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.

No as in, they haven't needed more than a self-defense force for so long it'd be nice if they didn't need a fully fledged military.

 Frazzled wrote:

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

Currently... No. Which I know sounds bizarre are feth, but atm of anti-ship missiles currently in use, only the Russian Granit has sufficient penetrating power, and it's too large to be carried by aircraft. Or most submarines. In theory you could mission kill one via cumulative effects of ten to fifty hits with conventional ASW, or a lucky shot kill with, say, one of those new hyper penetration MOABs that the US is working on. To pull off either of these though would require the sacrifice of a VERY large number of aircraft, assuming the battleship has modern CIWS.

 purplefood wrote:
No as in, they haven't needed more than a self-defense force for so long it'd be nice if they didn't need a fully fledged military.

It be nice if no one needed one, but I guess my idea here is that that should be Japan's decision at this point (whether or not to build their own military force anew and to what extent they do so). Of course, I think at this stage its becoming increasingly obvious Japan has political traction with the idea.

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.

Try not immediately jumping to conclusions.

Firstly, Japan and America have had a pretty intertwined relationship for quite some time militarily (to understate). If the Japanese have just wheeled out a 250m long ship, it will not be a surprise in Washington. If the Japanese are building destroyer/carriers right now, it will be with the political blessing of the US. Were that not the case, and Washington opposed to the concept, there would have been considerably more argy bargy in the public eye before now over the issue.

Secondly, carrier technology and construction is a highly refined and difficult art. If it were particularly easy, the Chinese wouldn't gone to all the effort of dragging the Varyag down and round for analysis (and IIRC, they bought, studied, and broke up a British carrier on top of that). It takes time to learn how to build engines of the correct size and type, design aircraft to work off of them, train the pilots in appropriate aircraft, and so on.

Now you'll note I specified that 'the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support'. Focus on my phrasing, to be precise, 'these pseudo destroyers'.

I have no doubt that the Japanese could develop and begin constructing Carriers completely independently if they so wished. But if they did, they would not look like this, or be constructed along these lines. The Japanese would need to make at least one or two regular carriers first to develop and test the appropriate technologies and equipment. The fact that these two have been built in this way indicates clear co-operation with nations with carrier construction knowledge. Which would be the US.

To build on this point and answer Seaward as well, these ships are not designed to be used as carriers without modification. And even then, only VTOL aircraft such as the Harrier (or as has supposedly been quoted from Japanese sources, the F35B) would be capable of doing so in a functional sense. None the aircraft currently in use in the Japanese Air Self Defence Force would be able to do so at more than a pinch, even with a catapult and ramp installed to help things along.

That means that if these things were built to be capable of being modified overnight(relatively speaking) with pre-built components to function as carriers(as would be the logical course of design) , you would need to be able to acquire usable aircraft, and have had access to aircraft of that type previously to train your pilots. Which again points to the US. I have little doubt that if war suddenly breaks out with China, America will quite happily pass over some of those lovely little AV-8B Harrier II's they have lying around.


TL;DR, these things are only good for use as carriers if the Japanese have American design and resources behind them. Otherwise they're nothing more than expensive helicopter launch pads.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

Currently... No. Which I know sounds bizarre are feth, but atm of anti-ship missiles currently in use, only the Russian Granit has sufficient penetrating power, and it's too large to be carried by aircraft. Or most submarines. In theory you could mission kill one via cumulative effects of ten to fifty hits with conventional ASW, or a lucky shot kill with, say, one of those new hyper penetration MOABs that the US is working on. To pull off either of these though would require the sacrifice of a VERY large number of aircraft, assuming the battleship has modern CIWS.

(looks around) I guess its time to take the "Bama, Missouri, and Texas out of mothballs then. While we're at it, lets put some rail guns on those puppies!

 Frazzled wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

Currently... No. Which I know sounds bizarre are feth, but atm of anti-ship missiles currently in use, only the Russian Granit has sufficient penetrating power, and it's too large to be carried by aircraft. Or most submarines. In theory you could mission kill one via cumulative effects of ten to fifty hits with conventional ASW, or a lucky shot kill with, say, one of those new hyper penetration MOABs that the US is working on. To pull off either of these though would require the sacrifice of a VERY large number of aircraft, assuming the battleship has modern CIWS.

(looks around) I guess its time to take the "Bama, Missouri, and Texas out of mothballs then. While we're at it, lets put some rail guns on those puppies!

The DoD is actually debating that now... they originally had all these plans for these new advance LCS.

Since the sequestor and the budget realities... you may not be far from the truth as it would be easier to retrofit the old battleships. (which is an interesting exercise... I thought it'd be way more expensive to retrofit than to build from scratch).

Railguns would certainly complicate naval warfare...
Or at least change it.

You mean retrofit ...again.

It is the year 2057. The Aliens have come, and they are not peaceful. Humanity's last hope is...the Texas!

 Ketara wrote:
Try not immediately jumping to conclusions.

Firstly, Japan and America have had a pretty intertwined relationship for quite some time militarily (to understate). If the Japanese have just wheeled out a 250m long ship, it will not be a surprise in Washington. If the Japanese are building destroyer/carriers right now, it will be with the political blessing of the US. Were that not the case, and Washington opposed to the concept, there would have been considerably more argy bargy in the public eye before now over the issue.

Secondly, carrier technology and construction is a highly refined and difficult art. If it were particularly easy, the Chinese wouldn't gone to all the effort of dragging the Varyag down and round for analysis (and IIRC, they bought, studied, and broke up a British carrier on top of that). It takes time to learn how to build engines of the correct size and type, design aircraft to work off of them, train the pilots in appropriate aircraft, and so on.

Now you'll note I specified that 'the Japanese would have had the clout, technology, and will to build two of these pseudo-destroyers without American approval/support'. Focus on my phrasing, to be precise, 'these pseudo destroyers'.

I have no doubt that the Japanese could develop and begin constructing Carriers completely independently if they so wished. But if they did, they would not look like this, or be constructed along these lines. The Japanese would need to make at least one or two regular carriers first to develop and test the appropriate technologies and equipment. The fact that these two have been built in this way indicates clear co-operation with nations with carrier construction knowledge. Which would be the US.

To build on this point and answer Seaward as well, these ships are not designed to be used as carriers without modification. And even then, only VTOL aircraft such as the Harrier (or as has supposedly been quoted from Japanese sources, the F35B) would be capable of doing so in a functional sense. None the aircraft currently in use in the Japanese Air Self Defence Force would be able to do so at more than a pinch, even with a catapult and ramp installed to help things along.

That means that if these things were built to be capable of being modified overnight(relatively speaking) with pre-built components to function as carriers(as would be the logical course of design) , you would need to be able to acquire usable aircraft, and have had access to aircraft of that type previously to train your pilots. Which again points to the US. I have little doubt that if war suddenly breaks out with China, America will quite happily pass over some of those lovely little AV-8B Harrier II's they have lying around.


TL;DR, these things are only good for use as carriers if the Japanese have American design and resources behind them. Otherwise they're nothing more than expensive helicopter launch pads.

If you're running Harriers or F-35Bs, you don't need cats or ramps, though. Only need those if you're trying to shoot conventional aircraft. And if you're trying to shoot conventional aircraft, you need a different deck configuration than they currently have for recovery.

I don't see one of these things being retrofitted into a conventional aircraft-capable carrier. I don't think it's possible.

 Seaward wrote:

If you're running Harriers or F-35Bs, you don't need cats or ramps, though. Only need those if you're trying to shoot conventional aircraft. And if you're trying to shoot conventional aircraft, you need a different deck configuration than they currently have for recovery.

I don't see one of these things being retrofitted into a conventional aircraft-capable carrier. I don't think it's possible.

Personally, I imagine that since Japan has signed onto the F-35 project, that's what will be being used.

But as someone who currently studies ship design on something of a professional level, I've long since learnt not to underestimate what a cunning architect can do. It's perfectly theoretically possible they've designed some kind of extension hook up to increase the deck length by another 50 metres whilst adding a ramp/landing arrestor wires/catapult. It would make it a little unstable, but like I said, it never pays to underestimate a naval architect.

 whembly wrote:

The DoD is actually debating that now... they originally had all these plans for these new advance LCS.

Since the sequestor and the budget realities... you may not be far from the truth as it would be easier to retrofit the old battleships. (which is an interesting exercise... I thought it'd be way more expensive to retrofit than to build from scratch).

