Skip to content Skip to footer

Malyshev Plant delivers 6TD-2 engine kits to Pakistan for al-Khalid I

UkrOboronProm announced that the Malyshev Plant delivered a batch of engine kits to Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT), Pakistan for installation on HIT’s al-Khalid I main battle tank (MBT).

According to its press release dated for January 12, 2018, UkrOboronProm states that the engine kits – which comprise of “the engine, transmission, engine maintenance systems, air purification system and armoured roof” – were the fifth batch delivered to Pakistan.

UkrOboronProm is a Ukrainian state-owned concern managing and promoting the country’s public-sector defence industry suppliers and manufacturers, among them being Malyshev Plant.

The engine program is a part of a $600 million U.S. memorandum-of-understanding (MoU) signed by HIT and Ukraine’s state-owned commercial dealing agency Ukrspecexport in November 2016.

As per Ukraine’s Ministry of Defence, the MoU was for providing “technical service … maintenance and modernization” for Pakistan’s tanks. It was reported that Pakistan also ordered 200 tank engines.

If the engines are being sought for the al-Khalid I, it is likely that they are the 1,200 hp 6TD-2 diesel engines.

In February 2017, Pakistan and Ukraine signed another MoU. Pakistan’s Minister of Defence Production was quoted by Pakistani media for stating that the MoU was for jointly producing tank engine and/or tank engine components. In March 2017, Pakistan issued a contract for 88 tank sights under a pilot overhaul and upgrade program for the Pakistan Army’s T-80UDs, which it had bought from Ukraine in the 1990s.

The Malyshev Plant is also interested in securing a Pakistan Army bid – potentially for 100 MBTs – for an off-the-shelf MBT to complement the al-Khalid-series. In August 2017, the Malyshev Plant announced that it was preparing an Oplot (reportedly ‘Oplot-P’) tank for trials in Pakistan. The Malyshev Plant is competing with China’s NORINCO and its VT4 for the off-the-shelf MBT bid.

Notes & Comments:

Currently, HIT’s al-Khalid I manufacturing output is below capacity, i.e. at 18 on average per year against an annual capacity for 50. In December 2017, HIT stated that its lower output was a result of “budgetary constraints.” In parallel, the Pakistan Army is evidently examining two off-the-shelf tank platforms in the Oplot-P and VT4. Based on HIT’s current output and the available figures regarding the off-the-shelf MBT bid, it appears that Pakistan’s tank procurement roadmap relatively modest in terms of quantity. This is tentative and could change, but this lower induction rate has been the case in recent years.


Show CommentsClose Comments


  • by Steve
    Posted January 15, 2018 3:51 am 0Likes

    Does anyone know how many al Khalid/AK1 are actually in service? Estimates vary in different web resources.

  • by sami shahid
    Posted January 15, 2018 5:27 am 0Likes

    Try to find it at wiki

  • by sami shahid
    Posted January 15, 2018 5:27 am 0Likes

    Why not buy a Turkish Tank ?

  • by Mike
    Posted January 15, 2018 6:23 am 0Likes

    Too expensive and it is always better to go for indigenous solutions. also the turkish tank engine program barely started.
    The germans sabotaged the program by not selling the engine as far as I know. They could have telled us before designing the Altay for the MTU. It was a dirty tactic.

  • by Joseph
    Posted January 15, 2018 7:38 am 0Likes

    It is not too hard to guess. Al-Khalid entered service from 2001 according to wikipedia, and according to this article average production rate is 18 per year, 17X18 = 306, so Pakistan should have roughly around 300 Al-Khalid.

    According to wikipedia: Pakistan has 324 Al-Khalid and 9 Al-Khalid 1 as of June 2016, so there could have been several good years before budget constraints set in.

    Assuming those numbers are accurate and only Al-Khalid 1 is produced after that and another 28 ~ 30 Al-Khalid1 are produced since June 2016 (18 per year), Pakistan should have 324 Al-Khalid and around 38 Al-Khalid 1 as of now.

    Ideally Pakistan should have 17X50 = 850 Al-Khalid and Al-Khalid 1 now if full production capability was achieved, so obviously there is a significant shortfall, I think that is why Pakistan has been considering an off the shelf option.

  • by Haris Fahim
    Posted January 15, 2018 10:11 am 0Likes

    Can these small numbers be a hindrance for our strike corp. in any future conflict with India to progress the war on their side of border i.e breaching their front lines? Or has the introduction of phenomenal tactical nukes have solved the problem for Pakistan as far as Indian armoured danger on Punjab plains is concerned?

