Japan Unveils Largest Warship Since WW2

schwit1 writes with an excerpt from an AP story on some interesting technology afloat: "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. 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. The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters.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."

Comments

Japanese Military

[Danathar]

It's well past time for the Japanese have a decent offensive capability against that of China. Leaning on the U.S. forever is not sustainable.

Re:Japanese Military

[i kan reed]

Yeah, well, treaties enforced by the U.S. don't really allow "offensive capability."

Re:Japanese Military

[GodfatherofSoul]

You sir haven't taken any classes on foreign policy lol. It's not about logic. It's about maintaining a boot on the neck of a former enemy under the guise of peace. I do agree that we should use the Japanese as a counterweight against growing Chinese military power, but the offset is risking another industrial giant leveraging location to push us out of the theater.

Re:Japanese Military

[loufoque]

You realize the US have been restricting the Japanese military and even have military bases on Japanese soil?

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

When the shit hits the fan the definition of 'defensive' will be very vague.

Re:Japanese Military

[Danathar]

Actually, I don't think any current treaties between the U.S. and Japan limit Japanese offensive capability. It's the Japanese constitution which does. Now everybody knows the U.S. is responsible for the non-offensive military part of the Japanese constitution when it was written. That being said they (the Japanese) could change it if they wanted to.

But they don't, because it's far easier to let the U.S. spend big $$$ on a military along with R&D then it is for them. I'd guess though that if the U.S. ever reduced their pacific capabilities the Japanese would see the light...

Re:Japanese Military

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Yeah, well, treaties enforced by the U.S. don't really allow "offensive capability."

Do you think that the US would have the slightest interest in enforcing them? Anything short of strategic nuclear weapons could be brushed off with a 'my, my, Japan's coast guard is looking so robust lately!' unless the US actually has a continued interest in disarming Japan.

Re:Japanese Military

[i kan reed]

As someone else said, I was mistaken, and it's Japan's constitution, not a treaty that establishes the defensive nature of their military.

If it were a treaty, the U.S. has every interest in establishing the appearance of a nation that enforces its treaties, for fear that other nations would flout them.

Re:Japanese Military

[the_humeister]

You know what? It's also well past the time for them to have a flying space carrier with a huge mounted laser gun in the front too (which was what I was expecting with this new ship). Or maybe even a transforming space carrier with a massive super weapon on its shoulders. Very disappointed.

Re:Japanese Military

[steelfood]

Actually, the U.S. designed it that way. They were the ones who stipulated as a condition of surrender that the Japanese have no standing army (only a "defense force" whose training and armament is tightly-controlled by the U.S.). The U.S. wants a base of operations in the far east, and maintains tight controls over Japan for that purpose. They have other bases in the Pacific, but they set up Japan before long-range aircraft, requiring them to be close to Russia/China/North Korea.

So no, it's not by choice the Japanese have to rely on the U.S. for military protection. It's a consequence of losing WWII that they're effectively subjugated to U.S. military "protection" (in the same sense of "protection" money).

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Pravda has a very good article on how weak the US is in the Pacific Rim, with the main reason that the carrier fleets don't get sunk is because China doesn't really care about the "floating circuses" -- groups of ships which are defenseless against long range sub attacks.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

The US has been in the process of moving those troops and bases to other places in the Pacific. Some to Guam, some to Hawaii, and some to Australia.

Re:Japanese Military

[ShanghaiBill]

You realize the US have been restricting the Japanese military and even have military bases on Japanese soil?

Winston Churchill once said that the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. The US has bases in Japan for the same reason except China==Russia and Japan==Germany. If the American bases are removed, Japan will be forced to re-arm to defend themselves (including nukes), and the Chinese will then feel obligated to do likewise, ... which will then lead to an arms buildup in India and SE Asia. It is far cheaper for the US to maintain the bases than to deal with the consequences of their removal.

Re:Japanese Military

[HornWumpus]

Everything is, more or less, defensive against ICBMs. Including Shanghai and Beijing. MAD hasn't really changed.

There are American fast attacks under every carrier group that will have something to say about 'defenseless' if you are talking about closer then ICBM range.

Russia is a failed superpower, telling it's self what it wants to hear.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

You're leaving out that China is already doing this. Hence why Japan is starting to feel the need as well, especially with the American retreat currently going on.

Re:Japanese Military

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

In a war between the US and the old Soviet Union, the aircraft carriers weren't expected to last more than a day or two at most. Too many missiles, even if you ignore torpedoes.

Has China gotten to that level? I doubt it. And there's a lot more stopping them than the threat of an aorcraft carrier or two. Never forget that the US was capable of cranking out one major ship a week 70 years ago when someone got us started.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't think the US can intercept toepedoes? Carriers project rapid hit and refuel capability to kep the enemy pinned down. Future carriers could be packed with drones.

Re:Japanese Military

[Guppy06]

Leaning on the U.S. forever is not sustainable.

Perhaps, but right now it's the best way of preventing a second Sino-Japanese War. China trusts the US military much more than they do a Japanese military, and US abandonment of the region would trigger an arms race (conventional and otherwise) that would make Indian-Pakistani relations look warm and fuzzy.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Never forget that the US was capable of cranking out one major ship a week 70 years ago when someone got us started.

We'd have to outsource that now though...

Re:Japanese Military

[rahvin112]

Last I saw the Japanese pay far more than it costs the US for that defense and that isn't even including all the land for military bases.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, that was when things were actually produced inside the US, rather than bought from China, Malaysia or the Philippines.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

The new USS America has a flight deck of the same size. France's (only) aircraft carrier is about ten meters longer. The gigantic Nimitz-class supercarriers are the exception to the rule.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Churchill could be an idiot though. Germany is one of the strongest militaries in Europe today. What two militaries (besides the US) did not run out of supplies after 11 weeks of supporting a no fly zone in Libya? Answer: GB and Germany.

Japan is one of the leading economies in the world, and if they didn't have the laws in their Constitution preventing an offensive military force they'd probably be one of the strongest militaries in the Pacific theater. The Japanese are hardly being kept down. China has been building up regardless of Japan. China's more worried about the US and Russia than it is with Japan.

Also let's ignore that the US is already in the process of removing its bases from Japan.

Re:Japanese Military

[MiG82au]

Apparently you're the dick with no clue whatsoever.
It's similar in size to the next British carrier class which has been sized for 36 JSFs.
Sorry your shitty segue onto a pet topic didn't work out.

Re:Japanese Military

[NotQuiteReal]

They can't really help how large their ships get, they are just mutated. See the next story on leaks at Fukushima!

Forget about defending against the Chinese - wait until giant lizards and moths start attacking, they'll need all the firepower they can get!

Re:Japanese Military

[Zak3056]

It's a DESTROYER. That is a puny ship in modern naval terms.

We probably have Coast Guard ships larger than this thing.

It's roughly the same size as some of the carriers (Hiryu and Soryu) that launched the strike on Pearl Harbor. By the standards of a modern American carrier, they're pretty small (tiny), but 27k tons isn't exactly anything to sneeze at, and calling it a "destroyer" is a bit of a fig leaf as that's roughly the size of a Kirov class BC (IIRC, the largest surface warship class currently in service with any navy that isn't an aviation/amphibious warfare ship).

Re:Japanese Military

[cayenne8]

I think the time to be concerned is, if Japan starts mass producing new kamikaze planes.....

Re:Japanese Military

[maroberts]

250M is a fairly reasonable size for a medium sized carrier. You're just used to Nimitz sized behemoths.

For example, the UK carriers, Hermes Invincible and Ark Royal were approximately 210meters in length. Such a carrier could easily launch F-35 VSTOL or similar with no problem.

Re:Japanese Military

[maroberts]

Oops scratch Hermes, put Illustrious before some picky SOB notices...

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

That was then, it has been decades since WWII. Japan had the option to change those restrictions for a while now.

Re:Japanese Military

[HornWumpus]

IIRC the last base is on Okinawa.

They are lucky we let them have any of it back. They wouldn't have.

Re:Japanese Military

[Alef]

[...] they (the Japanese) could change [the constitution] if they wanted to. But they don't, because it's far easier to let the U.S. spend big $$$ on a military along with R&D then it is for them.

Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, certainly wants to change it, so I don't think it's as far off as you suggest.

Re:Japanese Military

[usuallylost]

According to both Douglas MacArthur and the memoirs of the Japanese prime minister at the time, Kijuro Shidehara, article 9 was written by the prime minister. Because he was afraid that having a weak military would only provide an opening for those wanting to rearm. His answer to that was to preclude that in the constitution. So it was Japanese internal politics rather than the US ramming it down their throats that gave them article 9. Just as their politics have prevented it from being changed. Simply becaue a substantial portion of the Japanese population still supports the idea behind article 9. The current LDP government would like to change article 9 but can't even really push it because their coalition partners, New Komeito, are commited to preserving article 9.

There is one part of that constitution that I have read was rammed down Japan's throats over the screaming objections of their government. That is the part about equal rights for women. They were not the least bit happy about that.

Re: Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

The official story is that the Japanese can build ICMBs in less than 6 months if the US pulls out of the treaty. Real out is that the missiles and nuclear bomb parts are (so to speak) stashed in different corners of a room. (E.g. why do you think so much plutonium was stored in Fukushima?)

Also Japan spends quite a lot on the military, so 'defenseless' isn really how I'd describe them.

Re:Japanese Military

[Charliemopps]

Nuclear tipped torpedoes and cruise missiles are nearly unstoppable. They could easily take out a carrier group in 1 shot. I agree with the AC that China isn't as interested in perceived power as the US is.

As far as Russia being a failed super power... ask any of our astronauts how they are getting to work these days and you might have a change of heart.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

My take - Japan warship: Biggest since World War II

http://www.examiner.com/article/japan-warship-biggest-since-world-war-ii

Re:Japanese Military

[jedidiah]

> Such a carrier could easily launch F-35 VSTOL

In other words, no serious aircraft to speak of.

That makes it an amphibious assault ship, not a modern aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier is something that can launch air superiority craft like the ships that did battle in World War II.

Modern aircraft require a flight deck to match.

This is no capital ship. The fact that other navies field puny things and try to call them aircraft carriers really doesn't change that.

Re:Japanese Military

[interval1066]

Carrier fleets are not defenseless against subs, infact their defense has centered around sub-based offense. But the Chinese really don't care- not becuase of their sub fleet, which is small and 20 years behind in technology, but becuase of this. These types of missles are far cheaper and much more effective than attack subs.

Re:Japanese Military

[polar red]

what exactly do you mean by 'us' ? The 0,1% richest people of the earth, which you are not a part of ? and who do not have a nationality ?

Re:Japanese Military

[VitaminB52]

Never forget that the US was capable of cranking out one major ship a week 70 years ago when someone got us started.

Never forget how many shipyards have closed in the USA during the last 70 years. And how long it takes to train new workers to construct that kind of ships.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

or perhaps mainly because every time they have military exercises , the carrier groups get sunk at the beginning and the top brass demand a do over.

