the effectiveness of the aircraft carrier

[gambit]

And not likely to happen again. Carrier vs carrier battles were a WW2 phenomenon. Today, bombers with mid-air refueling can circumnavigate the globe. The best way to kill a carrier is not with another carrier.

You should not make such assumptions. Back in WW II, the US could have sent B-29s after Imperial Japan's carrier fleets, air refueling not withstanding because the Japanese home islands were directly attacked.

The British, up against a small Argentine air force would not take that risk. Neither will the US - not with 5000+ potential casualties on board.

That was because the British did not have over-the-horizon (OTH) detection capability.

And consider that with ASMs able to launch from 300-350km away (which could easily be increased - this is a political restriction not a technical one), a carrier can not keep heavy CAP flying at the extremities of the engagement envelope from all directions, noise jamming blinding fleet AEW at these ranges, etc - it is just not possible to stop a determined enemy from launching a spread of ASMs at a carrier.

Land based ASMs are naturally restricted and the missile range you cited is still less than the effective range of an F-18 configured for ground strike sorties. Move those ASM launcher deeper inland and you decrease their offshore range coverage. As for OTH coverage, the USN's E-2s AWACS have an extended fuel endurance of up to 12hrs and can be augmented by the larger E-3 from CONUS bases. Once such an ASM is detected, the fleet can take active defensive measures and that is an entirely different discussion.

 

[gambit]

A aircraft carrier in PN is nothing but a fan boys dream. And heres a summery from this thread ...

• Why would Pakistan want an Aircraft carrier, we dont need any.
• You have to take into consideration that carriers are the nucleus of a large battle group that will include frigates, destroyers and submarines. If Pakistan were to go for a carrier right now then most of the existing fleet would have to be used just to defend the carrier.
• Its a strategical weapon! You might need it if you have a plan to invade anywhere! But its not worth it! Not worth it all! Its need heavy maintenance (Which need an astronomical budget $4-5 billion dollar per year!), Escort ships (2-7).
• The only country which can use this weapon sufficiently is the U.S because she has many of these toys, and they're very huge, capable of carrying up to 80 fighter and several helicopters. Anyway you can't invade any modern country just with a aircraft carrier which can only carry 15 or 20 aircraft.

Well im a peace loving person and don't think Pakistan should go around “projecting power”, nor any other country for that matter. But of course this doesn't happen in the real world. So heres what i think, A aircraft carrier is a offensive weapon and Pakistan defense is based on defense mainly (plus we can afford defense only anyways), how many enemies Pakistan has other than India? The only answer some of you might say is Israel. Well i don't think Pakistan is stupid enough to deploy a carriers of the coast of Israel, the whole world will scream soo hard our ears will blow off.

In the current situation, the only realistic weapon for power projection on the world scale i can see for Pakistan is a nuclear tipped ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) because we have a very successful missile program, based on the fact that we already have the infrastructure and scientist/technology for that, its gonna be very cheap compared to building and “running/maintain” a AC in the short and of course in the long run. Nuclear tipped ICBM sitting in a silo for 50 years of deterrent and power projection will cost nothing compared to 50 years of operating a AC. Plus I am pretty sure Pakistan in already working on it. Plus always remember the money we save from AC wont be dumped in fire but will be used on other projects.

thnx

No one is talking about invading a land territory with only an aircraft carrier battle group. This is about projecting one's military power away -- far away -- from one's territory. Any potential adversary will be hesitant in furthering his plans if he either knows that such a battle group is on the way to his coasts or suddenly wake up one morning to find such a force off his coasts. A carrier battle group offer flexibility that ICBMs cannot. Once an ICBM is launched, it is effectively a declaration that the war is underway. There is no calling back the missile, other than sending it a self destruct signal, but either leaving the missile on its course or sending it the self destruct signal, you have effectively spent a piece of ordnance and with the self destruct due to some political considerations, it is an expenditure with no returns. That is why having ONLY missiles as deterrent is a bad idea.

 

[luoshan]

@Gambit

There is various speculation about this. Some PLA officials said that the warhead has little time to do correction manouvers before the atmosphere rentry, so I bet it will use image sensing guidance to aim at the carrier and then dive straight. Other western sources says it will use Ative/Passive Radar guidance+MaRV tecnology.

In a heavy shipping traffic area like the Pacific ocean, how can a Ballistic missile traveling at Mach 5+ speed and 2000Kms+ distance differentiate between an aircraft carrier and large merchant vessels like container ships or oil tankers??

 

[Manticore]

having a carrier is more of a liabilty then a benifit as u not only have to maintain it but also have to save it in war . [particularly in case of pn when she already has some numerical deficits in terms of frigates over the enemy. pn would have to allocate some ships for the carrier defence, rather than offence]

so u cant say that an airforce is better if it has a carrier..[particularly when the indian carrier can be bombarded with cheap cruise missiles,or submarines, sinking the carrier+all the jets on board]

pn doesnt need a carrier for aircraft transport anyway as our enemy is right next to us , we have a small coastline to defend and we dont have any aggressive plans against any country

 

[gambit]

having a carrier is more of a liabilty then a benifit as u not only have to maintain it but also have to save it in war.
so u cant say that an airforce is better if it has a carrier..
we dont need a carrier for aircraft transport anyway as our enemy is right next to us and we dont have any aggressive plans against any country

That is not a very good argument 'against' having an aircraft carrier because it begs the question of why bother to have any weapon system above the trooper level since you will be obligated to 'save' it anyway? The more capable a weapon system, naturally the more it will cost to develop, build and maintain it, but you also have it on the belief that it will be able to inflict more damages to the enemy than hopefully he can to you. To have a weapon system and is afraid to use it in a war or to put it in harm's way is to be foolish and might as well not have it anyway.