Last estimate was about 200m each to have their facilities brought in line with the current standard plus another 4m to have Iowa's #2 turret repaired. Total cost to build a battleship from the ground up is approx 8 billion dollars, but that's with all the bells and whistles including multiple VLS, six 127mm oto's, 15 phalanx systems, 5 SEARAM launchers... it's take a pilot with big balls to just crest the horizon with that around.

On the up side, the Marines would have to wade through the bits of enemy just to reach the beach.

A fully equipped modern built battleship (Assuming railguns) would be downright terrifying...

purplefood wrote:No as in, they haven't needed more than a self-defense force for so long it'd be nice if they didn't need a fully fledged military.

The only reason they haven't had a full military is because we forced that into their current constitution. Not to mention the US has a treaty that pledges to defend Japan, so they really haven't had a need because of their strategic importance during the Cold War. In the modern world though, the Cold War is over, and global politics is not nearly as static. Politics, and especially politicians, are fickle, and if they are serious about defending the Senkaku Islands, I don't think the Japanese should assume the US is going to be willing defend those as well.

That's an interesting idea about reviving the battleship. There's a school of military thought that basically says "look at the technology currently in use. if offense > defense, build a lot of small platforms for redundancy. If defense > offense build a few large platforms with lots of features". We might be in a defense greater environment, at least for the near future.

That said, they still die to torpedoes...everything that floats dies to torpedoes

Some points to consider.

While it is possible for helicopters to carry long range anti-shipping missiles, their capability to participate in a surface naval battle, especially one involving contested air space, is quite limited. A ship of this size and configuration, equipped with helicopters, is much better as the core of an anti-submaine warfare task force o operating in support of amphibious warfare operation. Japan being a group of islands is particularly vulnerable to submarine warfare and in the event of a conventional war, may well need to perform amphibious landings in order to reclaim territory taken by enemy forces.

Japan has indeed put in an order for F-35s, however these are F-35As, the conventional take off and landing variant which is not suitable for use from a full sized aircraft carrier, let alone something the size of this, ramp or no ramp. So there is no suitable fixed wing aircraft available for operating from this ship. As a result it will need to rely on shore based aircraft to provide its air cover. This limits the effective combat range of this vessel and its air group to the same range as JASDF.

Were the suitable aircraft available, the small size of the air group compared to the potential adversaries this carrier will face (China has 1300+ Fighter and Strike aircraft in it's Air Force plus a further 200+ Fighter and Strike Aircraft in it's Navy, North Korea has 500+ Fighter and Strike aircraft, South Korea has 450+ Fighter and Strike Aircraft) means that to operate offensively there will need to a lot more than planned 2 of these ships of the class.

So based on the above, It's pretty obvious that this craft does not, nor will it every realistically have a power projection capability.

However, that does not mean that this ship doesn't serve the desires of expansionists within Japan. Japan has not build an aircraft carrier in 70 years. If they intend to build one in the future their ship builders and naval personnel will need experience in designing, building and operating large aircraft handling ships.

So, don't be worried about this ship, it actually is better suited to the defense of Japan than to any sort of expansion. It's the ships that come after this one that you have to worry about.

 Frazzled wrote:


"Aircraft sink boats."
-That Nimitz guy

"Aircraft need a place to land."
-Also That Nimitz guy

When you're trying to fight a war halfway across the world its rather difficult to find such a place, and keep it supplied. Air power doesn't stick around, and besides, how do you keep planes and group troops supplied over oceans?

Also whoever said that battleships might be the wave of the future is touching on something that has been a major annoyance, namely that the USN decommissioned the Iowas. Anybody pay attention to the Norway campaign in WW2? Just me? Ok.

In 1940 the british were operating the HMS glorious, one of their aircraft carriers, off the coast of Norway. The weather got nasty and she had to recall her planes. At that point she was set upon by the Scharnhorst and Gneiscenau, a pair of german battlecruisers and destroyed. Her destroyer escort could do absolutely nothing to stop it either.

Carriers can't launch in rough seas, battleships can still fight in rough seas. Most modern anti-ship missiles would just ping off an Iowa and most modern surface vessels would be in deep trouble if attempting to stop an Iowa. Yet the US navy got rid of them? For stealth destroyers or something else equally as ridiculous?

