ramu
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 3,372
- Reaction score
- 0
Hi,
You simply cannot have just a carrier by itself---you will have a cvarrier battle group---a flotilla of surface, submerged and in the air assets.
That cost would run into closer to 10---15 billion dollars. Now pakistan navy is not going to be invading any country away from its shores---there is no mindset of force projection against rest of the world, there will be many a known enemy ( india ) and many unknown enemies ( israel, u s, britain, russia, submersible fleet ).
We will not be fighting only one enemy---people will be after our assets from the submersibles---the super powers and israel can do the biddings of india and we won't know who sunk the carrier.
Only with half that money---pak can have an extremely potent, defensive and offensive force---with long and medium range sams, dedicated sqdrns for the navy like the J 11's, submarines,a mixture of chinese 054 class frigates and some french frigates as well + the ohp's and we are in business.
A carrier will bog us down---it will be a back breaker and will be a cause of defeat either millitarily or economically.
I think you cant get a more realistic post than this. Pakistan has no requirement to project power and in the next decade, it has very little scope of fighting a battle that involves a dedicated naval asset as expensive as a carrier along with its bits and bobs.
Pakistan is better off investing in submarines and possible acquisition of stealth under water naval assets to balance out Indian plans for the next decade. Pakistan should counter India in order to ensure that a naval blockade or any such attempt can be neutralised. However, that too would cost the tax payers a lot of money. In the current economic climate, I doubt if PN can get the funds it needs to counter the growing conventional power of Indian navy even without mentioning Arihant.