national

Japan unveils biggest warship since World War II

175 Comments
By Hiroshi Hiyama

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2013 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

175 Comments
Login to comment

The Commies in China should practice what they preach. Tora! Tora! Tora!

9 ( +24 / -15 )

Beautiful vessel. I hope she won't see any real wartime action but if it happens then good luck!

And what you could expect from Chinese. Chinese warships have got tons of missiles armed with love warheads for their neighbours!

20 ( +25 / -5 )

drawing criticism from regional rival China which accused its neighbor of “constant” military expansion.

Pot-kettle-black.....by at least 3 times!!!

33 ( +36 / -4 )

Hell yes, build two more of these bad boys and that is some definite territorial security.

22 ( +31 / -9 )

Around $1 billion enters Japan daily. They should build at least a half dozen of these in order to counter China.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

“We express our concern at Japan’s constant expansion of its military equipment. This trend is worthy of high vigilance by Japan’s Asian neighbors and the international community,” China’s defense ministry told AFP.

“Japan should learn from history, adhere to its policy of self-defense and abide by its promise of taking the road of peaceful development.”

Ha-haha,the joke of the day.

10 ( +16 / -6 )

"If you want peace, prepare for war!" Is that the approach here? With neighbors like china and lil kim, maybe it is necessary.

17 ( +22 / -5 )

New Osprey carrier.

9 ( +14 / -6 )

cool

4 ( +11 / -7 )

“We express our concern at Japan’s constant expansion of its military equipment. This trend is worthy of high vigilance by Japan’s Asian neighbors and the international community,” China’s defense ministry told AFP.

“Japan should learn from history, adhere to its policy of self-defense and abide by its promise of taking the road of peaceful development.”

By building this warship, Japan is doing exactly that, i.e., adhering to the policy of self-defense. And guess what prompted it? It's you, China!

21 ( +24 / -3 )

The country’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, went into service in September in a symbolic milestone for China’s increasingly muscular military.

Bought from Russia and refurbished if I recall correctly, NOT Chinese built.

13 ( +15 / -2 )

1 billion US is pretty cheap for a war ship, and it sure looks better than that cold war era Soviet rust bucket China's got

19 ( +21 / -2 )

off to Pudong!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This carrier is actually a full aircraft carrier with latest hi-tech tools. Landing and take off length is about the same distance as a regular carrier. Ths carrier can accomadate about 12 aircraft or 14 helicopters.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Warship built to worship national debit (?)

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

Mirai Hayashi,

1 billion US is pretty cheap for a war ship

Well, if Japan stopped paying the US "protection money," they could build eight of these a year!

-24 ( +7 / -30 )

It looks beautiful. Build some more of these babies!

9 ( +13 / -4 )

and on the other news, the Philippines got a new refurbished warship from the US, its second purchase. And soon coming are additional 10 frigates from Japan. However China said in the news yesterday, YOU CAN NOT CONTAIN US, we are much powerful than that referring to Tokyo and Manila.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Sfjp330--

Not to nitpick, bro, but modern aircraft carriers have a flight deck length or over 1040 feet. The Izumo is 820 feet and not equipped with catapults for launching jet fighters. And I haven't read anything about it being able to accommodate planes. Though I may be wrong. I do think it will certainly function as a carrier for Ospreys once Japan acquires them.

Now I will wait for all the Osprey haters to launch their assaults.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Pfft get stuffed China!

One of the reasons we are expanding our Navy is due to the thread you pose.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Well, if Japan stopped paying the US "protection money," they could build eight of these a year

Yes. yes your right and staff them with that all volunteer force they have now. Sounds like a solid plan!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Anyone wanna bet why the Osprey really came to Japan?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

@Bertie: I think Japan is preparing to use these phony protection money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Once peaceful pacifist country like Japan going to defend it's territorial claim by building war ships to rival with the Chinese... Is japan getting ready to resolve all territorial disputes with guns and ships? Mr. Abe is leading Japan in wrong direction when it come s to foreign policies, nothing good will prevail from fighting fire with fire and in the end only ashes will remain.

-15 ( +7 / -22 )

Human race is stupid

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The last time Japan did something like this is was just a waste. Why something so easy to sink and it needs escort ships to protect it. The Yamamoto was a throwback to it's previous century and this seems like one too. Guess no lessons were inferred by Japan from the Falkland War.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Mr. Abe is leading Japan in wrong direction when it come s to foreign policies, nothing good will prevail from fighting fire with fire and in the end only ashes will remain.

Mr. Abe has nothing to do with this vessel as it's been approved by no other than DPJ... Hence the name: 22DDH - from Heisei 22.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

@Bertie: My guess is USA know it can't keep US base forever. /also, US weapon makers are shamble. It even sent Pentagon;s top weapon buyer to Japan to flatter Japan. Maybe Mitsubishi, Hitachi, etc will build weapons in Japan (or in USA) and make Japan wealthier? I

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

The Yamamoto was a throwback to it's previous century

You mean battleship Yamato or Admiral Yamamoto, the author of the still being used 'carrier doctrine'?

7 ( +7 / -0 )

North East Sea should be commerce and opportunity sea .Not necessary to collect weapons.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

People could start by not referring to it as a "warship," itself an unnecessary provocation.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

HA HA!!! Yokata Nippon Kaigun!

What's China worried about anyway?

Unlike China's Carrier, I see no steam catapults on this Flat Top...yet ;)

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Well, if Japan stopped paying the US "protection money," they could build eight of these a year!

In addition to this new vessel. Now Japan has both for the next foreseeable future. It's own ship, plus the help of a superpower. It's a win, win situation for Japan. You should be happy, Bertie.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Mirai, China has those new 052C and 052D phase array aegis destroyers. Those old Russian destroyers are basically dormant at China's naval bases. The Liaoning CV won't be a threat until a second CV is launched. Those new destroyers, frigates and silent subs are the ones everyone is looking out for. ITs not the carrier that's the only threat, its those that are escorting the carrier that we should be concern of.

Japan needs a bigger tonnage than this to efficiently fit the Ospreys and possibly the F-35 stovl. Full load at 27500 for traditional helo is more than suitable. Not so for the much bigger and heavier Ospreys. Its not only about weight but surface area that the Ospreys commands. These MV-22s looks even huge on the Wasp Class, nevermind the Izumo.

I think the next DDH should be in the 35-45k tons light carrier.

And don't even worry about the CV16 from China. Its really just a training vessel at best right now. They are already building the next Catobar CV and developing the emals. Its a different game China is playing. The actual focus from China is not just the western pacifics but Africa and Indian Ocean. They saw the problem with Libya and the billions that were lost there. If there's a Chinese CV around that region. The losses would be minimized.

Japan should worry about the new LHD, the 40-45k tons that China is building with catobar. Those are meant for SCS and island assaults. Those J-31 Vtol variants would pose a huge deterrent in the SCS.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

ElementzAug. 07, 2013 - 08:07AM JST Not to nitpick, bro, but modern aircraft carriers have a flight deck length or over 1040 feet. The Izumo is 820 feet and not equipped with catapults for launching jet fighters. And I haven't read anything about it being able to accommodate planes. Though I may be wrong. I do think it will certainly function as a carrier for Ospreys once Japan acquires them.

F-35B has short takeoff/vertical landing capability. Should be a perfect fit for the new carrier.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

This is a DDH. A helicopter carrier. Main purpose is to carry anti-submarine SH-60 helicopters as well as S-76 search and rescue helicopters. It is not designed to carry jet fighters. Made in Japan technology, but then again Japan has had seaplane carrier design and build capabilities since 1918.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It's just a coincidence but the name Izumo reminds me of Izumo-taisha temple in Shimane Prefecture(one of the most ancient and important Shinto shrines in Japan). And that reminds me of Takeshima.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

And china has been expanding its military in double digits for the last 20 years. I am sure there's no connection ....