Re:Japanese Military

[Chris Mattern]

Actually, I don't think any current treaties between the U.S. and Japan limit Japanese offensive capability. It's the Japanese constitution which does.

True, and that mistake needed to be corrected. But guess who wrote the Japanese constitution? Hint: Not the Japanese.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

take a while to rebuild your steel mills though.

Re:Japanese Military

[Guspaz]

Cruise missiles can be shot down, either by interceptors or CIWS, and nuclear weapons that are shot down don't detonate. In what way are they unstoppable?

Nuclear torpedoes have the yield to take out a single ship, not an entire carrier group, and can be defeated the same way any other torpedo can (if unguided, it can miss or be evaded, especially if fired from extreme range, if guided, it can be tricked). This assumes that the militaries involved even have any; the US got rid of their nuclear torpedoes in the 70s, probably because they could never fire them (without starting a nuclear war) but took up limited space that could be used for torpedoes with conventional warheads.

This also assumes that China or the US, if starting a war, was willing to go nuclear. I find that highly unlikely: most probably any war between the two countries would be conventional.

Re:Japanese Military

[Webcommando]

Russia is a failed superpower, telling it's self what it wants to hear.

I saw an interesting show on how Russia is slowly dismantling the nuclear submarine fleet (Discovery's "Submarine: Hidden Hunters Collection"). They showed how a team of contractors and experts from former East Germany were helping decommission the fleet. There were over 200 nuclear power plants, with more still coming, sealed in part of the sub's pressure hull and being stored on cement slabs until the radioactivity had decreased enough for a later generation to tackle.

Failed super power or not, it does show how massive the military buildup between the Soviet Union and United States was during the Cold War. If the US is still sustaining that level of commitment (and number of subs as part of it), it would take quite some time for anyone (including China) to be in a position to completely wipe out our naval capability.

Just an opinion that let me mention a very interesting set of shows on subs. So yes, I had an ulterior motive to post!

Re:Japanese Military

[Dunbal]

The US never thinks twice about breaking treaties, why would it be different for the Japanese?

Re: Japanese Military

[ceoyoyo]

If a real war where nukes were acceptable started, pretty much anyone could design a nuclear torpedo that would take out most of a carrier group. You can't trick it because it doesn't need to actually hit a ship, just get to the right area. Ditto for cruise missiles, although there you have a chance to intercept it far enough away. By the time you're using CIWS against a nuclear missile, you're screwed. Probably nobody would bother though. In a nuclear war carriers are pretty much irrelevant. All naval vessels except subs are pretty much irrelevant.

Carrier groups are useful in limited conventional war, where political factors make nukes unacceptable.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's like meteor and meteorite. It's not a kamikaze plane until impact.

Re: Japanese Military

[ceoyoyo]

The US hasn't really gotten a great reputation for following treaty obligations in the last while, from the Geneva Convention down to things like trade in lumber and catching ugly fish.

They're pretty adamant about other countries following treaties though.

Re:Japanese Military

[Dunbal]

Russia is a failed superpower, telling it's self what it wants to hear.

Yeah go tell the Georgians that Russia is a "failed superpower". They lost most of their army in what, a day or so? The US was covertly backing Georgia, btw. Another proxy war. You would do well to let the bear keep on sleeping. I'm not sure the US would survive a war with Russia, especially when middle eastern oil is interdicted. Russia on the other hand has plenty of oil...

Re:Japanese Military

[lgw]

I think it's like meteor and meteorite. It's not a kamikaze plane until impact.

Sadly, WWII saw planes that were effective just manned missiles. There really were kamikaze planes - and not just planes: it was a very tragic, "what were they thinking" time.

Re:Japanese Military

[Dunbal]

Reliance on obsolete tech is not very comforting. Why should I send a ship to do something that can easily be done with long range land based missiles nowadays? I can afford many, many missiles for the price of your one ship. And when your big toys are at the bottom of the ocean, a few destroyers can easily control the ocean.

Re:Japanese Military

[DarkAce911]

I doubt it too, the Russians had a bunch of Bombers loaded with ship-killers cruise missiles firing from long range. Also, we designed Aegis class ships for that exact threat.

Re:Japanese Military

[Dunbal]

VTOL/STOL jets are more common nowadays. The Japanese are not expecting to have to land F-14s on the damned thing.

Re: Japanese Military

[lgw]

I think people who grew up after the cold war miss that point entirely.

Yes, it's easy to nuke a carrier group. It's easy to nuke all of them. The Navy does, in fact, understand this, it having been obvious for about 60 years now.

So you've nuked a carrier group. Did you get all the Boomers first? If not, you have a bright future - glowing even.

Re: Japanese Military

[T-Bone-T]

How would a nuke take out most of a carrier group? They travel spread out over a large area. You might be able to take out the carrier and a supply ship that happened to be close.

Re:Japanese Military

[HornWumpus]

Even France would be a threat to Spain. Doesn't make the frogs a superpower.

Russia, interdict middle eastern oil? LOL. They can fuck western Europe by shutting down their pipelines, but their navy is a joke.

Re:Japanese Military

[Talderas]

I don't like the headline. It's poorly written. When I saw it I thought that Japan had built the largest warship since WW2 (all nations). So I was expecting something huge. I was disappointed to find out it was the biggest warship that Japan built since WW2 and it isn't even larger than some of the things they built in WW2.

Nimitz: 100,000 ton displacement, 332.8m length, 76.8m beam
Yamato (Battleship): 65,000 ton displacement, 263m length, 38.9m beam
Shinano (Carrier): 64,800 ton displacement, 265.8m length, 36.3m beam
Izumo (Helicopter Carrier): 27,000 ton displacement, 248m length, 38m beam

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Contain your disappointment, wait 'til you see the sharks they've developed . . .

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait the guys who got their asses kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan are pretending to be bad ass warriors.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to be pedantic, there's no such thing as an 'Aegis class ship'. There are Ticonderoga-class Guided Missile Cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class Guided Missile Destroyers, and they are equipped with the AEGIS Combat System, but there is not an Aegis class.

That said, yes, AEGIS was designed to be the 'Shield of the Fleet' and provide both area air defense as well as short range air defense against aggressor missiles and aircraft. It has been upgraded exponentially throughout the years to increase capabilities against sea-skimming missiles, high clutter environments, salvo threats, and, most importantly, ballistic missile defense.

Re: Japanese Military

[lgw]

A big nuke detonated near the surface (I forget now whether it's just-above, or just-below that's optimal) will sink most smaller craft and take capital ships out of the war - probably permanently - from a considerable distance. It's been years since I looked at the weapon tests, but a big nuke folded the superstructure over onto the deck from something like a mile away.

Most damage from nukes falls off very fast with distance - some radiation effects fall off with the 10th power of distance, IIRC. But a nuke in the ocean creates an outrushing wall of water with destructive power that only falls off directly with distance at first.

The open question (which we can hope remains so forever) is whether use of tactical nukes at sea requires strategic nuclear retaliation. Either way, nuking a carrier group means the US will take the gloves off when it retaliates, and if that retaliation doesn't involve the strategic nuclear arsenal it will only be because it didn't need to.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that? The Japanese Zero aircraft were extremely capable for their time period, and the US didn't have a serious contender for them until the Grumman Hellcat came along in 1943. The reason that so many were utilized as kamikaze aircraft were that by the later stages of the war, US and Allied patrols had destroyed so many Zeroes and killed so many pilots that the Japanese couldn't train them fast enough to man the aircraft that were sitting on the tarmac. Thus, they were given rudimentary training courses, essentially teaching them to take off, fly towards a target, and crash into it.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely incorrect. This is a destroyer in the sense that its mission is to operate ASW patrols and potentially project forward power via helos and STOVL aircraft, like the Harrier, JSF, or Osprey. It is really a small aircraft carrier that's only about 250 feet shorter than a US Ford class supercarrier.

Re:Japanese Military

[lgw]

Carriers exist to project power when it's not a case of total war against a strong opponent (i.e., every conflict since WWII). Nothing else does that job as well - not even close. When war gets hot then of course its the Boomers that matter, and surface ships are irrelevant.

Destroyers have never been able to project power - that's never been their mission in the history of navies.

Re:Japanese Military

[HornWumpus]

When was Russia in Iraq?

Re:Japanese Military

[loufoque]

Nowadays, Boeing can build a civilian plane in 3 days. (Dreamliner)
I suppose they could build a military plane in about the same time if that was needed.

Re: Japanese Military

[Diamon]

No one said the Zero was purpose built to be a kamikaze, I believe the parent poster was referring to the Ohka.

Re:Japanese Military

[lgw]

When the Japanese name a plane Cherry blossom, it's not going to be the sort of plane that needs landing gear. Even sadder was The turn toward heaven, where the suicide pilot only added marginal value to the torpedo. Japan had reached a very bad place by then.

Re:Japanese Military

[loufoque]

It's not the Izumo from Gundam SEED, you know.

Re:Japanese Military

[Deadstick]

No, it's a Kamikaze airplane if it's launched on a suicide mission under the Kamikaze program. With one small-numbers exception, it was pretty much any type of combat airplane before it got worn out.

Re:Japanese Military

[Deadstick]

When the Japanese name a plane Cherry blossom, it's not going to be the sort of plane that needs landing gear.

By the same token, when medieval Spain named a ship Most Holy Virgin or something similar, you could be sure it packed at least two hundred guns...

Re:Japanese Military

[Dajhan]

A lot of people here think that the Navy haven't thought of what you guys are pointing out...And do you guys believe that a Fleet does not have guard Subs, anti-Subs arsenals and long range detection systems? Plus nuclear warheads are often used as "Last Resort", because using one means you are going against almost the whole world.

Re:Japanese Military

[angel'o'sphere]

A nuclear torpedo does not need to hit.
It only needs to explode close by.
Claiming it only had the yield to kill one ship is just nonsense.
Think about something of the power of an hiroshima bomb.
It easily kills a whole carrier group a dozen times over.

Re: Japanese Military

[angel'o'sphere]

Why dont you read up abut the two bombs that where used against human beings?
Why is everyone thinking a nuke is just a bigger bomb, thats beyond me ....

Re:Japanese Military

[AK Marc]

The 0,1% richest people of the earth, which you are not a part of ? and who do not have a nationality ?

Of course they have a nationality. Rupert Murdoch switched his to get around laws around non-citizens owning things. He has an American nationality so he can buy up more media outlets. And a Chinese wife, if she is still his wife. She also became an American. The 0.1% can move anywhere under "investor" rules designed to protect the top 0.1%. They have a nationality at any given time, but can change it at will.

Re:Japanese Military

[AK Marc]

With no catapult, no incline at the end, and no reports of traps for landing craft or elevators or space for storage off-deck.

At most, it could be a mobile refueling platform, but guesses are that it will be for VTOL/STOL, not "regular" craft.

Re:Japanese Military

[Bengie]

The best defense is a strong offense, so Japan is allowed to have strong offensive ability, so long as the preemptively attack someone who is about to attack them, because it's in defense. Political logic! As long as Japan is at least 51% or more sure.

