What's new

Pakistan Naval Aviation - Updated

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
960
0
929
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Thats the Air Force's job.
Yes but in coming years we can see independent naval air airm with own fighter jets, till then PAF will continue this role but PAF need to have heavyweight jets dedicated for this offense role over sea.
 

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
1,017
3
1,422
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Yes but in coming years we can see independent naval air airm with own fighter jets, till then PAF will continue this role but PAF need to have heavyweight jets dedicated for this offense role over sea.

They absolutely do not. Pakistan needs to defend its maritime trade routes and its EEZ, nothing of which cannot be done with current assets. Its a waste of money and pointless,
 

Aamir Hussain

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jan 28, 2007
1,964
26
3,540
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I don't foresee a fighter air arm for PN. PAF will continue to do that. Both forces are working towards integrating their C3I for seaward defense and lot of work has been done in this regards. AWACS input are now viewable by PN and some other assets are also being integrated.
 

ARMalik

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 7, 2017
4,081
5
7,629
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
PN not having a dedicated air arm is a SERIOUS strategic error. Unless there is a hybrid command structure where seamless PN - PAF engagement happens, PAF just does not have the capability to understand the intricacies of sea warfare.
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,187
10
3,103
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
PN not having a dedicated air arm is a SERIOUS strategic error. Unless there is a hybrid command structure where seamless PN - PAF engagement happens, PAF just does not have the capability to understand the intricacies of sea warfare.
PN has an air arm. Fighter jets ≠ air arm.
PN is already massively upgrading Its air arm with ATRs, Sea sultans, UAVs and helicopters (coming with the new ships). Currently PN has little need for fighter jets as PAF can already cover that need.

In an ideal world sure the PN can have a couple of fighter squadrons for covering naval assets and maritime strike but PN has a dozen priorities before that whine they are currently fulfilling in the form of basically every single type of ship, submarine and aircraft.
 

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
960
0
929
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Everyone's using the Pak Navy forum to wish for an aircraft carrier. Get with the program.
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) why most people mix heavy fighter for naval role associate with aircraft carrier?

Heavyweight fighters work well when used from land to keep enemies within there on area.
They absolutely do not. Pakistan needs to defend its maritime trade routes and its EEZ, nothing of which cannot be done with current assets. Its a waste of money and pointless,
Do you really think combo of few good old Mirage and JfTs will enough for protection of Gawadar and karachi ports and sea routes and our EEZ
 

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
1,017
3
1,422
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
@Bilal Khan (Quwa) why most people mix heavy fighter for naval role associate with aircraft carrier?

Heavyweight fighters work well when used from land to keep enemies within there on area.

Do you really think combo of few good old Mirage and JfTs will enough for protection of Gawadar and karachi ports and sea routes and our EEZ

absolutely not, thats why we have a Navy.
 

Scorpiooo

FULL MEMBER
Apr 22, 2020
960
0
929
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
I don't foresee a fighter air arm for PN. PAF will continue to do that. Both forces are working towards integrating their C3I for seaward defense and lot of work has been done in this regards. AWACS input are now viewable by PN and some other assets are also being integrated.
You are right they are doing well till date and hopefully will continue do well in future.
My point of PN naval air arm having fighters is for future (atleast decade or more) ... offcouse its a opnion .. we cant predict what actual planing of our forces will be in future
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,724
72
21,976
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
PN not having a dedicated air arm is a SERIOUS strategic error. Unless there is a hybrid command structure where seamless PN - PAF engagement happens, PAF just does not have the capability to understand the intricacies of sea warfare.
PN has an air arm. Fighter jets ≠ air arm.
PN is already massively upgrading Its air arm with ATRs, Sea sultans, UAVs and helicopters (coming with the new ships). Currently PN has little need for fighter jets as PAF can already cover that need.

In an ideal world sure the PN can have a couple of fighter squadrons for covering naval assets and maritime strike but PN has a dozen priorities before that whine they are currently fulfilling in the form of basically every single type of ship, submarine and aircraft.
In some seriousness, I think the fleet expansion to 20-25 'major surface vessels' is significant growth for the PN. Not only that, but you'll typically only see fleets of that size in blue water navies like Britain, France, India, South Korea, and Japan. We'll need to see how many Jinnah-class frigates the PN ultimately orders; if they're looking at 8-12 ships, then to be frank, that's a very strong fleet for any country (except for superpowers).

Thing is, superpowers aren't the only ones now pursuing carriers and seaborne fighter-wings. The F-35B did make it a lot easier for smaller blue water navies, and since Pakistan doesn't have access to it, our options are basically non-existent. That said, I do think LHD-borne UCAVs will become a thing (e.g., Turkey is working on a design as we speak), and I do think the PN will consider that option 10-15 years from now.