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Yes, its very pretty ... but does it transform into a giant battle robot? If no, then I recommend that this glaring oversight be fixed immediately! The international community DEMANDS giant battle robots!!!

OkinawamikeAug. 07, 2013 - 08:14AM JST Yes. yes your right and staff them with that all volunteer force they have now. Sounds like a solid plan!

I realise that you meant to be sarcastic, but that's actually a solid plan. It takes about 3 years to build these things, which is more than enough time to recruit and train the crews. Given the lack of good jobs for young people in Japan I'd say that there would be PLENTY of recruits. It would help keep down unemployment and would boost the economy if they were built here (rather than bought somewhere else).

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I love it! China's tin can aircraft carrier may break apart again just from jealousy!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

So much for the peace in the world, they could not even wait one day, they had to unveil the biggest warship since World War II the very same day marking the Hiroshima Bombing Anniversary while Abe was pledging for less nuclear weapon, sure, so much for the double-tongue language.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Even with the short take-off length, i wonder if it could launch drones. (Maccros Plus Ghost X-9?)

2 ( +3 / -1 )

ElementzAug. 07, 2013 - 08:07AM JST Not to nitpick, bro, but modern aircraft carriers have a flight deck length or over 1040 feet. The Izumo is 820 feet and >not equipped with catapults for launching jet fighters. And I haven't read anything about it being able to accommodate >planes. Though I may be wrong. I do think it will certainly function as a carrier for Ospreys once Japan acquires them.

We will eventually see these vessels with F-35B STOVL fighters. Probably about 40 per ship, same as the British carriers. MV-22 Ospreys have already land and been stored on the Hyuga so I expect those two DDHs to be central to Japan's future "Marines".

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Deterrent power.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

People forget the OSPREY, can You say F35, Thats right baby park this bad boy off the coast of hostiles camp and send some love.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It is too small to possibly fit 40 aircraft.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

With the vertical take abilities of the F35 and Osprey, you dont need catapalts, carry 8 F35's, 2 Osprey, and 2 Apaches, thats a nice little package.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Build some ports on these rocky islands and continual occupation there just like your aggressive neighbor did down in the south China sea. I support Japan and a robust build up of an offensive military. Who would the world trust more today.. China or Japan. Very obvious answer! Go JAPAN!!!!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

How silly China is. It is because of China's military expansion and NK's ridiculous threats that creates the need for such a vessel in Japan. Now I guess China will want to build a bigger one. Just like the Joneses!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Should it not be called a "Self-defence ship"??? If one wants to be knit picky

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It is possible. But by all accounts that is not the intention and the Izumo would have to be modified first. Not to mention Japan needs to get F 35s first. Makes little sense to spend a billion dollars on a vessel to house technology you have yet to acquire, then have to spend another million to modify to house said technology. If F35s were the intention, why not build it with the capability to to house the 35s from the get go?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Stephen Knight,

People could start by not referring to it as a "warship," itself an unnecessary provocation.

Well, since "Peace ship" is already taken, "Peace Boat" was a song by Cat Stevens (I forget his Islamic name) and if they called it "Love boat," it would definitely be misunderstood.

So, what's left?

"Freedom ship maru?"

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

Wow !!!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In this case the SDF are quite right, this ship is designed for nothing but antisubmarine defense. It's utterly incapable of operating in any sort of serious combat environment. Look at the weapons list; it's virtually helpless. 2 close in anti-missile guns and 2 antiaircraft missile launchers, replacing a ship that could launch 16 anti-aircraft, 16 anti-ship and 12 anti-submarine missiles as well as torpedos.

The helicopters it carries are likely quite dangerous to submarines, but to another warship, it's just a juicy target.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

May she have a long and productive life and never see danger, apart from the day to day risks associated that even peacetime entails.

Great for anti-sub I guess. And could assist an amphibious landing with the appropriate aircraft. Unless she carries some fast movers like F35s herself that would not go well if opposing jets appear. Then again, she would hardly be likely to sail into harm's way by herself. And I suspect that is why our good friends, the Mainland Chinese are upset their plans for world peace may be hindered.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well, if Japan stopped paying the US "protection money," they could build eight of these a year!

If you didn't realize it the main reason the American Military is in Japan is to prevent Japan from rebuilding it's military a.k.a. protecting them from themselves

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Lets see China lock on to that.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Ship looks very nice. Good match for the naval plans and needs for Japan, reasonable and effective. Projection of force is naval forces function, and it is the potential of it not necessarily the actual exercise of it that matters for policy is always aimed at preventing conflict, by making it unreasonable to HAVE conflict. This ship can certainly carry planes of several types and from design appears that ship members are appropriately strengthened, both laterally and longitudinally for such.

The surplus Russian carrier that the Chinese bought is worthless except as a propaganda show boat, they do not have either planes or trained personnel to use it. Not a bother at all. Japan is showing a mature and reasonable stand and development that is quite admirable and appropriate. Well done.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Its a different game China is playing

Yes, its called propaganda.

This ship could be easily retrofitted to be a full carrier to launch fighter. Steam catapults are old technology. The military is experimenting with linear motor technology to launch planes.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Nice. Japan definitely needs more of these. Here's an interesting size comparison chart. Pretty damn impressive.

http://2ch-ita.net/bbs/norimono/img/13725651110007.jpg

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Funny that the South Korean ship model that serves the same purpose is called 'Dokdo'.. surely Japan should protest this deliberately provocative naming !! (joke)

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I dont think that China- as the Country with the biggest military expenses in the world should be complaining about any other country around them trying to catch up.. Eitherway- its gonna get pretty hot around those bloody islands in 2015...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

We need a proper aircraft carrier with the latest US naval attack planes on board. that will show the world we mean business.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

"The military is experimenting with linear motor technology to launch planes."

A linear motor on a carrier is still a catapult. Who said anything about a steam catapult? And the operative word is "experimenting." US carriers do not even have that technology yet.

The Izumo is not equipped to house jet fighters, nor is it intended to do so. Speculating of what it may be capable of in the future is just that, speculation.

And, again, Japan does not have F35s currently and are not anticipated to have them until 2021, and even that date is likely to be pushed back. So if the Izumo were to house jet fighters that the Japanese currently possess, it would need catapults.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The CCP squealing over 1 new Japanese helo-carrier like frightened school-girls is hilarious, and of course completely hypocritical given they are continually expanding their already bloated PLA forces. Inferiority complex much?

Ground Forces: PRC - Standing Army 1,700,000; Reserves 800,000: JAPAN - Standing 148,000; Reserves 30,000. Naval Forces: PRC - 290,000 (2nd largest navy in the world): JAPAN - 46,000. Air Forces: PLA - 330,000: JAPAN - 45,000. Strategic Missile Forces: PLA 120,000: JAPAN - 0.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"Less than two weeks ago, the Chinese coast guard entered waters disputed with Japan for the first time, upping the ante in a festering row over ownership of the Senkaku islands, which Beijing also claims and calls the Diaoyus."

Wasn't there a picture of a sailboat on a thread about the coast guard refusing to leave Japanese waters just yesterday? What's this new war machine going to do that the rickety old scooters with the tin box on the back could not? Granted, it's a ship, but the ability to do nothing hasn't changed.

