The REAL Reason Why Pakistan Does not have an Aircraft Carrier

[S.Y.A]

I dont understand, this topic has already been discussed dozens of times, then why are there more threads on this and the nuclear submarine topics popping up again and again?

 

[The Diplomat]

I dont understand, this topic has already been discussed dozens of times, then why are there more threads on this and the nuclear submarine topics popping up again and again?

Still confused though, has PN said its making a nuclear sub or not?

 

[544_delta]

a drone carrier would be nice

 

[monitor]

There have been numerous discussion and answers on why Pakistan does not have an Aircraft Carrier, though most fail to capture the "bigger picture" as man known as Bilal Khan would say.

So why no Pakistani Aircraft Carrier?
One of the main reason’s listed are costs. Though this is true to an extent it isn’t the real reason. Thailand, a country with a lower defence budget then Pakistan operates an Aircraft Carrier which was used for the Harrier jump jet when it was in service.
View attachment 336588
Yes, Thailand has an Aircraft Carrier
Another Question is what type of Aircraft Carrier?
There are only a few options, Helicopter, VTOL, Ski Jump, Catapult
View attachment 336589
Helicopters: Many countries with Aircraft carriers use them for Helicopter only. Pakistan doesn’t really need that as the Naval Aviation Helicopters can already take off and Land from Pakistani Frigates and Auxiliary Vessels.

VTOL Aircraft: Well the Harrier is out of the question, it’s old and doesn’t really work all too well. The F-35B is a more likely contender. Though those are expensive and the US political constraints don’t make it a very attractive option……and it’s not that good either. Doesn’t really fit the countries defence needs.

Ski Jump: Many aircraft carriers have that ramp at the end to give aircraft the final little push for taking off.
View attachment 336590
Though Pakistan (as of now) doesn’t have any LCA’s or heavy Flankers with 2 huge engines that can generate enough thrust for take off from a Ski Jump aircraft Carrier.

Aircraft?

Pakistan’s only realistic option is a naval variant of the JF-17. Its the only aircraft in their arsenal that can be customized and upgraded at will. A naval JF-17 variant will need to be fitted to work Anti-Surface warfare roles. It will need bigger wings and foldable ones to take less deck space. The JF-17 needs a somewhat rather long runway for takeoff so a Ski Jump system wouldn’t work.

Catapult

Probably the best option that catapult literally boosts the aircraft off the deck.
View attachment 336591
In theory a Naval Carrier based variant of a JF-17 would perform best on this type of Carrier.

But who would supply them?

Pakistan does not have the infrastructure to build an Aircraft Carrier. They would need outside help. But who? Only 2 countries use the Catapult system. One is the US, though they don’t get along very much nowadays and they have very tight arms control for foreign countries especially those like Pakistan. The only other country is France, they use the catapult system too. They have in the past supplied Pakistan and it’s Navy with high profile arms. One other option is China, Pakistan frontline arms supplier. They too are developing a catapult system though are no where near in position for an export for a while.

Nuclear?

Well as a nuclear armed nation it is only fitting that their Aircraft Carrier would be Nuclear Powered as it would be very beneficial in the long run. The best aircraft carrier for Pakistan would be one similar to France’s Charles De Gaulle. Nuclear Powered and uses the Catapult launch and from a top supplier.
View attachment 336592
But why not?

It all comes back to the end. Pakistan does not really need an Aircraft Carrier. It serves no interest or purpose as of now and even for the near future. Investing in a Nuclear powered aircraft carrier would cost over 5 billion dollars. The Pakistan Navy spent that very same amount on 8 submarines. A much better choice.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...na-finalize-8-sub-construction-plan/73634218/

You can see my Answer originally written on Quora here
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Pa...nd-is-building-a-couple-more/answer/Hassan-75

I think the importance of navy in the region is very negligible, India realised the need to develop the blue water navy only after 2000s, before that we never thought of sailing in Indian ocean region and defending the economic zone.

