What's new

Does the PN need an aircraft carrier?

like i said PN should first convince china to Provide some second hand 5000 ton destroyers
Instead of buying 30-33 yr old OHP from USA costing 78 Mil USD each
1-2 such destroyers would not only be better than 3-4 OHP but would give valuable experience in operating heavy ships , Provided they are less than 30yrs old , and PLAN operates 8 such destroyers which are between 25-30 yr old
Pakistan should also look at buying a second hand LPD from US , something like the 35 Yr old USS Trenton which India bought from US for only 52 Million USD including repairs and upgrade

The only ships of that tonnage that China could offer are two Luhu class ships, one of which (112 Harbin) is fitted with US GTu's and the other (113 Qingdao) with Ukrainian GTu's, which poses a logistical challenge.

Moreover, these ships are NOT superior to the OHP in many important respects (and certainly not to the extent that 2 of them would be worth 4 OHPs):
"The class is said to be the first indigenous Chinese warship design approaching modern standards"
"The operational capability of the Luhu-class Destroyers has been called into question by naval analysts. Ship visits in 1997 allowed US Naval officers to board and inspect Luhu Destroyer No.112 Harbin and to take numerous photographs. Analysis of these photographs and reporting by officers present strongly suggested that the Luhu Destroyers were mainly intended as technology demonstration vessels rather than serious naval combatants. "
Type 052 destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PN has no (0, nada, zip) amphibious capability at present, nor should it necessarily have. When starting from scratch anyway, it would be better to buy a suitable new vessel (e.g. such as Indonesia got with assistance from South Korea, Makassar class, 4 new ships for USD$150 million dollar) rather than a way too big old and steampowered ex-USN vessel like Trenton (Austin class).

Trenton was bought by India in 2006, the Indian government paid US$48.44 million. Six UH-3 Sea King maritime utility transport helicopters, bought for and additional $39 million, operate from the ship.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INS_Jalashwa
 
Last edited:
Actually Pakistan should think about a less expensive way to sink the Indian Aircraft Carrier rather than making one of its own which requires a lot of money which we don't have...;)
 
In due time..patients....possibly in the future

Currently, we should invest in submarines, our amphibious attack capabilities, naval defenses and our surface fleet. There is no immediate need for an aircraft at this time but the need will arise and we should be making preparations for it nonetheless.

But I can see that in the future, we should look into acquiring and/or building some light, possibly even medium sized aircraft carriers to protect our very important and strategic sea lanes. Two to Three(3) with a squadron or two each would suffice.

As our forces expand and modernize, we will adapt and expand accordingly and on our own terms.
 
Back in 1996, when i was a cadet in one of Pakistan's cadet college and having seen the movie TOP GUN recently, i had asked the same question to a PN Commander who vsited our cadet college for a recruitment campaign. The Commander had replied in a succinct manner that it was not needed bythe Pakistan Navy.

In retrospect, i would disagree. While there are obvious budget constrants, and other more imortant items in the PN shopping list, which some of you have already detailed, I opion that an ACC would definately be advantages for PN. (not that PN can't do without it)

The role of the Navy is evolving, no more is it just an ocean based force to wage war. And in today's modern form of conflict, the 'display' of force is some what more important that the 'actual fighting'. This is one reaon why countries also have ICBMs and nuclear capabilities. It has more or a 'big ferocious dog' effect on intruders. However, this dog is also kept in chains so that it actually doesnt attack, only scares. (but if the situation becomes too dire the dog can be set loose to devour the intruders).

While Mackinder and Mahan's theory may have become obselete in some regards it still does hold credit. Mackinder's claim of power projection at sea, and controling oceans and choke points is not outlandish. We can all imagine what havoc 'choked' choke points can have on economies and susequently on nations waging war or protecting their strategic assets and agendas.

Having said that, it can be argued that the Indian Ocean is of pivitol importance and a source of developing bellicose for heavy weights like US, China, Russia, India and possibly UK. Since the Indian Ocean is the main supply route for CIS and Baluch resources for the whole western world, its control is definately of great interest for these big stake holders and that is where i feel that the role of ACCs becomes crucial. Ofcourse ACCs are not the sole determinant of protecting the interests in the Indian Ocean but obiously the more potent of a Naval force a country has will overshadow the other players.

Secondly, does Pakistan not want to go beyond defence capabilities and project power globally? I think yes, and Im sure most of my countrymen would agree with me. Therefore ACCs will be needed by Pakistan in future, but not before we have Cruisers and Destroyers.

Perhaps this deficiency of ours may be met by developing a full fleged Naval Base in Gwadar and assisting Chinese ACCs to the max but at the end of the day, im gonna need my own rifle to defend my home and not bank on the fact that my freindly neigbour has two.

So does Pakistan need an aircraft carrier? may be not, because the Chinese have it :smitten: :china: :) or may be yes, because so does the US, UK and India. Ultimately Pakistan Navy will have to change its Naval doctrine from 'denial' to 'control' if we wants to accomplish out long term goals.

Ultimately war is an extention of diplomacy and a very esteemed Mr. Tzu we all know went on to say some thing of the effect that 'A good general wins his wars without firing a single arrow (or bullet or missile or torpedo)

my 2 cents worth, aint no expert :pakistan::china::pakistan:
 
F7s took down many indian Aircrafts and secondly SU 30 and MIG 29 are basically working as Defense FOR india or for carrying out high value target missions not for going in to fight like MIG 21 and Mirages ... It is just a basic military thought Keep the strong hold strong ... Have you heard of any Su 30 involved in Kargil conflicts ... you should first know the meaning of multi role fighter , interceptor and strike fighter then come back laughing ... Third india has Half of the Airforce deployed on Chinese border and lacks 200-300 Aircrafts...I hope you have heard that saying bigger they are harder they fall ... In case of india call it a huge Land mass ..

SU30s are inducted to IAF only after Kargil conflict...
 
Pay your taxes :P , we have enough schools and educated class in cities Carrier is for national defence, schools don't protect you once enemy is flying Sukhoi on your airspace - launchd from aircraft carriers

SPOT ON MATE!
 
Pakistan buying an AC, you must be day dreaming. I have a very good idea though.

Sign a peace accord with India, both accept LOC as border and thats that. India as its a bigger country can go on with the expense that it mantaines on its militray expenditure, we on the other hand can drop militray spending by 80% start border petrol only and live happily and peacefully ever after.

If Afghans/any.coutry bullies we will have nuclear capability or else we get hired guns from India/China.... Sounds simple doesnt it?

I whole heartedly agree with this, every religion is teaching peace.... Every living being in this earth has equal rights on the god given assets... After a war there will be no winner or loser, Peace is the only way to live happily...
 
I am sorry, Su 30's were Inducted before kargil war, We had 50 Su 30's by 1997

The deal got signed only in 1996, you are saying with in one year we got 50 SU30s, till date we have around only 120 SU30 fighters... IAF SU30 took its first flight only on 1 July 1997...

Sorry to say you are wrong...
 
The deal got signed only in 1996, you are saying with in one year we got 50 SU30s, till date we have around only 120 SU30 fighters... IAF SU30 took its first flight only on 1 July 1997...

Sorry to say you are wrong...

May I tell you something?? The Su-30's Inducted into the IAF in 1997 are no longer in service, they have been retired... No. 24 Sqn AF Hawks have retired 18 Su 30's .... So That mean we had 18 Inducted by 1997 as they were teh first to operate it... So we might have had the rest of the Airframes sent to Russia for MKI Standards
 
these kind of useless threads a made again and again by new members there must be a rule or somthing to control this MODS PLS DO SOMTHING
 

Back
Top Bottom