-10 ( +1 / -11 )

Let China try to kick sand in Japan's face.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The sailboat was navigated by a civilian, apparently he's a famous sailor or navigator of some sort. And he did purposefully enter the waters since he claimed that the disputed islands belonged to China. So under that premise, he did nothing wrong.

For Japan however, it should have arrested him and detained his boat. Then fine him and let him go to show legal authority. The fact that Japan authorities didn't do that shows weakness which China can use in future to justify precedents. If Japan want to win this, it can't go half-glassed.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

People often School history book of Japan by checking elementary school history books. However, JR. Sr. HS and College students have to learn more than 27 years history. Ancient histories based on ancient written books, Kojiki and then Nihon Shiki. According to Kojiki, Japan had two countries. One is Yamato funded by Amaterasu Oomikami, female God, and another one is Izumo, where O kuninushi0ni mikoto governed. Anyway, Yamato and Izumo became one. So, Izumo is used to name this ship. Japanese custom of naming ships. So, Yamato was already used. This time, Izumo, ancient peacefully united to Yamato-no-kuni.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I read it can handle the F-35 as well.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Meant the Yamato. From what I read about Adm. Yamamoto, I like him. As for any ships now a days, they are just big targets. The only ship that is worth anything is a nuclear sub since it's still hard to track submarines. The exocet missile was devastating to the British navy during the Falklands. There are several Russian anti-ship missile that will be able to sink this ship by China from shore if anything happens related to the Senkaku islands.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I meant 2700 years of history beginning of ancient era stories of Yamato and Izumo. Japan now created new kind of warship. I wonder if USA orders to purchase this kind of ship buy it can not afford right now unless it stops to give billions of aid to Egypt. It cannot afford to pull out military base in Japan because Japan pays for USA keep bases in Japan. Poor soldiers, they can't go homer or when they go home, they will be unemployed.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

But can it turn into a robot?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Hilman, China should not be complaining, and Japan is not building up militarily whilst China clearly is. However it is the USA that has the world's highest military expense, spending 4-5 times per annum what China spends. China has the largest standing army, but is a distant second to the US in terms of annual military spending.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

SecularBeastAug. 07, 2013 - 11:16AM JST Ground Forces: PRC - Standing Army 1,700,000; Reserves 800,000: JAPAN - Standing 148,000; Reserves 30,000. Naval Forces: PRC - 290,000 (2nd largest navy in the world): JAPAN - 46,000. Air Forces: PLA - 330,000: JAPAN - 45,000. Strategic Missile Forces: PLA 120,000: JAPAN - 0.

PRC navy... the largest joke in the world. Take the DDG170 for example, launched in 1981... and that's one of their more modern craft. Most of their ships are decades out of date for the most part. They also LIST an impressive number of ships... but a lot of them are not in service if you take the time to cross-reference the listed ships vs the active ships.

The PRC airforce is a similar joke, outdated aircraft that wouldn't even manage a tracking lock against Japan's more advanced aircraft before they were blown out of the air.

As for the PRC's huge standing army... they have a bit of a dilemma there. You see, China is HUGE. It is also very politically diverse and the people are not terribly happy with their government. The Chinese army may seem huge on paper, but once you realise that it is largely already committed to policing its massive borders with neighbors like Russia and India (who don't like China very much and are itching to take a chunk out of them)... well, the actual available forces drops. Then consider the logistical difficulties in getting even a tiny percentage of those troops to an island nation like Japan. Their ground forces become irrelevant.

If China REALLY had enough forces to invade Japan it would have done so already. Instead they're playing patty-cake over the islands down south trying to force Japan into giving up because it is too expensive.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

If China REALLY had enough forces to invade Japan it would have done so already.

No. Such a move would start ww3 and would be disastrous for China.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Good move Japan! And congrats for the new ship!

"China which accused its neighbor of “constant” military expansion"

Why am I completely unsurprised about this statement from China?! China knows they must continue to pour oil into the fire that heats their nationalist patriots because without them they can't hold any water.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

The rise of Japanese Militarism, watch out Asia! We're more powerful than China's military, they have much expanding to catch up with us.... This carrier also services F35 the latest war plane from the American regime, nice we can colonise Asia while America takes the rest of the world.

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

"China which accused its neighbor of “constant” military expansion"

Ho ho ho!

5 ( +5 / -0 )

highball: "The sailboat was navigated by a civilian, apparently he's a famous sailor or navigator of some sort. And he did purposefully enter the waters since he claimed that the disputed islands belonged to China. So under that premise, he did nothing wrong."

So, pres tel, how did the mighty Japanese stop this illegal entry -- oops! I mean, how did they enjoy the distant view?

How is their new ship going to literally convey the lip-service it provides? Sorry, but a grandad's massacre is a grandad's massacre, Abe can shake his lips in his second time as PM all he wants, won't hurt China. Let's just hope nobody drops a cigarette on this boat and sinks it the same as the last biggest ship made in Japan.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

The damn boat is bigger then those islands. I say anchor the boat to the islands and shoot any Chinese vessel that comes into the sorrounding waters and take blow away anything flying in from China too.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I believe it will be a cold war until one of them collapsed financially which is something more likely to happen these days that I have said few months ago.

Both of them are well trained not to make mistake and currently readers should take note on the ECONOMY not MILITARY where one cannot stay for long if the first perform poorly.

We all have seen how such issue affect the economy both sides since the last incident, imagine a simple hit from Japan on China's ships might bring an end to relationship on both sides, good for China and foreign companies to grab whatever Japanese market has left out.

Yes that's how China still able to progress and the next few years would be interesting, I highly doubt ties would become better and I anticipate one of them to have economic problems but when or if it will come, only time can tell.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Add Osprey and F-35 JSF (VTOL) and it should get interesting...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Don't give into what America and Europe want...a war between the greatest economies in Asia. Western nations are scared of a powerful Asia and they will incite fear and hate between China and Japan by urging Japan to antagonize China. America wants to remain the most powerful nation and wants European nations to be two, three, four and five. They also want to make money by selling weapons of mass destruction. Selling fighter planes, bombs, killing machines and warships to Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines is the goal, death and destruction are the result. Look at Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. War will be an economic boom for America, it is in their best interest.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The actual islands are not what is really in dispute... its all the ocean and minerals in the groups for x number of miles off of any island a country owns. In 1952 almost the whole damned world to include China signed the treaty of San Francisco which settles who owned which islands. To get more to the point of this story, Japan should not only build up more of these kinds of ships but also think about rewriting its Constitution with the future expectation being that America is or can be not so close an alley... Today we are, but a few more bozos gets elected in America like our current regime and all bets are off... sad to say... a long time ago Japan did something bad, however today, yesterday and every day between today and WWII the Chinese government has been murdering either its own people or the people of its neighbors constantly... who is the bigger threat to world peace? honestly?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

ka_chan: "Meant the Yamato."

And what was the Yamato, besides the Japanese version of the Bismarck when the bubbles gurgled up to the surface?

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

They should name the ship "Ushio", Tora Tora Tora!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Frungy - I agree with your summation of the PLA military tech, hence my crack at the CCP/PLA inferiority complex. For all the muscle flexing, naval incursions, annual 'hell marches', PR military exercises, martial bluster, and hollow posturing, the PLA knows it'd get its ass kicked if it got into an offshore fight with Japan or the US - hence the whining from Beijing. The PLA will have to continue winning military glory by invading uninhabited coral atolls for now - lol. Plonkers.