Re:Japanese Military

[WindBourne]

Which is why we are developing lasers and rail guns for ships.
At this time, that IS the real threat that china has against our groups.
However, are also setting up a number of bases around China for just that issue: Most are known, some are not.

Re:Japanese Military

[A nonymous Coward]

China isn't stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. Try some realistic scenario and get back to us.

Re:Japanese Military

[A nonymous Coward]

They are especially effective as weapons-in-being with no tests to show of. US politicians and scaremongers are almost in love with their exaggerated theoretical potential.

Re:Japanese Military

[WindBourne]

hint; yes it was.

Re: Japanese Military

[Guspaz]

Because in the context of naval warfare, a tactical nuke basically is just a bigger bomb. The vast majority of immediate injuries in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were from things that a conventional explosion of the same size would cause. Flying debris, burns, etc. Even the number affected by the radiation was likely largely due to the fallout after the explosion, which wouldn't be as much a factor at sea.

Remember that the US navy is not ignorant to the hazards of dealing with radiation from nuclear reactions. The carriers we're talking about are powered by nuclear reactors, after all, which have the potential to release large amounts of radiation in case of an accident.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

It is funny how many ppl make that wild claim while disregarding history books and the writings of those who did the constitution. You HAVE to be a bloody American git.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Communism in China has been there for so long, that the political doctrine had time to affect a lot of generations.

With the USA vs USSR was different, because people still had WW2 as a fresh memory and the "red party == god" thing was just getting started.

Re:Japanese Military

[cheesybagel]

The Russians do not need a Navy to do that. Just roll over their tanks towards Iran and from then go elsewhere.

Re: Japanese Military

[T-Bone-T]

A nuke could indeed destroy a capital ship but not more than the HVUs of a strike group if they are close together. The base surge of the Baker test would only reach less than a quarter of the distance to the inner screen of the group, which is usually 10 miles away from the HVUs. Even the waves generated by the blast would be nothing more than small swells at the inner screen. My point is that a strike group occupies a very large area, even with respect to the incredible power of a nuke.

Re:Japanese Military

[Guspaz]

The last nuclear torpedo the US used had a yield of 11 kilotons (ICBMs are a hell of a lot larger than a torpedo). The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 16 kilotons. The closest survivor (lived into his 80s after) to the blast was 300 feet away in a basement. Ships in a carrier strike group are not exactly brushing up against each other, nor are they made of largely wood and glass as most buildings in Hiroshima were. They are in fact made of steel, and designed with the assumption that they WILL be subjected to explosions.

I have no idea why you would think that such a weapon would destroy an entire spread out carrier group a dozen times over. Getting hit by something bigger, like a nuclear-equipped ballistic missile, that might do it. Ground-launched ballistic missiles are considered to be an especially large threat to carrier groups. But the warhead in a tiny nuclear torpedo? Not so much.

The other issue is that an intercepted nuclear torpedo or cruise missile won't detonate at all; detonating a nuclear weapon is a rather precise operation, so if you shoot it down or damage it, it's not going to cause any damage at all. Ballistic missiles (especially ICBMs) are virtually impossible to intercept primarily because of their ridiculous velocity, but the same is not true for cruise missiles and torpedoes (although torpedoes aren't necessarily easy to intercept).

Re:Japanese Military

[cheesybagel]

In comparison the Chinese now have their Liaoning aircraft carrier which is 304.5 meters long. They bought the hulk from Ukraine and refitted it (engines, electronics, etc). It can launch J-15 twin-jet fighters which are derived from the Su-27.

They also seem to be in the process of building some smaller carriers. They already have their Type 071 amphibious warfare boats which are 210 m long. Plus they have been busy developing the J-31 stealth fighter which is small enough to fit in a carrier.

Re:Japanese Military

[gadget junkie]

Pravda has a very good article on how weak the US is in the Pacific Rim, with the main reason that the carrier fleets don't get sunk is because China doesn't really care about the "floating circuses" -- groups of ships which are defenseless against long range sub attacks.

and this information is from the people who were the hapless targets of a neologism, "hull shot", where a NATO sub came so close to a Soviet sub that it was able to shoot photos of the hull. So no, Chinese subs are not , repeat not, the most important danger to Carrier groups. Anti ship missiles are another matter, and China reportedly has fielded a system off Taiwan.

Moreover, China DOES care about the carriers. All its bragging about the adjacent seas cannot be based on "sea denial", but on "sea control". And "sea control", i.e. the ability to conduct more or less unrestricted naval operations, including landings, in an area of interest, is exponentially costlier than seas denial. Just to cite an example, the amount of Chines Naval assets necessary to ensure the blue water operations of China's only aircraft carrier could leave most of China without a meaningful naval presence.

Re:Japanese Military

[amiga3D]

Why would the Chinese want to nuke one of their largest and most profitable markets? Especially one that is armed to the teeth. They can't do shit about Japan because the US supports them and really if Japan decides to gear up they could most likely hold their own. The last time they tangled with China the Chinese didn't fare too well. The best thing the Chinese can do is keep making money. Why fight people when you can buy them?

Re:Japanese Military

[amiga3D]

My money is on Spain.

Re:Japanese Military

[gadget junkie]

A nuclear torpedo does not need to hit. It only needs to explode close by. Claiming it only had the yield to kill one ship is just nonsense. Think about something of the power of an hiroshima bomb. It easily kills a whole carrier group a dozen times over.

a nuclear tipped torpedo, must, in order:
1. be actively directed onto the target by a stealth sub platform, or be self directed (assuming the carrier has been pinpointed beforehand;
2.evade decoys and active countermeasures, like other torpedoes launched against it;
3. positively identify the primary target, in a target rich environment;
4. get close enough;
5. explode;

Then, since it is quite impossible to hide the use of a nuclear warhead, the powers that be must be ready for a nuclear exchange with the only country that used them in anger. Good luck. And anyway, a nuclear warhead is a model of precision.....so, even a small damage would render the warhead unable to function properly, or at the margin totally non-operational. On the contrary, many military conventional explosives are "deaf", i.e. they do not detonate if you shoot through them.

Re: Japanese Military

[ceoyoyo]

If you really want to kill most of the battle group, just drop a bunch of smaller nukes with appropriate spacing. Even if you don't actually sink most of the ships, the EMP and blasts should damage lots of the delicate bits like the radars those fancy AEGIS cruisers use. I bet an underwater nuke has some strongly negative effects on a sub's sonar receivers at quite a distance too. Now your mopping up is much easier. Bonus if you can catch the carrier group going through some restricted water, which was a favourite WWII tactic.

On the other hand, if you kill the carrier, who really cares about the cruisers and destroyers? On the gripping hand, if you've started dropping nukes on things, who really cares about carriers?

Re:Japanese Military

[gslj]

Apparently you're the dick with no clue whatsoever.

It's similar in size to the next British carrier class which has been sized for 36 JSFs.

Sorry your shitty segue onto a pet topic didn't work out.

If you're refering to the HMS Illustrious, which is the last of a set of three, as being about the same size as the Izumo, then you have a point. The Illustrious is 22,000 tons and the Izumo, 27,000 (full load). The Illustrious did act as an aircraft carrier while the British still had Harriers, but those are gone and it's helicopters and marines for her now. On the other hand, the "next British carrier class which is sized for 36 JSFs" is the Queen Elizabeth class. The latest estimate of the displacement on those ships is 70,600 tons. Not really in the same league as the Izumo, is it?

On the other hand, if Japan buys F35B planes (the VTOL ones) then I bet they could be landing and taking off of the Izumo's flight deck really quickly.

Gareth

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

So, yet again, basically you Kan't Reed. Been saying that shit for years now.....

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

So then they don't have a nationality. For someone with wealth and power, they can change thier nationality on a whim whereas common folk like me won't have a chance in hell to do the same. Why are you defending these assholes? You think you're gonna make the cut and become one of them. Unlikely!

Re: Japanese Military

[T-Bone-T]

I just don't think you understand the scale we are talking about. Nukes can destroy a very large area but carrier groups occupy a significantly larger area.

Re:Japanese Military

[mjwx]

Nuclear torpedoes have the yield to take out a single ship, not an entire carrier group, and can be defeated the same way any other torpedo can (if unguided, it can miss or be evaded, especially if fired from extreme range, if guided, it can be tricked).

Torpedoes can also be intercepted.

An undersea nuclear detonation will have the majority of its energy dissipated by the ocean itself, so the torpedo itself has to be precisely detonated to produce enough displacement to capsize ships.

Nukes tend to be the most dangerous when airburst, ground detonation will reduce the energy of the blast significantly, underwater will reduce it even more, beyond that the big killer will be radiation. These two things make using nukes in naval combat less effective than conventional weapons.

Re:Japanese Military

[mjwx]

Carriers exist to project power when it's not a case of total war against a strong opponent (i.e., every conflict since WWII). Nothing else does that job as well - not even close. When war gets hot then of course its the Boomers that matter, and surface ships are irrelevant.

Destroyers have never been able to project power - that's never been their mission in the history of navies.

The Destroyer's role has always been defensive. They are the ships you use to hunt submarines.

In the next total war, submarines are going to matter less as fast ships that can unleash a small fleet of drones and get out before subs can respond will project power. In fact subs will probably have the same role swapping ICBM's for tube launched drones (Note, Japan experimented with submarine carriers like the I400 in WWII).

Re:Japanese Military

[interval1066]

...with no tests to show of.

Sure, the Chinese military opens up its test results to all comers.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia on the other hand has plenty of oil...

So does the US. It also has literally mountains of oil shale and the oil sands of Canada in easy reach. In a desperate situation, the whining of enviros would be swept aside and domestic drilling in the US and in its territorial waters could be ramped up massively. Russia has nothing on the US in terms of energy resources and the ability to exploit them. If US govt. policy were changed, the US could eliminate its need for ME oil. Europe and Japan OTOH ...

Re:Japanese Military

[A nonymous Coward]

History is full of examples of politicians and generals using scary stories of what enemies might be doing. They are almost never true. It's one thing to base your decisions on an enemy's capabilities and not intents, but it's quite another to make up stories which a simple back-of-the-envelope calculation will show require, say, rocket fuel five times more powerful than anyone else has, or guidance systems which billions of our own dollars haven't even come close to producing.

Not a single story about the deadly Chinese cruise missile passes the smell test.

Re:Japanese Military

[AK Marc]

Apparently the sarcasm detector needs a tune. They are not stateless, but can change nationalities at will. Anyone who has changed countries has noticed the "investor" class, exempt from most rules. Sports stars and movie stars (special class workers) are the only other group anywhere near the special class set up for the rich. A poor person in Mexico's quickest route to citizenship is crossing illegally, having a child, then coming out in 20 years for the next amnesty (done by the Republicans every 20 years). But Rupert just demonstrates sufficient "investment" and instant citizen. Though when I was looking this up, I was surprised to find he is a US citizen, but no other. He owns more in the UK than the US, and lost OZ citizenship when he nationalized US. I know Australian dual-citzens, so it must only apply to Australians gaining a second citizenship, and not a person gaining Australian as their second..

