Does the PN need an aircraft carrier?

[Masterchief]

Carriers provide immense power at sea, they multiply the air strength over waters and are very hard to bring down, but pak navy hasnt got the defence for an ac, you also have to modify your aircrafts, and given its small shoreline why the hell they require an ac?

 

[fatman17]

This issue has been debated on this forum several times and always faces harsh criticism by a lot of members. But one needs to realize the potential and force projection capability a carrier can offer pak navy. If a country like Japan can build a carrier during 1940s, i think so could we. What i am suggesting is not something High-Fi but just a landing and reequipping platform for our Jf17s and mirages. Something more along the line of a floating airstrip with a place to park 2 aircrafts so they can be fueled and weaponized at a time. We have history of achieving the impossible and i believe an aircraft carrier is possible.

Its not rocket science, even if it is, still not that difficult.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q98XNGR0e14[/video]

first u need to study pak navy's doctrine. does it want to conduct itself as a 'blue water' navy? i am afraid not. secondly the funds required to buy and then maintain a aircraft-carrier are so high, that the discussion would end right there and then. a carrier dosnt venture out to sea without a complete battlegroup supporting it. if you look at PN's other assets, it would seem the whole PN will be required to 'support' the carrier.

as it is we are having difficulty raising a squadron of modern subs. a reality check is required here.

 

[Aamir Hussain]

To help out those who really want to understand our need or lack of an A/c Carrier thereof, following posts would help in understanding the issue:

Pakistan Navy aviation thread -- post 61

What Should Be the ideal Size of PN in 2020 -- posts 18 & 25


As rightly pointed out by FM17 -- the whole argument should start from the threats PN faces and the subsequent role that PN has to perform to overcome these threats. This basically dictates the composition of the fleet and "Assets." Just saying that it is a strategic asset and we need to have it does not, in my opinion, makes any sense at all.

 

[Penguin]

From a practical pov: seeing as how PN has trouble enough to get replacements for 6 aging Type 21, let alone growth fleet numbers, there is no real prospect for a carrier, which requires a full escorts (in addition to all current fleet). It's simply daydreaming.

 

[fatman17]

time to close this thread

 

[Bankai]

short-sightedness of Pakistan Armed Forces. they don't want to develop anything. just purchase expensive things.

When Bhutto was Foreign Minister, he advised Ayub Khan to develop nuclear program. Ayub's army response: "We don't need it"

Thankfully Bhutto's Nuclear Doctrine was successful otherwise who knows what enemies of pakistan might have done today.

Pakistan's armed forces come from small villages, that's why they don't have a long-term strategic mindset or global view of things.

 

[Veeru]

short-sightedness of Pakistan Armed Forces. they don't want to develop anything. just purchase expensive things.

When Bhutto was Foreign Minister, he advised Ayub Khan to develop nuclear program. Ayub's army response: "We don't need it"

Thankfully Bhutto's Nuclear Doctrine was successful otherwise who knows what enemies of pakistan might have done today.

Pakistan's armed forces come from small villages, that's why they don't have a long-term strategic mindset or global view of things.

Pakistan Khapey

 

[Manticore]

To develop my argument I would like to go back to the basics.

What is an aircraft carrier?
This is basically a floating airbase.

What is the main purpose?
To project power in the areas too far from power projecting country thus out of range of the land based aircraft.

Now let us see if Pakistan Navy needs an aircraft carrier or not.

We have LMR planes such P-3C’ for Recce, Exocet carrying Mirges for interdiction of enemy ships up to 200 miles from the shore. Submarines for ambushing enemy surface vessels and frigates/ missile boats for keeping the vital sea lanes clear.

Pray tell where is the need of an aircraft carrier unless we have ambitions of becoming the dominant Naval Power in the Indian Ocean.? Are we going to project power on the East African, Sri Lankan coast or in the Arabian Gulf? We can protect our economic zone with aircraft based at Pasni, Jiwani and Gawadar in addition to Karachi.

