. looking at the issue of "x tank" or "y tank" just provides opportunities for people to take a nationalistic approach to debate and ignore all the critical bits.

Study the Syrians and the Egyptians in Yom Kippur and you get a a fair idea of what can happen when you have poor doctrine - even though you may have a numerical and initial advantage.

 

[Scorpius]

Yom Kippur was a long time ago ,but I wonder whether Arab forces have improved?They should be learning how to use less men and highly trained troops instead of massive manpower.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yom Kippur was a long time ago ,

Yom Kippur is still relevant though - esp the performance of the Syrians at the Golan Heights. and I do know that Yom Kippur is still studied in detail at military institutions such as Sandhurst, Aberdeen, Duntroon. Military colleges still study the tactics of Subodai, Alexander etc and apply the lessons to modern combat. So the date of a battle doesn't effect the message in training.

Yom Kippur is still used as an example of how superior training, doctrine, discipline can beat a numerically and often technically superior force. The egyptians and syrians had mass, volume, speed and initiated new tactics which were working - the Israelis used a combination of superior training, doctrine, discipline, force flexibility to stop and then turn the offensive.

as another example look at the "Thunder Run" - in the space of 2 hrs, the rules about the use of MBT's in urban areas was changed completely.

Thats why I get really frustrated with the notion that superiority is judged by how potent a single platform is. warfighting is about systems, not single solutions. system competency is about a marriage of capability - not some "silver bullet" notion of single edged technical advantage.

 

[Scorpius]

a crazy idea(well methinks)-Tanks can destroyed by Surface to surface missiles?

 

[gf0012-aust]

a crazy idea(well methinks)-Tanks can destroyed by Surface to surface missiles?

The Russsians used a Toschka battlefield rocket to kill a chechyan rebel a few years back.

within 10mins of receiving confirmation of the rebels location, they located the nearest respondent, they had dialed in the co-ords and launched from 50km away. result - Target destroyed. An air strike would have taken too long.

all done on the basis of registering a cell/mobile/handy phone signal from a satellite and then passing back the co-ords.

so, if you consider that a tactical battlefield rocket is more or less a big version of a surface to surface missile - then the answer is "yes"

 

[umair]

Another undoing of the Arabs in the Yom Kippur war(as in any Arab-Israel war) was the lack of communication. Their comm state was a shamble in bothe 67&73 and the resultant opportunities were used well by Israel specially on the Golan in 67.

 

[Scorpius]

one of their senior commanders had a heart attack.

 

[SABRE]

Saudis couple of days back completed Al-Khalid's trial evaluation. Today Saudis hinted that they will purchase Al-Khalid MBTs when they were placing orders for Super Mushaq Trainer Aircrafts. PAC is also to market more k-8s to Saudis.

 

[Giblets46]

HOw many Chally's have we (the Uk got sitting round?), i know we gave a few to Jordan a couple of years back