  • by kadet
    Posted January 15, 2018 10:32 am 0Likes

    Prototypes of the ALTAY tank were developed by the German engine company MTU engines that Rolls Royce Holding owns. It was expected that the engine of the 250 Altay tank to be produced in the first stage would be provided by the German MTU. However, negative developments and news embargo between Turkey and Germany were shelved this option. Defense experts says MTU production of 1630 horsepower and 5000 Nm torque, producing MT-833 engine with Ukraine,1500 horsepower in, 3000 Nm of torque producing 6TD-3 engine has similar performance. Experts say Altay needs to develop a motor or 6TD-3 that maintains its maneuverability, keeps its climbing ability stronger, drives higher torque for takeoffs and accelerations, and has a 65+ tonne weight.

    The alternative for the Altay tank engine came from the British Caterpillar. The company has offered a new generation CV12 type engine. British authorities this engine to be produced in Turkey are also positive.

    But Turkey wants to develop its own engine woes will be the possible sanctions and license sales.

  • by Joseph
    Posted January 15, 2018 11:10 am 0Likes

    That is serious, the unsanctioned embargo, I thought only US had problems with Turkey.

    I read of course it’s about Turkey’s human rights issues caused Germany’s hostility, but foreign policies are rarely based on something as laughable as that. I guess I don’t know much about European, Turkey and middle eastern geopolitics so I don’t fully understand Germany’s angle in this.

  • by Joseph
    Posted January 15, 2018 11:16 am 0Likes

    Think about it, if tactical nukes would solve the problem then why bother to spend that much money on T129 attack helicopters? Why buy more tanks when Pakistan already has about 1000?

  • by Jigsaw
    Posted January 15, 2018 11:56 am 0Likes

    I don’t think any off the shelf purchase is to address shortfall. The order will be very modest, 100 – 300 tanks. May blow over time but PA will continue to use this tank as their primary workhorse and backbone of the armoured core by integrating components and elements from other suppliers.

  • by Steve
    Posted January 15, 2018 12:41 pm 0Likes

    I agree. Tactical nukes have a problem of having a limited blast radius which can be countered by dispersion. We also need large numbers to be really effective, which needs a lot more fissile material. Fallout will affect Lahore and Sialkot. We are spending so much money on armour and helicopters because we need a conventional option to stop Cold Start in its tracks, without having to resort to TNW. We need about 300 heavy tanks to form the spearhead of the Strike Corps which are probably going to be VT-4. We also need something akin to Sensor Fused Weapon to use with Block III and ASELPOD plus more SPA and new gen ATGM which may be a bit less expensive. The list is long! OTOH TNW is an option nobody wants to use as there can be uncontrolled escalation. Considering jingoistic enemy statements saying the “bluff” will be called we need options. It is highly dangerous, however deterrence has held despite all the bluster and hot air. With the love fest going on with the Yahood it’s all unfortunately going to get more expensive.

  • by Mike
    Posted January 15, 2018 12:48 pm 0Likes

    “Prototypes of the ALTAY tank were developed by the German engine company MTU..”
    I think you are gmisunderstanding something here, the prototypes were developed by the turkish company Otokar and not by germans. MTU doesnt even produce tanks. The MTU engine was chosen, because the K2 has the same. Since hyundai rotom gave technical assistance to Otokar its possible that south korean engineers suggested the same engine/transmission for the altay project. The ukrainian 6DT-3 doesnt have the same dimensions as the MTU. the Altay enginebay and chassis was desingned for the MTU engine. It was never really planed to fit the 6DT-3 into the Altay, since a whole redisign would have been to costly. There were just some MOU signed to develop an turkish engine with ukrainian assistance. But this was also dropped, when the SSM wanted an indigenous engine/transmission without any foreign input (Caterpillar is therefore not considered). Companies like Tülomsaş, Tusaş, Tümosan, BMC and TEI are currently competing with their own designs for a contract.

  • by Steve
    Posted January 15, 2018 2:46 pm 0Likes

    100 is too small a number for anything. Maybe good against Afghanistan lol.

  • by Steve
    Posted January 15, 2018 2:54 pm 0Likes

    Bilal did a good piece on Al Khalid 2 a while back. To justify buying a heavy tank it should be a significant upgrade from AK2. Don’t know what is the state of AK2 project atm. Everything seems to have gone quiet. The new engines should have been 1500 hp for AK2. If they are 1200 hp it may be that AK2 is not happening?