Now as for the value of a naval fighter wing. If it was purely for A2/AD, then we don't need to change anything -- the PAF force is sufficient (especially if the PAF adds a long-range fighter). However, I think one outcome of an enlarged PN surface fleet is that around-the-clock top cover may be necessary if the PN opts to put some of its fleet farther out (e.g., to discourage India's fuel imports from the Gulf).

Remember, the question of "need" is only one part of the story. Yes, we don't need an aircraft carrier if said carriers cost like $4-5 b to acquire upfront and $1-2 b a year to maintain. However, what if we could get smaller carriers for $1-2 b upfront and operate it for $100-200 m a year? I suspect Turkey and China are both working towards such designs (albeit likely with UCAV focus), but it may be an option for the PN.
 

iLION12345_1

FULL MEMBER
May 1, 2016
1,187
10
3,103
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
In some seriousness, I think the fleet expansion to 20-25 'major surface vessels' is significant growth for the PN. Not only that, but you'll typically only see fleets of that size in blue water navies like Britain, France, India, South Korea, and Japan. We'll need to see how many Jinnah-class frigates the PN ultimately orders; if they're looking at 8-12 ships, then to be frank, that's a very strong fleet for any country (except for superpowers).

Thing is, superpowers aren't the only ones now pursuing carriers and seaborne fighter-wings. The F-35B did make it a lot easier for smaller blue water navies, and since Pakistan doesn't have access to it, our options are basically non-existent. That said, I do think LHD-borne UCAVs will become a thing (e.g., Turkey is working on a design as we speak), and I do think the PN will consider that option 10-15 years from now.

Now as for the value of a naval fighter wing. If it was purely for A2/AD, then we don't need to change anything -- the PAF force is sufficient (especially if the PAF adds a long-range fighter). However, I think one outcome of an enlarged PN surface fleet is that around-the-clock top cover may be necessary if the PN opts to put some of its fleet farther out (e.g., to discourage India's fuel imports from the Gulf).

Remember, the question of "need" is only one part of the story. Yes, we don't need an aircraft carrier if said carriers cost like $4-5 b to acquire upfront and $1-2 b a year to maintain. However, what if we could get smaller carriers for $1-2 b upfront and operate it for $100-200 m a year? I suspect Turkey and China are both working towards such designs (albeit likely with UCAV focus), but it may be an option for the PN.

I definitely agree that after this major fleet expansion the PN will be seeing a change in how they operate, aircraft will play a part. LHDs and carriers become a reality at that point, it also depends on how much PN is willing to change its doctrine after this expansion, because as you say, they will be comparable to some of the larger navies in the world at that point, which shouldn’t sound so out of order, given the size of the PA and PAF, but it is still staggering to see the growth.

Part of me dreams that someday in 2035-2040 PN goes for a light carrier, not just an LHD. You don’t necessarily need a 50000 ton carrier, even a 30000 Ton carrier can be used with a small air group of carrier borne jets (J31/J35?) and a small carrier group of ships and submarines.
PN certainly doesn’t need to go far into the oceans, they don’t need a super carrier, so keeping that in mind, plus help from China and Turkey (or if things improve enough, maybe on our own), a PN specific design can be made.

But coming back to a more realistic approach, an LHD with UCAVs and helicopters, something like what Turkey is doing and China is making, is basically a given for the PN at some point. it’s the natural progression for them, even if they buy a used one from China due to costs, it will be a good force multiplier. At some point, one not too far from the current modernization plan of 20-25 ships (so like maybe at 30?), PN will hit the limit of the amount of surface ships it needs, so it will definitely look for other ways to increase its capability and power projection.


I still think some ground based fighters for PN could be a reality too, if at some point funds permit and a squadron or two are purchased, then there’s obviously nothing wrong with that. it’s simply adding to the capability. I just feel like with everything else the navy needs and wants for the near and rather far future, ground based jets will just not be a consideration, better Co-ordination with PAF assets is much cheaper for basically most of the result, but we can surely hope.


PS: Bilal, you have a habit of reading my mind and presenting it better than I ever could Your more opinion based posts are highly appreciated, thanks.
 

Akh1112

FULL MEMBER
Nov 21, 2019
1,017
3
1,422
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
In some seriousness, I think the fleet expansion to 20-25 'major surface vessels' is significant growth for the PN. Not only that, but you'll typically only see fleets of that size in blue water navies like Britain, France, India, South Korea, and Japan. We'll need to see how many Jinnah-class frigates the PN ultimately orders; if they're looking at 8-12 ships, then to be frank, that's a very strong fleet for any country (except for superpowers).

