Does Pakistani Navy need any amiphibious transport?

[yasin_khan]

Do we need any amiphibious transport?
any hover crafts??????? :?

[corsair7772]

If your talking about Amphibous capability for UN operations NO , if your talking about invading the Kutch NO and if your talking about intervention NO. Its one thing for india to have a hard time landing a brigade at karachi or gwadar, its another for us to try the same with india.

However an air mobile brigade would really come in handy. :smokingc:

[tatra]

You might have use for something along the lines of what the canadians are planning: a combination of AOR (replenishment tanker) and auxiliairy transport. This will provide some sealift capability. But I don't see a need or use for a dedicated amphibious capability in the Pak context.

[corsair7772]

Neither do i. We should definitely go for air mobility.

[srirangan]

The PN is mainly defensive and anything amphibious is a waste of money. When you got such a long border with the country you'ld fight, why use the sea to send men?

[Pathfinder-X]

I agree with Sirr. If conflict erupts it will mainly be a battle on land where airforce and army plays the key factor. The role of PN is to keep the Indian navy away from it's coastal areas. And besides, building an amphibious transport fleet requires heavy escort or else it's sitting duck. PN barely have enough ships to resist Indian, not to mention sending out vessel to escort amphibious fleet to open another battlefront.
Suppose PN does have capability to combat Indian navy and have strong enough escort for amphibious operations. Where do you think they can land their troops?? India?? It might already be overpowered by Indian army before it can has time to establish a beachhead.

[Salman78]

Absolutely No need for expensive naval amphibious force. If for any reason we need some SSG's deep into enemy territory then the following scenario might work just as well.

Depending on the mission, a few "fuel tank" equipped Mi-17's or bigger & heavier Mi-26's (which we have recently purchased from Russia) will be able to easily penetrate deep into indian teritory, land the marines/soilders/SSG, have them execute the mission and come back or better yet send in C-130's to paradrop and have the helos pick them up and bring them back. On their way in, the choppers will be lighter, faster and hence able to carry more fuel.

When it comes to amphibious assults, Speed, Stealth & Effectiveness are the name of the game!

[tatra]

The PN is mainly defensive and anything amphibious is a waste of money. When you got such a long border with the country you'ld fight, why use the sea to send men?

1. Not anything amphibious is a waste of money, even for relatively small navies see use for it (e.g. Dutch or Australian )
2. Defensive posture says nothing about need for aphibious capability (e.g. for UN operations, but also e.g. to 'outflank' the opponent as was done by Allied forces in Italy in WWII or by US forces in Korea in early 1950s, or for purpose not of full landings but for raids)
3. It's another dimension to consider, another head-ache for the opposition, it adds a layer of complexity (e.g. creates the need to keep sufficient forces in reserve to defend coast line against raids or landings from the sea, forces that could otherwise be deployed on the land-front)

[Salman78]

If your talking about Amphibous capability for UN operations NO , if your talking about invading the Kutch NO and if your talking about intervention NO. Its one thing for india to have a hard time landing a brigade at karachi or gwadar, its another for us to try the same with india.

However an air mobile brigade would really come in handy. :smokingc:

Thats what i am talking about.. air mobility brigade.. :smokingc: