Does the PN need an aircraft carrier?

[tallboy123]

Also India has 2 natural A/c's...one in arabian sea and other in bay of bengal...
i.e....

andaman&nicobar in BoB
and
Lakshadweep in Arabia sea....

Let me tell,u can't take these aircraft carrier with ur bombs ...cause it very big natural air craft carriers...

 

[wakapdf]

This issue has been debated on this forum several times and always faces harsh criticism by a lot of members. But one needs to realize the potential and force projection capability a carrier can offer pak navy. If a country like Japan can build a carrier during 1940s, i think so could we. What i am suggesting is not something High-Fi but just a landing and reequipping platform for our Jf17s and mirages. Something more along the line of a floating airstrip with a place to park 2 aircrafts so they can be fueled and weaponized at a time. We have history of achieving the impossible and i believe an aircraft carrier is possible.

Its not rocket science, even if it is, still not that difficult.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q98XNGR0e14[/video]

 

[Abingdonboy]

Why don't you lo back on the thread that has endlessly debated this. The clear consensous (including from Pakistani members) is that Pakistan neither needs nor can afford an ACC and the enormous headache such a ship would cause for PN. it would require a formidable CBG to counter IN/IAF maritime strike advantage and as yet PN hasn't got a destroyer and the creation of a CBG would NE an enormous strain on the PN meaning it was almost in capable of conducting anything else. Not to mention the cost of actually building the ACC (IN ACCs cost $2-3 BN each) Also the JF-17 and Mirage III are not naval AC and you can't just turn them into such without significant modification. On top of that PN has no experience of operating ACC which is possibly the hardest thing a navy can master.


It is still a clear no.

 

[untitled]

What i am suggesting is not something High-Fi but just a landing and reequipping platform for our Jf17s and mirages. Something more along the line of a floating airstrip with a place to park 2 aircrafts so they can be fueled and weaponized at a time. We have history of achieving the impossible and i believe an aircraft carrier is possible.

Its not rocket science, even if it is, still not that difficult.

Our attitude towards being Naval power is appalling.... Had the Mughuls and Nawabs of India been a strong Naval Power... The world would have been a much different place today.

The right time for the navy to have looked for a Carrier was when we were getting aid from the Americans.... Sadly our Navy was neglected during that time with bulk of the hardware going to the ARMY and AIR FORCE.... Had we have inducted one we would have been the first Islamic country to do so..... if we do so even now we would still be the first as no other Islamic country has done so.

As for the the question of using the JF-17 on a carrier... I dont think it was ever designed with Carrier capability in mind. The Grumman mantra (the company which had a long history making carrier capable aircraft such F6F, F9F, F-14 tomcat) is .... If a aircraft is not built from the beginning with carrier capability in mind it impossible to convert it. In fact the only aircraft to have been successfully converted from a land based aircraft to carrier capable aircraft is the T-45 Goshawk (Nasalized version of the BAE Hawk). This probably means extensively modifying the the JF-17 with a hardened landing gear and a tail hook.

Matching naval force ship for ship is not a good idea... Imperial Germany did this prior to world war I... Most of their fleet never left port and ended up in enemy hands... That is why they chose asymmetric warfare and concentrated on U boats during WWII

During the Cold war the annual expenditure of the Soviet navy was approx 12 billion while the annual expenditure of the US was aproxx 60 billion ... The difference was of course carriers

During the Falklands War the Argentine navy withdrew its carrier 25 De Mayo once their Cruiser Genral Belgrano was sunk. This means if we do purchase a carrier We should be mentally prepared for the worst.... its loss at sea... which can be from an air attack... a submarine.... or even a modern hi speed missile boat.

Yes I would love to see a Carrier in the Pak Navy once our econmy allows just for the propaganda value.
Currently if our intention is countering the Indian Carriers.... cheaper options are available.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Pakistan should concentrate to attain 20 Frigates
4 Destroyers
10 submarines (Chinese + Agosta)
20 Missile boats support vessels
J11 - 50

Prior to any engagements for seeking Aircraft carrier

As attaining a carrier with no support ships is not beneficial

I do however see the need for aircraft carrier but , we do need to perhaps get a navy first (traditional ship) prior to getting our minds on getting carrier , which has a operational budget of 1 -2 billion dollars (Ironically which is what our Army has its own budget as)

If we can start process of getting 4 more F22P class friagtes , that would be wonderful news, and also the lease deal for Type 054 Destroyer (with air defence capabilities) is a must

Before we even think of an aircraft carrier

The one point to note is that , all points in India are accessible by our Airforce jets , so we don't really have a need to attain a platform from sea to do the same thing

Just getting 20 Frigate ships , and 4 destroyers, and 10 submarins , with 50 J11 would be sufficient to protect our national , water ways in time of war.