Re:Japanese Military

[JimCanuck]

Has China gotten to that level? I doubt it..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF-21D_.28CSS-5_Mod-4.29_Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

Re:Japanese Military

[interval1066]

Not a single story about the deadly Chinese cruise missile passes the smell test.

The Australians seem to believe otherwise.

The PLA is a major user of cruise missile technology, and China both manufactures and exports a wide range of cruise missiles in all categories.

The PLA's preoccupation with cruise missiles reflects the historical reality that until the advent of the modern Su-30MKK/MK2 and FH-7 fighters, China lacked aircraft capable of penetrating any defences.

China's first generation of cruise missiles were based on the Soviet Styx, and derivatives of this 1950s design remain in production. More recent Chinese designs are modelled on the Western Exocet, Harpoon and Tomahawk families of missiles.

In addition to domestically built cruise missiles, China also operates the imported Russian supersonic 3M80E Moskit / SS-N-22 Sunburn, and the 3M54/3M14 Klub/Kalibr / SS-N-27 Sizzler missiles.

Smells to me like the Chinese are heavily invested in something that "doesn't pass the smell test."

Re:Japanese Military

[Guspaz]

Well, I figure if you managed to actually hit a ship with a nuclear torpedo (like the Mark 45, which as far as I can tell is the only one the US ever fielded), having it detonate at the same range a conventional torpedo would, you'd pretty much wreck the thing. So I'd imagine it'd be a one hit kill if you actually managed to get it to detonate at point blank range on a carrier, whereas a carrier would easily survive an individual torpedo hit with a conventional warhead. But I would also think that getting close enough to do that would likely be a suicide mission.

Re:Japanese Military

[mjwx]

By the same token, when medieval Spain named a ship Most Holy Virgin or something similar, you could be sure it packed at least two hundred guns...

And was sunk by the British who named their ships with proper names like Resolute, Victory and Indefatigable.

Re:Japanese Military

[Xest]

"Russia is a failed superpower, telling it's self what it wants to hear."

This is true but it's a failed superpower that still has the largest nuclear arsenal, one of the largest conventional military arsenals and one of the highest military expenditures in the world, and that makes it dangerous all the same.

Re: Japanese Military

[angel'o'sphere]

Nevertheless the bomb has a massive radius and causes in adition to "normal" damage a massive shockwave. So everything not killed by the heat blast nevertheles has majour structural damage or even cap sizes by the shock wave.

Re:Japanese Military

[angel'o'sphere]

Because a nuclear war head hittin water is something different than hitting ground.
A nuclear torpedo e.g. whould blast a large "hole" into the water. Everything inside this hole is basicaly dead. The resulting waves and the "steam" would sink everything close enough. Ships don't swim in "foam".

Re: Japanese Military

[angel'o'sphere]

Lol, do the math?
A carrier group covers perhaps a 10x10 miles area. I would assume it is in fact much smaller 3x3 miles perhaps.
The groups I have seen on photos where perhaps 1.5 miles "long" and about a mile wide.

Re: Japanese Military

[T-Bone-T]

I see your problem. Carrier groups only do that for pictures. They normally cover a 50x50 mile area or larger.

Re:Japanese Military

[AmiMoJo]

The majority of Japanese still feel that Article 9 should be kept though. While some feel that Japan could be a world (military) superpower as well as an economic one there is a strong belief that Japan's non-aggression clause has kept it safe over the decades. Japan does have a modern, high tech military and an active space programme. They do/did have an active civilian nuclear programme too so could assemble an ICBM within months if required. Not actually having those things helps keep their neighbours calm and makes them feel less threatened by what could be a powerful force in the region.

If Japan did militarise it would end up like Israel. Enemies on all sides, forced to demonstrate its willingness to use its military, and with everyone looking for ways to protect themselves from it in the event of an attack.

Re: Japanese Military

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, I doubt it is more than 10 miles.
The frigs and destroyers are supposed to defend the carrier (and get themselves also covered by the carriers CIWS). With bigger distances the carrier would be behind the horizon and the small ships weapon systems to intercept missiles etc. had trouble to get the missile if it comes in a strange path and is already inside of the fleet. Keep in mind ship / ship and air / ship missiles fly pretty low, likely you can only defend against them in an area of about 2 miles around a destroyer.

Re:Japanese Military

[Dunbal]

So does the US. It also has literally mountains of oil shale and the oil sands of Canada

Yes, this argument again. It was even on TV. The US seems to think that Canadian oil belongs to it. You realize that Canada is not forced to sell it to you, right? The other component being that the oil sands operations are very remote, far from manufacturing centers. Yet they are also geographically close to each other. They are also very exposed. World War 2 proved exactly how easy it is to destroy refineries. How long do you think it would take to re-build the operation to current output?

As for shale oil - production is nowhere near the US daily consumption, and will not be for many, many years. It cannot be ramped up overnight.

No, the US has its strategic reserve of 200 days which can probably be stretched out further with rationing. The rest of the oil will be much, much harder to get to. Oil tankers are very big, very slow targets. If they can be interdicted by a bunch of Somali in light craft, I'm sure they can be found by Russian subs/aircraft/cruise missiles.

Re:Japanese Military

[GameboyRMH]

There aren't too many aircraft in the world more "serious" than an F-35. It's a latest generation stealth fighter with supersonic flight capability and V(/S)TOL variants. It's no F-22 or PAK-FA...but it's pretty good.

Re:Japanese Military

[HornWumpus]

and in that situation Russian pipelines and refineries will be perfectly intact...

Re:Japanese Military

[lgw]

In the next total war, submarines are going to matter less as fast ships that can unleash a small fleet of drones and get out before subs can respond will project power.

We can only hope that your optimism about how far away the next total war is is justified.

Re:Japanese Military

[Dunbal]

You think Canada's air defense network is as complicated as Russia's?

Re:Japanese Military

[HornWumpus]

I know Canada's air defense network is the USA's (freeloading Canuks) and is _better_ then Russia's.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

The US seems to think that Canadian oil belongs to it. You realize that Canada is not forced to sell it to you, right?

Are you of the opinion that Canada would remain neutral or side with Russia if the US faced an existential threat from Russia? Somehow I doubt it.

The rest of the oil will be much, much harder to get to.

Drilling off the coast of CA or in the Gulf of Mexico is not that hard and has been massively obstructed by govt. policy as has oil production in Alaska and in the lower 48. Furthermore, the nuclear power industry in the US has been virtually killed off by anti-nuke activists, not by a lack of resources or technical expertise.

The dependence of the US on foreign energy resources is mostly a creation of govt. policy. There is no reason why those policies couldn't be changed.

Oil tankers are very big, very slow targets. If they can be interdicted by a bunch of Somali in light craft, I'm sure they can be found by Russian subs/aircraft/cruise missiles.

The Russian navy would have a very hard time operating in American coastal waters and by "very hard time", I mean "impossible".

Anyway, speculation on long, drawn out, open hostilities involving Russian subs sinking American oil tankers is silly. It's hard to imagine how such a conflict could exist without rapid escalation. As for a lower-key direct conflict - both the US and Russia are resource independent and could survive, though not without large economic disruptions, even if they hermetically sealed their respective territories. The idea that the US can be starved-out by an adversary is ridiculous. The US is not an island empire like the UK or Japan. It has what it needs within its own territory.

Re: Japanese Military

[T-Bone-T]

You can doubt it all you want but you'd be very wrong. The inner screen is 10 miles from the carrier. The outer screen is 50 miles away and the picket is well over 100 miles away.

Re:Japanese Military

[stoatwblr]

"added marginal value" is being polite. The polited bombs invariably missed due to pilots flinching at the last moment - something that mechanically guided ones don't hav issues with. (plus some payload was sacrificed for the mass of the pilot, plus added complexity of having human-operable controls.)

Japan was in an extremely bad place but the heirarchy was fully aware of the military uselessness of such devices, except as psychological weapons.

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to do a research on who is spending what for the maintenance of U.S. military presence in Japan (salaries of military personnel stationed in Japan included).

Re:Japanese Military

[Jonathan_S]

The new USS America [wikipedia.org] has a flight deck of the same size. France's (only) aircraft carrier is about ten meters longer. The gigantic Nimitz-class supercarriers are the exception to the rule.

Just using flight deck length is misleading.
While the French Charles de Gaulle carrier is only 13 meters longer, it's almost 70% wider and and overall it's twice as big (displacement).

Here's a bit more detailed listing,
name (year launched)
tonnage (standard), length x beam (flight deck)

Izumo (2013)
19,500 tons, 248 x 38 m

HMS Invincible (1980)
22,000 tons, 209 x 36 m

HMS Ark Royal (1955)
36,800 tons, 245 x 52 m

Charles de Gaulle (2001)
37,085 tons, 245 x 52 m

USS America (2012)
45,000 tons, 257 x 32 m

USS Midway (1945)
45,000 tons, 295 x 34 m

HMS Queen Elizabeth (2016, planned)
70,6000 tons, 284 x 70 m

USS Nimitz (1975)
100,000 tons, 332 x 77 m

The Izumo is less than half the displacement of a late-war WWII design, and lacks the flight deck area of more modern carriers (which due to their angled flight deck are substantially wider at the flight deck than at the waterline). Unsurprisingly it's closest to the displacement to the Royal Navy's old through-deck cruisers (aka 'Harrier carriers') which had the similar mission of supporting helicopters for anti-submarine patrol.

Re:Japanese Military

[airdweller]

" "hull shot", where a NATO sub came so close to a Soviet sub that it was able to shoot photos of the hull. "
There's photos made by Soviet subs of US carriers/subs/etc. as well. This kind of argumentation is pointless.

Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Joining Yet Again]

Seriously, why not?

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[i kan reed]

Would you believe that it's extremely complex and and the boiled down version dates back to WWII(and the real version dates way before that). Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it. Japanese nationalists, much like U.S. republicans are unwilling to accept that their country has ever done anything wrong, and view the Chinese assertions about the rape of Nanking and other atrocities as propaganda. The U.S. uses Japan as a proxy in limiting China's imperialism, which only further sours the resentment around these things.

China, for their part, are lead by a bunch of unelected fascists, who do in fact, publish anti-Japan propaganda in addition to the true things, making Japan seem like a inhuman monster in the public consciousness. We're lucky they're only really in a cold war with each other, because the U.S. would almost certainly get drawn into one side or the other.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[NSash]

Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it.

On the surface, it seems like the Japanese government has repeatedly acknowledged its crimes during World War II. See List of war apology statements issued by Japan.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Opportunist]

Because it's bad for the industry 'cause they can't sell as much if people don't have to rebuild, and it's bad for politicians because people actually worry about real problems if you don't show them a boogeyman.

Duh.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[mlts]

From what I've seen, the US has been a moderating force in the region since the 1900s, from keeping Japan from attacking Russia, through WWII, to keeping the peace in the area.

