Slashdot Mirror


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."

29 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. Japanese Military by Danathar · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Japanese Military by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    2. Re:Japanese Military by Danathar · · Score: 5, Informative

      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...

    3. Re:Japanese Military by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Japanese Military by the_humeister · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

    5. Re:Japanese Military by steelfood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    6. Re:Japanese Military by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3

      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.

    7. Re:Japanese Military by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:Japanese Military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    9. Re:Japanese Military by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

      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!

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    10. Re:Japanese Military by Zak3056 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    11. Re:Japanese Military by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:Japanese Military by usuallylost · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    13. Re:Japanese Military by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    14. Re: Japanese Military by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Japanese Military by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re: Japanese Military by Diamon · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    17. Re:Japanese Military by lgw · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:Japanese Military by Deadstick · · Score: 4, Funny

      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...

  2. Article 9 by barlevg · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

  3. Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. What happened to the Japanese industry? by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Re:Carrier? by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  6. Re:Carrier? by gadget+junkie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
  7. Good Old Days by nojayuk · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  8. Destroyer? Really? by Ioldanach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:How is this "technically a destroyer?" by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

    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."

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  10. Zeroes were good but not great and not the best by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Zeroes were good but not great and not the best by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.