  • by Mike
    Posted January 15, 2018 3:24 pm 0Likes

    my guess is that the Altay is viewed as a serious contender to the Leo 2. A bunch of ME countires were verry interested in the Altay. Germany could have lost their biggest costumers. Thats why I think Rheinmetal was so quick to join BMC (in a joint venture) to create RBSS (Rheinmetal BMC defence industry in turkish),
    which competes for the production for the Altay tank.
    Rheinmetal saw the great potential of the Altay tank project and saw it as an opportunity to beat Krauss Maffei (Leo 2 manufacturer) and gain some important market shares in that branch. Rheinmetal board members were pretty enthusiastic about the founding of RBSS and the sale predictions of the Altay. They even called it to be most important future orientation for Rheinmetal, as a great opportunity to further strengthen their foothold in the ME and asian markets by cooperating with BMC (which is growing rapidly in these regions). They made a couple of promising studies and analyzes regarding their future corporate plans.
    But I think the german government saw through it. And feared to loose Rheinmetal to turkey, also they didnt want Rheinmetal to transfer any know how (thats why they forbid Rheinmetal to give any blue prints to BMC) . Rheinmetal tried to bypass this by sending experts (which is allowed according to german law). After that the german government discredited Rheinmetal publicly (with their media) for their plans to build a tank factory in turkey for the Altay tank project.
    Rheinmetal backed down a bit, but didnt cancel its future plans.
    Then the german government found another way to criple the Altay tank project by putting an expanded arms embargo on turkey, which includes the sale of MTU tank engines for the Altay (and even spare parts and upgrade kits for Leos). this way germany saves their Leo2 exports, turkey cant sell, Rheinmetal stays in germany and Krauss Maffei is happy. currently german arms exports are at an all time low at 30 million$ (2016 70 million as far as I remember), while turkish arms exports to germany reached 208 million$

    Note: german politics is never about human rights, its allways about bussiness and exports.
    They see turkey as a huge threat to their regional ambitions. They always complain about turkish economy and defense industry growth. they even complain about the Istanbul aiport (worlds biggest), which is under construction and will make the current most visited airport Frankfurt obsolete. They say (in their media) the Istanbul airport would destroy Istanbuls ecosystem and must be stopped (Lol what an excuse, as if they would care about Istanbuls ecosystem).
    Angela Merkel even said publicly: “We would never allow turkey to be a EU member, because turkey would have more seats in the EU parlament than germany (because of turkeys bigger population), which isnt in our interrest at all.”
    you see germany sees turkey as a direct rival.

  • by Zain YG
    Posted January 15, 2018 4:06 pm 0Likes

    Hi Joseph, there is a really good video of Turkish geopolitics about 20 minutes, long by a very reliable channel named CaspianReport in YouTube.
    I could make a very long and complex, explanation of European geopolitics, and of Turkey, but Is best you just watch that Video, if you are interested.


  • by TZK
    Posted January 15, 2018 5:13 pm 0Likes

    In any war it is unlikely that India will start at a single predetermined attack location along the border, they are likely to launch several probing attacks along the border to confuse the defending forces. They will then concentrate at the weakest point. In this situation TNW will buy time to blunt the main attack and reinforce that sector. Neutron weapons are effective against armour and also used for area denial. The simplest and cheapest solution is mine the border areas closest to major cities to slow the advance and concentrate artillery on these locations.

  • by Bilal Khan
    Posted January 15, 2018 5:17 pm 0Likes

    AK2 is in the design phase. HIT announced that it was proceeding with it only in December.

  • by Bilal Khan
    Posted January 15, 2018 5:24 pm 0Likes

    Just my opinion, but I think the value of massive numbers of tanks has diminished with India possessing the CBU-105 along with the upgraded Jaguar DARIN III. The CBU-105 is a potent anti armour weapon wherein it has 40 guided sub-munitions with top-attack capability.

    This is not to say tanks are completely obsolete, but with such airpower available (potentially both ways if Pakistan can secure analogous capability) the value of 200 tanks could be the same as 100 more dispersed and highly advanced tanks. I consider the South Korean K2 a good model of the future MBT wherein these vehicles will rely on a network-enabled environment to build real-time situational awareness of targets and to deploy stand-off range guided top-attack missiles of their own.

  • by Joseph
    Posted January 15, 2018 7:30 pm 0Likes

    Thanks, that makes a lot more sense.

  • by Joseph
    Posted January 15, 2018 7:32 pm 0Likes

    CaspianReport is my favoured channel and I did watch that video, though I don’t think relationship with Germany was mentioned.