@Peace Please - No one in Asia except the PRC is being antagonistic and they are fueling a regional arms race through their ambit claims over their neighbor's territories. If the PRC was respecting it's (mostly democratic) neighbors, they wouldn't feel the need to arm themselves and shell out money for US armaments.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

And what was the Yamato, besides the Japanese version of the Bismarck when the bubbles gurgled up to the surface?

And it seems rather obvious that you don't know the difference between a carrier and a battleship either.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

That thing only hold nine helicopters?? Looks much bigger!!!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Wasn't there a picture of a sailboat on a thread about the coast guard refusing to leave Japanese waters just yesterday? What's this new war machine going to do that the rickety old scooters with the tin box on the back could not?

Yes. But the sailboat was obviously not the coast guard vessel. China's coast guard has recently undergone changes that allow it to carry heavier weaponry. The sailboat was a protestor.

Granted, it's a ship, but the ability to do nothing hasn't changed.

Oh don't worry about that; that's all going to change.

Great ship. Well done Japan.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Peace Please,

Exactly!

Those who try to paint China as the enemy are just falling into the trap you outline:

Don't give into what America and Europe want...a war between the greatest economies in Asia. Western nations are scared of a powerful Asia and they will incite fear and hate between China and Japan by urging Japan to antagonize China. America wants to remain the most powerful nation and wants European nations to be two, three, four and five. They also want to make money by selling weapons of mass destruction. Selling fighter planes, bombs, killing machines and warships to Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines is the goal, death and destruction are the result. Look at Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. War will be an economic boom for America, it is in their best interest.

Excellent post.

Thank you.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Those who try to paint China as the enemy are just falling into the trap you outline:

Government sponsored: (Just because it isn't with bullets they still are "attacking" and future wars are going to be in cyber-space as well as in space.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/world/asia/chinese-hackers-resume-attacks-on-us-targets.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Only someone who is blind and ignorant would over look China as a potential enemy particularly with all the rhetoric spouting out of Beijing and it's numerous territorial disputes. Keep your head in the sand if you want, but there is plenty enough information out there to show what a threat China is for peace and stability in the world.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

i find it disturbing that Japan has been abandoning its self imposed pacifism, which I considered to be one of Japan's few good points

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Government sponsored: (Just because it isn't with bullets they still are "attacking" and future wars are going to be in cyber-space as well as in space.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/20/world/asia/chinese-hackers-resume-attacks-on-us-targets.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Only someone who is blind and ignorant would over look China as a potential enemy particularly with all the rhetoric spouting out of Beijing and it's numerous territorial disputes. Keep your head in the sand if you want, but there is plenty enough information out there to show what a threat China is for peace and stability in the world.

I remember in the 1980s, these exact words were said about Japan, Racist people and politicians in America compared the great economic expansion of Japan to another Pearl Harbor. Now the words are being used against China. The biggest hacker in the world is America, it was proven by Edward Snowden. BTW Japan tried to invade and conquer every country in the Pacific including Australia, New Zealand, China, Philippines and Hawaii. Imperial Japanese Army killed 10-20 million people. The Japanese used the same excuse to invade China and bomb Pearl Harbor. The Japanese rewrote history and it looks like they will repeat it.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Technically, is this a war ship? In Japanese it is referred to as an "escort vessel (護衛艦)" for carrying helicopters. If you look at photos from above, it has no canons, guns, rocket launchers, nothing! The ship could not destroy a fly!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

i find it disturbing that Japan has been abandoning its self imposed pacifism, which I considered to be one of Japan's few good points

Love the subtle, derisive comment there. Tell me, "Bob," what else do you find good with Japan? All you seem to do is complain about the country or defend koreans.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

"drawing criticism from regional rival China which accused its neighbor of “constant” military expansion." they are kidding...right? That's the pot calling the kettle black. Statements like this just make the Chinese look stupid...or maybe they are?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yesterday was Memorial Day for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Looks like Abe and his supporters have short memories.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

hatsoff: "Oh don't worry about that; that's all going to change."

Yeah, after another thirty years of panels paid off to think about addressing issues.

"Yes. But the sailboat was obviously not the coast guard vessel. China's coast guard has recently undergone changes that allow it to carry heavier weaponry. The sailboat was a protestor."

And what did the mighty Japanese military do in regards to the sailboat? If they can't handle even that, what good will this ship do beyond the usual lip-service?

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

so we are dealing with a Helo-flat top, here? not exactly a offensive power projection vessel comparatively speaking....but it does allow fora fair amount of Anti-sub and anti-ship ops. The Chinese are not liking that thier draw card got pulled

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Saul--

Correct it is purely a defensive vessel. All this talk of F-35 capabilities is nonsense. The Izumo is not equipped for fixed-wing aircraft. The deck is too small for take off and landings, no catapults, the hanger and lifts are also too small to accommodate jet fighters or other fixed wing aircraft. It is possible that it could me modified in the future to accommodate the F-35B with its short/vertical take off and landing capabilities. But that is well into the future.

Besides, people tend to ignore the fact that Japan did not order the F-35B STVOL. Japan ordered the F-35A which only has conventional take-off/landing capabilities and is not a carrier based fighter. The very reason that Japan opted for the 35A in lieu of the 35B is that they don't currently possess an aircraft carrier that can house jet fighters. Nor are they allowed to have one, per their pacifist constitution. Technically speaking.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yamato iin this case is the name of Japanese heaviest Japanese Warships, along with Musashi 1941-1945. Yamamoto is the family (last) name of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto of Japanese Navy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And what did the mighty Japanese military do in regards to the sailboat? If they can't handle even that, what good will this ship do beyond the usual lip-service?

I suggest you are being wilfully ignorant in your habitual haste to rubbish everything about Japan. (What on earth keeps you here?) "If they can't handle even that..." Mmm, what did you honestly think they would do, blow it out the water with torpedoes? It was a sailboat, for goodness' sake!

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Any chance of Japan building the Space Battleship Yamato?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Good for Japan. Now she has no reason to accuse China for building up the military. Without China, we in SE Asia will always live under the shadow of the US and Japan. We still live under the shadow of both of them but at least now China can be a counter-balance. Hopefully Japan does not start a war of terror in Asia again!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

May you Find what you are looking for

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Isn't Izumo the name of Daigo's monkey?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

we in SE Asia will always live under the shadow of the US and Japan

China and Korea aren't in SE Asia...

4 ( +4 / -0 )

O...Mr. Abe is leading Japan in wrong direction when it come s to foreign policies, nothing good will prevail from fighting fire with fire and in the end only ashes will remain.

seems like according to a lot on this thread, as long as those ashes are asian civilians and not whites, it's all good.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

seems like according to a lot on this thread, as long as those ashes are asian civilians and not whites, it's all good.

Who said that? Please copy and paste any such remarks you may find in this thread. What an outrageous statement.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There is a luxury cruise named Izumo but this one is not. Japanese Govt denies this Izumo is not an airplane carrier but this new Izumo is a flat top destroyer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And the Chinese military buildup should be ignored because they are a peace loving democracy with no territorial claims in dispute? Sorry China, I don't think so.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

CDorrection. Japanese Govt. explained that Izumo is not Aircraft Carrier when answering to mediia. It is a Flat Top Destroyer.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Kazuaki ShimazakiAug. 07, 2013 - 09:44AM JST It is too small to possibly fit 40 aircraft.

You are correct and I must amend my previous. The figure of 40 aircraft was put forward by my contact in the UK who based "40 aircraft total...F-35Bs and helicopters" specified for the HMS Queen Elizabeth (284m LOA) currently under construction as being similar for the JMSDF Izumo (250m LOA). There is a considerable difference in displacement tonnage so the specifications given for the Izumo are 28 Aircraft total comprised of 12 F-35Bs, 8 V-22 Ospreys and 8 Helicopters.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Here are the facts take them as you wish, and think about them as you will...it is a good step for Japan and they have flexibility for various options which is the very best way to get the most out of an advanced system...