*insert spaceship Yamato reference here*

 Somedude593 wrote:
*insert spaceship Yamato reference here*

As I recall, that one self-destructed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


"Aircraft sink boats."
-That Nimitz guy

"Aircraft need a place to land."
-Also That Nimitz guy

When you're trying to fight a war halfway across the world its rather difficult to find such a place, and keep it supplied. Air power doesn't stick around, and besides, how do you keep planes and group troops supplied over oceans?

Also whoever said that battleships might be the wave of the future is touching on something that has been a major annoyance, namely that the USN decommissioned the Iowas. Anybody pay attention to the Norway campaign in WW2? Just me? Ok.

In 1940 the british were operating the HMS glorious, one of their aircraft carriers, off the coast of Norway. The weather got nasty and she had to recall her planes. At that point she was set upon by the Scharnhorst and Gneiscenau, a pair of german battlecruisers and destroyed. Her destroyer escort could do absolutely nothing to stop it either.

Carriers can't launch in rough seas, battleships can still fight in rough seas. Most modern anti-ship missiles would just ping off an Iowa and most modern surface vessels would be in deep trouble if attempting to stop an Iowa. Yet the US navy got rid of them? For stealth destroyers or something else equally as ridiculous?

Well, that may slightly change in the next 20 years once we get all the kinks worked out with Railguns.

Then you can have Carriers that also sport a dozen or so Railguns, essentially making it both a battleship and a carrier simultaneously.

 Lint wrote:
Er, I thought that flying the Rising Sun Flag was a no-no? Or was that never so?

Rising Sun flag was never the Japanese national flag, the 'meatball' was always the national flag.

The Rising Sun was/is Japan's naval ensign - the flag of the Imperial Navy and now the Maritime Self Defense Force.

This has been your pedantic trivia of the day.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Well, that may slightly change in the next 20 years once we get all the kinks worked out with Railguns.

Then you can have Carriers that also sport a dozen or so Railguns, essentially making it both a battleship and a carrier simultaneously.

Maybe, but I tend to deal in the here and now, 20 years is a long time

It's a shame that there's no 16" guns on the waves any more, as they're practically a terror weapon when it comes to supporting landings. I've been reading about how much the Germans hated HMS Rodney during D-Day and onwards - sitting off the coast lobbing salvos of sixteen inch shells 18 miles inland without fear of response. Even a miss could scatter 45 tonne tanks like toys, or bury soldiers alive. Assisted by intel from Bletchley Park and spotter planes, she stopped a lot of German armour from getting into the action and demoralised their troops.


With regards to Japan I think a decision needs to be made soon about their military future - assuming it hasn't already been decided - as China moves steadily forward with their indigenous carrier development.

If railguns become shipmounted (Which they probably will) they may return battleships to the fore of many naval fleets...
With modern targeting and anti-air defences it'll be a red day when a battleship is destroyed...

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


"Aircraft sink boats."
-That Nimitz guy

"Aircraft need a place to land."
-Also That Nimitz guy

When you're trying to fight a war halfway across the world its rather difficult to find such a place, and keep it supplied. Air power doesn't stick around, and besides, how do you keep planes and group troops supplied over oceans?

Also whoever said that battleships might be the wave of the future is touching on something that has been a major annoyance, namely that the USN decommissioned the Iowas. Anybody pay attention to the Norway campaign in WW2? Just me? Ok.

In 1940 the british were operating the HMS glorious, one of their aircraft carriers, off the coast of Norway. The weather got nasty and she had to recall her planes. At that point she was set upon by the Scharnhorst and Gneiscenau, a pair of german battlecruisers and destroyed. Her destroyer escort could do absolutely nothing to stop it either.

Carriers can't launch in rough seas, battleships can still fight in rough seas. Most modern anti-ship missiles would just ping off an Iowa and most modern surface vessels would be in deep trouble if attempting to stop an Iowa. Yet the US navy got rid of them? For stealth destroyers or something else equally as ridiculous?