  • by Jigsaw
    Posted January 16, 2018 2:47 am 0Likes

    Hi, If we consider PA is in financial problems, then that can be an excuse to get a foreign tank only if is a significant upgrade – but then the options in consideration are.

    In my opinion, PA is and will run these two programme separately because of many reasons. First is whenever possible, PA will always consider and possibly go for one foreign / western machine in their arsenal to supplement their core machine. Recently turkish military projects have caught their eye. Add to that ukranian and advanced chinese machines. Second off, AK series and a consideration for foreign tank falls in entirely different category of tank w.r.t weight or technologies. While they will continue to develop AK series to have it serve as backbone in large numbers, PA will also alongside consider a heavier tank with even advanced capabilities. This is the strategy of low cost tank supplemented by a high tech tank. And we are seeing those signs in consideration for an off the shelf purchase and second trial of VT4, of oplot, and possibly Altay in future.

    Due to involvement of gunships in theatre, future tanks will also need to be capable of aerial defence against gunships.

  • by Haris Fahim
    Posted January 16, 2018 3:41 am 0Likes

    Which means that if India does call out the “Bluff” in any possible war in near future, the initial hours of war would be dedicated to merciless barrage of tactical nukes from our side on their armor and kamikaze drones teamed with anti-artillery radars from their side. In such case, once the have entered the gap in between Lahore and Sialkot and have breached the Bahawalpur area, then we will be left with no other option but to resort to Strategic Nukes from wherever we could find them whether Land, air or sea. Otherwise it would be use it or lose it. The threat of nuclear war is ever “REAL”.

  • by Jigsaw
    Posted January 16, 2018 4:28 am 0Likes

    Tac Ns are part of “full spectrum” deterrence and non-conventional strategy. Primarily a deterrent, and then a weapon of need rather than a choice.

    In other words, if India does not or can not bring cold start into play, Pakistan has no motive for using Tac Ns. Hence Pakistan does not have to address every scenario merely with CSD in mind. Besides CSD is merely a shock and awe strategy effective only for few hours on a chunk of border. After that you’ll go back to conventional war on many fronts – in which case gunships and tanks are the only holding strategy for any army aided by artillery.

    Tacs have nothing to do with acquisition of T129s and Tanks. They are created for an entirely different purpose and only in response to a dangerous CSD. Tacs are meant to neutralise it for most part i.e. to stop enemy from thinking about it or implementing it. In a way, CSD is an invalid concept in Pak-India scenario where constant surveillance of each other’s movement is ongoing 24/7.

    Which is why India has moved away from CSD to threats of surgical strikes in recent years. That brings conventional warfare back into spotlight.

  • by Zain YG
    Posted January 16, 2018 9:55 am 0Likes

    Then I will explain.
    The problem with Turkey and Europe is the following, central Europe is full of Turks, countries such as Germany, Netherlands and Austria among others, specially in the balkans, have a lot of Turkish migrants, or descendants of migrants.

    The problem, lies on Turkey joining the EU, in the EU, the parliament seats of it, are based on the population of the country, I am from Spain, we are a great country, and with great history, but my country right now, cannot and does not wield any substantial power, that’s because our population is small, our Army is underfunded, and we have an economical crisis.

    Turkey on the other hand, has a big very big population in comparison to EU states, the economy is growing, and it’s pretty big it would be among tom 5 or so in the EU, after Germany, France, Spain and Italy (UK is getting out).

    The objective of the EU is to include Turkey? Yes, but they want a Turkey reformed, without Erdogan in power, the policies and things that the EU demands for a country to join, make it easy so that country, is very hard to destabilize, and to rebel against EU policies, because of effective propaganda, which is actually based by fruitful actions, EU investment I see it everywhere, and they make sure you know that the development is made from the EU.

    since France and Germany steer the EU, they are the ones that really deal with Turkey, and once they say yes, that’s when Turkey will join.

    So things such as cooperation, development aid, and greater market access, visa restrictions or even joining the schengen area, will be and are leverage that Germany or the EU, use to try to control and influence the Turks.

    Europe has an aging population, in every major country, they took the refugees because of that, regardless of what the wannabe neo nazis, claim which know all this, but just say crap to get votes, it’s in the interest of Europe, and EU knows that if Turkey joins, millions will come into wealthier states, so that’s in a way good, but what is also true, if that if they come like that, they will retain Turkish passports, as Turkey will be part of EU, and won’t necessarily integrate or assimilate, Also you got influence and factors that are the USA and Israel, that influence the course of action of the EU regarding Turkey.