Designation: CVL (DDH) Length: 815 ft Width: 125 ft Beam: 110 ft Displacement: 27,000 tons (full load) Propulsion: 4 GE LM2500 COGAG, 2 shafts Speed: 30+ knots Crew: 970 (Includes Air Wing) Airwing: (Up to)

12 F-35B JSF 08 V-22 Osprey 08 ASW & SAR Helos Armament: 2 x 21 Cell RAM (or 2 x SEARAM) 2 x 20mm Phalanx CIWS

2 x Triple 324mm topedoe tubes Elevators: 2 Ships in class: 2 Planned

DDH-183, Izumo (Building) DDH-184, Unnamed (Building)

The first in class 22DDH aircraft carrier, Izumo, DDH-183, for the Japanese MArittime self-Defense Force (JMSDF) was launched on Auguts 6, 2013 in Yokohama, Japan.

In 2007 and 2009 Japan built the Hyuga class of helicopter aircraft carriers. Two ships, DDH-181, the Hyuga, and DDH-182, the Ise, 650 feet long, displacing 20,000 tons full load. They look like small Sea Control aircraft carriers but embark ASW and SAR helicopters and can act as command vessels for JMSDF task forces.

In 2009, Japan announced plans to build two larger carriers. These were given the project number 22DDH, and will displace in excess of 27,000 tons full load and be 815 feet long. The official name of the lead vessel is the Izumo, DDH-183, and so they will be the Izumo Class. They will hold quite a few more aircraft, their flight deck will be completely clear, with all weapons located on sponsons off deck or on the island, and they will have a larger, side mounted elevator on the aft, starboard side. These changes strongly emplys that these vessels will embark VSTOL aircraft, potentially the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter being built by the United States should the Japanese elect to purchase any.

These changes also make it clear that they will also be able to support the V-22 Osprey VSTOL aircraft to be used for SAR, Recon and for troop transport.

The vessels are equipped with Phased Array Radars, full battle management capabilities, and link capabilities for cooperative engagements. One of the elevators is located on the They are also built to embark 500 troops and up to fifty vehicles if necessary for air assault as well, though there is no well deck and any vehicles will either be transported by air, or use RORO facilities at a harbor.

The construction of the first ship began in 2011 at an IHI Marine United shipyard in Yokohama. Funding totaling 113.9 billion yen ($1.5 billion) was set aside as a part of the fiscal 2010 budget for this vessel. The carrier is currently complete up to the flight deck with work almost complete on the island. The second ship will be launched in late 2016.

These vessels will represent a significant enhancement of Japanese Sea Control capabilities. With one Hyuga class providing ASW and SAR, and with one or two AEGIS destroyers providing anti-air, ASW, and ASuW escort, with these new larger carriers aslo capable of providing ASW coverage, or carrying a wing of strike fighters, the Japanese will be able to embark a very powerful carrier strike group. Many feel that these capabilities are in response to the significant growth of the Chinese PLAN and the launch of their first carrier, the ex-Varyag, which began trials in August of 2011

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Cris: Read article. Izumo is not (Building) It is already built so we are discussing Izumo here, not on out-of-dated story. Today's Today Article.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan--

"There is a considerable difference in displacement tonnage so the specifications given for the Izumo are 28 Aircraft total comprised of 12 F-35Bs, 8 V-22 Ospreys and 8 Helicopters."

Source?

This makes me curious where you got this information. Japan does not have F-35B and Ospreys and currently there are no plans to acquire them. So, why would they build a billion dollar vessel designed to house air technology that do not, nor plan to, possess? Also, the Izumo can not house fixed-wing aircraft. The tonnage and displacement is actually quite irrelevant. The lifts and hangar are not large enough to house them.

Ospreys are more likely. I agree Japan will get them in the near future. But, again, Japan did not order the F-35B specifically because they do not possess aircraft carriers.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"ELEMENTZ, This makes me curious where you got this information. Japan does not have F-35B and Ospreys and currently there are no plans to acquire them. So, why would they build a billion dollar vessel designed to house air technology that do not, nor plan to, possess? Also, the Izumo can not house fixed-wing aircraft. The tonnage and displacement is actually quite irrelevant. The lifts and hangar are not large enough to house them. "

Look. Theres a F-35C versionwith foldable, aside of that there are like 22 F-35 in the world, and take note that elevators can be made bigger in a single week.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Elementz Aug. 08, 2013 - 05:34AM JST Ospreys are more likely. I agree Japan will get them in the near future. But, again, Japan did not order the F-35B specifically because they do not possess aircraft carriers.

The F-35B have already conducted sea-trials off of the USMC ships, without a ramp and they will go into service on Izumo without the addition of a ramp. Days of large carriers like what Chinese rebuilt from refurbished Russian carrier are over. China has outdated philosophy when it comes to future warfare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Right, but we are not talking about the F-35C, are we?

And again, Japan did not order the F-35B or the 35C, did they? You point is irrelevant.

I will point out again that the Japanese ordered the F-35A which only has conventional take off/landing capabilities precisely because they DO NOT POSSESS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. The Izumo is not an aircraft carrier designed to house jet fighters. There is no information that suggest that and, again, they do not have the technology, nor plan to acquire it.

sfjp330--

I didn't say anything about China, Russia, or anything else. I am pointing out the people keep talking about the F-35B as if the Izumo was built specifically the house them. It was not. Unless you have a credible source, your point is also irrelevant.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Elementz, also, the DDH22 can hold 7,500 tons in cargo, where the F-35B weights 23Tons fully loaded. But who do you think that is going to buy those F-35C? Queen Elizabeth? maybe some.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I don't know exactly who plans to buy the F-35C, other than the US Navy. But, I do know there is no public information that explicitly states, or even suggests, the Japan plans to buy them. You're speculating. Irrelevant.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Doesn't the whole event suggest something about the course of history Japan may follow? The 248-meter-long helicopter-carrier is about the same size as the aircraft carriers the Imperial Japanese Navy possessed, such as the Akagi (Length: 261.2 m) and the Shinano (Length: 266.1 m). The so-called helicopter carrier may be easily turned into a regular carrier if needs be. Why on earth does the JNSDF need a war ship of this magnitude in its arsenal? It already has two DDH helicopter carriers, the Shinano (Length: 197 m and the Hyuga (with the same length).

Vice Prime Minister Taro Aso, who surprised the world by suggesting that Japan learn the Nazi's tactics in revising the constitution, was at the unveiling ceremony as a guest of honor. Is it because it was during his term as a prime minister that the building of the ship was planned and launched? That may violate Article 9 of the Constitution, making it a mere scrap of letter.

The Nazis did the same, completely ignoring the Weimar Constitution, scrapping it and eventually turning the world into a chaos. Mr. Aso said Japan should learn from the Nazis. He retracted his words but didn't apologize. So it's a very worrisome omen that he represented the government at the unveiling ceremony despite Prime Minister Abe's pledge at Hiroshima that Japan would work hard for a peaceful non-nuclear world.

Here's my suggestion: Give the helicopter carrier to the U.S. Marines for the Henoko relocation of Futenma and make Pearl Harbor its home base.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Elementz Aug. 08, 2013 - 06:07AM JST I will point out again that the Japanese ordered the F-35A which only has conventional take off/landing capabilities precisely because they DO NOT POSSESS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.

