It's billed as a helo carrier, but there's little doubt in my mind that it could easily be converted into a fixed-wing carrier if needed.
QuoteJapan on Tuesday unveiled its biggest warship since World War II, a huge flat-top destroyer that has raised eyebrows in China and elsewhere because it bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier.
The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 820 feet long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters. Japanese officials say it will be used in national defense -- particularly in anti-submarine warfare and border-area surveillance missions -- and to bolster the nation's ability to transport personnel and supplies in response to large-scale natural disasters, like the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/06/japan-unveils-new-carrier-like-warship-largest-in-its-navy-since-world-war-ii/?test=latestnews#ixzz2bBunavTE
are they actually banned from having carriers, or is it a self imposed ban?
Hard to tell how big that ship is from the photo but I'm kind of glad Japan is launching this kind of ship.
820 feet according to the article.
Good for them.
As the Japanese navy grows, perhaps you Americans can save some $$ by cutting the massive size of your Pacific fleet!
Quote from: undercovergeek on August 06, 2013, 07:51:37 AM
are they actually banned from having carriers, or is it a self imposed ban?
I would say "it depends".
The article states:
Quote...because of constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role.
...but that doesn't necessarily prevent Japan from building carriers.
Got ninja'd by Longblade in the other thread, but here is a link that has a couple more pics, including an overhead shot.
http://news.sky.com/story/1125173/japan-unveils-largest-warship-since-wwii
It's a DDH Hyuga Class and it's actually not the first to be launched.
I believe the first (in a series of six) was launched in 2009
Check it out:
The Izumo is the lead ship of a new class entirely and quite a bit larger than the Hyugas.
I wonder how the Chinese feel about this.
They'll probably be less happy if the Japanese decide to embark F-35s on them.
Quote from: TheCommandTent on August 06, 2013, 10:01:30 AM
I wonder how the Chinese feel about this.
I read an interesting report on Stratfor about China the other day.
The Chinese economic expansion is about to come to an end. The Chinese can mitigate the timing, but not the contraction. Since their greatest worry is domestic stability, they are going to have their hands full over the next couple of decades just trying not to have too many riots in the streets. Their days of adventurism on the high seas are likely to come to an end.
Tora! Tora! Tora! ;)
Quote from: LongBlade on August 06, 2013, 08:27:24 AM
820 feet according to the article.
That actually slightly longer than the IJN's Kaga and 35 feet shorter than the Akagi. 55 feet shorter than the Essex class carriers.
Damn big destroyer if you ask me.
Quote from: Staggerwing on August 06, 2013, 07:12:35 PM
Quote from: LongBlade on August 06, 2013, 08:27:24 AM
820 feet according to the article.
That actually slightly longer than the IJN's Kaga and 35 feet shorter than the Akagi. 55 feet shorter than the Essex class carriers.
Damn big destroyer if you ask me.
I have no doubt that they would be able to convert that to fixed wings if needed.
Dear China,
Suck it.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqZL0s2W.png&hash=522605fa2fd72cdc4e412e1e9ee5c63cd9daee57) (http://i.imgur.com/qZL0s2W.png)
Sometimes I wonder if these carriers, both Japanese and the British, are really meant to complement the US carrier force instead of being solely a instrument of national policy. Having one or two of these carriers gives the country some flexibility but they can't keep them at sea continuously and having just one or two is vulnerable whereas adding them to a US task force increases their value exponentially.
to be fair these carriers dont have to have the operational radius that an American carrier has to have. except for flag showing missions these ships wont ever be more then 2000 miles from home. as ASW platforms these things are going to be monsters.
I don't know much about the Chinese Navy. Are they mostly sub-based? Because in that case, ouch.
they have a decent D/E sub component for their technology base. Im also going to make a guess and say that the 18 embarked helo number is somewhat false. Im sure these can carry a lot more.
So why do the Japanese need a carrier? Just how far away are they planning to project force?
They just need 4 more of these bad boys and the Imperial Navy's glory will be restored. ;D
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.combinedfleet.com%2Fsoryu01.jpg&hash=bded6cca8d7ee5e28b942304fff1810f30a236ff)
Quote from: Centurion40 on August 07, 2013, 07:37:44 AM
So why do the Japanese need a carrier? Just how far away are they planning to project force?
what's the range to Macau? ;)
Quote from: Centurion40 on August 07, 2013, 07:37:44 AM
So why do the Japanese need a carrier? Just how far away are they planning to project force?
To the Senkaku Islands at least.
Carriers are old school. I think the just built an arm.