With the Aircraft killer Missiles - available in abundance, its a risky business , to purchase 6 -10 billion aircraft carrier , which could be sunk by a Missile worth 5-85 million.

As far as my memory recalls , we were offered a air craft carrier I believe a retiring US vessel but we opted against it also we opted against a US destroyer ship as well , which was more powerful then 3-4 of our ships combined

 

[senselesstalk]

Pakistan requires an aircraft carrier and it has the potential to operate also. It can ask china to build & lease it to Pakistan. Not a very big 60+ ton one, but something like HMS Ark Royal...30 to 40 + ton one with decent air defence & fighter capability. China is inducting naval fighters, same could be procured by Pakistan too, can train together, common spares & maintenance ease.

 

[Leader]

its a strategic asset, we must have it.

 

[Manticore]

j10b with refuellers is sufficient

we have a small fleet and its a tactical blunder to keep half of the fleet just to babysit this liability carrier [which when goes down , also takes the complete naval fighter wing down aswell] --- get subs and frigates , they will keep the indian navy nervous

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Subs I think are a fantastic element for Pakistan Navy , it can give us the second strike capability and it can also bring down 3-4 ships

 

[acetophenol]

you guys have only a small amount of coast to defend.so,it will be better to first acquire destroyers,helicopter docks,ambhibious attack ships etc

 

[blackops]

Do pakistan has such shipyards to build them and being an indian i have seen ac from long still i will go for 10 subs over an ac any day any time

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

I mean really unless we are planning on a world domination which we are not we don't need many ships

20 Frigates, 4 destroyers, 10-12 submarines, and 50 J11 is just about right for our needs as a navy perhaps may be addition of 20 Stealth missile boat and that is , its perfect for our defensive needs as a nation.

Aircraft carrier is just too costly , and its an out dated platform , specially as I stated , it can be knocked out with 3-4 Aircraft carrier killer missiles or even a nuclear strike on carrier , so you can cost 5-10 billion dollar damage to someone with one strike

Aircraft carriers are not that special weapon which they were once upon a time in world war 2

Worse come to worse to patrol the Somali/ Saudi waters , we can have joint patrols with Saudi Navy or Chinese Navy ships but other then that I just do not see carrier as a must

20 Frigates, 4 Destroyers, and 12 submarines , 20 stealth missile boats would do fine provided J11 supports these ships form GWADAR and Karachi ports

China has a different role in world standing , and Pakistan has a defensive role over all.

China can build 12 carriers , and maintain them as it has a vast shore line and its in middle of many nations , while Pakistan has a small shore line , and so we can cover and defend our side with good round army of frigates, destroyers and submarines.

But it would be great to see 1 Chinese carrier always visiting Pakistani waters now and then

 

[bc040400065]

Better build another Naval air base in pasni or gawadar and have 1 or 2 sqds of JFT or mirages or in future may be J10B with JFT hi low mix. people don't understand that we don't even have proper surface fleet yet so how can we go for a carrier.

 

[Vibs]

Pakistan would be better served to add more teeth to it's navy through frigates and destroyers. I doubt it currently has the desire or the motive to become a blue water navy.
Besides carriers are freakingly expensive. Japanese built one at a time when they were looking for blue water capabilities and world domination. The UK is planning to pull the plug on one of the 2 new carriers being built because of the expenses. World over the US has 11 carriers but after than Italy has 2 and the rest (5-6) have 1. It is incredibly expensive to build and maintain a carrier despite it's strategic advantage. Also the cost of modifying aircraft to suit the carrier is immense. The Chinese have still to perfect their J-XX series for it and are looking to buy su-30 series.

 

[khurasaan1]

first make our Navy and airforce strong then we shold go for carrierz(dont see within next 5 yearz)....... Right now the utmost important requirement is 10 stealth subz with Nuklear cruise missiles to attain the 2nd strike capability.....