Can't pakistan consider this carrier?

[muse]

Pakistan's policy is defense, it's difficult to defend a carrier to take an air arm and marines because it's seen, justifiably in my opinion, as projecting force - greater numbers of surface and submarine combatants would be more useful than a large target.

 

[TaimiKhan]

Pakistan's policy is defense, it's difficult to defend a carrier to take an air arm and marines because it's seen, justifiably in my opinion, as projecting force - greater numbers of surface and submarine combatants would be more useful than a large target.

Exactly, better to invest the sum into submarines and a good amount of quality and latest Anti-Ship missiles.

 

[godson]

look at Thailand..........

 

[Zabaniyah]

look at Thailand..........

Thailand rarely operates its carrier since its very expensive to operate it.

 

[Varunastra]

Pakistan's policy is defense, it's difficult to defend a carrier to take an air arm and marines because it's seen, justifiably in my opinion, as projecting force - greater numbers of surface and submarine combatants would be more useful than a large target.

but with due respect sir...........pakistan did not take a defensive policy in 1947,1965,1971and finally 1999!!!!

---------- Post added at 11:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------

don/t you guys think the HTMS Chakri Naruebet looks really dented???

 

[Cool_Soldier]

but with due respect sir...........pakistan did not take a defensive policy in 1947,1965,1971and finally 1999!!!!

My dear, defence doesn't mean to stop opponet's hand.When some attack at you, you defend and it automatically becomes offence.

 

[Cool_Soldier]

At the moment just concetrate to enhance surface war ships,under water war capabilities and air arm wing.Once its strong enough then Navy can think of carrier.

 

[Varunastra]

but with due respect sir...........pakistan did not take a defensive policy in 1947,1965,1971and finally 1999!!!!

My dear, defence doesn't mean to stop opponet's hand.When some attack at you, you defend and it automatically becomes offence.

what i am trying to say is that "when some" never came..........pakistan used offense as the first strike always!!!!

 

[longbrained]

I am in favor of Pakistan buying aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. After all India has them. But there is an important reason why Pakistan should have these assets. For decades, Pakistan's strategists have promoted the idea of strategic depth specially of importance to Pakistan since Pakistan is geographically is narrow on map. To have this strategic depth we have gone into mess in Afghanistan and got nothing in return. Another option to this strategic depth can be sea assets for a backup option of retaliation. Just like sea strategic depth for Israeli forces and other nations. With strong navy, Pakistan can have an unlimited strategic depth.

 

[Safriz]

yes to nuclear submarines....no to aircraft carrier..
aircraft career needs two destroyers to escort it..then from where pakistan will arrange aircrafts modified for ACC?
Even UK has given up on ACC

 

[TOPGUN]

Not now but in the near futhere i don't mind seeing atleast one LPD with PN it will be good in all aspects during peace time and war time.

 

[Cool_Soldier]

PN size equipment wise is not enough to operate carrier right now,So better enhance our fleet according to desire level then move towards carrier.
secondly, The only Nation that can help PN in getting Carrier is China and still China has launched its first carrier,it will take time for china to produce for itself few carier then to come in a position to export it.
so wait till that time and reach the level by adding more surface, underwater and air guard weapons and machines..thanks