Japan is the place halfway around the world. They don't need carriers. They are a carrier.
1940 is not 2013. As noted some forces are all weather forces. Plus other ships will just launch a spray of cruise missiles at their target.

 purplefood wrote:
If railguns become shipmounted (Which they probably will) they may return battleships to the fore of many naval fleets...
With modern targeting and anti-air defences it'll be a red day when a battleship is destroyed...

It may depend upon the tonnage requirements for putting the railgun to sea. Since the essential purpose of a battleship is to field big guns and withstand attack from big guns, if no armour is sufficient proof against railgun fire then a greater number of smaller ships might be the preferred option.
The rule of cool, however, demands big ships with big guns!

HMS Glorious was not caught without air support due to bad weather.

http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm

 Kilkrazy wrote:
HMS Glorious was not caught without air support due to bad weather.

http://www.warship.org/no11994.htm

I stand corrected then, I was giving the brits too much credit

Jefffar wrote:
Some points to consider.
Japan has indeed put in an order for F-35s, however these are F-35As, the conventional take off and landing variant which is not suitable for use from a full sized aircraft carrier, let alone something the size of this, ramp or no ramp. So there is no suitable fixed wing aircraft available for operating from this ship. As a result it will need to rely on shore based aircraft to provide its air cover. This limits the effective combat range of this vessel and its air group to the same range as JASDF.

I believe Great Britain changed their mind over which F-35 variant they were intending on building twice fairly recently. It would be a simple matter for Japan to change its mind in the next few months. One must also consider (as I said before), the possibility of the adaptation of the carrier for other forms of aircraft, including the ones currently in the possession of the Japanese Airforce.

It should also be noted that Japan was quite recently looking at purchasing the STOVL capable Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey. (which whilst more of a transport, is still an aircraft).
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201212310084

Were the suitable aircraft available, the small size of the air group compared to the potential adversaries this carrier will face (China has 1300+ Fighter and Strike aircraft in it's Air Force plus a further 200+ Fighter and Strike Aircraft in it's Navy, North Korea has 500+ Fighter and Strike aircraft, South Korea has 450+ Fighter and Strike Aircraft) means that to operate offensively there will need to a lot more than planned 2 of these ships of the class.

Sorry? That's something of a one sided calculation, i.e, all the planes of China and North Korea vs those transported by two carriers.

On top of that, I would suggest you examine the fuel capacities of the relevant aircraft from those nations, and how close their airfields are/the capacity of those airfields to all potential conflict zones. Logistics are a funny thing, but somewhat crucial.

So based on the above, It's pretty obvious that this craft does not, nor will it every realistically have a power projection capability.

Power projection involves a lot more than matching two potential mini-carriers against the combined airforces of China and North Korea.

RossDas wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
If railguns become shipmounted (Which they probably will) they may return battleships to the fore of many naval fleets...
With modern targeting and anti-air defences it'll be a red day when a battleship is destroyed...

It may depend upon the tonnage requirements for putting the railgun to sea. Since the essential purpose of a battleship is to field big guns and withstand attack from big guns, if no armour is sufficient proof against railgun fire then a greater number of smaller ships might be the preferred option.
The rule of cool, however, demands big ships with big guns!

If small ships can get railguns that just means big ships can get bigger railguns!

 purplefood wrote:

RossDas wrote:

 purplefood wrote:
If railguns become shipmounted (Which they probably will) they may return battleships to the fore of many naval fleets...
With modern targeting and anti-air defences it'll be a red day when a battleship is destroyed...

It may depend upon the tonnage requirements for putting the railgun to sea. Since the essential purpose of a battleship is to field big guns and withstand attack from big guns, if no armour is sufficient proof against railgun fire then a greater number of smaller ships might be the preferred option.
The rule of cool, however, demands big ships with big guns!

If small ships can get railguns that just means big ships can get bigger railguns!

Battleships with railguns that run the whole length of the ship mass effect style

 Ketara wrote:
I believe Great Britain changed their mind over which F-35 variant they were intending on building twice fairly recently. It would be a simple matter for Japan to change its mind in the next few months. One must also consider (as I said before), the possibility of the adaptation of the carrier for other forms of aircraft, including the ones currently in the possession of the Japanese Airforce.

Short of the mecha-carrier you described earlier, that's not possible. It's not large enough for conventional operations.

It's a helo carrier, nothing more.