An aircraft carrier is about projecting one's military might away from one's soil. The larger the ship, the more force it can carry. The longer its endurance away from home soil, the longer allies and enemies or potential enemies will remember you. Who is more important, allies or enemies or potential enemies? An aircraft carrier gives you flexibility and INDEPENDENCE from either allies and enemies especially in a region of the world when either one can become the other as oil geopolitics demands. The criticisms of this weapon system is based upon a lack of understanding of past major navies that served their countries' interests, near or far away from home soil.

 

[Patriot]

But Gambit i think these air craft carriers are suitable for countries like US- Russia and China only.In Indo-PAK context both sides donot need carrier as they are not going to attack any country far away from their homeland.

 

[sigatoka]

While Pakistan itself may be unable to afford aircraft carriers, India does and seeks to dominate the seas west of Pakistan virtually crippling the nation of trade during war. Land based anti-ship missiles would be rendered irrelevant with limited range against such a blockade. Excessive focus has been centered on protecting Karachi against sea based bombardment without reference to a changing strategy by the opponent. The changing environment requires a three pronged approach, development of a dedicated maritime strike force of aircraft operating under Navy command. Utilizing maritime patrol aircraft for detection of ships along with fighter aircraft supplied with air refueling capabilities and long range anti-ship missiles to simultaneously prevent bombardment of ports and freedom of trade. Secondly predisposition towards submarines to stalk surface ships and aircraft carriers operating off the gulf of Aden. Thirdly the funding of marines that can operate in concert with regional military forces to deter aggressive diplomatic pressure that may be applied by potential opponent.

 

[nightcrawler]

I regard this a total truth that while countering the conventional Indian threat we need a strong naval support. This not only give an edge on our defensive capabilities but the inclusion of a carrier will greatly boost our attacking position as well.

 

[Tomahawk]

Having an aircraft carrier will definitely boost the stature of PN and will give PN the strategic depth, but having said that again the hurdle is our economy, because at first place substantial amount of money is required to acquire an aircraft carrier, and even more money will be required to operate it, and that would not be possible without a flourished economy. Our U-214 Submarine deal is also being getting delayed because of weak economy.

 

[murshid]

aircraft carriers are only for showcase. waste of money.

russian don't have any aircraft carrier

 

[niaz]

To develop my argument I would like to go back to the basics.

What is an aircraft carrier?
This is basically a floating airbase.

What is the main purpose?
To project power in the areas too far from power projecting country thus out of range of the land based aircraft.

Now let us see if Pakistan Navy needs an aircraft carrier or not.

We have LMR planes such P-3C’ for Recce, Exocet carrying Mirges for interdiction of enemy ships up to 200 miles from the shore. Submarines for ambushing enemy surface vessels and frigates/ missile boats for keeping the vital sea lanes clear.

Pray tell where is the need of an aircraft carrier unless we have ambitions of becoming the dominant Naval Power in the Indian Ocean.? Are we going to project power on the East African, Sri Lankan coast or in the Arabian Gulf? We can protect our economic zone with aircraft based at Pasni, Jiwani and Gawadar in addition to Karachi.

Yes we need to modernize Pakistan Navy. What is needed is state of the art submarines (at least 6) and anti aircraft/ anti submarine frigates (at least 8), 200 mile range missile carrying anti sub platform such as corvettes (6 to 8). State of the art mine hunters ( about 4) and about half a dozen missile carrying FAC. Combine this with 6 P-3C’s and a squadron of modern anti ship missile carrying aircraft such as JF-17 plus half a dozen search and rescue Sea Kings and you have a very potent Navy for performing the task of keeping the sea lanes clear and protecting our economic zone.

Pakistan can have all of the above for the price of a single aircraft carrier plus the cost of carrier based aircrafts. Besides one would need a small flotilla of escort vessels to protect such a high value target.

Now let us go back to question, will an aircraft carrier provide sufficient return for the tax payer’s money in Pakistan’ case?

The answer must surely be NO.

 

[Kamakazi 69]

Actually, the aircraft carrier is going to be phased out of combat in the next few decades. Obviously that doesn't mean we won't see the end of these behemoths, they have a life of half a century!!!
But you won't see that many new aircraft carriers coming out in the next few decades.

Thats because with the advent of reliable cruise missiles and drones, the only real reason aircraft carriers existed (to blow up big shiny things deep in enemy territory) is now fulfilled by cruise missiles launched from smaller destroyers (like America did in the bombardment of Iraq in Desert Storm 2).
This reduces the risk of losing a pilot behind enemy lines.

Plus there is the fact that as a carrier is very very expensive and takes very very long to build, you don't want anything to happen to them. Thats why most of the task force with a carrier during wartime conditions are charged with protecting the carrier.

But like I said, these things have a life span of half a century (just look at the Enterprise) and due to the conservative mindset of most military planners, it will be a long long time before we see the end of the carrier. Plus they are so cool and still have the awe factor.