Why doesn't Pakistan build an aircraft carrier?

Discussion in 'Pakistan Navy' started by KashifAsrar, Jul 25, 2006.

Share This Page

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sigatoka
    Offline

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,013
    Ratings:
    +0 / 26 / -0
    1. Wouldnt it be more cost effective to get more planes armed with anti-ship missiles and launch sorties from land bases against Indian ships?

    2. I dont think an aircraft carrier or two is going to deter the U.S. . All an aircraft carrier will be is a very expensive destroyed relic at the bottom of the sea if it faces the U.S. navy.
  2. Bull
    Offline

    Bull ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Messages:
    6,932
    Ratings:
    +0 / 263 / -0
    An AC wont do damn againts the USN..it will be sitting duck,better as sig said spen on better ships or land based fighters equipped with antiship/sub missiles.Andi think thats what PN is looking for.

    Israel would attack pak soldiers under UN flag?

    Man you really are one insecure soul.
  3. sigatoka
    Offline

    sigatoka SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,013
    Ratings:
    +0 / 26 / -0
    I didnt know that Pak. was sending peacekeeping troops to Lebanon? Indonesia, Turkey, France and Malaysia appear to be doing so.
  4. KashifAsrar
    Offline

    KashifAsrar SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,012
    Ratings:
    +0 / 13 / -0
    At the moment it looks that an AC is expensive and unreliable option .... I also think a better Airforce and an advanced missile and nuclear capability are far better options .... Particulalry the cruise missiles, and surface to air missiles ... as we all know the war is now fought and won from air ...
    But in the long run pakistan would require a Naval Aircraft Carier .... It is just the matter of timimg .... The time is not now !!
    Kashif
  5. master_fx
    Offline

    master_fx FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    474
    Ratings:
    +0 / 15 / -0
    then USA will turn into a waste land....
  6. master_fx
    Offline

    master_fx FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    474
    Ratings:
    +0 / 15 / -0
    they just killed a chinese UN observer under UN flag!!!!!!!
  7. Sid
    Offline

    Sid SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    620
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0

    Yes yes, everyone is just dying to spill some Pakistani blood right? Give me a break! Too much military rule has infected too many minds with revisionist thoughts I see. If the Israelis are 'sooo interested' in learning about our army's combat capabilities, they could just simply ask the Indians instead of taking the trouble of engaging our lads and that also under the UN banner.

    Coming to the Aircraft Carrier (AC) part; ONE AC? That will be sitting DUCKS on its own. An AC is only effective within a Battle Group, which means that it has subs, fast attack craft and other heavier (destoyers and/or frigates) surface combatant vessels to provide ample support to the AC's operations. It is simple too costly for Pakistan. And for some miraculous reasons, even if the PN starts revamping its strategy and doctrine to centre around an AC and buys one along with complete support vessels, it would still be useless, since ONE aircraft carrier just ISN'T ENOUGH. Any NAVY person would tell you, that you need ATLEAST THREE carriers to pack an extremely effective punch as operational rotation is something that is quite helpful when we turn to lessons in logistics. Hell, why look at 'any' navy? IN's next door!

    Given PN's resources and its doctrine, the best possible next step for it, is to acquire the next generation sub with the ability to fire a naval version of the LACM Babur (which has yet to be developed as well) since the Agosta 90Bs cannot be modified to launch Babur's naval version. Then PN has to make sure it acquires the 'second strike capability', which means, Pakistani scientists have to miniaturize nuclear warheads so as to be carried on the Babur or other missiles.

    Step after that would be to strengthen PN's surface fleet which is majorly LACKING on all counts. Four F-22P frigates from China wouldn't help that much when you keep IN's Trishul Class and Delhi Class in mind. Huge amounts need to be spent by PN to get hold of some formidable frigates and/or destroyers in sufficient numbers.
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  8. genmirajborgza786
    Offline

    genmirajborgza786 PDF VETERAN

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    3,613
    Ratings:
    +5 / 3,906 / -1
    Country:
    Canada
    Location:
    Canada
    yes the pakistan navy needs as much attention as the airforce at the moment we must get subs,frigates and destroyer as much as we get our hands on we need to increase the fleet of the pakistan navy this area needs urgent attention
  9. KashifAsrar
    Offline

    KashifAsrar SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,012
    Ratings:
    +0 / 13 / -0
    You are not clear dear. How it would be? Would you shed some more light. I do not see it would happen like that.
    Kashif
  10. A M Qureshi
    Offline

    A M Qureshi BANNED

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    12
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    AOA,

    To SID,

    I think, AC always have a battle group along with extra subs... LOL

    I saw a heading last day in newspaper about Mushraf's SPACE PROGRAMME with the help of China. I think he is trying to get help from China to avoid US.

    In AIR FORCE, we need at least 5 types of ATTACK FIGHTER JETS and we should acquire them from Russia, Russia already signaled us green after INDO-US nuclear contacts. By the way, China is upgrading the MIGs, FC-1 have similarities of MIGs. But J-10 is similar to ISRAEALs LAVI PROJECT.

