Why doesn't Pakistan build an aircraft carrier?

[INS Shivalik]

u r kiddin rite

Which Line of mine, sounded Kidding BTW???

 

[back me up]

within the next 5 yearz we will be needing nuclear powered aircraft carrierz cuz we have to expand in near future..inshallah...

the only way to expand is towards Afghanistan or india. Invading Afghanistan will earn you the wrath of NATO. Invading india will... well... god help you

 

[back me up]

Why does India spend tons of money aircraft carriers? mostly power projection and superpower ambitions.

Does Pakistan also have similar goals? then by all means buy one.

 

[d14gtc]

Which Line of mine, sounded Kidding BTW???

(But If There is any motive for Aggression then yes, Aircraft carriers are a Dire need and I would Advise you to go for a good one ) ... do u ve ne doubts left regarding MOTIVE FOR AGGRESSION as of now.

 

[INS Shivalik]

(But If There is any motive for Aggression then yes, Aircraft carriers are a Dire need and I would Advise you to go for a good one ) ... do u ve ne doubts left regarding MOTIVE FOR AGGRESSION as of now.

Well thats why I am here for , debating out, while debating dont go with a single mind.... Thats my Policy

 

[bd_4_ever]

within the next 5 yearz we will be needing nuclear powered aircraft carrierz cuz we have to expand in near future..inshallah...

What is your point and expand what??....do you just type for the sake of typing buddy....??


Cheers!!!

 

[bd_4_ever]

Well, Pakistan will have to Spend 70% of its defense budget on an Aircraft carrier alone

Not necessarily....

That wouldnt be a Wise Idea to go for one, and More over, Pakistan can go for Submarines, Frigate and Destroyers Instead of wasting Money and Resources On a Aircraft carrier....

Very much to the point....

And some Anti Ship missiles to Counter any threat.... More than Enough for Defense... But If There is any motive for Aggression then yes, Aircraft carriers are a Dire need and I would Advise you to go for a good one

Their doctrine is defensive....hence they dont need an AC in near future....moreover, to protect an AC, you need to maintain a carrier group filled with destroyers, subs etc....given PN maintains only 5 subs now and no destroyers, it wont be wise as well....


Cheers!!!

 

[Aamir Hussain]

This idea of A/c Carriers in PN has been discussed to death.

Let me put the situation in a nutshell -- Pakistan can not afford one (a/cc and the carrier group) now or any time in forseeable future!!!! Furthermore, we would need a shift in our strategic view of the region to an expansionist/agressive/projectionist posture. This can only happen if we quadruple the size of our economy and this is not happening any time soon.

All other debates become irrelevant.

My 2C worth!!!

 

[Indiarox]

within the next 5 yearz we will be needing nuclear powered aircraft carrierz cuz we have to expand in near future..inshallah...

Heights of Insanity

 

[Guynextdoor]

u r kiddin rite

Not at all. Expect about 2 Bn spent on construction alone and then a good jet about 30-40 M, 1 B on buying the planes, about a B in port & communication faciliites additional training, count in the fuel and their defence budget will look like a joke.

 

[Penguin]

No need for PN to have Aircraft Carrier...

Reasons :-

1) Doesnt suite us geographically

2) Aircraft Carrier is an expensive Platform, we may build multiple airports (Hidden) from DASHT to NARA within the same cost but with more benefits.

3) Aircraft Carrier have high maintenance cost.
4) We dont have any Aircraft Carrier JETS.
5) F22P platform is enough for Harbin anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopter like Z-9EC.

A used carrier that the owner is glad to be getting any money for will likely be much cheaper than a new carrier, even if operating cost may be relatively high compared to a new platform.

The proposition I gave was purposely of a helicopter-carrier for ASW, not for a jet-equipped 'strike' carrier for AShW and land attack. In which case the lack of jets by definition doesn't apply as problem.

