How many Navys in the world have fighter jets as part of their armada that DONT operate aircraft carriers?
I can't think of any actually. Even countries with much larger navies and maritime borders don't see the need for jets. These include, Japan, Turkey, Australia, Iran, Indonesia, Egypt, Taiwan, S Skorea, etc.
That tells me that there is no empirical evidence that shows it is a requirement for most countries, and some of these have actual blue water capability (unlike Pakistan). The air forces of these countries would seem to suffice in providing them with the air power they would need against potential threats. All these navies operate their own maritime patrol and anti-ship/sub airplanes of course, just like PN.
But here is where I see a fallacy in the arguments presented in favor of PN having fighter jets. It is like somehow, they would be able to perform a function that PAF operated jets can not. That somehow there will be better coordination because they will be operated by PN. Even if you give in to this idea, I don't see why this coordination can not extend between PAF & PN, given that the any maritime minded PAF squadrons are based basically in Karachi. And if there is a gap in such, that should be what is improved as a practical solution.
The blue-on-blue incidents from 40 years ago is a poor example to use, not only because in war, such incidents can occur, but it also flies in the face of the professionalism of both arms. Are we to believe that they have not studied past mistakes and not taken any remedial action to address them in the future? This does not even include the fact that technology has changed over the years as well and having radars, IFF, secure comms etc, identification is not going to happen with pilots flying over a ship to get a visual. Their antiship missiles are of course going to be used from standoff ranges.
This all ignores the cost factor of course ... can PN actually afford to buy, operate and maintain fast jets or are those resources better used on increasing and updating its surface ship capability.
Now, here is another argument I can think of ... is a PN operated fighter squadron going to be only concerned with the IN? A: No. Are they going to face off against IAF and their aircraft in a conflict? A: Yes. If operating these expensive multirole aircraft, are they not going to take part in offensive missions against IA if PA is under threat in their sector? A: No, of course they will. So that means any potential squadron of PN would have the exact same roles as a PAF squadron.
So what will be different exactly from the role that is being filled by PAF at the moment. PAF is still going to provide top cover to the Navys P-3Cs and ATRs, and using its AShMs against IN ships.
Can any of the proponents offer any substantial benefits that maybe I am not seeing or are not able to be performed by PAF?
.
.
.
.
On a side note, these following countries have figther jets in their naval air arms but all of them also operate air craft carriers. Did I miss any?
United States (F-18s, F-35s),
United Kingdom (none until F-35 comes on)
China (Flankers),
France (Rafale),
India (Mig-35),
Russia (Flankers,
Italy (Harries, then F-35 later)
