Does the PN need an aircraft carrier?

[Areesh]

ya,there is always a threat from subs.thats why ACs always have protection cover & they never operate alone .it is hard to say that it may face the same fate,but at the mean time you can imagine the damages it can caused to the entire karachi city & port.

INS Kukri was also accompanied by two other frigates. Any ways it was obvious why it wasn't at the west. Seems like Bossman has a point in his post.

 

[Safriz]

Long time ago i saw USS Independance..It had two destroyers forward and aft..Four surveillance helicopters on all four sides...and yes..all those jet fighters on the deck and below deck..Plus a crew of about 5000..Why would Pakistan need such a massive naval force?

 

[Waffen SS]

Thanks God, nobody asked why Pakistan doesn't have INTERGALATIC MIISSLES armed with MATTER-ANTIMATTER warheads to destroy Alien Planets.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

And that is in the east. The reason I think is obvious.

Yes it is. The missile boats were adequate for the primary land attack task in the West. The rest of the surface fleet was employed in blockade duties.
In the East, there were two requirements: firstly to soften the coastal defences and targets inland, secondly to ensure that forces were unable to break-out and escape. While ensuring a blockade of re-supply and re-inforcement. These tasks required air-power over the sea in the Bay of Bengal. The (single) IN aircraft carrier provided that mobile provider of air assets for these tasks.

And the objectives were realised. That is obvious. History testifies to that.

 

[prototype]

Pakistan's strategy is sea denial not sea control,but why sea denial and not control,the answer is simple,lack of adequate resources,but that does not mean that it is a inferior position

All over the world the small navies follow the strategy of sea denial,for this u dont need AC's,LPD's or destroyers,that will b a strain on ur resources,all u need is more and more submarines, corvettes and fast attack crafts.

The best possible option employed by green water navies r hit and run strategy,that is more effective for them,but it must b better for Pakistan to have a separate air force for it's naval arm to protect naval assets and provide back up support in their zone,it will put less strain on PAF

 

[Areesh]

The (single) IN aircraft carrier provided that mobile provider of air assets for these tasks.

And the objectives were realised. That is obvious. History testifies to that.

You can take it any ways which suits you. I would take it as IN avoided major conflict with PN after witnessing the fate of INS Kukri. This is further testified by the fact that your AC was virtually non practical six years ago in 1965 war even after bombing of Dawarka. The reason was again similar to that in 1971 war.

 

[Veeru]

I am sure Pakistan army thought about it. We will probably have one before 2020 if our army really needs it. Pakistan army has missiles that can reach to middle east and further. It also has navy ships, submarines. For aircraft carrier we need more fighters and air crafts. Right now we need our own satellite launched from Pakistan more than an aircraft carrier in my opinion. What do you say?

That's the problem. Army decides for everything. And for every other nation government, defense ministry and Navy should decide about it.

On the thread:

Where is the money???

Aircraft Carrier needs billions of dollars + aircrafts for it + Carrier battle group etc. etc.

 

[Veeru]

You can take it any ways which suits you. I would take it as IN avoided major conflict with PN after witnessing the fate of INS Kukri. This is further testified by the fact that your AC was virtually non practical six years ago in 1965 war even after bombing of Dawarka. The reason was again similar to that in 1971 war.

Why are you posting off topic?? this thread is about pakistan not India or its war history.

Also you will force people to post about PNS Ghazi.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

You can take it any ways which suits you. I would take it as IN avoided major conflict with PN after witnessing the fate of INS Kukri. This is further testified by the fact that your AC was virtually non practical six years ago in 1965 war even after bombing of Dawarka. The reason was again similar to that in 1971 war.

You seem to be unfamiliar (or unwilling to square up) with reality or facts.
INS Vikrant was deployed to the East Coast in early October 1971 and remained there till after the surrender of Pakistani forces in Dhaka in December 1971 (actually even later than that as she was the Flag-Ship of FOCinC Eastern Fleet). That was as per the plan. The Flag-Ship of FOCinC Western Fleet was the cruiser INS Mysore. BTW, INS Mysore participated in the Karachi Raids. And could have been a prize target as well.

To correct your impressions, INS Vikrant was in the Graving Dry-Dock in Mumbai during the 1965 conflict. She had embarked on a planned Long Refit before the commencement of hostilities and her boilers were being re-tubed in addition to other major work, including on the catapult. Her Air Wing was disembarked to INS Hansa at Goa (their parent air-base).

I was there, were you? Your post only expresses your impressions/opinions/wishes. Nothing else.
In your own words- You can take it any ways which suits you.
But that does not change the facts as they are.

But the topic is Pakistani Aircraft Carriers or the lack thereof. You are welcome to state your impressions/opinions/wishes on that topic.

 

[LAKHNAVI]

You can take it any ways which suits you. I would take it as IN avoided major conflict with PN after witnessing the fate of INS Kukri. This is further testified by the fact that your AC was virtually non practical six years ago in 1965 war even after bombing of Dawarka. The reason was again similar to that in 1971 war.

you can take it the way you want but the fact is that the AC was used as per the plans of the Indian navy (resulting in the liberation of east pakistan), also do not forget the fate of pns ghazi which was sent to destroy the ac.

 

[farhan_9909]

2 reason..

1)we dont need aircraft carrier because our coast like is 600km only and our enemy is our neighbour..

2)we cannot afford a aicraft carrier..

 

[EgO Boy]

ya,there is always a threat from subs.thats why ACs always have protection cover & they never operate alone .it is hard to say that it may face the same fate,but at the mean time you can imagine the damages it can caused to the entire karachi city & port.

First ur ACC has to come out of port before destroying karachi.

 

[Paan Singh]

First ur ACC has to come out of port before destroying karachi.

wats special???

 

[third eye]

First ur ACC has to come out of port before destroying karachi.

Around this time ( Dec ) 39 years ago INS Vikrant wasn't even in the Arabian Sea and Karachi port was burning.

An asset like a carrier is too valuable to use on targets which surface weapons can engage .

 

[EgO Boy]

We need more Battleships, Crusiers and Destroyerssssssssssssssssssss !

Brother than again we have to eat Grass.

ACC and Destroyer's r way to expansive for us to run and maintain, and in the end one cheap anti ship missile will sink them.

I'd rather go for Nuclear Sub's atleast 2.