Does the PN need an aircraft carrier?

[fatman17]

^the 'other'point is that suppose we have a AC carrier, we dont have enough assets currently in the PN (surface ships, subs etc) to assemble a 'carrier group'.

.....and finally guys this thread is abt PN having a AC carrier not abt what happend in the past between I & P.

pls grow up!!!

 

[IND151]

Pakistan doesn't need AC.

---------- Post added at 11:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:00 AM ----------

they require more destroyers and subs.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

Forget about the cost issue. I think even if we had enough money we would have spent it on another military tech rather than AC.

Countries like USA have Aircraft Carrier because their main threat is from the the sea, that is the Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean.

- - Because of this the US can use an aircraft carrier so that they dont have to fly all the way from land.

Pakistan on the other hand faces security threat from land, like from the east.
In that case we dont need an aircraft carrier. As for long flight hours we now have an air-to-air refueling system.

 

[TrMhMt]

I think Pakistan can not afford ....

It can be very nice if we can work on this together. I mean Turkiye and Pakistan. Maybe in future !! i hope ...

 

[jagjitnatt]

To all those who think an aircraft carrier is a sitting duck, you're just trying to avoid the reality. An aircraft carrier is a very important asset, that can change the game any time. It allows a country to take war to other countries no matter how far they are.

When it comes to Pakistan, I am sure they would love to have one too. But their budget doesn't allow one. They first need to get enough missile boats, submarines, then build frigates, then move on to destroyers, and helicopters, surveillance boats, etc etc.

Once they have all those, they can move onto a carrier, and with the carrier they will also have a battle group.

A carrier with its battle group can be very devastating, and its very difficult to sink a carrier for Pakistan as of now.
Many people think a single sub will do the job, but what they don't see is that carrier has destroyers, frigates, submarines and anti-sub helicopters with it too. So it will detect that submarines first and engage first.

In order to destroy a carrier it is essential to destroy the battle group first. So claiming that carrier can be turned to reef is very kiddish, and should be reserved for some candy forum only.

 

[LEGENDARY WARRIOR]

We need submarine more than AC right now. . . and destroyers

 

[Bossman]

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.

OK my mistake. The aircraft carrier was deployed but hardly used. It stayed pretty far away from the coast and its aircrafts made only token sorties. They never made contact with the handful of sabres based at Dacca. In fact the cost of deploying the aircraft carrier was more than the two or three Pakistani gun boats in East Pakistan during the war. Infact it could not stop one the gun boats from escaping.

 

[jagjitnatt]

OK my mistake. The aircraft carrier was deployed but hardly used. It stayed pretty far away from the coast and its aircrafts made only token sorties. They never made contact with the handful of sabres based at Dacca. In fact the cost of deploying the aircraft carrier was more than the two or three Pakistani gun boats in East Pakistan during the war. Infact it could not stop one the gun boats from escaping.

Deployed but not used is not the correct term. Firepower is not the only reason an AC is bought. It is very powerful, and instills fear in the enemy. When it was deployed in the Bay of Bengal, it was known to the PN, and that is why they didn't try any misadventures there. PAF had to surrender because they were surrounded. The AC helped in the blockade of Bangladesh, if it wasn't deployed there, the army could have tried something like a hit-rescue-run.

But its the mental fear, that didn't allow them to engage the carrier.

 

[darkhand08]

All in all ..........if people think that an Aircraft Carrier is not so important asset as a submarine can take "care" of it .........well, they have made mistake and that too a naive one......

As it is, the US Navy disagrees with you.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

As I have stated earlier---pak doesnot need an air craft carrier---it doesnot need it---there is no technical reason to buy one---.

Our location is as such that the money that would be need to be spent on the aircraft carrier---if it was spent on procuring other assets which can increase our strike capabilities---we won't have any problem from our adversary----.

An aircraft carrier is an instant 10 billion to 20 billion dollars loss if taken out by the enemy---plus other support staff might be lost during the skirmish.

Pakistan cannot afford to buy one---and my dear neighbour india cannot afford to lose one----.

Once the air strike capabilities of paf are enhanced---there is a lesser chance of a an indian carrier coming closer to pak shoreline---.

The truth is that as pakistan is gaining time to catchup -india is losing its momentum for domination---the biggest concern that india has is " THE WHAT IF FACTOR"---meaning what if the pak could neutralize some of its top end assets.

A frontline air craft carrier battle group could cost maybe 20---30 + billion dollars----for mereley half the price pak can procure multiple offencive and defencive systems to keep the strike group far away to do any damage.

 

[EgO Boy]

@ Pakistani brothers.

We need Electricity, Gas, Irrigation water, Wheat, Rice, Sugar, Cereals, Affordable health for common citizen, Imployment opportunities for youth, Economy on solid grounds, and most of all self respecting nation.

After u achieve all that, American seventh fleet will guard you, as they r guarding Japan, S.Korea and Taiwan.

 

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

why pakistan don't have an aircraft carrier?

1) first, cause of budget problem.(most important) they have other priorities..

2) Last,They don't need aircraft carrier to gaurd such small costline...( i think)

 

[niaz]

It is not only the question of "Grapes are sour". Apart from the funding, Pakistan is a peace loving nation and has no designs on any other country nor do we wish to impose our will on a far off country; thus no requirement for projecting power far away from our shores.

Once Kashmire problem is resolved; we have few problems with India either. PN therefore does not need an Aircraft carrier.

 

[monitor]

It is not only the question of "Grapes are sour". Apart from the funding, Pakistan is a peace loving nation and has no designs on any other country nor do we wish to impose our will on a far off country; thus no requirement for projecting power far away from our shores.

Once Kashmire problem is resolved; we have few problems with India either. PN therefore does not need an Aircraft carrier.

sir i don't dare to argue with you but with due respect i would like to point out some point-

pakistan doesn't need any aircraft carrier its might be true to defend a small cost line but, if you want to defend your fleet from the attack from three aircraft carrier which each one carrying 16 mi-29K are you almost answerless against this combine attack both from shipborn missile and aircraft carrying deadly missile ?

secondly if you don't have a aircraft aren't this going to be affect the moral of your soldier ?

thirdly i think a aircraft carrier battle group of pakistan navy
can secure both the aircraft carrier and provide some air support for rest of the fleet as its remaining in pakistani cost area .

fourthly the cost of aircraft carrier may be a concern but a small carrier like those operate by thiland and spain may be option.

i think pakistan can contemplate about a small carrier after getting hand into destroyer submarine and frigate.

 

[truthseeker2010]

Aircraft carrier is not just a ship, its a part of nations philosophy of power projection, which we are not pursuing. Secondly we don't have the financial means to pursue such undertakings.