Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japan Unveils Largest Warship Since WW2

Posted by timothy on from the would-you-like-to-play-some-brinksmanship? dept.

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."

9 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 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."
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
  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. 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.