Japan unveils largest warship since World War II

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Seaward**

RossDas wrote:
Yet larger than the preceding Hyuga class. I'm certainly no expert, but if the reported near 250m length is correct then that would put this new ship as being longer than both the Invincible class escort carrier, and HMS Hermes, the latter still being operated by the Indian navy.

Of course it could just be nothing more than a large copter-carrier with extra space for ground force projection.

Yep, but still not big enough to handle non-STOVL air.

**notprop**

Alfndrate wrote:
notprop wrote:
Planes in 2018, active service 2020.

Like I say, hush hush we don't want Gerry finding out till we have them. God forbid the yanks have to save our Azzs again - assuming they turn up on time anyway.

*cough* Ahem...

I thought I had pre-empted enough to make that image unnecessary, clearly not.

How about for next time one that says;

USA - not late to the party since 1939 err I mean 1941!

**Alfndrate**

We got a first round bye due to our awesome victory in WWI

**Frazzled**

Exactly.
Plus, like the cavalry, we only arrive just in the nick of time. makes it more dramatic that way.

**korbenn**

JEB_Stuart wrote:

YOKOHAMA, Japan (AP) -- Japan 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 250 meters (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.

Though the ship - dubbed "Izumo" - has been in the works since 2009, its unveiling comes as Japan and China are locked in a dispute over several small islands located between southern Japan and Taiwan. For months, ships from both countries have been conducting patrols around the isles, called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyutai in China.

The tensions over the islands, along with China's heavy spending on defense and military modernization, have heightened calls in Japan for beefed-up naval and air forces. China recently began operating an aircraft carrier that it refurbished after purchasing from Russia, and is reportedly moving forward with the construction of another that is domestically built.

Japan, China and Taiwan all claim the islands.

Though technically a destroyer, some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically. That would be a departure for Japan, which has one of the best equipped and best trained naval forces in the Pacific but which has not sought to build aircraft carriers of its own because of constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role.

Japan says it has no plans to use the ship in that manner.

The Izumo does not have catapults for launching fighters, nor does it have a "ski-jump" ramp on its flight deck for fixed-wing aircraft launches.
I think there is a good chance Shinzo Abe continues to beef up Japan's military and pushes for an amendment to their constitution. I mean, how are they going to justify the unveiling of Jaegers and/or Gundams with their current pacifist requirements?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, this site has decent pictures that AP did not: http://news.sky.com/story/1125173/japan-unveils-largest-warship-since-wwii. An aircraft carrier it is not. Is it a sign that Japan could build one if they wanted to? Probably.

Simple the will call them "Happy Peacetime Fun Robots Surprise Super Force"

**BaronIveagh**

Frazzled wrote:

"Aircraft sink boats."
-That Nimitz guy

Unless it's a battleship. Then we're fethed atm.

**chaos0xomega**

EmilCrane wrote:
Anyone who thinks that boats are a thing of the past needs their heads examined. A nation with any intention to protect its interests or engage in any kind of overseas commerce needs a real navy. Without it you will always be beholden to other states. Its no coincidence that the rise of states as world powers is closely linked to their navy. Rome: wrested control of the seas from carthage and turned the Mediterranean into their lake, allowing grains shipments to flow uninterrupted to Rome. Britain: by degrees established Naval superiority over the much richer and more populous French (serious 18th century France had almost 5 times the population of britain) and eventually became a near global hegemon because of it. Today the US has command of the seas whcih allows them to defend their interests and enforce tbheir will where they please. While planes are missiles in this day and age are theoretically more powerful think about this. Planes and missiles are limited by range and fuel. For all their land based SSMs systems china has its purely a defensive force, they can defend their coast but not project that power. the US can bring that same amount of missiles to your backyard and keep them there for as long as they like. That's true power projection.

"For whosoever commands the sea commands the trade; whosoever commands the trade of the world commands the riches of the world, and consequently the world itself."

Sir Walter Raleigh

While this is true in the current reality, it isn't "absolutely" true, in that the technology exists to basically render traditional naval forces absolutely redundant (for the most part) in lieu of airpower, its just a question of applying doctrine and actual use of these technologies (rather than just the theoretical state they currently exist in) and finding the budget to make it happen.

**Frazzled**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

"Aircraft sink boats."
-That Nimitz guy

Unless it's a battleship. Then we're fethed atm.

(scratches head) are you saying aircraft can't sink battleships?

**dementedwombat**

chaos0xomega wrote:

While this is true in the current reality, it isn't "absolutely" true, in that the technology exists to basically render traditional naval forces absolutely redundant (for the most part) in lieu of airpower, its just a question of applying doctrine and actual use of these technologies (rather than just the theoretical state they currently exist in) and finding the budget to make it happen.

Darn it, there's an applicable 40k quote. I've spent about 15 minutes looking for it and found nothing. It goes like "Always seek the high ground. High orbit is the highest ground of all."

Darn non-militarization of space treaty...

**Grey Templar**

Alfndrate wrote:
We got a first round bye due to our awesome victory in WWI

No, England suffered a penalty because of the Munich Agreement and as such reinforcements were delayed by the GM

**Tibbsy**

Alfndrate wrote:
We got a first round bye due to our awesome victory in WWI

*Ahem*
You were late to the party then too

**Frazzled**

No, once again, right on time.

