Author Profile: Usman Ansari is a journalist specializing in defence issues and presently based in Pakistan. He is Pakistan Correspondent for the US media group Defense News, and Chief Analyst for the British naval news monthly Warships – International Fleet Review. He has a BA in International History and International Politics, and MA in Global Security, both from Keele University, UK.
By Usman Ansari
Pakistani MBT modernization programs since the 1980s successfully focused on countering India’s T-72M1. While India’s Arjun MBT program is largely irrelevant and had a negligible impact on further Pakistani developments, T-90MS purchase dictated a stopgap counter acquisition due to Pakistan’s MBT upgrade program running behind schedule.
Pakistan’s MBT modernization program involved incremental Type-59 upgrades culminating in the Al-Zarrar, an opportunistic stopgap T-80UD acquisition, and localized Type-69II and Type-85APII production leading to the development and manufacturing of the Al-Khalid-series.
The Al-Khalid is based on the NORINCO Type-90II, but customized in line with Pakistan’s requirements. Its more advanced variants, namely the Al-Khalid I and Al-Khalid II, should have met Pakistan’s future MBT needs. In fact, the ongoing Al-Khalid II development indicates that this program is still active.
The VT-4 purchase is purely a stopgap measure dictated by the investment shortfalls that stymied Al-Khalid production[1], and therefore, its continued development.
While the T-80UD and Al-Khalid had varying degrees of parity with India’s T-90S, the considerably better protected T-90MS demanded a counter response the cash-starved Al-Khalid program could not readily provide.
While Ukraine’s Oplot-P has comparable protection to the T-90MS, questions over Kiev’s ability to basically deliver an order (as proven with the Thai contract[2]), ultimately decided the competition in favour of the VT-4.
However, as a counter to the T-90MS, the VT-4’s effectiveness is debatable.
In the triad of armour, mobility, and firepower MBT design characteristics, Pakistan values firepower and mobility over protection. This approach is partially dictated by the weight limits of bridge and road infrastructure.
From what is known of the Thai Oplot and VT-4 experience, the VT-4 has reasonable firepower and mobility characteristics.[3]
With respect firepower the VT-4 benefits from some of the latest Chinese APFSDS-T/kinetic round developments[4], and possibly existing BK-27 triple HEAT round or BK-29 HEAT-MP that adds a hard penetrator. These would likely penetrate the T-90MS glacis plate, but the ability to penetrate the advanced ERA, composite armour, and steel of the turret is wholly unknown. The adoption of gun launched ATGMs is also a possibility, but these are expensive and not presently the ‘silver bullet’ they are promoted to be.
The VT-4’s mobility is probably comparable to the Al-Khalid and may therefore have an advantage over the T-90MS.
In protection terms however, the VT-4 offers no substantial baseline improvement over Pakistan’s existing Al-Khalid and Type-85APII MBTs due to sharing the same turret design and relies entirely on FY-IV ERA to increase protection.
Quwa Plus
Finish the Story. Get the Full Picture.
Unlock independent journalism and deeper analysis that help you make sense of Pakistan’s key defence and policy developments without relying on shallow or foreign-framed coverage.
Join ($29.99/Year) Already a subscriber?Sign in