    If Turkey joins, it will be by voting rights, the 2nd strongest country in the EU. So that’s that.

  • by Steve
    Posted January 16, 2018 11:20 am 0Likes

    That means AK2 is separate from the new off the shelf tank. It also means that the engines are for AK1 unless AK2 is using 1200 hp, which is presumably the size of the new engines.

  • by Steve
    Posted January 16, 2018 11:47 am 0Likes

    It goes without saying that we will need serious mid range battlefield SAM to deal with these threats. More money! Unless we start making stuff ourselves and curb costs we will forever be paying huge sums of money.

  • by TZK
    Posted January 16, 2018 3:29 pm 0Likes

    Just carry wet sand bags on top of tanks and vehicles to protect against the CBU-105 bomblet as they consist of molten copper. It also uses a passive infra red sensor (PIR) which can be easily tricked using heat flares. You could have a vehicle in a tank formation equipped with a short range radar to detect the release of cluster bomblets from the main housing which then release flares over a wide area to confuse the PIR.

  • by Steve
    Posted January 16, 2018 4:48 pm 0Likes

    I don’t think GB-6 carries sheet type weapons. CBU-105 is deadly…

  • by Joseph
    Posted January 16, 2018 6:51 pm 0Likes

    Thanks, I think I am getting the picture now, cheers!

  • by Faisal
    Posted January 17, 2018 12:58 am 0Likes

    I hope Pakistani defence folks know all that. Otherwise just like Iraqis , they will become live battlefield test.

  • by Faisal
    Posted January 17, 2018 12:59 am 0Likes

    Can Turkey sell some mid range SAM to Pakistan? to protect its armor units on the ground? SAM is one area we have been ignoring for long period of time. Musharraf bought some Italian SAMs Spada 2000 but i think range is limited.

  • by U
    Posted January 17, 2018 3:30 am 0Likes

    After reading all this discussion about CBU-105, Tac Ns etc. I am wondering can Pakistan develop an Artillery shell which incorporates similar guided bomblets, explodes at an altitude and the shell can be fired from a range of 80 to 100 kms, which means it is for the biggest guns available. This way it can counter large tank formations without risking aircrafts or using Tac Ns.

    Is there such a weapon already out there? Or just my imagination?

    OTH maybe the NASR Missile can be armed with such a warhead.

  • by U
    Posted January 17, 2018 1:08 pm 0Likes

    Pakistan Army has inducted its own HQ-16 systems for the same reason. The 40km range is decent, although there is news of an improved version with range of 70 kms.

    The Army also has 15km FM-90 for short range coverage.

  • by TZK
    Posted January 17, 2018 2:49 pm 0Likes

    You would have to use missiles or aerial platform to launch smart weapons as the shock generated by ballistic firing in a barrel would render the weapon useless. Something like NASR missile would be ideal to deliver a war head full of smaller smart weapons that once released over the battle field would fall slowly from parachutes seeking and attacking targets on the ground in a similar way to the CBU-105. There are also a number of missiles that can be launched from field gun and tank barrels.

  • by Steve
    Posted January 18, 2018 3:37 am 0Likes

    Better to use mid range SAM or fighters to destroy the aircraft from which the weapon is deployed. That is why Block III and a stopgap gen 4-4.5 fighter is so important.

  • by Steve
    Posted January 18, 2018 3:46 am 0Likes

    Valid ideas, but we don’t know what the state of indigenous R&D is. Screw driver-giri never gets you very far. In the weapon been discussed it’s an infrared sensor and a steering vane, a copper skeet and explosive, along with dispersal container with a parachute and small rocket motors for imparting spin. Should be doable but a few technologies are melded together here and it’s not easy, that’s why not everyone makes them. The advantage is the sheer numbers of skeets released by one container. It can devastate a tank regiment if properly deployed and if it works as advertised.

  • by Steve
    Posted January 18, 2018 3:59 am 0Likes

    They should unless they are totally brainless. Having said that I had the pleasure of talking to a recently retired armoured corps colonel. The guy was not very impressive or knowledgeable about the worldwide state of the art in his own field to say the least, and had a lot of bluster and was dismissive of recent dangerous progress in adversaries. Also overly religious which is a worry if that is the norm.

  • by Faisal
    Posted January 18, 2018 11:14 pm 0Likes

    They are the operators of machines. They may not necessarily know everything but their engineers and planners should know. One of my relatives was a brilliant Aviation pilot and was very well aware of strengths and weakness of Cobra Gunship vs Mi-35. That gives me some comfort level.

Leave a comment