People seem to forget, but if that area went to war, it would make the turmoil of the Middle East look calm, so even though the US isn't perfect, the peace has been kept in that area for the most part.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Crosshair84]

Japanese nationalists, much like U.S. republicans are unwilling to accept that their country has ever done anything wrong,

Since when has Obama been a Republican? Last time I checked the Democrats have been just as happy to bomb third world countries as Republicans have. The only outspoken criticism of these policies are coming from Tea Party Republicans like Rand Paul. The problem is not Dem or GOP. It's a problem with the federal government.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[ShanghaiBill]

Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it.

On the surface, it seems like the Japanese government has repeatedly acknowledged its crimes during World War II. See List of war apology statements issued by Japan.

They have indeed. They have also repeatedly retracted those apologies. The strongest apologies have come from lower level officials. Even an apology by the prime minister is really like John Boehner apologizing for America. An clear and unambiguous apology by the emperor would carry far more weight.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[ShanghaiBill]

Seriously, why not?

One reason is China's one child policy and the resulting gender imbalance. The crowds of young men outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, chanting "War! War! War!" would probably have something better to do if they had a family or even a girlfriend.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US stopped a war between Japan and Russia. A war the Japan was winning. There was no prevention. It's how Japan got a contested island that Russia feels belongs to them. And it's still why Japan and Russia are at war since WWII. As neither side has signed a peace treaty to officially end WWII between them.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[rahvin112]

The US officially protects the Japanese with their nuclear weapons, this has been official US policy since WWII. In political science parlance Japan is under the Nuclear Umbrella of the US. In other words they are a country on a very short list that the US will defend with Nuclear weapons.

Re: Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

You Russian by the way? Cause it's Russia who has had Japanese islands ever since WWII and that's why they haven't signed a peace treaty.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

The crowds of young men outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, chanting "War! War! War!" would probably have something better to do if they had a family or even a girlfriend.

This is why heavy investments must be made, not to the Japanese defense areas, but to the Japanese efforts to develop sexbots. Crowds of young men all over the world would have better things to do if they had a sexbot. God knows I would.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[i kan reed]

Wah wah wah, let's pretend that democrats are the hypernationalists who never acknowledge the unethical premises in U.S. foreign policy because Obama has done bad things.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, the Democrats do acknowledge the atrocities of this country. Such as the GITMO prison and all the issues there. Of course, their solution to keeping Gitmo from growing is drone strikes in foreign countries as basically a campaign of assassination, and over foreign territory without the consent of those governments. That'll solve our Gitmo problem; if they're dead they can't become prisoners, right?

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[mlts]

I wonder if Japan and China should do what Europe did in 1945-46 and provide for freely available travel between countries. This allowed people to see how others lived, and good or bad, it did do a lot in reducing tensions in the European nations. Instead of shooting at each other, the worst is the fights after the football (soccer if in the US) games.

Getting both countries to intermingle, might just give pressure to both governments to not bother rattling sabers over some small islands and focus on other things.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could, you know...wipe the grease off your forehead, wash your hair, act like a normal human being, and try to find a real girlfriend. What do I know, though?

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you are not aware that both countries had intermingled for a long time. Japan sent monks and students to China for hundreds of years and drank from China's cultural cup. China in the 20th Century sent students to Japan since Japan had adapted a lot of Western studies (e.g. Rangaku "Studies from Holland") and had been translating works. A lot of the current tension is because of WWII and before. The Jews had remunerations, apologies and action against the Nazis. In China, there was a forgotten holocaust. Japanese has never explicitly and sincerely apologized except for what amounts to vague admissions to guilt; high officials or the Japanese emperor did not apologize. The situation is very polemic and cannot be oversimplified to "oh, can't we just get along?"

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Joining Yet Again]

Not hearing/providing apologies for the actions of some other mostly dead people against yet other mostly dead people is an excuse, not a preclusion to just getting along.

Really, it is nice for Germans to apologise to Jews; for white South Africans to apologise to black; for Britain to posthumously pardon Turing; &c. It may have a positive effect on lessening tensions between those who relate to perceived victims and those who relate to perceived perpetrators (in war, each party often assumes both roles). But the atrocities have already happened. The people are already dead. Rather than saying sorry for something you haven't actually done to someone you haven't even done it to on behalf of two groups of dead people, instead think, "Someone else fucked up, but we're going to do better."

How many wars/insurrections has the US been involved in since WW2? How many countries has it apologised to? How many of those countries have decided they're going to spend eternity fucking the US over? Some, of course, but very few. The remainder know that, win or lose, you gotta move on. See also the IRA peace process, something closer to my heart. Jerry Adams never said, "I'm sorry for all the people who under my authority were tortured and/or bombed, and I'm sorry to all their families." Nor has Britain hung its head in shame for its own bloody and subversive responses. The Good Friday agreements were instead an approach of, "Even if we don't love each other, and even if we each think the other side deserved all the shit we gave it, let's now just all try to get along."

And it mostly worked.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[HungWeiLo]

The apologies would probably be much more believable and accepted if they had not been housing convicted Class A war criminals in a war hero shrine all this time.

Imagine Goebbels enshrined in the Cathedral of Cologne in the present day.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[HungWeiLo]

The people are already dead. Rather than saying sorry for something you haven't actually done to someone you haven't even done it to ...but we're going to do better."

Except they're still enshrining dead war criminals and not imprisoning ones who are still alive. So they clearly have no intention of doing it better. It's not hard to see why people in East Asia are still so sore about this topic. No one would fault the Simon Wiesenthal Center for "being upset" - and Rommel and Goebbels aren't even posthumously celebrated after death in a grand cathedral in Germany like their peers are in Japan.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[HungWeiLo]

And plus many are single-child brats with 4 doting servants, uh, grandparents.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Joining Yet Again]

While I would prefer that they neither enshrined dead war criminals nor ignored still living ones, again, they've already done their deeds, and they no longer have significant power. Locking them up won't undo the harm done, while keeping them free won't increase the threat of war. Indeed, the Good Friday agreements were about people on both sides knowing that the other commited atrocities, not saying sorry, and still agreeing to move on. One could even go half way as in South Africa, first deciding to end the conflct (between whites and non-whites), then still offering a reprieve for anyone prepared to be honest and apologetic.

Anyway, there are lots of people in Germany who celebrate Rommel and Goebbels - it's just that by outlawing certain beliefs you get to pretend really hard that they don't exist any more.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[gslj]

snip

On the surface, it seems like the Japanese government has repeatedly acknowledged its crimes during World War II. See List of war apology statements issued by Japan.

They have indeed. They have also repeatedly retracted those apologies. The strongest apologies have come from lower level officials. Even an apology by the prime minister is really like John Boehner apologizing for America. An clear and unambiguous apology by the emperor would carry far more weight.

Not exactly. An apology from a prime minister (and there are quite a few on the linked Wikipedia page) is like an apology from the President of the US. Prime Minister=head of the government. If you want one from the head of state, however, the emperor, then how about this one on the same page?

October 8, 1996: Emperor Akihito said in a speech at a dinner with the South Korean president, Kim Dae Jung: "There was a period when our nation brought to bear great sufferings upon the people of the Korean Peninsula." "The deep sorrow that I feel over this will never be forgotten".

-Gareth

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever country you live in, does it have border controls of some sort? If so, why?

OK, if you answered that question, then you know the answer to the question you just asked.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[shutdown -p now]

I wonder if Japan and China should do what Europe did in 1945-46 and provide for freely available travel between countries. This allowed people to see how others lived, and good or bad, it did do a lot in reducing tensions in the European nations.

What Europe actually did in 1945-46 was massive forced population transfers between most countries involved, to ensure cultural and ethnic homogeneity within the new borders, to eliminate or at least reduce the justifications for things like the Sudeten Crisis. It wasn't all all love and roses, and in fact it was often very violent.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[Anonymous Coward]

Getting both countries to intermingle, might just give pressure to both governments to not bother rattling sabers over some small islands

First, intermingling doesn't automatically make people happy friends, just ask the Czechs and the Serbs. Western Europe has been peaceful since WWII because 1)two WWs left people weary of war and its miseries 2)Western Europe was united against the Soviet Bloc and its evils 3)European welfare states provided a soporific which mellowed everyone out (a great thing until the money runs out). Second, the current conflict between China and Japan isn't just about some small islands. It's really about the territorial waters established by the islands and the resources therein.

there are lots of people in Germany who celebrate Rommel and Goebbels

It's hardly fair to equate Rommel and Goebbels. Rommel has always been well-liked in Germany as a supremely competent military commander who never really subscribed to Nazi ideology. Goebbels on the other hand ...

It's important to note that countries frequently mythologize and make national heroes out of even their most bloodthirsty leaders. Alexander the Great was a butcher who sometimes slaughtered entire cities. Napolean was a tyrant who reigned terror and lead wars of conquest which killed large numbers of people. Yet, Greece today practically worships Alexander and Napolean is viewed as a national hero by many French.

As impossible as it might seem today, it may be that Adolph Hilter will eventually be seen in a positive light by Germans.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[JimCanuck]

Not exactly. An apology from a prime minister (and there are quite a few on the linked Wikipedia page) is like an apology from the President of the US. Prime Minister=head of the government. If you want one from the head of state, however, the emperor, then how about this one on the same page?

Prime Ministers are not the head of state in any country. Hence why they are still in a "ministerial role".

No, ShanghaiBill was correct that the current US Speaker would be equivalent to a apology from a Prime Minister. As that is the role most Prime Ministers have. The head of State being the King/Queen/Emperor or in some cases a separate President for countries that abolished their Monarchies.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[airdweller]

"From what I've seen, the US has been a moderating force in the region since the 1900s, from keeping Japan from attacking Russia, through WWII, to keeping the peace in the area."
It has done such a great job in 1904 when the US stopped "Japan from attacking Russia" and later, in 1937 when it kept "the peace in the area" by stopping Japan from invading China, as well as in Dec 1941, when it persuaded Japan from attacking anyone else and everybody lived in peace and harmony from then on...

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[airdweller]

"The US stopped a war between Japan and Russia. A war the Japan was winning."
Which one is that? 1904-1905? The US stopped it? This is why I like the Internet - you learn something new every day.

Re: Why can't you just be friends and get along?

[airdweller]

You stupid by the way? Cause you need to remember that if you try to fuck with somebody, be ready that somebody will fuck you up.

Carrier?

[djupedal]

Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.

Re:Carrier?

[sycodon]

Ya have to wonder why it has "...has raised eyebrows in China..."

Did they think everyone would just sit around while they grew their military and acted like buffoons?

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.

They should be worried about their own carrier shaped ships since they don't have a battle group either.

Besides japan does have a battle group.

Re:Carrier?

[Nidi62]

Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.

They should be worried about their own carrier shaped ships since they don't have a battle group either.

Besides japan does have a battle group.

Dont forget China's deadly and groundbreaking land carriers.

Re:Carrier?

[rwise2112]

From the article:

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

Anybody know how this thing can be classified as a destroyer?

Re:Carrier?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.