Given the number of F22P or any other major surface platforms, the number of Z-9EC that can be brought to bare is very limited, making it very had to achieve local ASW superiority. How effective will a group of 4 f22P and 1 OHP and an AOR (total 4 Z-9EC and 3 Sea King ASW helicopters) be relative to a group with 1 helicopter carrier accompanied by 2 F22P and an AOR (with e.g 13 Sea King and 2 Z-9EC ASW helicopters). The heli's on the carrier are a huge force multiplier, which not only applies in ASW but also in anti-shipping as most helicopters can also fire air-launched antishipmissiles. This carrier centered ASW/AShW group could operate under cover of landbased fighter aviation.

Meanwhile, please elaborate on the relationship between geography and carrier ownership.

 

[Penguin]

Their doctrine is defensive....hence they dont need an AC in near future....moreover, to protect an AC, you need to maintain a carrier group filled with destroyers, subs etc....given PN maintains only 5 subs now and no destroyers, it wont be wise as well....

That's not a criterion at all. After all:
- Thailand operates a small STO(V)L carrier and has neither destroyers nor subs.
- Brazil operates the conventional carrier Sao Paolo (ex Foch) with A4 SkyHawks but doesn't operate destoyers and has just 5 subs.
- Spain operates 2 STO(V)L aviation capable flattops (SCS Principle d'Asturias + BPE Juan Carlos I) but no destroyers and just 4 subs.

 

[Penguin]

This idea of A/c Carriers in PN has been discussed to death.

Let me put the situation in a nutshell -- Pakistan can not afford one (a/cc and the carrier group) now or any time in forseeable future!!!! Furthermore, we would need a shift in our strategic view of the region to an expansionist/agressive/projectionist posture. This can only happen if we quadruple the size of our economy and this is not happening any time soon.

All other debates become irrelevant.

My 2C worth!!!

Most people take aircraft carrier to mean fixed wing aircraft carrier whereas a ship to support rotary winged aircraft might be much more compact, cheaper and very well-suited to PN needs (local ASW and anti-shipping, regional anti-piracy and anti-terrorism ops).

 

[bd_4_ever]

That's not a criterion at all. After all:
- Thailand operates a small STO(V)L carrier and has neither destroyers nor subs.
- Brazil operates the conventional carrier Sao Paolo (ex Foch) with A4 SkyHawks but doesn't operate destoyers and has just 5 subs.
- Spain operates 2 STO(V)L aviation capable flattops (SCS Principle d'Asturias + BPE Juan Carlos I) but no destroyers and just 4 subs.

Thanks for sharing the info....

However, the nations you mentioned is not within any risk of war or crisis anytime soon or even in the future....but Pakistan's case is different....and also given their neighbor maintains a much larger navy and a diverse air force....

Secondly, cost is always the issue....PN need not waste resources behind an AC and i am sure you will agree too....

What i mentioned was just another way to look at the issue....


Cheers!!!

 

[Ras]

A used carrier that the owner is glad to be getting any money for will likely be much cheaper than a new carrier, even if operating cost may be relatively high compared to a new platform.

The proposition I gave was purposely of a helicopter-carrier for ASW, not for a jet-equipped 'strike' carrier for AShW and land attack. In which case the lack of jets by definition doesn't apply as problem.

Given the number of F22P or any other major surface platforms, the number of Z-9EC that can be brought to bare is very limited, making it very had to achieve local ASW superiority. How effective will a group of 4 f22P and 1 OHP and an AOR (total 4 Z-9EC and 3 Sea King ASW helicopters) be relative to a group with 1 helicopter carrier accompanied by 2 F22P and an AOR (with e.g 13 Sea King and 2 Z-9EC ASW helicopters). The heli's on the carrier are a huge force multiplier, which not only applies in ASW but also in anti-shipping as most helicopters can also fire air-launched antishipmissiles. This carrier centered ASW/AShW group could operate under cover of landbased fighter aviation.

Meanwhile, please elaborate on the relationship between geography and carrier ownership.

Such a carrier cannot stray away from the coast as without jets she will be a sitting duck for enemy aircrafts. Better than this would be to get a no of frigates especially for the ASW role. It will be cheaper and much more flexible.