Japan already enjoys U.S. air defense protection with the stationing of F-22 fighter aircraft at Kadena, so these F-35A are more likely to fulfill more of a support role than any “air interdiction” of Russian or Chinese fifth generation fighter aircraft. More likely is the prospect of the Japanese acquiring the F-35B aircraft when it becomes available to rapidly convert the existing large Japanese helicopter “carrier” flat-tops into a aircraft carrier. As an air defense platform, the F-35 does not offer anything substantive over the F-15J the Japanese air force already has.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ElementzAug. 08, 2013 - 05:34AM JST Ossan-- "There is a considerable difference in displacement tonnage so the specifications given for the Izumo are 28 Aircraft total comprised of 12 F-35Bs, 8 V-22 Ospreys and 8 Helicopters."

Source?

Elementsz, google Japan + aircraft carrier and you will find plenty of sites that gives this information.

This makes me curious where you got this information. Japan does not have F-35B and Ospreys and currently there >are no plans to acquire them.

Japan can order them at a later date. That they do not have then right now does not support your position. Japan does not even have the F-35As that they already did order yet. And how do you know there are no plans to order which aircraft?

So, why would they build a billion dollar vessel designed to house air technology that do not, nor plan to, possess?

Why would anyone build a billion dollar vessel that did not keep all the options open?

Also, the Izumo can not house fixed-wing aircraft. The tonnage and displacement is actually quite irrelevant. The lifts >and hangar are not large enough to house them.

Sure it can. The hanger is considerably larger than the Hyuga, which has already stored V-22s.

Ospreys are more likely. I agree Japan will get them in the near future. But, again, Japan did not order the F-35B >specifically because they do not possess aircraft carriers.

They do now.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

Do you have a source that says that Izumo was specifically designed and will hold what you claim? No, you don't. Telling me to goggle proves nothing. There is nothing that states that the Izumo was specifically designed to house jet fighters. In fact, all the PUBLIC information is contrary to that. You are creating your own storyline and stating it as fact. There is absolutely nothing that states the Izumo will carry F-35B.

As for what planes intends to order....goggle it. There are several articles, scholarly and otherwise, that explain was Japan opted for the F-35A in lieu of the 35B.

True, Japan does not currently have the F-35A, but they did order it. Public record. And they ordered to replace the F-15, a ground based fighter. Again, public record.

Yes, the Hyuga stored an Osprey. So what? The Osprey isn't a fixed wing aircraft nor a fighter.

Yes, technically the Japanese have an aircraft carrier. A carrier designed to carry helicopters.

Stating was Japan intends to do in the future is a straw man argument that you can not prove. As of right now, Japan does not have the F-35B and by all public accounts they do not intend to acquire it. Live in the now, homie.

The second you put a jet fighter on that deck that vessel becomes an offensive weapons which illegal for Japan to possess. Until the revise the constitution, they can not own and operate aircraft carriers with offensive capabilities.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Elementz Aug. 08, 2013 - 07:17AM JST The second you put a jet fighter on that deck that vessel becomes an offensive weapons which illegal for Japan to possess. Until the revise the constitution, they can not own and operate aircraft carriers with offensive capabilities.

Many support the changing the outdated constitution. They should scrap the current document and adopt a new constitution written by the Japanese themselves. This means making Japan a "normal country". Japan today is completely different politically and changed society from that which prevailed in the '30's and Jthey have learned from it's history. The change in Japan's contitution is a necessary step toward ending the U.S. - Japan mutual defense alliance and enabling Japan to pursue a future path of non-nuclear armed neutrality, within a larger China-U.S. order in Asia. The U.S.-Japan alliance is an obstable to a stable, shared U.S.-China security order. With the continue reduction in the U.S. military budget, current level will not be substainable for U.S. in the near future.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

As far as changing the constitution, I agree with you. They should. But they haven't. And whether they should or shouldn't really have no relevance on this topic. As of right now, Japan can not possess carriers with offensive capabilities. Again, live in the present and stop spinning facts to make the Izumo something is not. That is all I am saying.

I do not agree that the US should end the US-Japan security alliance and pursue a US-China security order. But, again, that is a discuss for another time and place.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Japanese Govt. explained that Izumo is not Aircraft Carrier when answering to mediia. It is a Flat Top Destroyer., it was commenting. I watched their discussion in USA news channels, including World channel. It did not xtzte which compzany built. It just stated IZUMO.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

About the F-35Bs on JS Izumo. Even if F-35Bs were to be delivered tomorrow who are going to pilot them? JMSDF has no fixed wing jet fighter pilots within their personnel and there are no pilots qualified to pilot a V/STOL plane amongst the entire JSDF.

It will probably take five to ten years to train cadets from scratch to fly those plane so for at least five to ten years you will not see JSDF F-35B taking off from those ships (if ever).

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It seems that navigators and other stuffs had been trained for various duties during construction of Izumo as it is ready to be used now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If China built a flat top like this it would proberly last two hours then brake !!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

China should look at their own for Izumo is not even close to what they have in the water with more on the way.

Japan needs to place numerous airfields on the southern islands to counter China's growing threat for one day, possibly soon, China will try to take those islands.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The information quoted came from a Naval analyist for Jane's that is very up on what is happening in naval development. I did not say that Japan intended to use the ship in any one way by quoting this article written three days ago, using the most up to day info, just wanted to share the info. I am NOT an expert, but am interested in the subject. It has generated some excellent discussion and I am glad that so many are interested.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bear27840Aug. 08, 2013 - 06:28PM JST Japan needs to place numerous airfields on the southern islands to counter China's growing threat for one day, possibly soon, China will try to take those islands.

Put another way, the carrier is not approaching obsolescence; its air wing is. Extend the range of the air wing through long range UCAV’s and stand-off weapons, and the mobility, power and flexibility of the aircraft carrier remains. In fact, it is the evolution of the air wing over the decades that have created the long life of the carrier. No one seems to point to air bases as “obsolete”, yet they have been subject to attack throughout the life of the carrier. The carrier brings with it the benefit of mobility, a tremendous asset in enabling it to evade targeting, especially when one considers the alternatives.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well, two is a good beginning, but Japan needs at least three carriers of this size before war breaks out.

While I'm not against Japan having larger carriers, this particular size is better suited for the Battle of the Senkakus in 2017, after the reconstituted Japanese Imperial Army destroys China's onshore batteries and missile emplacements.

It's all pretty simple. China is going down in less than four years in order to "re-balance Asia" with seven new countries where once there was the PRC. Hang on, Taiwan. You'll never have to be part of that lumbering monster Mao created.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Elementz It is certainly true that at the moment, the Japanese official line is that is a flat-top destroyer which will only carry helicopters. It is possible it will stay that way in the future. But I must wonder why you are so against any possibility it might carry fighters in the future.

The second you put a jet fighter on that deck that vessel becomes an offensive weapons which illegal for Japan to possess. Until the revise the constitution, they can not own and operate aircraft carriers with offensive capabilities.

Actually, anyone that reads the Constitution will realize that it doesn't say such a thing. It does say not having something called "戦力", 'war potential' in the official English translation. However, it is clear from what they are doing that 'war potential' does not equate the same thing as, for example 'combat potential'. And if you read it that way, there is no specific reason why a limited force of naval aviation fighters is disallowed.

Indeed, the official Japanese interpretation says the ban is on 'attack carriers', which presumably means a large carrier of American proportions.

Heck, for a long time, back when Harriers were hot the MSDF had repeatedly made plans to acquire a limited capability in the name of air defense. Which suggests again, at least it is not unconstitutional.