Even with a battle group, Japan and China are, what, ~800 kilometers apart (and the islands that Japan and China have special togetherness problems about are roughly equidistant); is anyone feeling lucky against the number of anti-ship missiles that you could launch, from shore or from land-based aircraft?

Re:Carrier?

[gadget junkie]

Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group when outside land based fighter range. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.

Fixed it for you. But I admit that even Japanese F 15 Eagle would not be able to keep a continuous air cover on the Sea of Japan.
Be aware tough, that the Japanese navy already has the basic capability of a carrier group. Kongo Class destroyers are equipped with the SPY-1 phased array radar and the SM2 block 3 missile, the same suite defending American carriers.
If anything, given the cold war capabilities of the Japanese navy, their carrier group is a bit skewed towards anti submarine warfare, but who's complaining?
given your original post, I must say that China has no reason to complain. Even if Japan builds another three of these (one for each battle group that it has available now), there's no way that it can mount a credible threat to China itself. It can, tough, be a credible threat against China's expansionary policy in the Spratleys, etc., and above all China's wayward province, North Korea.

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

With rail guns being developed that are significantly harder to intercept than cruise missiles, it makes sense to switch to a smaller faster carrier. Long runways wont be necessary once they develop vtol drones. I'm guessing the US didn't have the money in the budget to build a prototype right now, so they asked to Japanese to build a drone carrier while they are having arguments with China.

  Take what you see in those pictures, build some vtol drones, drop a rail gun on deck and two upgraded versions of these and you have yourself a nice little 21 century drone carrier.

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan has existing anti-air ships, destroyers, and submarines. This ship will join a battle group..and it can be retrofitted to carry planes quite easily, very easily.

Re:Carrier?

[Hartree]

The same way you can call a lion a housecat.

Doesn't mean anyone will believe you, though.

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

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

Anybody know how this thing can be classified as a destroyer?

Naval classifications are largely arbitrary and change frequently.

It's classified as a "destroyer" because Japan decided to call it a "destroyer".

Re:Carrier?

[ColdWetDog]

You press that big button on the top (not shown in the picture) and the flight deck folds up and guns pop out.

Sheesh. Haven't you seen the Transformers movie yet?

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Anybody know how this thing can be classified as a destroyer?
Because there's no standard universally agreed upon definition of "destroyer". For example, it displaces only a bit more than the US Zumwalt class destroyer is projected to.

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan considers aircraft carriers to be "offensive weapons", which their constitution does not allow them to posses, therefore this ship (and their two Hyuga-class ships that are the same thing except slightly smaller) are "helicopter-carrying destroyers".

Sort of like how the US has ten aircraft carriers when you don't count the Wasp-class "amphibious assault ships" that would be called aircraft carriers by any other navy.

Re:Carrier?

[phantomfive]

Not to mention China is easily within range of aircraft fighters and bombers. They can take off from the heart of Japan and strike Beijing; they don't need carriers.

Re:Carrier?

[Zcar]

You mean like the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force's (JMSDF) fleet of Atago class (modified US Burke Flight IIA) and Kongo class (modified US Burke Flight I) Aegis guided missile destroyers? Seems to me like they could put a pretty credible group of AAW escorts from that. Add in the indigenous Akizuki and Takanami class ASW frigates, and I think the JMSDF could field a pretty credible short range carrier battle group with 2-3 Aegis destroyers and a similar number of ASW escorts if they had an appropriate carrier.

Their main weakness is a lack of replenishment ships, just having oilers, not general purpose replenishment ships like the US Lewis and Clark class for various dry supplies (munitions, provisions, spare parts, etc.) during long deployments. To be fair, they'd really only need these to project military power outside their coastal waters.

Re:Carrier?

[Zcar]

Same way the Soviet and Russian navies called their Aviation Cruisers?

Re:Carrier?

[rossdee]

"Anybody know how this thing can be classified as a destroyer?"

Since WWI the main role of "the destroyer" has been to hunt subs. Maybe the Japs intend that for this ship. The flight deck could be for carrying anti-sub helos.

Its way to small to be used for conventional jets, and I don't think the JDF has any VSTOL fighters, and even if they did, it couldn't carry enough fighters to protect itself without US support

It may be their largest ship since WWII, but its only about 1/3 the size of a WWII carrier like the Hiryu.

Re:Carrier?

[Chris Mattern]

Anybody know how this thing can be classified as a destroyer?

Because the Japanese Navy said, "It's a destroyer." The dividing line between destroyer/cruiser/battleship isn't all that sharp, you know. The US Navy's Ticonderoga-class cruisers were originally designated destroyers, for example. It also might be noted, that Ticonderogas are about one-third the displacement as the Izumo.

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Be aware tough,..."
"It can, tough, ..."

'tough' is http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+tough
'though' is http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+though

'though' is the word you are looking for.

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is irrelevant because this isn't a carrier, it's an anti-submarine warfare vessel. While in theory it could carry jump capable F-35s (if they ever work) and MV-22s, it's primary compliment is ASW helicopters like the SH-60k.

China also doesn't need a carrier either. Carriers are for long range force projection, and while that may be a long term goal that's not China's main concern. Their immediate concern is controlling their back yard, pushing around their neighbors in the Pacific like Japan and Korea and Taiwan and controlling the South China Sea. That's much closer to home, and controlling that is much more easily accomplished with submarines. In WW2 half of all Japanese tonnage sunk was by US submarines, so that's China's focus. Currently China has the largest submarine fleet in the world; while they're mostly diesel electric and not as advanced as say American subs, numbers is what matters, not technology. If Japan and China got into a shooting war, China's number one goal would be to starve out Japan as they import all of their energy, half of their food, and most of their industrial resources. So the goal would be to sink as many Japanese merchant ships as possible and starve them out, which is more easily accomplished with large numbers of cheap subs.

Japan is working to counter this threat as they know they are vulnerable to subs, and the best antisubmarine warfare assets are helicopters. This ship is a base for those helicopters.

Re:Carrier?

[DarkAce911]

I don't know, maybe launching their biggest carrier ever on Hiroshima Day. That is a sign for someone because normally it is a national day of mourning in Japan.

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is actually relatively scary when you realize what it is.

China has shown a remarkable aptitude in acquiring reverse engineering, and incorporating technology into their society both military and commercial. They could easily gain the technologies necessary to make an aircraft carrier, and in fact they already have with the Russian one they purchased a few years ago.

What they don't have are the crews. It takes decades to develop the officer corp that are capable of running a carrier and understanding it's strengths and weaknesses sufficiently to maximize it's utility. It takes generations to develop and maintain the processes that the flight crews and deck crews must have in order to efficiently operate a jet-capable carrier; you can't just train people if you don't have the built in experience in your military, the military has to guess at processes and test them and refine them and build a knowledge base in order to train efficient crews and pilots to operate a carrier air wing. Things like aircraft launches, aircraft recovery, and maintenance onboard a carrier are not simple tasks. Unfortunately for the Chinese, other navies are a century ahead of them when it comes to developing this knowledge base.

This facility is a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) research facility. What this land-carrier is doing is giving them the opportunity to develop the knowledge base required to run a carrier by allowing pilots to practice take-off and landing in a controlled environment, and the deck crews to practice and refine their skills. That way, in a few decades if the Chinese need to build a force-projection Navy, they'll have the knowledge base already established so it'll just be a matter of building the ships.

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not "could", it is for carrying ASW helos. The planned flight group for these ships is 7 SH-60Ks, an anti-submarine warfare helo specifically to JDF specs, and 2 SAR helos. Some quick google searches on this class show that that is it's intended purpose.

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're partially correct - Destroyers typically provide multirole activities, with strengths in air-defense and anti-submarine warfare capabilities, while Frigates concentrate on ASW.

As for conventional jets, yes, this cannot embark them, but it'll be used for Osprey and JSF operations, once the JSF makes it into Japanese hands in a few years.

This ship is NOT 1/3 the size of a WWII carrier, like the Hiryu. The Hiryu was 227 meters long. This is 250 meters. Please do some research before you hit 'Submit'.

Re:Carrier?

[Deadstick]

Indeed. "Submarine", "aircraft carrier" and "fleet oiler" are legitimately descriptive names, but "destroyer", "cruiser" and (in the past) "battleship" are totally arbitrary: all three of those types do all three things!

Re:Carrier?

[angel'o'sphere]

Carriers go for far over 50 nautic miles per hour, that is far over 64 land miles per hour.
They might be sitting ducks in relation to an airplane.
But if they go full throttle they leave their defenses out of sight in 30 minutes..

Re:Carrier?

[angel'o'sphere]

First off all it is a carrier, not a destroyer.
A destroyer has as main roles defense of a convoy and/or submarine hunting. In modern times that ofc extends to pirate defense and reconesence.
Now as modern destroyers usually have one or even two helicopters on board and use them to find subs and to extend radar range you could argue that this 'carrier' is a super destroyer.
A destroyer has a strike range of perhaps 40km, with guided missiles perhaps up to 100km.
A helicopter carrier has easy 250km, plus range of the carried missiles.
On the other hand I doubt that is his prime role. With 14 helicopters you could assign, lets say 4 to ship defense (hunting subs and detecting other ships/planes) and have 10 left for coastal war fare, intrusion operations, rescue operations, recon missions, health transport and catastroph aid.
It would be interesting to know how many "marines" they habe on board.
In the above scenario 10 helicopters likely can carry 100 man. Plan for two trips and make this 200. In computer games or SF such a thing would be called an "Assault Carrier" ;)

I would assume they have a long term plan and want to refit the thing in ten years into a drone carrier.

Re:Carrier?

[angel'o'sphere]

This new ship is 250m long, the Hiryu was 227m.
But I know, fractions arithmetic is a lost Rt in our times ;)

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya have to wonder why it has "...has raised eyebrows in China..."

Did they think everyone would just sit around while they grew their military and acted like buffoons?

You must be young and not know your history.

It raised eyebrows because the Japanese named this new ship after the same one that invaded China

Re:Carrier?

[david_thornley]

Actually, no.

However, don't take my word for it. Look at the propellers, which are rather similar to those of other major warships that couldn't go nearly as fast. No matter how much power the nukes can generate, for propulsion it all has to go into the screws. Doubtless these are more efficient than earlier ones, and they can doubtless be effective at higher rpm than earlier ones, but there's limits.

Now, take a look at naval power/speed curves. It takes a whole lot of power to go 30 knots, and 50 knots would take at least five times the power, probably more. Remember, that power has to go through the screws into the water.

For all the rumors I've heard about 50-knot carriers, none has ever been verified, and nobody's ever explained to me how it could be possible..

Re:Carrier?

[fnj]

Carriers go for far over 50 nautic miles per hour, that is far over 64 land miles per hour.
They might be sitting ducks in relation to an airplane.
But if they go full throttle they leave their defenses out of sight in 30 minutes..

There's no polite way to say this. That statement is ignorant. First of all, 50 knots is 57.5 mph, not 64, but that is beside the point because 50 knots is a fantasy. The fastest carriers can reach 30 knots (34.5 mph) or slightly over. Which is fine, because they would be equally sitting ducks at twice the speed.