    I read in an article about Russians are trying to make a STEALTH MIG, I dont remember the refrence and dont have more info. about it.

    Have a nice time in bed...
    A M Qureshi.
  11. Sid
    Offline

    Sid SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    620
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0
    They always do because navies basing their strategies and doctrines on AC also have the resources to buy support vessels for the AC. PN wont get support vessels free if it wants to buy an AC and that also THREE as ONE is as bad as having none in the first place.

    Its not about 'avoiding' US. Its about dealing with both major players to avail what better deals they have to offer. US has F-16s to offer so we went for them. China has space tech to offer on better terms (less restrictions) so we go for that option. Its all called 'national interest'.

    FIVE types of attack aircraft?? That is just rubbish. Hope you understand what logistics are and how much of a nightmare it would be for the PAF to undertake that kind of a airforce structure revamp. They already know from IAF's experience, never go for more than three different aircrafts at a time as it is reasonable and doesn't overstretch one's logistical facilities and support services. Therefore we have F-7s, Mirages and F-16s right now and in the imminent future, it would be Jf-17s, F-16s and J-10s. J-10 is 'somewhat' similar to the LAVI project but much more advanced now than it was back then.

    That would be the PAK-FA fighter aircraft I believe.
  12. A M Qureshi
    Offline

    A M Qureshi BANNED

    New Recruit

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Messages:
    12
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    AOA,

    To Sid,

    You are talking about NATIONAL INTEREST, tell me one thing, is it our national interest to call Americans for help every time?, when we need them they did not help us in 1971 war and here our leaders were looking for them when they arrive and when they launch their attack against India, offcourse they arrive but after that black day of our history. Is it NATIONAL INTEREST in ur opinion.
    Now about my view of AIRFORCE, MIRRAGEs are not attack jets but for the purpose of bombarment and reconicense, and in combat we can use them as attack jets, F-7s and F-16s are attack jets. Americans are selling us their so called F-16s new ones but restricting us to do not use them beyond LOC otherwise they will jam our electronics. IS THIS KIND OF DEFFENCE DEAL IS IN OUR NATIONAL INTEREST.
  13. Sid
    Offline

    Sid SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    620
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0
    Yes, it is. You either call the Americans or the Chinese, varying from situation to situation and the degree of leverage they can provide to the Pakistani cause as Pakistan simply isn't strong enough in the international arena to pick one side and expect everyone else to jump the bandwagon!

    It was national interest that made Pakistan align itself with the US early on and it was US' national interest to not intervene in East Pakistan since West Pakistan was much more dear to the US' geopolitical strategy in the South Asia. Which is why the Americans DID put their foot down and made it VERY CLEAR to the Indians that West Pakistan's sovereignty should be preserved. Once again, its all about national interest.

    So? Who ever said that you need more than two types of combat aircraft? The currect structure is pretty good. You have one type of aircraft as the frontline fighters, the second for holding out and air-supremacy denial while the third for reconnaisance and maritime role.

    Ever heard of 'multi-role aircraft'? That should solve some of the confusions you're having.

    I have yet to hear about this. Sounds funny indeed. Surely Americans aren't naive to think that we won't use F-16s against India if need be. The only concern they have is proliferation of their sensitive tech to China and that is why the new F-16s would be coming without their EW suite which would be replaced by a British, French or Swedish one.

    Is the deal in national interest still? Sure, what else can we possibly get our hands on that is better than a Block 52 F-16? The only one coming close is Gripen (considering all factors such as price per unit, etc) which has been looked over for now.

    The F-16s being negotiated for even without their original EW suites would be far advanced than any aircraft PAF currently has. I'd say we take 'em!
  14. melb4aust
    Offline

    melb4aust SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,551
    Ratings:
    +0 / 52 / -0
    I think A.M. Qureshi is right some areas, like if some incase attacked Pakistan, let say India, it is unlikely that US or China will support Pakistan. Just go couple of years back during Kargil war, China refused to help Pakistan, then Pakistan turned to saudis, and they took part to enforce US to stop India to Pull back their forces. That time Pakistan was'nt willing to have a war, because the whole world went to the other side. Pakistan was afraid that this could have led to a nuclear war.

    But things are different know, Pak-China relations are much much more strong now. What Pakistan should consider now not to rely on any1. Built ur own stuff, own military equipment. And they are doing it!!!
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  15. Sid
    Offline

    Sid SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    620
    Ratings:
    +0 / 18 / -0
    National Interest. Simple two word answer as to why China refused to step in when the Kargil crisis erupted. It did not want to be drawn in to a quicksand situation over a misadventure as it would've jeopardized its long term goals in the Asian Pacific as well as the subcontinent.

    Indigenisation is good but doesn't always help. I'm sure we can learn a thing or two from Arjun Tank and LCA projects across the border. This is exactly the reason why the combined motto of the defence industry in Pakistan is, 'why re-invent the wheel'?

    Thats why we rely on China for help. Buy equipment from them, use it as a benchmark, invest in R & D and build up on that to come up with improved (advanced) and more efficient systems.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.