What's new

Possible acquisitions by Pakistan Military

Gazzi

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
946
Reaction score
0
Due to the recent Defence Budget by the UK government, and the recent India defence spending, wohat do members here think of Pakistan taking advantage of this budget cut and deal with the British (as an ally in the WoT) and acquire equipment being put down........

--------------

BBC News - Defence review: HMS Ark Royal to be scrapped

---


The Royal Navy's flagship, the aircraft carrier Ark Royal, is to be scrapped early as part of the government's defence review.

The UK's Harrier jump jets will be axed, the money saved going towards the cost of two new aircraft carriers.

It means that, until at least 2019, Britain will not have the ability to launch fighter jets at sea.

David Cameron is due to unveil more details of the first strategic defence and security review in 12 years.
Continue reading the main story

Defence Secretary Liam Fox told the BBC the fleet had to modernise and have the "correct balance for the next 30 to 40 years".

He said there had been periods in the past - before the Harriers came on stream - when the UK had aircraft carriers with no planes to fly on them. Dr Fox said there would be a range of helicopters and unmanned aircraft which would still be able to fly from them.

Unveiling the defence review at about 1530 BST, Mr Cameron is expected to announce:

* The Ark Royal, launched in 1985, will be decommissioned almost immediately, rather than in 2014, as previously planned
* The construction of two new aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, will go ahead, as it would cost more to cancel the projects than proceed with them
* The navy will lose 4,000 personnel and its surface fleet will be cut from 24 to 19
* Some squadrons of RAF Tornado jets will be saved - although some air force bases will close
* The Army will have to cut up to 7,000 or so personnel over the next five years, and lose 100 tanks and heavy artillery
* The Ministry of Defence itself will face substantial cuts to its civilian staff

The BBC has learned that at least one of the new carriers will be redesigned so that it can deploy normal fighter aircraft that do not need a Harrier-style vertical lift capability.
Continue reading the main story

Dr Fox said that there would be "interoperability" so strike fighter aircraft from allies such as France could land on UK aircraft carriers, and vice versa.

Meanwhile, sources say £750m ($1.2bn) will be saved over four years on the Trident nuclear deterrent missile system but it is not yet clear how those savings will be made.

Dr Fox insisted any changes to the timetable for its replacement would not stop the UK's ability "to maintain a credible minimum nuclear deterrent".

Last week, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington was "worried" by the scale of UK defence cuts.

But a Downing Street spokesman said the prime minister had spoken to President Obama on Monday, promising the UK would "remain a first-rate military power and a robust ally of the United States".

It would "continue to work closely with the US on the full range of current security priorities", he added.

The Financial Times reports that, in his statement to Parliament, Mr Cameron will say spending will double on alleviating poverty in areas of conflict - such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia - to £4bn ($6.3bn) by 2015, while funding to other states like Russia and China will be reduced.

The defence review is being published in two phases. The first, on Monday, revealed the government's national security strategy, setting out the biggest emerging threats to the UK.

It included attacks on computer networks, alongside terrorism and a flu pandemic.

The last strategic defence review in 1998 took more than a year, while this one has been carried out in five months, leading to accusations that the government has rushed the process.

It has been undertaken at the same time as the Spending Review - due to be published on Wednesday - which is expected to see huge cuts to departmental spending across Whitehall.

Lord West, who served as security minister in Gordon Brown's Labour government, told the BBC the armed forces were taking some "real hits".

He added: "The navy and air force are really being cut back to the bone and I don't think we should forget that... we need the wherewithal to do the things we want to do. There's a real danger that we won't have that."

Meanwhile, the BBC has learned that BAE Systems fears thousands of jobs could go if there were cuts to the Eurofighter programme or joint strike fighters and in Scotland there are concerns two of its RAF bases - Kinloss and Lossiemouth - could close.
 