**Alfndrate**

The US is never late, nor is he early, he arrives precisely when he means to.

**Imperial Deceit**

"The American military is never late, nor is it early. It arrives precisely when it means to"

Edit: Alfndrate beat me to it.

**notprop**

It does have a propensity to leave the party a little early though (not French early but early).

But why say for a result when it's:

**Grey Templar**

Leave the party early?

Many people say we didn't leave early enough. You can't say we left early on this one.

We stuck around after WW2(still have bases everywhere)

If anything, Iraq and Afghanistan are uncharacteristic for us.

**Seaward**

Hey, we know how to do naval aviation at night, which is more than can be said for anyone else.

We win.

**notprop**

Grey Templar wrote:
Leave the party early?

Many people say we didn't leave early enough. You can't say we left early on this one.

We stuck around after WW2(still have bases everywhere)

If anything, Iraq and Afghanistan are uncharacteristic for us.

Really? It seems you have some form in this field.

**Grey Templar**

One war does not a pattern make.

**mrwhoop**

I thought Vietnam was considered a Police Action? Y'know as Congress didn't say it was a war. That's how it works right?

**notprop**

If you say so.

It just looks like a pattern is all.

Nah, I'm just pulling your leg. You Yanks are alright we might even let you come join in for Falklands 2: This time it's Continental!

Seaward can even night fly all he likes with the other wet-arses while all the day fighting real men are in the pub chatting up the liberated Chicas.

**Ketara**

The given length of the deck (250m) exceeds that of the Invincible class Aircraft Carriers being operated by the Royal Navy until quite recently. According to two curators I just spoke to today at the National Maritime Museum, there is also apparently one more of this Japanese class of 'Destroyer' currently under construction.

In an emergency situation, the fitting of a catapult and ramp for aircraft launching wouldn't be too difficult a task. And since I do not think the Japanese Navy is run by fools, I would be heavily surprised if it had not been designed with such adaptations in mind (and possibly even with the suitable components to do so already being built or in storage).

Two such warships brings a whole new level of Japanese power projection to the region, and far outclasses the Chinese Varyag. As a result, the Chinese are already kicking off about this sudden shift in power dynamic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-23598289

Media in China are warning against Japan's "remilitarisation" after the country unveiled its biggest warship since World War II on Tuesday.

The huge Japanese flat-top destroyer, Izumo, has a flight deck nearly 250m (820ft) long and can reportedly carry more than nine helicopters.

The Liberation Army Daily and many Chinese military experts are calling the new-generation 22DDH helicopter carrier a "quasi-aircraft carrier" in disguise.

They believe that it could be refitted to support fighter jets if Japan's post-war pacifist constitution is changed in the future.

The vessel is also raising eyebrows in China Daily since it is the "same name as the flagship of the Japanese fleet that invaded China in the 1930s".

"This is yet another 'edge ball' played by the Japanese government... China can only respond to 'Izumo', this light aircraft carrier dressed as an 'escort vessel', by developing a real aircraft carrier," stresses the Global Times.

It would be nonsensical to suggest that the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support. Therefore the question to consider now would be what this indicates as to America and Japan's future stance over combating China.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Ketara wrote:

It would be nonsensical to suggest that the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support.

I dare say Japanese engineers are capable enough to build their own aircraft carriers without US support, and I dare say it's not nonsensical either. In fact, I'm amazed that such a notion could even be entertained. "High tech" and "Japan" have been connected for quite some time, after all.

**Seaward**

Ketara wrote:
In an emergency situation, the fitting of a catapult and ramp for aircraft launching wouldn't be too difficult a task. And since I do not think the Japanese Navy is run by fools, I would be heavily surprised if it had not been designed with such adaptations in mind (and possibly even with the suitable components to do so already being built or in storage).

Okay.

Let's say you do install cats.

How do you recover launched aircraft on that deck?

I am, by the way, preeeeeetty personally familiar with flying planes off boats.

**whembly**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Ketara wrote:

It would be nonsensical to suggest that the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support.

I dare say Japanese engineers are capable enough to build their own aircraft carriers without US support, and I dare say it's not nonsensical either. In fact, I'm amazed that such a notion could even be entertained. "High tech" and "Japan" have been connected for quite some time, after all.

They could... but, they don't have the "growing pains" that the US had to endure...

But, if I was a betting man, I wouldn't bet against Japan (or UK).

**notprop**

By they wouldn't be able to fund, research, build and test such technology with out losing their pacifist status. Of course if the US enabled the acquisition of such technology, then set it aside for future installation then that might be differant kettle of fish.

Then the Japs just need to change their status at some future point and install it. That said I read that it would take two years for the QE class carriers to be retro fitted with catapults. They have also been built with that possibility.

**LordofHats**

How do other people here feel about a remilitarized Japan? It's been nearly 70 years in WWII. Gotta say I think enough time has passed XD.

**purplefood**

Do they have to?

**whembly**

purplefood wrote:
Do they have to?

To keep the Chinese and Russian Pacific expansion in check...yeah, they'd help.

**LordofHats**

Does anyone have to? They're an independent state. It strikes me as odd to beholden them (however loosely we do these days) to the outcome of a War newly 3 quarters of a century ago.