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-4FW_--k5cdM/TWoOEwsECSI/AAAAAAAABL8/aAiICSwDaQ0/s640/super+dimensional+fortress+macross+hd.jpg)
The same thought went through my mind SDR.
Quote from: mirth on August 07, 2013, 07:55:11 AM
Quote from: Centurion40 on August 07, 2013, 07:37:44 AM
So why do the Japanese need a carrier? Just how far away are they planning to project force?
To the Senkaku Islands at least.
Those islands are well within the range of the Mitsubishi F-2s and F-15s that are or could be deployed to the Naha Air Base.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.defensetech.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2FATD-X1.jpg&hash=5ee3dd16152749639b329a6bfe72b1232f937c9d)
Quote from: Centurion40 on August 07, 2013, 10:48:04 AM
Quote from: mirth on August 07, 2013, 07:55:11 AM
Quote from: Centurion40 on August 07, 2013, 07:37:44 AM
So why do the Japanese need a carrier? Just how far away are they planning to project force?
To the Senkaku Islands at least.
Those islands are well within the range of the Mitsubishi F-2s and F-15s that are or could be deployed to the Naha Air Base.
Maybe they're going to take Attu and Kiska again.
^ There's a documentary on Netflix about the re-taking of those two islands from the Japanese. Can't recall what it's called, maybe something like "Red, White, Black, and Blue." Yeah, they can have those islands - there's not much there but scrub grass.
Even Midway, because why not? It might be a beautiful vista from which to pen haiku before committing seppuku. Or dodging seagull crap.
Quote from: LongBlade on August 06, 2013, 10:38:52 AM
I read an interesting report on Stratfor about China the other day.
The Chinese economic expansion is about to come to an end. The Chinese can mitigate the timing, but not the contraction. Since their greatest worry is domestic stability, they are going to have their hands full over the next couple of decades just trying not to have too many riots in the streets. Their days of adventurism on the high seas are likely to come to an end.
China has excess male population, the consequence of the one child per family policy and female infanticide. Even if they change this policy, this leaves them with a sizable manpower reserve in case of war.
If the economy crashes, the Chinese leadership might be inclined to start a foreign war just to focus attention of the population away from domestic concerns. Currently there are several possible conflicts
- Border dispute with India
- Ownership of the South China sea islands with Japan
- Question over the fate of Taiwan
- PLA troop buildup along the North Korean border
- Renew historical rivalries with Russia or Vietnam
^^ don't forget foreign interventionism in Africa. There're Chinese mining and construction companies all over sub-Saharan Africa right now. Spark an 'incident' into which the Chinese would "feel the need" to "protect their citizens" and you've got a sizeable force out there. Supporting them is a whole different animal, because they can't project log support that far. But that might not stop them from trying.
Log support sounds like one of Windys meds.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on August 07, 2013, 12:24:45 PM
Log support sounds like one of Windys meds.
or what your home construction needs
Quote from: bayonetbrant on August 07, 2013, 12:21:52 PM
^^ don't forget foreign interventionism in Africa. There're Chinese mining and construction companies all over sub-Saharan Africa right now. Spark an 'incident' into which the Chinese would "feel the need" to "protect their citizens" and you've got a sizeable force out there. Supporting them is a whole different animal, because they can't project log support that far. But that might not stop them from trying.
Yeah. A fun TV show to get a peek into this is Jungle Gold. These two guys are in debt up to their eyeballs due to the real estate collapse. So they get the bright idea to go to Africa to mine for Gold.
Only problem is the Chinese have jumped their claim. So the show goes on with these guys struggling to find partners they can trust to make an honest buck. All the while the Chinese are lurking in the background to try to jump their claim again.
It's pretty clear the Chinese mining companies need some serious law and order to check their naked power grabs. It's equally clear that there is no one able to do so. All it would take is a couple of companies of mercenaries, but nobody has the cash to cough up that kind of support.
While I like the guys and applaud their entrepreneurialism, I do not see that show ending well. They are honest men outnumbered and outgunned in bumfcuk Africa. Not the battle I'd pick.
Quote from: LongBlade on August 07, 2013, 01:27:56 PMbut nobody has the cash to cough up that kind of support.
offer them a cut of the claim
or hire JH as your lawyer.
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/however-its-described-japans-izumo-will-be-its-naval-centrepiece/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=however-its-described-japans-izumo-will-be-its-naval-centrepiece
An Australina view on the Izumo and what she can do.
Quote from: besilarius on August 23, 2013, 07:39:21 PM
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/however-its-described-japans-izumo-will-be-its-naval-centrepiece/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=however-its-described-japans-izumo-will-be-its-naval-centrepiece
An Australina view on the Izumo and what she can do.
Thanks. Seems like a sound analysis.