Does the PN need an aircraft carrier?

[mehboobkz]

until Pakistan becomes a Super-Power

Send me your bank account number please, I wanna send you some money for making me laugh for good hour....

 

[EgO Boy]

Around this time ( Dec ) 39 years ago INS Vikrant wasn't even in the Arabian Sea and Karachi port was burning.

An asset like a carrier is too valuable to use on targets which surface weapons can engage .

As you mention, it was 39 year's ago................sent Vikrant now, so we can make it Coral Reef.

 

[mehboobkz]

Brother than again we have to eat Grass.

ACC and Destroyer's r way to expansive for us to run and maintain, and in the end one cheap anti ship missile will sink them.

I'd rather go for Nuclear Sub's atleast 2.

Eat grass again then!

 

[DV RULES]

Well,its good to have big goals but i like the concept of "step by step".

Very nice, correct answer.

 

[S.U.R.B.]

Leave everything.........get this thing. ( after it gets into production)

Chinese Navy's "strategic nuclear submarine Aircraft carrier" design

A potential front-end with the mother can take-off and landing of the missile launchers can be fired on the air, such as anti-ship missile (also according to the situation with other missiles), when the underwater vehicle to close the door seal.
Second, all enclosed hangar is expected to set the volume for the 40 aircraft carrier-based aircraft, five anti-submarine helicopters, three unmanned AWACS, which is taking off and landing on both sides of the runway for take-off one-time fighter.

Third, the mother submarine equipped with a tail of the 36 strategic nuclear missiles silos, submarine-launched strategic ballistic missiles could be launched to create a strong second nuclear strike capability.
Fourth, mothers are mounted on both sides of four conventional submarines can be mounted in accordance with the number of levels to increase the size and characteristics of conventional submarines can conduct underwater with escort and supply can be carried out underwater to break the conventional submarines can not be the first ocean-going.
Other parts of the details of a military is not my primary means of enthusiasts, or first-line scientific research personnel of our army left it, through your tireless efforts to fight the sea caused by a real giant.

......Please just forget any thoughts of a carrier.

 

[silent hawk]

In this region aircraft carriers are like white elephants. Look at India what has it been able to achieve with its carriers?

 

[DV RULES]

We are going to maintain our navy in position to retaliate any attack at its perfection, so in limited finance & limited resources Pakistan navy developed itself to attack deep & effective. Where concerns over AC than I want to say only that when our JCSC looks it necessary than I am sure they will do it at every cost to protect country from evil neighbor or aggressors.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

Pakistan doesnot need an aircraft carrier because it is an attacking tool more than a defending tool. We need to enhance our defending capabilities right now. . .

 

[Xeric]

we cant afford one!

And we dont need one!

 

[notorious_eagle]

Just curious.

We cannot afford one and frankly we don't need one. If we had an economy of $2 trillion and needed to protect our interests overseas than by all means build an aircraft carrier. But to defend a shoreline of less than a 700 miles, you dont need an aircraft carrier. If we purchased an aircraft carrier, it would be a sitting duck out in the open sea against the IN. You would need a whole carrier group tasked to protect it, do you know how much resources that would drain out. PN would be much better off purchasing additional heavy frigates, destroyers and most importantly deadly new generation subs. A purchase cost of an aircraft carrier would be around a $1.5 billion, for that much money we can buy a whole fleet of newer generation subs. They would serve PN's doctrine much better than an expensive Aircraft Carrier.

P.S. Can the fan boys open another thread for discussing Vikrant and what happened in 1971 instead of derailing this thread.

 

[Nothing]

As you mention, it was 39 year's ago................sent Vikrant now, so we can make it Coral Reef.

no need of Vikrant to make Coral Reef near Karachi..We will use PN ships like last time ....

 

[Areesh]

As you mention, it was 39 year's ago................sent Vikrant now, so we can make it Coral Reef.

It's INS Viraat now dear. And if we able to increase our submarine fleet than most probably it would be in the docks for the "repairs" in any future conflict. India's frigates,destroyers and fast attack missile boats are a much bigger threat for us than INS Viraat.

 

[monitor]

pakistan cannot afford a aircraft carrier right at this moment moreover has more priority of modern frigate destroyer and submarine. so until pakistan gets all this things it will be wast of money to buy any aircraft carrier .but after that pakistan may consider to get a small carrier in future if the economic condition improve .

 

[WAR-rior]

In this region aircraft carriers are like white elephants. Look at India what has it been able to achieve with its carriers?

1971 !

now that was a 1 word reply to ur unobvious question.

yaar question to dhang ka poochho......

in simple words.....dont u think, managing ACs is the tougest job of a navy and china no doubt being strong will struggle atleast for 10-15 years to be efficient in managing ACs.......india has high experience in this and its always +ve for future aspect !

 

[WAR-rior]

As you mention, it was 39 year's ago................sent Vikrant now, so we can make it Coral Reef.

u are perfect for ur username...... EGO BOY !

problem is, its misdirected......

but for further clearification....refer areesh's reply (# 53) !

Thanks!