The REAL Reason Why Pakistan Does not have an Aircraft Carrier

[Hassan Guy]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Hassan Guy]

Though an Aircraft Carrier would be a very effective tool in the Pakistani Navy's arsenal, 8 next gen AIP Submarines are a much better choice.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

Simply an aircraft carrier is used for projecting air power at sea, there is no need for this as a potential conflict would be near by, and most likely far inland.

Also, you'd have to assign many ships/submarines to protect an aircraft carrier, and current Naval resources are stretched too much to be able to make that kind of commitment. We have a much smaller coastline to defend, so more conventional ships are suitable for that job, and land based aircraft can support any operations carried out in the area.

I think nowadays, unless you're fighting a war across the planet (like the US or Russia), aircraft carriers are more of a prestige thing than a practical one, and if war were to break out they would become the primary target, and would be sunk very fast.

 

[Super Falcon]

Submarines are most destructive weapon in the world leave alone F 22 raptor and Nimitz class carrier

If you have potent submarine force along with cruise and ballistic missile submarine with good attack submarine force only you need to make them silent invisible everything around its arc going to be destroy

Silence is the key in naval warfare Pakistan should consider 12 SSK 2 SSBN 2 SSCN submarine I tell you no Indian ship ever cross to our waters forget blocking Pakistan and 3 Aircraft carrier will also will not go to our waters

Single typhoon class submarine in cold war stopped USA policy makers to stay out of dirty war as we know usa always hungry for war but typhoon sub kept them at bay

 

[Abba_Dabba_Jabba]

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.

 

[killerx]

for now, PN does not require and an aircraft carrier, our enemy is so close us we can strike with frigates submarines they are enough to keep Indian navy at bay.

 

[The Eagle]

Start to have the force built from ground to highest like we are having a good number of FAC boats like Azmat as 3rd has been launched out of 4 plnned, a bigger naval tanker recently launched, having 8 new AIP subs with the help of China and currently started to upgrade the 90-B with the help of Turkey and we are in talks or we can say there is interest for Milgem-G type bigger Turkish ships (Corvettes and Frigates).

That these all are must at least to provide a strong foundation then it comes to the AirCraft Carrier which is currently a rich guys toy, a power projector and for long shots.

Our adversary is next door to us and is not far as well as by having these advanced Subs and ships, it is going to be a force to reckon with and after all, plans are made which suits the doctrine.

We need to build-up and raise a strong Navy but from lo to high and ACC is the last shot so there is no urgency to have it but need to focus on latest ships and weaponry. ACC itself becomes a liability during war that need a separate protection fleet consists attack ships and Subs.

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

As stated above, an aircraft carrier is a power projection tool meant to support air operations in distant areas. Pakistan's primary naval concern right now is securing the coastline and littoral waters from enemy incursion (anti-access/area denial or A2/AD for short). A2/AD necessitates a focus on assets such as submarines and FACs to make littoral waters untenable for an intruding entity.

The next step beyond that, especially if you have a merchant navy running trade, is to secure your sea-lines-of-communications (SLOC) from enemy interdiction. For that, you definitely do need surface warships with credible multi-mission (including AAW) capabilities. In that sense, one may argue for aircraft carriers, so as to have a sea-based aviation unit out to cover the fleet. On the other hand, what is the benefit of that over having solid AAW systems on the ships?

 

[T-123456]

As stated above, an aircraft carrier is a power projection tool meant to support air operations in distant areas. Pakistan's primary naval concern right now is securing the coastline and littoral waters from enemy incursion (anti-access/area denial or A2/AD for short). A2/AD necessitates a focus on assets such as submarines and FACs to make littoral waters untenable for an intruding entity.

The next step beyond that, especially if you have a merchant navy running trade, is to secure your sea-lines-of-communications (SLOC) from enemy interdiction. For that, you definitely do need surface warships with credible multi-mission (including AAW) capabilities. In that sense, one may argue for aircraft carriers, so as to have a sea-based aviation unit out to cover the fleet. On the other hand, what is the benefit of that over having solid AAW systems on the ships?

Does your current fleet have AAW capability?

 

[f1000n]

Cause you're not that rich

 

[AUz]

Pakistan should rather focus on ultra silent AIP and nuclear submarines armed with nuclear cruise missiles withh 1500km range and even ballistic missiles with 2000km range. If Pakistan can establish an effective fleet of such submarines by 2030-40--we'll be all good to go.

Aircraft carriers aren't useful for us since we don't need to cross oceans to meet our enemy.

Cause you're not that rich

Wrong. It's not about being rich, but rather about doctrine.

Our coastline is barely 1000km and our enemy india is right next door. Why would we need an ACC?

For capability of long-range strike, we should build a force of submarines. ACCs are for nations who plan to fight a long, drain out war in far off lands.

We got no such plans

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

Does your current fleet have AAW capability?

Nothing beyond 15-20km.

 

[T-123456]

Nothing beyond 15-20km.

So why not buy some from China, instead of four subs you could get some AAW frigates?

 

[Bilal Khan (Quwa)]

So why not buy some from China, instead of four subs you could get some AAW frigates?

I'm not sure why the PN went for 8 submarines, but it seems they've opted to double down hard on A2/AD more so than wartime SLOC protection.

 

[X-2.]

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

Neither required nor Pakistan has enough money to waste on such carriers

I'm not sure why the PN went for 8 submarines, but it seems they've opted to double down hard on A2/AD more so than wartime SLOC protection.

Sir i think spending alot on carrier isn't better to have 8 diesel subs as Pakistan isn't required v carrier as subs