Also, we can take out enemy aircraft carriers with our diesel subs (assuming we get past their diesel subs).
I disagree that we can counter the emerging India with our diesel subs I would rather like some kind of a strategic class submarine carrying at least 4 ballistic missiles. If we are going deep down India diesel subs can't gurantee that degree of penetration plus the days are gone when subs go undetected too so better we get a sub with huge offensive measures & countermeasures simultaneously
what about this one, fantasies for dreams
it is a helifax sir hahahahahahahahhahahahah
Well Aircraft carriers are a must
a) Firstly they give you a movable , base from where you can go
deep in enemy waters , and launch air strikes
b) Why just focus on land based , air ports ?
Movable platforms are always better
c) The whole money debate is silly
Pakistan regularly gets 10-20 billion dollars from its trade
And 5-6 billion is given to it from US just invest in a Aircraft carrier
it lasts for 50 years.
There is never shortage of cash in Pakistan.
Aircraft carrier would allow the navy to visit east pakistan if needed for diplomatic collabortion work & Also coordinate security of Asian waters with china.
And also protect , Pakistan trade boats.
Pakistan already has 5-6 support ships it should just invest in a Air Craft carrier.
I would definitely sell off 20-30 JF Thunders , to Africa and generate a downpayment with russia an order a aircraft carrier
It takes 5-7 years for it to buid , so just make yearly payments
Even logically speaking
Pakistan has the first right to patrol all of the gulf seas - as it is on the gateway to the waters.
I find it silly that other ships can come and go with out paying a single dime to Pakistan -
Also Pakistani Navy should be rightly recieving some from of tax from ships that leave from gulf ports out using its waters by the gawadar port.
The whole notion of Pakistan is just a lame defensive duck is very passive minded view.
The world is governed by active, positive involvement.
The ability to have a movable base that can move south of India is alway promising thought , when tensions arise. You can also move in 10,000-20,000 soldiers on a carrier easily.
Strategic gains of Carier are enormous.
Having your ports open for other nations is suicide - its like having BEST ... locks in the world on your east and north and west frontiers and you leave your back door the south borders open for armies to port in Karachi and Gawadar and drop off 300 tanks and 40,000 soldiers
just in case
Thailand has aircraft carrier,a rather small one but even them can't maintain the vessel(it is still opeational but it isn't being used to it's potential)
the way i see it,rather than aircraft carrier,it's best to buy a LHD(landing helicopter dock).it can double as helicopter carrier and (STOVL) aircraft carrier,chiefly used in amphibious assault
china already build one.Type 071 i guess
I think it will be a waste of money in case of Pakistan. Think this way, what is the Pak's plan for next 50 years? How does it want to project power outside borders? As far I can see, Pak thinks Afghanistan as its strategic depth.
India already paid 3.5 billion for AC? Think what all you can do to cause more bang for the buck. A nuclear powered sub only costs 1 billion to buy. Dont you think money would be better spent buying 3 of nuclear subs and ensures Pak's MAD scenario to more aggressive one?
I hope your joking when you say that Pakistan has enough cash to buy a AC. If they had enough cash they would have bought the rafale or some other advanced jet rather than buy more f-7's or the jf-17.
The pakistani navy is sitting ducks in front of the India navy that plans to be a full blue water navy by 2015 with 2-3 operational AC'S. It takes a huge investment to buy and then maintain an AC. And you have to also maintain a full AC group with frigates, subs, destroyers to protect the AC which would be basically sitting ducks without them. If Pakistan tries to get an AC, they would have to divert funds from all their other procurement and just focus on the navy, which is something they cannot afford. Just because India can does not mean pakistan has to. Indian economy is 10 times bigger than the pakistani economy. Please dont talk like a kid when you say pakistan get this much money from trade, loans and grants lol You cannot use everything you have on buying one ship and then have it just sit there because you wont have enough money to run it lol. Please think before you write lol
Can somebody enlighten me that can this deep striking ability not achieved using air-refueling system? It is also a question that how deep one would like to strike because even the aircrafts flying from aircraft-careers would have certain ferry range and beyond which they would again depend on similar refueling while flying. So what is use of flying from the sea if they are nevertheless dependent on same refueling systems.
We dont have enemies living 5000 Kilometers away who we would need to care. Our Security Concerns start at the eastern border and end there.
Additionally at the time of war, every country would like to strike the enemy where it could hurt the most and in the case of Navy, AC would be the bull's eye. So even if we have one such AC, enemy would put most of its energies to neutralize it first then look for anything else. I think even in the case of war with India, India would be more worried to protect its AC and would only use it when it is out of other options and using it becomes absolutely necessary.
With induction of Ra'ad in Pakistan's Arsenal, our air fighters would not need to go and visit a location to attack it. We can release our love birds from the distance of 350KM or even more. So its not bad even if we dont have an AC. We can do without it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)