Thing is, superpowers aren't the only ones now pursuing carriers and seaborne fighter-wings. The F-35B did make it a lot easier for smaller blue water navies, and since Pakistan doesn't have access to it, our options are basically non-existent. That said, I do think LHD-borne UCAVs will become a thing (e.g., Turkey is working on a design as we speak), and I do think the PN will consider that option 10-15 years from now.

Now as for the value of a naval fighter wing. If it was purely for A2/AD, then we don't need to change anything -- the PAF force is sufficient (especially if the PAF adds a long-range fighter). However, I think one outcome of an enlarged PN surface fleet is that around-the-clock top cover may be necessary if the PN opts to put some of its fleet farther out (e.g., to discourage India's fuel imports from the Gulf).

Remember, the question of "need" is only one part of the story. Yes, we don't need an aircraft carrier if said carriers cost like $4-5 b to acquire upfront and $1-2 b a year to maintain. However, what if we could get smaller carriers for $1-2 b upfront and operate it for $100-200 m a year? I suspect Turkey and China are both working towards such designs (albeit likely with UCAV focus), but it may be an option for the PN.

Can you dm me again, i need some help RE Pakistan's AESA. Ive uncovered some stuff.
 

Bilal Khan (Quwa)

SENIOR MEMBER
Aug 22, 2016
5,724
72
21,976
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
I definitely agree that after this major fleet expansion the PN will be seeing a change in how they operate, aircraft will play a part. LHDs and carriers become a reality at that point, it also depends on how much PN is willing to change its doctrine after this expansion, because as you say, they will be comparable to some of the larger navies in the world at that point, which shouldn’t sound so out of order, given the size of the PA and PAF, but it is still staggering to see the growth.

Part of me dreams that someday in 2035-2040 PN goes for a light carrier, not just an LHD. You don’t necessarily need a 50000 ton carrier, even a 30000 Ton carrier can be used with a small air group of carrier borne jets (J31/J35?) and a small carrier group of ships and submarines.
PN certainly doesn’t need to go far into the oceans, they don’t need a super carrier, so keeping that in mind, plus help from China and Turkey (or if things improve enough, maybe on our own), a PN specific design can be made.

But coming back to a more realistic approach, an LHD with UCAVs and helicopters, something like what Turkey is doing and China is making, is basically a given for the PN at some point. it’s the natural progression for them, even if they buy a used one from China due to costs, it will be a good force multiplier. At some point, one not too far from the current modernization plan of 20-25 ships (so like maybe at 30?), PN will hit the limit of the amount of surface ships it needs, so it will definitely look for other ways to increase its capability and power projection.


I still think some ground based fighters for PN could be a reality too, if at some point funds permit and a squadron or two are purchased, then there’s obviously nothing wrong with that. it’s simply adding to the capability. I just feel like with everything else the navy needs and wants for the near and rather far future, ground based jets will just not be a consideration, better Co-ordination with PAF assets is much cheaper for basically most of the result, but we can surely hope.


PS: Bilal, you have a habit of reading my mind and presenting it better than I ever could Your more opinion based posts are highly appreciated, thanks.
The light carrier (30,000-tons?) could make a comeback, but there are some major technical constraints -- catapult technology and suitable aircraft, and the two are interconnected.

I don't think we'll see another STOVL after the F-35B, so someone would have to develop a STOL/XTOL aircraft.

Turkey's likely studying the Hurjet as the starting point for an original carrier fighter to achieve a STOL/XTOL capability (without needing catapults). I'm guessing they might end up with a lightweight type: new-age A-4s or Etendards, perhaps?

Before that, they'll likely start with UCAVs.

The challenge with UCAVs is, basically, are they any good? We're not the standard-bearers of AI/ML here, so we're talking about either remote-piloting or very basic automation. The good thing about this situation is that a carrier is literally moving, so we could maintain a strong radio LoS link with our UCAVs.

Personally, I'm game for co-developing a lightweight carrier fighter that can do STOL or even XTOL. The latter could potentially work from LHDs (negating the need for a pure carrier and binding fleet air defence with amphibious support). The drawback though is that said lightweight fighter isn't going to have that much range or payload, it's a baseline solution (fleet defence and SOW strikes?).

But all that said, I do think some type of fleet-based air capability is coming. No way we have a fleet of 20-25 large ships without it. Sure, it may be UCAVs from 20,000-ton LHDs or even one-time disposable UCAVs from rails (which we can fit to PNS Moawin), but it's coming IMHO.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom