I’ve had, (and taken), the opportunity to sit in the Pakistan army’s Al-Khalid MBT a couple of times. My opinion is that it’s a pretty good tank with a decent level of mobility and firepower. Protection, for what it is, isn’t too bad. That is if you compare it with other ‘Eastern’ MBT designs like the Russian T-90, Ukrainian T-84, and Chinese ZTZ-99.

 

No one is saying the Al-Khalid, (or any of the other tanks listed above), will rival something like the Challenger 2 when it comes to armour protection. I don’t think any ‘Eastern’ tank can make so bold a claim. By virtue of its welded turret and modular composite turret ‘cheek’ armour inserts however, ERA package, and other protection measures, I’d say the Al-Khalid isn’t doing too badly for what it is.

 

It’s a bit of a hybrid of systems from both the East and West, but it is built around a 125mm smoothbore and a Soviet/Russian style autoloader. In the 1990s when the auto-loader was coming into service, (installed in Type-85s and T-80UDs), some Pakistani armoured corps officers were very unhappy with the idea of an auto-loader. They considered it a gimmick, and losing one man in the crew would mean replenishing and refuelling the tank under combat conditions would take longer. No tank crew wants to be stood around motionless for too long, especially with the possibility of hostile aircraft arriving on scene, or a rain or artillery rockets or shells falling on them increasing for each minute they’re motionless.

 

Having an auto-loader does have its benefits however, namely being able to reload the gun while moving over rough ground at speed, and reducing the tank's profile. There’s also the speed at which rounds can be fired off. The first round in any engagement is crucial, but follow-up rounds, delivered accurately and at speed, can literally mean the difference between life and death.

 

I do have reservations about auto-loaders myself. Any hull/turret penetration could set off loosely stowed ammunition, (only 22 separate loading rounds – round plus propellant charge – are stored in the carousel style cassette in the bottom of the hull). The propellant is after all in semi-combustible cardboard cases. I suppose this is 'ammunition stowage' rather than the 'auto-loader' per se, but this is the weakness of all the above tanks. Bar that is the T-84, the latest variants of which have a bustle mounted autoloader in line with something like the French Leclerc. Even the American M1A2 Abrams, perhaps the most combat tested modern Western MBT around, may go this way if fitted with the automated XM-360 120mm cannon. It’s currently undergoing testing for XM-1202 Mounted Combat System. The XM-360 is lighter than but as powerful as the 120mm currently fitted to the Abrams. Fitted with a 27 round bustle mounted magazine/auto-loader, it certainly sounds like something the Abrams crews may welcome, (some of the above restrictions notwithstanding).

 

This is something I’d like to see in the Al-Khalid, in fact, I’d like something a little better. The Jordanians are busy fitting their Challenger II chassis’ they obtained from the UK when the type was replaced by the Challenger 2, with the Falcon 2 unmanned turret. The turret was designed by British firm Claverham Limited for (or in conjunction with) King Abdallah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB). The ammunition (eleven or 17 rounds depending on number of drums fitted), is in the bustle like the new T-84, but the crew are now in the bottom of the hull. The turret is unmanned and therefore has a very small frontal cross section.

 

There is some debate as to whether having an autoloader that carries so few rounds is a good idea in a scenario when you may be faced with a massed enemy armoured column. That’s true, but I still think the Falcon 2 turret is the way to go. If a way could be devised for extra ammunition to be safely stored in the hull, and the autoloader replenished without having to get out of the tank, (i.e. through the bottom of the turret – it would be a hell of a tight squeeze, especially in a smaller hulled MBT, but I can safely say the number crews who would admit to wanting to stand around on top of tank feeding rounds into the auto-loader whilst hot metal was flying left right and centre, would be very small in number).

 

I don’t know if the Falcon 2 turret can be fitted to the Al-Khalid chassis. It is rather smaller than the Challenger II chassis, and it’s already a bit of tight squeeze inside the Al-Khalid. It is however roomier than a T-80UD, which in turn is, (I am led to believe) more spacious than a T-72. Now I’ve sat in a T-80UD, and to be honest when I was told beforehand that it was rather cramped, and you could only stretch one leg at a time in the turret, I thought the officer telling me this was joking. Considering one of the senior officers I met was rather tall (towering in fact – though with a stoop, which was explained in due course), I thought it an even bigger joke. When I actually shoehorned myself into the gunner’s seat however, (and though I’m not quite a skeleton in a durex, I am slim I must admit), I found it wasn’t a joke at all. Which means for a person to be comfortable in any way in a T-72, he’d have to be an anorexic dwarf!

 

For the Al-Khalid however, modernisation at present means something so drastic will have to wait. A new variant, the Al-Khalid-I, is currently undergoing testing at Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) having been developed by HIT’s ‘Advanced Armoured Research, Development and Integration Complex’. The improvements seem consist of: an improved engine, FCS, improved integrated battle management system (IBMS), improved sensors, side skirts, and track pads. Engine improvements may consist of a new more powerful type, or perhaps improvements to the existing Ukrainian 1,200hp 6TDF. Something has changed though because the engine deck appears to be shorter. The auto-loader has also been upgraded to be able to fire nine rounds a minute, and the Ukrainian ‘Varta’ electro-optical jamming system is fitted. It bears more than a passing resemblance to the Russian/Ukrainian Shotra-1, and according to HIT, decoys ATGMs, and counters laser designators and range finders by causing false readings disrupting tracking.

 

Less information is known about the next stage of the modernisation programme, the Al-Khalid-II, but there is a strong possibility it may end up looking like the Chinese ZTZ-99 with a wedge-shaped modular armour package over the turret front, and other such modifications. The power-pack could be further upgraded to a 1,500hp unit, and further developments made to the sensors. The possibility of the Al-Khalid-II following the example of the ZTZ-99 is quite high due to Sino-Pakistani defence co-operation, and the fact that both Al-Khalid and ZTZ-99 share some design ancestry. Without anything coming out of HIT though, this is still speculation, albeit fairly well founded speculation.

 

I can exclusively reveal however, (unless you’ve heard elsewhere), that the Military Vehicle Research and Development Establishment (MVRDE), have taken the Al-Khalid chassis, and are adapting it as an Armoured Vehicle-Launched Bridge (AVLB) to replace the M-47M Patton based variant. Hopefully this heralds the start of a wholesale modernisation of engineering vehicle types away from the M-47M, Type-59, and T-55 to the Al-Khalid chassis. It would also be good to see the chassis become the basis for more 155mm self propelled artillery pieces (perhaps with a Turkish or Chinese 155mm), or some self propelled anti-aircraft types, but Pakistan isn’t made of money, so we’ll just have to wait and see.

 

Nevertheless, the Al-Khalid is evolving, and the day when the Pakistan Army’s tank fleet consists of small numbers of Type-85s, T-80UDs and a large number of Al-Khalids is slowly drawing nearer.

I'm not sure how many people are taking any interest in the results of the recent Australian Defence White Paper, but you should be. The Australian military is a highly professional force with a proud history, but it has been under resourced for decades.

 

Anyway, this is set to change. The RAAF and the RAN are set to receive a massive injection of cash to buy a whole host of platforms to help them to protect Australia and its interests. A key aspect of this is to be the expansion of the navy which is set to receive amongst other things, 12 submarines, and eight frigates. It's not a small number, the submarine flotilla is being doubled! That type of investment costs a vast amount. (Just ask Pakistan, they want to increase from six subs to 12-14).

 

Not wishing to blow my own trumpet (physically impossible and grossly indecent as that sounds), but you read it here first.

 

By virtue of its geography alone, let alone its interests, Australia needs to be one of the world’s major naval powers. As it stands at present it’s hardly operating a fleet of rowing boats. However, for the task at hand it’s inadequate. It will take many years for this force size to be realised, and there exist questions as to where all this money will come from, whether by giving other states a reason to also boost their military capabilities it is actually contributing to eroding Australia’s security (I can see the argument, but it’s not necessarily true), and the wisdom of citing China as a nation of concern when Chinese money will hopefully pay for this by way of purchasing Australia’s mineral resources when demand rises again.

 

However, it’s long overdue. Australia can’t rely on others for its own defence, nor can it rely on others to safeguard its interests. Some aircraft carriers would have been a welcome addition, but I guess they’ll have to wait for another time. Though, the two Spanish designed LPDs on order may be able to operate a STOVL variant of the F-35 if a ramp is included.

 

It’s worth a try. Australia was a carrier operating nation, and should be once again, even if it is by stealth.