Two lousy CIWS are child's play to defeat even with a swarm of ancient subsonic Exocets timed to arrive simultaneously, let alone supersonic diving anti-ship missiles such as the mach 2.5 P-800 Oniks with 300 kg warhead or the mach 1.6-2.5 Granit with gigantic 750 kg warhead. If that's not enough, India has or will soon have the mach 2.8-3.0 Brahmos with 2-300 kg warhead, launchable from land, sea or air. And they are working on the mach 7 Brahmos-II.

China has the mach 10 DF-21D ship killer ballistic missile, which ranges 3000 km from land. The United States Naval Institute says that even the conventional warhead would be enough to destroy a large carrier with a single hit and that there is currently no defense against it.

All of these have a range in the hundreds to thousands of km. It would take a carrier several hours to more than one day to travel out of range, but the missiles only need several minutes.

Re:Carrier?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your are correct Sir. Mere ships are no defense.

Re:Carrier?

[angel'o'sphere]

The Bismark was doing 38knots, official speed of the Nimiz is IIRC 42kn ...
You don't need 5 times more energy to go 10 kn faster, the main reason btw for more energy need is water and wind resistance, nothing else.

Re:Carrier?

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, I assumed a mile is something like 1400yards, probably I misscalculated somewhere by switching from 1856 to 1400 :)
Anyway regarding a ballistic missile and a carrier it is worth to do the math.
Assuming the missile is shot from 1000km distance and flies with 3000km it needs 20 minutes to reach the carrier.
A carrier going with 55km (30kn) makes 10 nm distance in that time (18km).
So yes: a carrier can "outrun" the missile if he gets warning in time. The missile would need a guiding system to avoid that or would need to be fired from relatively close. Which also means its base would be in of fighter range of the carrier.

Re:Carrier?

[idontgno]

The Royal Navy Invincible-class was originally called a "through-deck cruiser." Apparently for political reasons: The RN had just had its first big-deck fleet carrier canceled over cost concerns, and was on the verge of losing fleet airpower entirely, so (IMHO) snuck through a "cruiser" that could carry antisubmarine helicopters. And other aircraft, by a happy coincidence.

Re:Carrier?

[david_thornley]

At what time was Bismarck clocked at 38 knots? That simply wasn't going to happen. There were ships that fast or faster in WWII, but much smaller ones. Wikipedia lists Nimitz' top speed as 30+ knots, about as fast as WWII fast carriers. Got a citation so we can update Wikipedia?

At low speeds, the resistance is from water and wind. At high speeds, wave resistance dominates. This is why you can make a ship design faster by making it longer: the longer it is, the higher the speed before bow and stern wakes interfere with each other. Find some book on ship design (I liked Norman Friedman's "Battleships" myself, and it has a good layman's discussion of this). You'd think there would be something good on this in Wikipedia, but in thirty seconds of search I found nothing particularly readable.

At high speeds (and 30 knots is high for all warships), the power curve becomes really steep. I was estimating based on power proportional to the cube of the speed, and that's probably being a bit conservative. If you look up warship stats, you'll notice things like that. The halving of engine power in US WWII destroyer escorts (to allow building more landing craft) cut top speed from about 25 to about 21 knots, not 25 to 12.5.

Again, don't take my word on this. Check reputable sources for the official top speed of ships. Read something on warship design.

The ideas behind this new kit.

[auric_dude]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4020919&cid=44397309

Through Deck Cruisers

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds very familiar to the RN Through Deck Cruisers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through_deck_cruiser

Article 9

[barlevg]

So am I correct in inferring that no one really takes Article 9 very seriously any more?

Re:Article 9

[intermodal]

Article 9 is taken only as seriously as outside threats permit. You know, the same basic argument used by the US and the State of Massachusetts in their highly unconstitutional occupation of Boston earlier this year, where warrantless searches of homes, detention of nonconsenting homeowners, and a general loss of freedom to do anything but shut up and stay inside occurred.

Re:Article 9

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:Article 9

[barlevg]

I was actually unaware of the warrant-less searches in the aftermath of the marathon bombing, but doing a Google search, I found this analysis. So, just to make sure I'm understanding your point, are you're saying that in Japan the debate concerning what constitutes an offensive military vs. a "self-defense force" is regarded similarly to the "grey area" in the US about what is considered "exigent circumstances" justifying a warrant-less search?

Re:Article 9

[gadget junkie]

So am I correct in inferring that no one really takes Article 9 very seriously any more?

No, and this is another victory for reality over idealism. History is chock full of those, or at least, of the dead bodies of the hapless victims of ill advised good faith. For reference, see "this is an era of peace", "open covenants openly arrived at", etc.
For an explanation why tough, nobody beats General Von Mannerheim, who was quoted as saying, when asked why Finland should have a standing army: "Every country has an Army. Either its own, or an army of occupation"

Re:Article 9

[intermodal]

From the point of view of the respective governments, yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm not claiming to agree with their position, but that certainly appears to be their line of reasoning.

Re:Article 9

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for posting his link. Interesting stuff. I'd never heard of him before.

Re:Article 9

[Chris Mattern]

Frankly, nobody's taken Article 9 very seriously for about forty years now. It gets taken out on occasion when people want to object to sending Japanese units to participate in some international force, but otherwise it gets pretty much ignored.

Where have I seen this ship before?

[korbulon]

Oh yeah, found it: http://ilarge.listal.com/image/92722/936full-star-blazers-photo.jpg

Raised eyebrows in China?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do they expect Japan to do when China outright bought a used aircraft carrier from Russia?

The only reason Japan hasn't built an actual "aircraft carrier" is the presence of the US Seventh Fleet that it can operate from. Well that and the pesky terms in their constitution.

Re:Raised eyebrows in China?

[kevinT]

China did purchase a used aircraft carrier from Russia. A gutted, empty hull of a ship with no equipment or propulsion. China spent millions rebuilding the ship, not to have a carrier, but to learn what it takes to build one. China already has a least one carrier and possibly more under construction.

None of the carriers china is building is anything close to the Nimitz class ships the United States has.

Re:Raised eyebrows in China?

[cbraescu1]

It wasn't from Russia but from Ukraine. And it wasn't a "used carrier" but an unfinished one.

Re:Raised eyebrows in China?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> None of the carriers china is building is anything close to the Nimitz class ships the United States has.

Meanwhile, back at the shipyards...

Re:Raised eyebrows in China?

[Dave Emami]

None of the carriers china is building is anything close to the Nimitz class ships the United States has.

Depending on what position you take in the big carriers vs. small carriers and the "drones will make piloted combat aircraft obsolete/no they won't" debates, this may matter as much as how many battleships a country had in 1939. Not taking sides, myself (not knowledgeable enough), but there's a lot of discussion in naval warfare circles about where things will wind up 10-20 years down the line.

History

[HungWeiLo]

Finance Minister Taro Aso has come under fire for comments that some listeners interpreted as suggesting Tokyo should look to Nazi Germany as a model in changing its pacifist constitution.

Re:History

[Opportunist]

Yeah, that's a plan, let's learn from the loser and repeat his idiocy.

But then, who are we to talk, we copy from the late 1920 how to deal with economic troubles.

What happened to the Japanese industry?

[Opportunist]

What about their zeal to make everything smaller and more efficient? I'd have expected them to produce the smallest aircraft carrier with a few hundred fully automated drones that can conduct pinpoint strikes and play some soothing melodies while they clean themselves.

Re:What happened to the Japanese industry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's to say they can't do all of that off of this new ship? It's such a small aircraft carrier that it can only launch helicopters! Besides, helicopters are known vehicles for the insertion of some of the most high-tech weaponry we have, e.g. special operations forces. And those guys know how to use drones, too. Speaking of which, higher-ups in Japan recently proposed the creation marine-style force as well as a drone fleet. With a question mark as big as North Korea, they'd be idiots not to.

Lame

[Anonymous Coward]

No Wave Motion Gun, no interest. File it under Kaiju Fodder.

Neat Boat, but...

[CanHasDIY]

So... when is it gonna transform into a giant robot?

That's no moon...

[funwithBSD]

And that is not a Helicopter Carrier.

It is going to be a "full sized" drone carrier.

Re:That's no moon...

[Viewsonic]

This *10. Even for a drone carrier, this is still a huge ship. The future is not with manned aircraft.

Re:That's no moon...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The USN should ditch 5 of its behemoth supercarriers tomorrow, and go with 10 of these. With next generation drones, we would have more capability for less cost.

ours is bigger than yours

[Gravis Zero]

by comparison, the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (aka the floating island) is 332.8 meters (1,092 feet) long.

compensating, wha?

Gundam Hanger

[Anonymous Coward]

How many mobile suits can it hold?

fock

[Anonymous Coward]

Fock yu dorphin!

You're probably closer than you know.

[ron_ivi]

While everyone else is speculating about 1990's "fighter planes" - you're probably closer to the truth. I suspect it's not a carrier for conventional fighters, but, as you say, robots^H^H^H^H^H^Hdrones.

Re:You're probably closer than you know.

[CanHasDIY]

All joking aside, that's pretty much what I assumed. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the navigation system can function with complete autonomy as well.

Re:You're probably closer than you know.

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably turns INTO a robot.

Could this be it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know... it's little stuff like this that ends up turning into a world war

Power source?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully if it is powered by a nuclear reactor it is more robust than the design at Fukushima. Then again: Reactors used aboard ships tend to be simpler and hence more reliable.

Re:Power source?

[MiniMike]

Don't worry, it will be ok as long as they keep the reactor away from the ocean.

Nice way to spend money

[Anonymous Coward]

Way to go Japan... instead of trying to fix Fukushima...

Re:Nice way to spend money

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's the right way to do things: put everything on hold while you solve problems one by one.
Fucking idiot.

How is this "technically a destroyer?"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> huge flat-top destroyer...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.

OK, if it's designed with a "flight deck" that designed to carry aircraft (helicopters), how is this NOT an aircraft carrier?

Re:How is this "technically a destroyer?"

[alexhs]

how is this NOT an aircraft carrier?

Simple, pick your favourite:

Ceci n'est pas un porte-avions. (René Magritte)
This isn't the aircraft carrier you're looking for. (Obi-Wan Kenobi)

Re:How is this "technically a destroyer?"

[ColdWetDog]

A lot of people who fly fixed wing planes really don't consider helicopters as 'aircraft'.

"Helicopters do not fly. The ground repels them because they are so ugly."

Re:How is this "technically a destroyer?"

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Presumably because of its mission, it is classified as a "destroyer". Traditionally, a destroyers job is to have good speed and range, and be able to manhandle smaller craft and deal with submarines. If it is anti-submarine and anti-smaller craft in armaments, then the designation makes sense. If it is primarily a helicopter pad, then it may completely lack the capital firepower to deal with similar sized or larger hostile vessels.

