Jets for Aircraft Carrier

[Sargodhian_Eagle]

If Pak Navy inducts an AC carrier in its fleet then which jets will be chosen for it?
I mean which jets will stand for the selection?

NOTE: This discusion is abt Jets not abt AC carrier. So just talk abt jets

 

[Hyde]

well i don't find it possible anytime soon (minimum 10 years) since we cannot afford Aircraft Carriers at the moment due to lack of funds

but whenever it's possible i think JF-17 will be the right choice because of it's low cost and indeginous

if we acquire Aircraft Carrier after 5 years then it will be like after 12 years time we may be getting it ..... and after 5 years JF-17 will be completely a new version and much more capable so considering those facts i think it will be the only choice but that also seems very much optimistic

 

[mean_bird]

PN doesn't have an aircraft carrier and neither does it intends to get one. We have a pretty short coastline and do not intend to patrol other areas.

Beside, the cost of a carrier is somewhere around $4 billion. So the question of having an aircraft for a carrier does not arise. Beside, it should be noted that an ordinary aircraft is not even capable of aircraft carrier landings unless it is modified. Even China is yet to have an aircraft suitable for landing on carriers built by itself.

If this is just a hypothetical thread, then my answer is F-35, super hornets and we could also probably ask for a modified F-22 naval version.

 

[MASTDEVIL94]

PN doesn't have an aircraft carrier and neither does it intends to get one. We have a pretty short coastline and do not intend to patrol other areas.

Beside, the cost of a carrier is somewhere around $4 billion. So the question of having an aircraft for a carrier does not arise. Beside, it should be noted that an ordinary aircraft is not even capable of aircraft carrier landings unless it is modified. Even China is yet to have an aircraft suitable for landing on carriers built by itself.

If this is just a hypothetical thread, then my answer is F-35, super hornets and we could also probably ask for a modified F-22 naval version.

THOUGH WE HAVE A SMALL COASTLINE AN AC CAN BE VERY USEFUL IN THE FUTURE AND IT ALSO CAN SWIFTLY NEUTRILISE INDIAN FRIGATES AND ITS AC.WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SEA HARRIER II

 

[Sargodhian_Eagle]

PN doesn't have an aircraft carrier and neither does it intends to get one. We have a pretty short coastline and do not intend to patrol other areas.

Beside, the cost of a carrier is somewhere around $4 billion. So the question of having an aircraft for a carrier does not arise. Beside, it should be noted that an ordinary aircraft is not even capable of aircraft carrier landings unless it is modified. Even China is yet to have an aircraft suitable for landing on carriers built by itself.

If this is just a hypothetical thread, then my answer is F-35, super hornets and we could also probably ask for a modified F-22 naval version.

ya its hypo

I think F-22 n F-35 seems impossible due to following reasons

1) F-35 is not in service n its nt tested

2) F-22 will nt b handed over to pak even we vl get naval version

3) Hornet is possible

 

[Manticore]

an aircraft carrier is not required by paf because

*pakistan is a defensive country with a small coast line to defend

*pakistan does not believe in aggression against any country.also no country except india attacked us, and for india i doubt we need a carrier

*aircrafts are costly to buy , costly to maintain , and also costly to defend in a war.. as many frigates are appointed to defend the carrier... its a high risk target.

*my limited knowledge says that mostly twin enjined jets are used on a carrier as they require lesser track to takeoff... and the twin enjined again are costly to buy, costly to maintain, and bought in lesser number rather than a a cheaper single enjin jet.

so carrier topic for pakistan is really daydreaming in the present financial circumstances
regards

 

[mean_bird]

ya its hypo

I think F-22 n F-35 seems impossible due to following reasons

1) F-35 is not in service n its nt tested

2) F-22 will nt b handed over to pak even we vl get naval version

3) Hornet is possible

Oh, I was just being sarcastic there in saying the chance of us going for an AC is roughly the same of us getting an F-22.

AC are bloody expensive to buy ($4 billion per carrier for a reasonable sized one ) and the goodies and maintenance is on top of that. Even the current JF-17 are being inducted on credit. An AC is just a luxury for us and we do not even need one.

If you want to consider the scenario anyway, then us getting if from US in unlikely both because of US and Pak will be reluctant. Russia will be out of question as well. China doesn't have one for itself let alone someone else. That leaves france as an option so we could either get the Rafale or the Super hornets. In future, the J-13 or a navalized version of JF-17 could also be possible.

 

[shehbazi2001]

This matter can be discussed or studied in two ways. Either you first select the aircraft and then find the suitable carrier for it ...or.... you first select a carrier and then look for aircrafts that can be operated from it.

This is because carriers not only differ in their size of deck and displacement but also in their method of aircraft launch technique. Bigger super carriers use steam catapults and arrestor wires to launch and recover the aircrafts. US carriers use this method. These are called CATOBAR carriers. CATOBAR stands for Catapult Assisted Takeoff but Arrested Recovery.

On the other hand, most Russian, UK and Indian carriers are small and use ski-jumps to launch aircrafts. Ski-jump enables the Adrimal Groshkov to use Mig-29K. These are STOBAR (Short Takeoff but Arrested Recovery) carriers.

http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/1998-05/980409-N-8890B-003.jpg

Indian Carrier Vikrant first operated Sea Hawks and to be able to operate Sea Harriers, a ski-jump was added to it.

A carrier fitted with ski-jump and arrestor wires can be suitable for Pakistan too. JF-17 needs to be heavily modified for carrier operations with overall strengthening of structure, a fully redesigned landing gear, modifications required for full-time operations in completely humid environment, a lower stall speed, ability to fly at required AoA and a good bring back capability etc.

As far as I understand, bring back is about landing at slow speed while carrying a good payload. For landing, the carrier aircrafts have to slow down and slowing down with a heavy weapon load is often not possible. An aircraft that can generate huge amounts of lift even at slow speed is better suited for carrier operations.

Another important feature of carrier aircrafts is their lower stall speed as compared to land-based aircrafts because deck runway is small and a high speed landing is not possible. High speed landing will require a long runway. This is perhaps the reason that Mirage series aircrafts were not used onboard the aircraft carriers.

French Navy had to use US F-8 Crusader as shipboard air superiority fighter. They had Etendard and then Super Etendard as shipboard attack aircraft.

Right now the trend is to have a truely multi-role aircraft on the carriers exemplified by Rafale, Hornet/Super Hornet and Su-33 or Mig-29K.