@SamuraiBlue

It will probably take five to ten years to train cadets from scratch to fly those plane so for at least five to ten years you will not see JSDF F-35B taking off from those ships (if ever).

Well, it might take 5-10 years just for the F-35B to become a workable aircraft! :-)

But that aside, if we assume America will support this, it won't take 5-10 years. Japan does have a reasonably large set of fighter pilots and the only thing they really have to learn is managing the V/STOL regime. It is more a problem of conversion training than training from scratch.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

ElementzAug. 08, 2013 - 07:17AM JST Do you have a source that says that Izumo was specifically designed and will hold what you claim? No, you don't. >Telling me to goggle proves nothing. There is nothing that states that the Izumo was specifically designed to house jet >fighters. In fact, all the PUBLIC information is contrary to that. You are creating your own storyline and stating it as >fact. There is absolutely nothing that states the Izumo will carry F-35B.

The "official story" is that it is a helicopter carrier and a destroyer. You KNOW why that is the official story. This ship will not even go into service until 2017. Japan has already stated they will build a Marine force. They are already eyeing the F-35B. Amending the Japanese constitution is in the works. These are all public news. Now, if you want to believe that anyone would build a 1.2B dollar warship without taking into account all the future options, go right ahead.

As for what planes intends to order....goggle it. There are several articles, scholarly and otherwise, that explain was >Japan opted for the F-35A in lieu of the 35B. True, Japan does not currently have the F-35A, but they did order it. Public record. And they ordered to replace the F->15, a ground based fighter. Again, public record.

There is no public record as you describe. The F-35A was ordered to replace the JASDF's fleet of ancient F-4 Phantoms. The F-15 is not slated to be retired.

Yes, the Hyuga stored an Osprey. So what? The Osprey isn't a fixed wing aircraft nor a fighter.

What it proves is that even the Hyuga, an outright Helicopter carrier can operate and store Ospreys. The Izumo itself as well as it's hangar are bigger.

Yes, technically the Japanese have an aircraft carrier. A carrier designed to carry helicopters.

Which can also carry 12 F-35Bs, 8 V-22s, 8 Helicopters.

Stating was Japan intends to do in the future is a straw man argument that you can not prove. As of right now, Japan >does not have the F-35B and by all public accounts they do not intend to acquire it. Live in the now, homie.

I don't need to "prove" what is common knowledge. I guess you can't imagine that things may change in the next 3 years.

The second you put a jet fighter on that deck that vessel becomes an offensive weapons which illegal for Japan to >possess. Until the revise the constitution, they can not own and operate aircraft carriers with offensive capabilities.

The constitution is on it's away to being amended, the "carrier" will be ready in 2017. A small carrier is not an "offensive" weapon unless you subscribe to old warfare thinking. In today's Sea and Air warfare scenarios, combined with the vulnerability of large carriers and their support fleets, smaller multiple carriers are considered the more effective.

Anyway, enjoy arguing with yourself.

http://www.freewebs.com/jeffhead/worldwideaircraftcarriers/22ddh.htm

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

“We express our concern at Japan’s constant expansion of its military equipment. This trend is worthy of high vigilance by Japan’s Asian neighbors and the international community,” China’s defense ministry told AFP."

Chinese politicians remind me of 4 year old boys who don't bother thinking before speaking.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

If I remember correctly according to earlier investigations by the defence ministry, the Huyuga and Izumu class are built too have capacity far beyond helicopters. The constitution only allows for the current definitions but as a doctoral student wrote; it doesnt make sense too build for the past or the current situation, you should build ships for future challenges and needs. From a strategic defense point of view its makes sense to build aircraft carriers for the future. The primary reasons are that Chinas military/navy will be ready for action around 2020 and the US may or may not have the resources to defend Japan at that point in time. Also Japan is a small island and as such very vulnerable to missile attacks. It doesnt take that many missiles to incapacitate most of Japans military airfields. However if Japan have a few "airfields" moving around it becomes much more complicated.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Considering the entire F-35 program may be abandoned altogether, you're still speculating. And eyeing a jet fighter is one thing, actually ordering it and possessing it is quite another. And, even if the did order it, they wouldn't have it for at least 10-15 years. You're 2017 is quite pointless. They won't have the F35B or the F35A at that time and it is extremely unlikely the constitution will be amended so soon.

You're correct, the process of amending the constitution is in the works, but it hasn't been yet. And any number of things can happen that would stop the process. For example, the Japanese people may not want it. Abe can't just change the constitution because he wants to. It's extremely difficult for the constitution to be amended.

If a carrier is not an offensive weapon, why doesn't Japan just build one and not disguise their intentions?

I know full well what it may be capable of in the future, but I choose to live in the present.

All you are doing is speculating. You have no proof. Nothing you can be verified as fact, yet you state it as so. You proved nothing. But it was entertaining nonetheless.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Shhhhhhh, China.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

With China expanding its navy, it is kind of hard to see what they are upset about. I can understand their desire to be the major military in the region, but I can hardly understand any country around them not wanting to have some sort of military force with China expanding its own military . Now an arm race could bankrupt japan, considering the huge debt it already has. This I know from American experience. Remember we have to borrow from china for America to finance this own military ad conduct our war. Without china's financing us the US would have to give up its military and its very profitable wars.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Kazuaki Shimazaki

But that aside, if we assume America will support this, it won't take 5-10 years. Japan does have a reasonably large set of fighter pilots and the only thing they really have to learn is managing the V/STOL regime. It is more a problem of conversion training than training from scratch.

Here is something I wrote at another website which will act as a response to your argument.

You are completely ignoring reality.

1.JASDF and JMSDF are two different arms of the military and there is very little fluidity between the two which is the same with many other nations. This is based on budgetary concern and neither arms will be happy to see their budget cut.

2.JASDF responds to air intrusion of unknown origin and conducts about 500 scramble take-off a year. JASDF is also the smallest of the three arms of the military and is stretch out already to meet the growing threat from the south and has no personnel to spare especially the fighter pilots.

No any and all potential fixed wing fighter pilots who may fly off from a JMSDF carrier in the future (if any) would required to be newly recruited and trained from scratch so it will take at least 5~10 years as I had originally posted.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Elementz If a carrier is not an offensive weapon, why doesn't Japan just build one and not disguise their intentions?

Remember back in WW2 Japan didnt have lots of carriers and transformed comercial ships into carriers, Japan can make lots of of atomic bombs in a single year. it has ICBM

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I think that its really good that they are doing this. To show China that they are serious about their security. But I have to wonder about the quote "if you want pece, prepare for war". Do people remember the point that the movie Patlabor2 made.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan's boosters are designed to carry payloads into orbit. To make an ICBM Japan would have to design and test the maneuver package, the warheads, heat shields, etc. They are liquid ruled and any missile being fueled will be noticed. If in a silo will still have to be fueled. Reference US Titan missiles exploding in their silos. It would take a big effort for Japan to make ICBMS which would need to be tested. The ship carries nine yes nine helicopters. What a threat Japan will make a sneak attack with nine helicopters. Banzai!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

YuriOtani

If you piece up all the development and space mission done by JAXA you'll find Japan can develop an ICBM within a month, namely the Epsilon Launch Vehicle which is a solid fuel rocket so no need for liquid fueling. Another development is the recent reentery module for the Hayabusa spacecraft. Finally the Quasi-Zenith Satellite System which required precision orbit.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Is this Warship nuclear powered? If so, then I guess the Japanese people will have to stop saying we dont want nuclear powered American ships coming into harbor in Japan...since the JMSDF would already have them sitting in the (Yokohama) harbor. No one is foolish enough to believe that this is not an Aircraft Carrier. This Izumo Warship was given specific design changes so that it could accommodate the Bell V-22 Osprey aircraft and the LockMart F-35 Lighting-II aircraft; so I guess Okinawans would then have to stop complaining about the Osprey flying over Japan (since JMSDF may eventually put them on their new Warship). This isnt a Warship for peacekeeping; this is a full-fledged Aircraft Carrier for littoral (offensive) operations. Prime Minister Abe will just change Article-9 of the Constitution and then approve Osprey-landings on his new Carrier. More than 100,000 people displaced from Fukushima by the Daiichi nuclear disaster could be comfortably fed, clothed, and housed for at least 10-years with the $1.2-billion dollars each of these Warships cost to build (Japan intends to build at least 2 of them).