Dream on my friend. Whatever is left over from Zardari will go in the running of this behemoth. And have you thought what you will need it for? More importantly where will you hide it from your enemies in case of a war.
Araz
 
The more interesting thing to me was the spending in Pakistan by british government. Anybody knows how much England is helping Pakistan in social and military areas? as we always read only about U.S aid!
 
The aircraft carrier is too expensive to buy and maintain for Pakistan and apart from a show of military power it will not serve any other purpose ever..Neighboring India has an old Aircraft carrier from soviet union and we have yet to see it being used in a conflict or in any other useful way..Such military hardware are not for us and will prove to be white elephants.
Then there is the question of UK ever agreeing to give an Aircraft carrier to a so called "Rogue Nation"..Thats not going to happen.
If Pakistan ever wants to invest in such a high cost,high risk naval hardware,they should go for a Nuclear Sub.That is a much more formidable weapon,specially when it comes to maintaining a reliable second strike capability.
 
The aircraft carrier is too expensive to buy and maintain for Pakistan and apart from a show of military power it will not serve any other purpose ever..Neighboring India has an old Aircraft carrier from soviet union and we have yet to see it being used in a conflict or in any other useful way..Such military hardware are not for us and will prove to be white elephants.
Then there is the question of UK ever agreeing to give an Aircraft carrier to a so called "Rogue Nation"..Thats not going to happen.
If Pakistan ever wants to invest in such a high cost,high risk naval hardware,they should go for a Nuclear Sub.That is a much more formidable weapon,specially when it comes to maintaining a reliable second strike capability.

ToTaLLy agreed :pakistan:
 
Dream on my friend. Whatever is left over from Zardari will go in the running of this behemoth. And have you thought what you will need it for? More importantly where will you hide it from your enemies in case of a war.
Araz

It suppose to be a war ship. why need to hide it?
If we have one than it will be floating in open seas.... what exclusive issues, do you see ... while under Pakistan control?
IMO... it will be of great help during war to counter Indian navy movement.
 
It suppose to be a war ship. why need to hide it?
If we have one than it will be floating in open seas.... what exclusive issues, do you see ... while under Pakistan control?
IMO... it will be of great help during war to counter Indian navy movement.

1) as many others mentioned its costly to buy and maintain.

2) need huge accessories and escorts to protect.

3) mainly offensive weapon.

but its true that such carriers can change the shape of war. its a great tool. who ever operated never gave up.
 
in this article it is all about UK where is pakistan i dont see list of pakistani what they want to buy
 
It suppose to be a war ship. why need to hide it?
If we have one than it will be floating in open seas.... what exclusive issues, do you see ... while under Pakistan control?
IMO... it will be of great help during war to counter Indian navy movement.

Carriers dont operate alone. Too vulnerable. Need a whole Battle group to back it up. The running cost would be crippling for the Pakistani Navy.
 
the cost of operating a carrier, let alone a carrier group is US$ 1 Billion / year - food for thought!
 
the cost of operating a carrier, let alone a carrier group is US$ 1 Billion / year - food for thought!

sir that figure is probably for us carrier group ,if pakistan buy any carrier i don't think thats operating cost will be so high. but pakistan does not need any carrier right now, but in future why not contemplate on a small carrier fleet if economically viable .
 
sir that figure is probably for us carrier group ,if pakistan buy any carrier i don't think thats operating cost will be so high. but pakistan does not need any carrier right now, but in future why not contemplate on a small carrier fleet if economically viable .
Well in that case, smaller carriers are viable with inclusion of fighters like Sea Gripen (Gripen NG's naval modification going on). But the problem in PN's case is that there isn't sufficient waters under territory to move the carrier. No matter how small the carrier be (even our Vikrant needed armed CBGs for protection.. and it was small), there's always the cost of CBGs involved.

It would be simply patrolling in very limited waters which would be a liability for PN, as carriers cannot risk crossing the very close water borders with us due to their limited speed and maneuverability.
 

Back
Top Bottom