Remember that in a (possible future) slowly escalating conflict with China or North Korea, Japan fears predations on its shipping from submarines. This ship gives Japan the capability to hunt submarines in a wide zone, far from its land bases.

Re:How is this "technically a destroyer?"

[Anonymous Coward]

Ce n'est pas le porte-avions que vous cherchez. (Obi-Wan Magritte)

VTOL aicraft?

[lennier1]

Unless they changed something about the surface mix during the move from the Hyuga class to the new Izumo class, the downward heat from a launching VTOL fighter like the F-35 would melt the runway. Not the kind of surface you'd want to take off from.

Re:VTOL aicraft?

[rahvin112]

Unless of course they added the piping and pumping systems necessary to water cool the deck. Right?

Re:VTOL aicraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

An insurmountable engineering challenge. Please contact them.

Re:VTOL aicraft?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Good point, I am sure the Japanese engineers that build the ship did not think to make the surface not melt when something tries to land or take of vertically on it. Good thing Slashdot exists otherwise all kinds of engineers and scientists might be making fools of themselves.

Re:VTOL aicraft?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know! One would think with the billions of yen these guys dumped into this system, that they could not find one single materials engineer around to tell them about this blaring design flaw. They should have hired you since you seem to be the only person here to spot this! Actually they probably did make you an offer but you turned it down because you just couldn't get up out of your armchair. These things are doomed without you! Please reconsider!

Good Old Days

[nojayuk]

The Izumo is a replacement for the existing smaller Japanese helicopter carriers and they plan to build a second one. Some defence-oriented website put up a scale comparison picture -- the Izumo is about the same size as the IJN fleet carriers like the Akagi that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. It's still significantly smaller than the USMC's Tarawa LHD carriers and the forthcoming America class replacements for the Tarawas are even bigger targets^W.

This flirting with carriers isn't new:

[Hartree]

Japan has been fielding "destroyers" that are really helicopter carriers for some time.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga-class_helicopter_destroyer

for example.

They probably also could be refitted to launch VSTOL aircraft like the Harrier.

Re:This flirting with carriers isn't new:

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Helicopters are appropriate to the traditional roles of a destroyer, and lack the effective range of fixed wing craft. So there nothing peculiar about this.

Next generation drones might genuinely muddy the waters, however...

Destroyer? Really?

[Ioldanach]

This is a VTOL carrier, through and through. I don't see any significant weaponry on board beyond the aircraft carrying capabilities, and no sources that I can find indicate the armanent of DDH-183 Izumo. Helicopters and VTOL manned and drone aircraft would be ideal uses for that flight deck.

Re:Destroyer? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

F-35B, anyone?

On August 6? Really??

[perry64]

Not an auspicious date in Japanese military history.

Time to celebrate!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cause we all know that this world needs MORE war ships to gussle down all that oil and fight for some stupid little island!

What a fucked up world.

armored robot

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one around here who sees giant robots coming out of this thing???

Largest on purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure they built it large and its not just a side effect of the newly discovered leak in the next article?

Re:Largest on purpose?

[Anonymous Coward]

During WW2 there were many mysterious aircraft disappearances in the area known as the Devil’s Sea, located between Iwo Jima and Marcus Island. After the Fukushima trouble, many sailors reported seeing single engine "ghost" aircraft with the rising sun painted on the wings. After consulting with a Clairvoyant, Japan learned that the "ghost" aircraft were stuck in a time-warp searching for a ship's landing deck. Funds were raised to build a large flat top ship to go out and collect the already build aircraft each with a trained pilot. This ship will help Japan to save money by not having to build more aircraft and train pilots. Excellent idea !

Godzilla vs new warship

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what the world would be like if Japan ever again raised the Zulu flag from a warship in anger.

Not a warship! lol

[intermodal]

This is totally self-defense.

Izuma? Not Yamato?

[whitroth]

And where's the wave motion gun?

                    mark

Remember WWII, anyone?

[scotts13]

For several years before war broke out, German airliners looked suspiciously un-airliner-like. Examples the HE-111 and FW-200. War breaks out, and surprise! Turns out with a few twists of a wrench they make much better bombers than they ever did airliners. Izumo may be a destroyer now, but I guarantee you there are plans - and possibly fittings already installed - for launch equipment.

Re:Remember WWII, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why bother with launch equipment? Just use VTOL/STOVL fighters.

Re:Remember WWII, anyone?

[DaveAtFraud]

Actually, the HE-111 became a decent bomber (until it had real fighter opposition but that's a different problem) but the FW-200 really didn't. The FW-200 really was designed as an airliner and had a tendency to suffer structural failures pulling the loads that were put on it as a bomber/maritime patrol plane. It still sank quite a bit of allied shipping but it had more than its share of problems.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Remember WWII, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

To launch what? They've got Atago- and Kongo-class Guided Missile Destroyers that are AEGIS equipped. Now, they don't have Tomahawk, but they carry ESSM and SM-2, and they'll be getting SM-6 within a few years. There's zero reason for a ship of this type to be equipped with any sort of missile launch technology, minus point-self-defense missiles, like SeaRAM.

As for the phased array radar that's likely very similar in operation to the SPY-1 radar that equips their DDGs, it's likely that it's designed with interoperabilty and cooperative engagement in mind, such that an asset like this ship can monitor the air environment and relay situational awareness and tracks to a DDG that can fire an AAW weapon like the SM-2/6.

what's wrong with japan

[beefoot]

Japan seems wanting to hang on to their past and bad image during the WW2. All they need to do is to apologize to the world of their aggressive behaviour in WW2 and promise it will not do it again. Put everything behind it and start building anything they want. What they did though is to continue worship those generals who kill thousands during WW2 and pissed off all the neighbours. Which country did not kill thousands of people during WW1, WW2, Vietnam War, Korean War. Look at German, they admitted the mistakes and now they have one of the strongest military in the world. I just don't get it.

Fukushima

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should have spent the money on containing the Fukushima leak?

you're right, as Churchill was at the time

[raymorris]

Funny, I think you're right about everything but the first sentence. Churchill's description was pretty accurate at the time he said it. Germany and Japan had attempted to massacre a significant portion of the planet and needed to be kept in check. Maybe Churchill was an idiot, but history suggests it's far more likely that you and I both are. Churchill was not Bush or Obama, who will be categorized with Millard Fillmore by historians.

Carrier-like is an understatement

[Lashat]

Especially if you are launching drones. "Hunter Killer Swarm" coming up.

Drone Carrier

[ubersoldat2k7]

Nothing less, nothing more. First of its kind I guess, maybe that's why the name got lost in translation.

Hopefully not built by Toyota

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Otherwise it will never stop.

Re:This is about Korea, NOT China

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I saw this exact text when browsing Pravda. Kudos for copying a propaganda site.

Re:On August 6? Really??

[DarkAce911]

I thought that was interesting too, it didn't hit me till I saw both news articles on the same page.

Just an observation

[DaveAtFraud]

In the U.S. we call the armed forces "The Department of Defense." Calling a weapon "defensive" leaves lots of room for what you defend and how you defend it.

Cheers,
Dave

It's been done before

[DerekLyons]

Those few of us on Slashdot who are geeks of the naval history persusasion will remember the British and the Through Deck Cruiser.

Be careful what you wish for

[Dave Emami]

Perhaps, but right now it's the best way of preventing a second Sino-Japanese War. China trusts the US military much more than they do a Japanese military, and US abandonment of the region would trigger an arms race (conventional and otherwise) that would make Indian-Pakistani relations look warm and fuzzy.

Not just with the Japanese, either -- basically, all the other countries in the region are going to have to decide whether they care more about the evil things Japan did to them prior to and during WW2, or about how powerful mainland China is today. Further, the less of a counterweight the US is to China, the more incentive there is for China's neighbors to go nuclear -- and Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have the technological/industrial base to do so very quickly.

Mind you, that might not necessarily be a bad thing. A while ago, one of the PRC's generals stated that Taiwan wasn't really protected by the US because the US wouldn't "trade Taiwan for Los Angeles or San Francisco." If the Taiwanese had their own nuclear arsenal, they can turn the question around and ask the PRC if they're willing to trade Taiwan for Shanghai and Beijing. Given that Taiwan's existence is at stake, they'd be taken much more seriously in the PRC's calculations. That might lead to a more stable situation -- or it might not. It depends on whether or not the bad blood between the smaller countries stays buried (a 1-to-n MAD situation, with the PRC being the 1) or if they don't (an n-to-n MAD situation).

Destroyer?

[wcrowe]

250 meters? That's not a destroyer. I mean, that's about the size of the USS Hornet. Not exactly a "tin can".

Bonsai!

[ikhider]

Will they launch Gundam's or Zaku's? "I...am...a...Gundameister!"

Re:Bonsai!

[gmhowell]

Black Tigers obviously...

Zeroes were good but not great and not the best

[A nonymous Coward]

Zeroes were excellent mid-speed dogfighter and had tremendous range, but that was the limit of its advantages. The P-40 routinely beat the Zero in China using energy tactics, and the Wildcat and Zero were dead even by actual loss count in carrier battles. The Zero was 30 mph faster than the Wildcat but fragile, and the controls locked up near its top speed, so it was no good in a dive.

Both US planes had the immeasurable advantage of bringing home rookies far more often than the Zero.

Read the two First Team books.

Re:Zeroes were good but not great and not the best

[amiga3D]

The Zero had the advantage but it took a top pilot to exploit them. At the start of the war they had plenty of experienced and talented fliers but as attrition mounted they failed to keep their pilot corps properly replaced. As the talent level dropped the US fighters were better able to handle the zero. An aircraft is only as good as it's pilot.

Re:Zeroes were good but not great and not the best

[redlemming]

How did the Zero compare to the Hurricane and Spitfire? I had the impression that the design philosophies of the three fighters (and the ME-109) were pretty similar, especially in comparison with most (all?) of the US planes.

Re:Zeroes were good but not great and not the best

[A nonymous Coward]

IIRC, the Spitfire and ME-109 were 20-30 mph faster, primarily because they had such short range. They probably had armor and self-sealing fuel tanks, but I don't know. They did have better guns. As far as maneuverability, I'd guess the Zero was better at medium speeds simply from being lighter.

I've tried comparing them with Wikipedia stats and other web sites, but planes (other than the Japanese) were progressing so fast that it's hard to get data for simultaneous versions.

They have nothing to hide

[A nonymous Coward]

Investments don't mean squat. Until there is verifiable proof that they have created wonder weapons that other nations haven't, then their imaginary results are just that.

I can't make it any simpler: unless they have magic technology with better engines, fuels, explosives, guidance systems, stealth technology, and everything else it would take for their cruise missiles to be do deadly, then they have nothing that other nations don't also have. They are not supermen or magicians. They are just humans with secrets.

As Khrushchev supposedly said to his son, "We have nothing to hide. We have nothing, and we must hide it."

Re:They have nothing to hide

[interval1066]

The Chinese are EXPORTING this offensive technology, seems a bit beyond the "investment" stage. Of course, if you refuse to read the evidence, I can't make you see the light.