There are 2 main reason behind Pakistan Navy not having an aircraft carrier :
1. Share of Pakistan Army dominates the defense budget, it gets somewhere around 50% of the whole budget and navy only gets 10% of the share.
2. Pakistan even after 1971, still concentrates on land boundary and not on securing the water ways. Whereas the major powers of the world e.g. USA, China, Russia & France are fighting war in waters, because they want to protect their sea route.

ACs are of no use to PN, they should build up the anti-AC force instead, and go for more subs and frigates.

Pakistan is not going to have any aircraft carrier in foreseeable future because they don't have the money technology to build an aircraft carrier and more importantly simply don't need it . at best Pakistan can try for a mistral type LHD/LPD to work as floating command and control center for Navy and also for moral boast for its military along with humanitarian needs .
even if its going to provide 50% OF defense budget it will be more effective in countering any Indian sea blocked by buying more Submarine destroyer frigate its then buying an aircraft carrier without proper supporting fleet with it as it will be a easy target for enemy .
After 71 Pakistan have only land area to defend to necessity and allocation of Budget will continue to dominate Army and air force . a sizable Navy is enough to defend Pakistan coastline ans sea rout

 

[AKD]

In near future when we are more economically stable i think that we definately need a couple of these beauties . This indian fancy that in case of nuclear war they would finish pakistan, while pakistan can only destroy couple of cities . Imagine an aircraft carrier carring nukes in indian ocean surrounding them on all sides . Also if we make military or nuclear bases in china , srilanka , bangladesh we can surround india from all sides .... we can still do nut this strategy would really cause their fake balloon to leak .....they can slso be used as deterent ...

LOL
Maintaing an aircraft carrier is upto 1 billion per year and you are telling about having a couple and that too by Pakistan

Bases in China Bangladesh Sri Lanka

 

[Centurion2016]

I dont understand, this topic has already been discussed dozens of times, then why are there more threads on this and the nuclear submarine topics popping up again and again?

The reason this topic OR the topic on nuclear submarines OR SU35B combat planes KEEP popping up is simpe.

Your neighbour your rival HAS

2 CARRIERS one Russian built with MIG29K fighters on board and one indengiuos carrier being built with fighters to be ordered

They have two nuclear powered submarine one Russian Akula class & one indian built Ariohant carrying 8 nuclear tipped missles

Finally they have 250+ SU30MKI class fighters.

THESE WEAPONS SYSTEMS are considered key components of indian military power AND pakistyanis want to matvch these with their own systems of similar nature

THATS WHY YOU GET REPEAT SAME THREADS

 

[WaLeEdK2]

AC are used to project power over long distances. Pakistan has no desire to do that. The navy needs to be powerful enough to sufficiently defend Pakistan's waters. No need for an AC. It will just be money down the drain for no good reason.

 

[Centurion2016]

Aircraft carrierts are the most formifdable weapon system on seas.

A floating air base these machines can win etire wars by themselves

the flexibility range and payload of carriers and their fighter wings is absolute game changers.

Constant moving air base they can sink a compete rask force from the air or completely destroy a naval base.

JUST WATCH PERAL HARBOUR

then you will get the idea

 

[Hassan Guy]

AC are used to project power over long distances. Pakistan has no desire to do that. The navy needs to be powerful enough to sufficiently defend Pakistan's waters. No need for an AC. It will just be money down the drain for no good reason.

It is a hefty initial investment but Nuclear Maine Propulsion is much more efficient then diesel.

LOL
Maintaing an aircraft carrier is upto 1 billion per year and you are telling about having a couple and that too by Pakistan

Bases in China Bangladesh Sri Lanka

That is why Nuclear Marine Propulsion would be favoured

 

[Rupeshkumar]

In near future when we are more economically stable i think that we definately need a couple of these beauties . This indian fancy that in case of nuclear war they would finish pakistan, while pakistan can only destroy couple of cities . Imagine an aircraft carrier carring nukes in indian ocean surrounding them on all sides . Also if we make military or nuclear bases in china , srilanka , bangladesh we can surround india from all sides .... we can still do nut this strategy would really cause their fake balloon to leak .....they can slso be used as deterent ...

