Does the PN need an aircraft carrier?

[Icarus]

I really have been astounded by some of the responses by our respected members and have been compelled to write a response to set the record straight.
The reason we don not have an AC is not a question of monetary resources or naval neglect. Quite simply, we do not need an aircraft carrier.
The US, UK among other countries have aircraft carriers because they have to go over seas to fight their wars, so they need to "Take an airfield with them".
India has an AC because most of their South-Western airbases are within the strike range of aircraft from Masroor airbase, with the AC they can ensure that they can always attack our ports such as Gwadar, which would otherwise be quite difficult to get to.

 

[truthseeker2010]

so they need upto 3 AC's just to counter our 650 mile sea strip?

 

[Icarus]

Addition: An AC is probably one of the most devastating ships a navy can have in it's fleet but it is also one of the most vulnerable, you need a small fleet(a task force) to guard an AC, consisting of a pair of subs, about 2 destroyers, about half a dozen Frigates, corvettes, or other small vessels. PN does not have enough vessels to protect the carrier yet still perform other duties in the event of a war.

 

[monitor]

so they need upto 3 AC's just to counter our 650 mile sea strip?

not that suppose they deploy all of their asset to wipe out pakistan navy keeping aside other factor such as china .

 

[Icarus]

so they need upto 3 AC's just to counter our 650 mile sea strip?

The more the merrier, the more ACs the more planes they can get into the air........

 

[truthseeker2010]

I don't think that these ships are just aimed at Pakistan. Indian ambitions are far more wider specially when it comes to IOR.(Indian Ocean Region)

 

[Storm Force]

Originally Posted by truthseeker2010 View Post
so they need upto 3 AC's just to counter our 650 mile sea strip?

Your comment

Why do Pakistanis auto assume every single weapons purchase is aimed directly at Pakistan.

India is a very large powerful economy growing as a very fast pace.

TRADE INTO AND OUT OF INDIA IS WORTH $400 BILLION. By 2020 THIS WILL HAVE TRIPLED TO $1.5 TRILLION

India needs a powerful blue water fleet to protect its coast but more to dominate the Indian Ocean to oversea the HUGE trade.

India has more than war on its mind

ie Trade Money $$$ and GROWTH

 

[sensenreason]

I don't think that these ships are just aimed at Pakistan. Indian ambitions are far more wider specially when it comes to IOR.(Indian Ocean Region)

I think Large sized Aircraft Carriers are over rated for their utility and a waste of resources especially for India.

- We should focus on many ACs given our coast line but much smaller one's.Three ACs is nothing...especially as they dont necessarily come with something that will ensure that they they stay afloat ie aircrafts and defences against missiles.

- Aircrafts can travel longer and with SUMKI 2pilots can make it atleast 4000-5000km.

- Mid air refuelling can be done

So instead, India should focus on smaller ACs and many in number, possibly with SU-MKIs and not MIGs. Large numbers will deter adversaries.

Finally, why do you need a long airfield when modern jets can take off and land in shorter runways??? What am I missing?

 

[jagjitnatt]

I think Large sized Aircraft Carriers are over rated for their utility and a waste of resources especially for India.

- We should focus on many ACs given our coast line but much smaller one's.Three ACs is nothing...especially as they dont necessarily come with something that will ensure that they they stay afloat ie aircrafts and defences against missiles.

- Aircrafts can travel longer and with SUMKI 2pilots can make it atleast 4000-5000km.

- Mid air refuelling can be done

So instead, India should focus on smaller ACs and many in number, possibly with SU-MKIs and not MIGs. Large numbers will deter adversaries.

Finally, why do you need a long airfield when modern jets can take off and land in shorter runways??? What am I missing?

You're missing a lot.
MKIs are no small aircraft and for aircraft of that size to take off, we need huge carriers, with steam catapults to assist in taking off.

MKIs won't travel 4000-5000 km to tackle something, if they could, we wouldn't need carriers, we would have them take off from land and travel 4000-5000 kms.

Too many carriers will mean too many destroyers, subs, and frigates to form their battle groups, which will be a lot more expensive.

What India is doing now is the best that can be done. We are investing in 40000 tons class, and 65000 tons class carriers. That is just what we needed, and what is best for the time being.

 

[Penguin]

Basic Characteristics


Take-off weight (normal / maximum), kg 24,900 / 34,500
Fuel reserve, spec. weight 0.785 g/cu.cm (normal / maximum), kg 5,270 / 9,640
Max flight range, km:
with internal fuel reserve 3,000
with one in-flight refueling, km 5,200
Maximum take-off run at normal take-off weight (afterburner), m 550
Maximum landing run at normal landing weight, with drag parachute 750
Service ceiling, m 17,300
Maximum G-load, g 9
Dimensions (length / wing span / height), m 21.9 / 14.7 / 6.4

IRKUT Corporation :: Su-30MK Multirole Combat Aircraft :: Su-30MK Multirole Combat Aircraft

Landbased airfield are also not cheap and also need protection i.e. various SAM and AAA and associated C3I. And THEY can't move.

Carriers can move, which means before you can neutralize them you first have to find them. Airfields are much easier to detect and take out.

 

[tarrar]

I spoke to one of the Navy officers who had come to Bahrain for a visit. I asked him that why Pakistan Navy is not having Air craft carriers and Battle ships he said we don't need them they are to big and a easy target. That's what he said.

 

[IamINDIA]

Actually, You can't have an Aircraft Carrier just to Defend a coastline of 600 Kms. Wait until Pakistan becomes a Super-Power then we will have an a/c to project our power world-wide

definetly not in your life time

 

[Dash]

definetly not in your life time

why, whats wrong with it, they were close to 8% before WOT, something went wrong...and they are not doing good, but after WOT ends, they can gain the same rate. may not be super power but certainly wrothy having an Aircraft carrier.

Originally Posted by AUz
Actually, You can't have an Aircraft Carrier just to Defend a coastline of 600 Kms. Wait until Pakistan becomes a Super-Power then we will have an a/c to project our power world-wide

Buy the way- AUz buddy -

you dont need to be a super power to have an aircraft carrier, some countries which are not superpower have these. its needs.

 

[Penguin]

I spoke to one of the Navy officers who had come to Bahrain for a visit. I asked him that why Pakistan Navy is not having Air craft carriers and Battle ships he said we don't need them they are to big and a easy target. That's what he said.

More importantly, they don't fit in PN doctrine (sea denial).

As for carriers being an easy target: how many sunk or put out of action or even damaged due to combat post WW2? As compared to other types of units. Relative to number of times put in harms way.

 

[MastanKhan]

not that suppose they deploy all of their asset to wipe out pakistan navy keeping aside other factor such as china .

Hi,

How are you? 3 aircraft carriers----basically 3 battle groups---so possibly close to a 100 billion dollars worth of hardware in a certain area. That opens up all manners of retaliation from the opponent----in order for the carriers to launch their planes to strike the mainland, they will have to be in closer proximity---that makes them vulnerable to nuc strike right from the gitgo----.

A nuc strike would be the prefered strike---as it is over the ocean----no land mass involved---no civilian casualties---. The ocean is not so big to hide three battle groups---or 3 aircraft carriers with their escorts in this area---you are vulnerable to the enemy strike as the enemy is vulnerable to your strike.

The person who is going to lose the most in this confrontation will be the naval strike force---that one big loss will change the outcome of the conflict immediately----it is not worth it for the adversary to put that many a/c carriers in one place.

I mean to say---if you have another 5 aircraft carriers in reserve that can fill in---that will be okay---but just to place all your naval strength is not worth the shot.