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."

16 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 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.

    4. 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."
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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. 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.

  3. 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.
  4. 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)
  5. 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.

  6. 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!
  7. 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.