Khane ko Nahi daane, Amma chali bhunane. ROLF. grow up kid before taking About making Militry base in other countries...

 

[Arsalan]

....... and because we havent pissed off different nations in different parts of the world. neither have any ambitions to do so.

 

[salarsikander]

Because AC needs warships and destroyers and currently we have none

 

[MM_Haider]

There have been numerous discussion and answers on why Pakistan does not have an Aircraft Carrier, though most fail to capture the "bigger picture" as man known as Bilal Khan would say.

So why no Pakistani Aircraft Carrier?
One of the main reason’s listed are costs. Though this is true to an extent it isn’t the real reason. Thailand, a country with a lower defence budget then Pakistan operates an Aircraft Carrier which was used for the Harrier jump jet when it was in service.
View attachment 336588
Yes, Thailand has an Aircraft Carrier
Another Question is what type of Aircraft Carrier?
There are only a few options, Helicopter, VTOL, Ski Jump, Catapult
View attachment 336589
Helicopters: Many countries with Aircraft carriers use them for Helicopter only. Pakistan doesn’t really need that as the Naval Aviation Helicopters can already take off and Land from Pakistani Frigates and Auxiliary Vessels.

VTOL Aircraft: Well the Harrier is out of the question, it’s old and doesn’t really work all too well. The F-35B is a more likely contender. Though those are expensive and the US political constraints don’t make it a very attractive option……and it’s not that good either. Doesn’t really fit the countries defence needs.

Ski Jump: Many aircraft carriers have that ramp at the end to give aircraft the final little push for taking off.
View attachment 336590
Though Pakistan (as of now) doesn’t have any LCA’s or heavy Flankers with 2 huge engines that can generate enough thrust for take off from a Ski Jump aircraft Carrier.

Aircraft?

Pakistan’s only realistic option is a naval variant of the JF-17. Its the only aircraft in their arsenal that can be customized and upgraded at will. A naval JF-17 variant will need to be fitted to work Anti-Surface warfare roles. It will need bigger wings and foldable ones to take less deck space. The JF-17 needs a somewhat rather long runway for takeoff so a Ski Jump system wouldn’t work.

Catapult

Probably the best option that catapult literally boosts the aircraft off the deck.
View attachment 336591
In theory a Naval Carrier based variant of a JF-17 would perform best on this type of Carrier.

But who would supply them?

Pakistan does not have the infrastructure to build an Aircraft Carrier. They would need outside help. But who? Only 2 countries use the Catapult system. One is the US, though they don’t get along very much nowadays and they have very tight arms control for foreign countries especially those like Pakistan. The only other country is France, they use the catapult system too. They have in the past supplied Pakistan and it’s Navy with high profile arms. One other option is China, Pakistan frontline arms supplier. They too are developing a catapult system though are no where near in position for an export for a while.

Nuclear?

Well as a nuclear armed nation it is only fitting that their Aircraft Carrier would be Nuclear Powered as it would be very beneficial in the long run. The best aircraft carrier for Pakistan would be one similar to France’s Charles De Gaulle. Nuclear Powered and uses the Catapult launch and from a top supplier.
View attachment 336592
But why not?

It all comes back to the end. Pakistan does not really need an Aircraft Carrier. It serves no interest or purpose as of now and even for the near future. Investing in a Nuclear powered aircraft carrier would cost over 5 billion dollars. The Pakistan Navy spent that very same amount on 8 submarines. A much better choice.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...na-finalize-8-sub-construction-plan/73634218/

You can see my Answer originally written on Quora here
https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Pa...nd-is-building-a-couple-more/answer/Hassan-75

so the only really reason is money which make a the mare (in this case AC) go..

 

[DavidSling]

Aircraft carrier really? realistic...

 

[Rashid Mahmood]

Carriers are used for projection of Power around the world.
PN has no ambitions to do so, hence no such plans.