Yes we need to modernize Pakistan Navy. What is needed is state of the art submarines (at least 6) and anti aircraft/ anti submarine frigates (at least 8), 200 mile range missile carrying anti sub platform such as corvettes (6 to 8). State of the art mine hunters ( about 4) and about half a dozen missile carrying FAC. Combine this with 6 P-3C’s and a squadron of modern anti ship missile carrying aircraft such as JF-17 plus half a dozen search and rescue Sea Kings and you have a very potent Navy for performing the task of keeping the sea lanes clear and protecting our economic zone.

Pakistan can have all of the above for the price of a single aircraft carrier plus the cost of carrier based aircrafts. Besides one would need a small flotilla of escort vessels to protect such a high value target.

Now let us go back to question, will an aircraft carrier provide sufficient return for the tax payer’s money in Pakistan’ case?

The answer must surely be NO.

nice answer by sir niaz

 

[Storm Force]

To project power, to maintain sea lanes for trade purposes , ensure your sea lanes are open well away from yours. THIS IS WHY the likes of CHINA INDIA & BRAZIL have and want carriers.

THEY HAVE major trade routes, are big coastline nations and have large $$$ to invest in navy.

PAKISTAN IS NONE OF THESE and has no need

 

[Manticore]

]By CAPT Henry J. Hendrix, USN (Ph.D.)
At What Cost a Carrier?
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS Carrier_Hendrix_FINAL.pdf

 

[Menace2Society]

Pakistan's economy needs to grow consistently at around 9-12% for 5 years and then we can start discussing building/purchasing an aircraft carrier. The funds we do have at the moment need to be spent on improving the state of the country to induce such growth.

For any Pakistani to think the buck stops with a defensive strategy in our waters is short sighted. The future involves long distance shipping routes with trade partners, we need a carrier to project power and intimidate anyone who would be wanting to disrupt these lanes.

Our time will come soon.

 

[Alfa-Fighter]

Pakistan's economy needs to grow consistently at around 9-12% for 5 years and then we can start discussing building/purchasing an aircraft carrier. The funds we do have at the moment need to be spent on improving the state of the country to induce such growth.

For any Pakistani to think the buck stops with a defensive strategy in our waters is short sighted. The future involves long distance shipping routes with trade partners, we need a carrier to project power and intimidate anyone who would be wanting to disrupt these lanes.

Our time will come soon.

cost of Aircraft carrier along with plane is more the entire PAK military budget , forget more about it operating cost.

China still not able to deploy a single AC till now.

 

[Abingdonboy]

Pakistan's economy needs to grow consistently at around 9-12% for 5 years and then we can start discussing building/purchasing an aircraft carrier. The funds we do have at the moment need to be spent on improving the state of the country to induce such growth.

For any Pakistani to think the buck stops with a defensive strategy in our waters is short sighted. The future involves long distance shipping routes with trade partners, we need a carrier to project power and intimidate anyone who would be wanting to disrupt these lanes.

Our time will come soon.

But to what end? ACCs are more than expensive pieces of hardware they are a statement and a projection of power. Pakistan is never going to be one of the "great" powers- a regional power yes, but beyond that-not really. The PN is inherently defensive and an ACC does not fit into its doctrine at all. Even nations like Germany,Canada, Australia and S.Korea who are among the top 15 biggest military spenders on earth, don't operate ACCs.


It seems most want one for Pakistan purely for prestige and not for any practical benefits an ACC may bring.

 

[JohnyD]

Well impossible for us to buy carrier but even if we do INdians will use full force to destroy it to insult us so its better to buy more jets and operate them From AFB.

dude, during a WAR if you sink our boat or we sink your it wud't be considered as an act of insulting the other party! Be assured!

 

[Menace2Society]

But to what end? ACCs are more than expensive pieces of hardware they are a statement and a projection of power. Pakistan is never going to be one of the "great" powers- a regional power yes, but beyond that-not really. The PN is inherently defensive and an ACC does not fit into its doctrine at all. Even nations like Germany,Canada, Australia and S.Korea who are among the top 15 biggest military spenders on earth, don't operate ACCs.


It seems most want one for Pakistan purely for prestige and not for any practical benefits an ACC may bring.

The practicality of it will become evident when the time is near.

There are a handful of countries which Pakistan needs to corner and it will require an AC to do that.

Right now an aggressive posturing Pak military is not required and if it became so will only exacerbate the situation. The foundation must be left to solidify and this will take time and consistent ecnomic growth over a 5 year period +