It's interesting that like half of the navies that sail 20+ big ships have an aircraft carrier (either in service or planned) of some type. The other half are seriously thinking about it. The PN is aiming to have 20+ frigates and large ships too, so, I wonder...Currently PN is focusing long rang subsonic missiles and Supersonic and Hypersonic missiles are underdevelopment
So in other word PN is relying on different missiles as counter weapon to possible attempt of Indian to distrub Pakistan's SLOC.
The thing required to be noted here is that long rang subsonic and in future supersonic missiles are integrated with Surface Fleet which might not be used in offensive operations, therefore we can say that surface fleet will mainly be employed in Anti- Access operation.
On the other hand submarine fleet of Pakistan is always employed in offensive manner but at least no open source information indicates that the current Agosta or 8 Hangoor class submarines would get supersonic missiles as part of their arsnal in this case Area Denial platforms will rely on old fashion subsonic missiles namely SLCM Harba and Babur.
As indicated in my previous post if India deploy its carrier group at +1,000-1,200 KM then we would have to solely rely on submarines to deny freedom of operations to Indian Navy but with growing Air defence capabilities of Indian Navy and the nature of threat Indian Navy at such distance would face would come only from one direction i.e. submarines of PN would make the defence "comparatively" easy and predictable for them.
At such distance the Air element from PN is completely missing, therefore Area denial strategy seem unidimensional, though it will get strengthen when Hypersonic Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile will be introduced but we should keep in mind its employment would require 24/7 ISR and satellite based real time tracking of IN ships this capability is "still" missing in PN as of now as per open source.
Another option in which PN seems not interested could be the introduction of Long Range Naval Bombers like H-6 in Pakistan Navy.
And if H-6 is acquried and integrated with local long rang subsonic and supersonic missiles then this will introduce a new capability in PN a long range operational capability specially in area denial domain.
PN could employ these in offensive role where IN ships would not have aerial cover.
PN happens to be in that weird in between position...It's interesting that like half of the navies that sail 20+ big ships have an aircraft carrier (either in service or planned) of some type. The other half are seriously thinking about it. The PN is aiming to have 20+ frigates and large ships too, so, I wonder...
Agree with your statement. A Carrier is a purely offensive weapon and requires a major strike group to accompany it when encountering a credible opposing force. When a US CSG tranits in theater, it's CAG controls over 250 nm of airspace around it.An aircraft carrier...on its own wouldn't accomplish much...and would instead be a sitting duck.
First of all we must understand 2 thingsIt's interesting that like half of the navies that sail 20+ big ships have an aircraft carrier (either in service or planned) of some type. The other half are seriously thinking about it. The PN is aiming to have 20+ frigates and large ships too, so, I wonder...
I think US spy satellites also add to the effectiveness of USN(not only for it's carrier battle group...but in general). I'm not saying that an aircraft carrier would be useless for PN...I'm saying that for it to be useful...Pak will have to spend a lot of money...in addition to the money spent on the carrier itself.
...but what about LHDs that deploy UCAVs or short-ranged fighters?First of all we must understand 2 things
- All the major Naval powers who operate Aircraft Carrier have their Naval bases either on foreign Soil or well beyond their main land for example USA, UK, France, Russia and China
- Secondly their area of interest lies at such far distance that conventional Naval resources could not provide security to their interests for example Farance and UK have Naval bases in Indian Ocean
In my opinion in our case its more related to our area of Interest and Operations which are limitted from Gulf region to the Horn of Africa and due to the blessing of our geography this area is accessible to us with our conventional Naval resources.
Our SLOC are not as stretch as the SLOC of USA is stretch or SLOC of UK was stretched.
We can observe even though France, UK, Russia and China have Aircraft carriers but their utility are limited due to the limit of their political interests in different regions of the world.
In our case if we could secure permenant Joint Forces bases in our areas of Interest than we could maintain our continues presence even with conventional Naval Resources and under this approche I don't see PN going for Aircraft carrier in its fleet for a very long time unless our Naval traffic come under threat beyond the Suez Canal or area around Malaca strait .... Only then presence of Air craft carrier in PN could be justified but as long as PN does not operate Naval base on foreign soil there will be no Aircraft carrier in PN
LHDs and such vessels which could deploy UCAVs, USV and UUVs would find their place in almost every midsize Navy as they will act as force multiplier...but what about LHDs that deploy UCAVs or short-ranged fighters?
I think the concept of naval air power deploying is changing. Yes, I agree, the 'big powers' have distant interests to defend, but others -- like South Korea and Japan -- are doing it to reinforce their existing naval interests. Australia is thinking about it as well but the RAAF doesn't want the RAN to have fixed-wing fighter assets.
If the carrier designs continue to get smaller (e.g., 24,000 ton to 32,000 ton displacement), I think we'll see more countries (at least those with 20+ major surface vessels) see them as real options.
Agreed bro do you think we can see PN in the near future with a LHD ?LHDs and such vessels which could deploy UCAVs, USV and UUVs would find their place in almost every midsize Navy as they will act as force multiplier
Simillarly we might see a new class something bigger than Cruiser Ships but smaller than Conventional Aircraft carriers similar to LHDs in size but as dedicated drone carriers could be reals possibility within this decade Turkey already is experimenting with LHDs
But In my opinion which might be wrong we should not expect these vessels as tool of power projection in conventional sense as the concept of power projection is associated with Conventional Aircraft Carriers.
Dear distance of Duqam port from Gawadar port is around 500 miles while from Karachi its around 700 miles thing need to be understand here is that Duqam is mention here as reference point not as exact location where Indian Navy would deploy its carrier they will obviously deploy its at some distance let say 200-300 miles so overall IN carrier group would be deployed at acdistance of around 800-100 miles from the coast of Pakistan
In this case even with IFR JF-17 would have some limitations keep in mind JF-17 with 3 extarnal fuel tank and two 1000 pound bombs have have combat radius of 1000 KM
Plz also note
- Around 79 JF-17 are not IFR capable
- With 2 C-802 or CM-400 AKG it will have smaller combat radius due to the absence of 2 external fuel tank
- In that scenario Indian carrier group would be deployed +1200 to 1600 km away from coast of Pakistan
- Inflight refuelears either have to fly earlier than strick package to reach the refueling point with will put them in danger against Indian interceptors
So comparatively indian navy would be in less danger zone
Can you provide me any link to that exercise, I tried to find any report but still no luckIf 25 years ago we had capability to surprise Americans we can surely surprise india with these less capable aircraft carriers.