Does the PN need an aircraft carrier?

[I S I]

This is not only the matter of money but also we dont need it ... We don't have such a big coast line furthermore, we do not have global ambitions ...

First & foremost acknowledge this fact that we don't have money to buy & maintain luxuries like an AC.

 

[The Accountant]

First & foremost acknowledge this fact that we don't have money to buy & maintain luxuries like an AC.

Agreed as also stated on my first sentence ... Im short we dont need it and we also dont have money for it ...

 

[Fledgingwings]

Why? You want to waste your tax money on an item which has no utility infact a big risk?

Most of the tax money gets wasted anyway ! its worth a shot tough.

 

[The Accountant]

Most of the tax money gets wasted anyway ! its worth a shot tough.

How ? what objectives you wanna meet ? Do you want to use it against US or Israel ? India is 1 meter away you can attack or defend easily ... why to put a 15 billion dollars machine and 100s of people at risk in the sea ? why not to decrease loan by 20% from this money ? we will be much more stronger by paying back loans ,,, militarily we are very strong, its diplomacy and economy where we need investment ...

 

[Dalai Lama]

Yes. Pakistan should spend as many resources as possible in order to acquire an AC from China, even if it means the people have to eat grass.

An AC will play a pivotal role in PN's defensive and offensive capabilities.

 

[Armchair]

First & foremost acknowledge this fact that we don't have money to buy & maintain luxuries like an AC.

There seems to be some confusion - I was talking about the future not the present. 20 years from now, the possiiblity exists that PN could use a pocket aircraft carrier.

 

[The Accountant]

Yes. Pakistan should spend as many resources as possible in order to acquire an AC from China, even if it means the people have to eat grass.

An AC will play a pivotal role in PN's defensive and offensive capabilities.

How?

 

[Bilal Khan 777]

AC are tools of regional and global power projection. Pakistan neither has such aims nor such resources. This thread should be closed.

 

[Fledgingwings]

For once !I totally agree with you mate.what makes me sad is that neither our tax money gets used in improving the lives of pakistani people nor the Govs ready to stop taking loans which is causing a huge drag on national economy weather the Navy or the militaryas any intrest in a AC.

 

[Hamza913]

An AC will play a pivotal role in PN's defensive and offensive capabilities.

No.

An aircraft carrier is expensive and would get sunk pretty quickly without a carrier group to support it, and it would take almost all of our navy just to protect a carrier sufficiently, making the rest of our coastline easy pickings.

Even if we did acquire one, what is it's use? Next to none. All our enemies major targets are within range of either our aircraft or missiles, no target is far enough to justify us acquiring a carrier group.

What we need to focus on is buying more submarines and frigates/destroyers (which the PN is currently doing). We can barely prevent Hindustan from launching a blockade, and that is not sufficient. We need to be able to do that comfortably and successfully attack Hindustani naval assets.

 

[Armchair]

The kind of small and cheap aircraft carrier I've outlined would be very cheap to operate. Additionally - they would not be sitting ducks if employed effectively.

For instance, if you have 4 task groups each having a Type 54A, 1 F-22P, 1 Milgem, 1 Damen and say 2-4 light corvettes, and if these were operating 200-400 km from shore, you could have a defensive aircraft carrier placed between such a task force and the shore.

Playing the role of a quarterback supporting these assets from midway.

So, your first line of defense is your task force, with air support, your second line of defense is a light 8000 ton carrier, and your third line of defense is shore-based AShM and FACs.

Task Group A Task Group B Task Group C Task Group D


Light Carrier


S H O R E D E F E N S E S

 

[monitor]

A small aircraft carrier which operating cost is minimum can be inducted in future but before that having 5/6 type 52D class destroyer is mandatory .

 

[Armchair]

A small aircraft carrier which operating cost is minimum can be inducted in future but before that having 5/6 type 52D class destroyer is mandatory .

I don't think its an either or situation, although I understand your point in terms of resource allocation.

A single Type 52D would cost about 600-700 million USD. 5-6 of these would cost about 3 to 3.5 billion USD.

The proposed light carrier could cost about 400 million USD.

 

[dBSPL]

it is almost impossible to build and and AC with its cost under a billion dollars in any small size, which for modern warfare conditions . But this is not a biggest problem of operating an AC.The annual operating costs of a conventional aircraft carrier is almost equal to the total construction cost of a frigate. Also you have to move this ship with a powerful task force. In other words, it must be a seperate task forces other than navy's mainland and economic areas duties. In today's conditions, this means at least 3 frigates.

China has come up with a lot of resources and great patience to today's level. But even if we are talking about a smaller scale, we must analyze the difficulties that Australia is experiencing even in its LHD operation.

In short, Pakistan's marine-construction industry must first produce its own indigenous war ships, and the economy must be at such a level to carry this additional burden. Later on, the structure of the Pakistan Navy must be improved in accordance with the new doctrine.Without these conditions, entering a carrier ship's desire will create a risk of mainland survivability because of the waste of resources.

 

[Lubna Mehmud]

why not to have more subs ?