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Michael Erickson

I guess you don't even know what littoral means since placing aircraft carrier, offensive and littoral within the same sentence is basically an oxymoron.

Littoral means coastal waters, how can a ship be offensive when it was not meant to leave coastal waters? And why would you even need an aircraft carrier when an air strip on land can provide all support for coastal water operations?

Please study what the word means before posting for your own sake.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

As long as China stops patroling around the Senkaku islands, Japan does not need to have such kind of warship. Japan is bragging about it's new warship to China. It definitely sends shivers down to china.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Interesting fact, this ship also has a well-deck. In US nomenclature, it's practically an amphibious assault ship (LHD, LHA) similar to the Wasp-class (the US Navy doesn't even call them carriers either, despite their carrier appearance and function).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's all pretty simple. China is going down in less than four years in order to "re-balance Asia" with seven new countries where once there was the PRC. Hang on, Taiwan. You'll never have to be part of that lumbering monster Mao created.

Support!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan will be stupid NOT to build this in light of China's aggression and constant military expansion. some issues cannot be settled with diplomacy alone, much more with the chinese

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SamuraiBlue...You obviously have no clue about military sea/coastal strategy. I very much know what Lottoral means. It extends inward from the oceans about 60-meters deep, all the way inland past Breakers, Berms, Beaches, and well into the Coastline. Offensive Littoral Operations are frequently used during land invasions from the sea-coasts. There are many kinds of Littoral Combat Ships. However, in this case, Japan's claimed Territorial Waters extend so close to the coastlines of China, Taiwan, South Korea, Russia, etc., that the proximity of Japan-claimed territorial waters (and the Littoral areas surrounding their Islands), blurs the lines of distinction between what is defined as Littoral and what is Oceanic. Japan's claimed Territorial Waters by themselves lie almost inside the Littoral Areas of some countries (e.g. Russia, Taiwan, South Korea). The Tsushima Strait is only 90m at deepest. With this new Izumo Aircraft Carrier, outfitted with V-22 Osprey (600NM range), F-35s (600nm), and Helicopters, the JMSDF and JASDF could theoretically invade South Korea (70nm) or North Korea (<600NM) from not far off of Kita Kyushu. The Territorial Waters surrounding Tsushima Island are only about 40nm from Busan Airbase in South Korea. If the new Aircraft Carrier is positioned off the Senkaku or Goto Islands to protect them, Japan could theoretically invade Taiwan (130km away), and mainland China (330km towards Whenzou). If the Aircraft Carrier is positioned off the Kirile Islands or Hokkaido, Japan could theoretically invade Sakhalin Islands (70km) or even mainland Russia (350km), since the La Perouse Strait is only 50m deep. If Japan built two (2) of these Izumo Aircraft Carriers and positioned them in Tsushima Strait and near the La Perouse Strait, Japan could effectively blockaid and defend any and all areas in the entire Sea of Japan. SamuraiBlue, it is better that you should remain quiet than open your mouth and prove how little you know.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Michael

I seriously doubt 2 vessels of this size will be successful in invading another country, considering they can only hold up to 14 aircraft (helicopters) and 500 troops each. I don't think it would be successful theoretically or otherwise. Really?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Definitely a very expensive smoke screen!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@owens Consider that the izumo is a vrey fast carrier. Capable of carrying aircraft helicopters tanks anti aircrafts troops. Etc. No submarine can deal with izumo.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@owens Consider that the izumo is a vrey fast carrier. Capable of carrying aircraft helicopters tanks anti aircrafts troops. Etc. No submarine can deal with izumo.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

maybe this is the first bold step by the Japanese govnt to prove its point, it would be much more interesting to wait for constitutional change if that would also happen! congratulations for unveiling the biggest warship since WWII

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is this Warship nuclear powered?

No, gas turbine as usual.

so I guess Okinawans would then have to stop complaining about the Osprey flying over Japan

I don't want to defend the Okis too much on this issue, but they aren't related - a plane good for a carrier may still be too dangerous to put on bases surrounded by civvies.

littoral (offensive) operations.

Certainly, when the US talks littorals, it is not thinking about its coastal defense, but to imply an equivalence b/w these two terms is just wrong.

comfortably fed, clothed, and housed for at least 10-years with the $1.2-billion dollars each of these Warships cost to build

The opportunity cost of defence is well-known but defence is a more fundamental activity of the State than welfare.

Japan's claimed Territorial Waters by themselves lie almost inside the Littoral Areas of some countries (e.g. Russia, Taiwan, South Korea).

That's because it has a lot of neighbors close by.

Tsushima Strait and near the La Perouse Strait, Japan could effectively blockaid ... in the entire Sea of Japan.

Employ carriers in restricted waters where it can be localized and sunk with relative ease? Please...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

India just launched THEIR OWN carrier today. China can't compete.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

India just launched THEIR OWN carrier today. China can't compete.

And home built. Good for India. They will prove to be a great regional ally against Chinese expansion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A basic helicopter carrier is not enough to guard Japan's interests...they need much more than that....why not a an aircraft carrier....like India......very important to carry forward the relations India and Japan have.....millitarily, both the countries have to come together to counter the Dragon....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Owens, hoping other will come to your rescue? Country is for country interest. Country will only fight when/if their own interest is at stake. International relationships 101.

Have you ever learned to stand on our own feet? I guess not.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@ globallc

I am not Japanese. And in case you haven't been reading much IR related news, the US, India, and Japan are working on forming an alliance. Also, if you're not up to speed on your geography, this trilateral alliance will effectively encircle China.

You are correct, though. Realism does state that states will act in their interest, which is exactly what India and Japan are doing....forming an alliance against China because it is in their INTEREST to do so.

Thanks for the lesson, though.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If it wasn't for the constant threat that China regularly poses then Japan could follow the path of non aggressive defence.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Owens Aug. 14, 2013 - 04:58AM JST And in case you haven't been reading much IR related news, the US, India, and Japan are working on forming an alliance. Also, if you're not up to speed on your geography, this trilateral alliance will effectively encircle China.

The partnership between the U.S. and India will almost certainly never develop into an “alliance,” given India’s core foreign policy goal of maintaining its “strategic autonomy.” India will stay neutral. India pays more attention to balancing its ties between U.S. and India will seek to avoid conflict with China, given that trade and business ties between China and India have increased dramatically in the past decade. The two sides highlighted their growing economic relationship by pledging to boost trade. The expanding trade relationship between the two countries could help encourage a mutual interest in regional stability. U.S. has very little influence on military strategy of India other than sales of weapons.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

With China making incursions into Indian territory, its "string of pearls" in the Indian Ocean, close partnership with Pakistan, a new port built in Sri Lanka, there is no way India will remain neutral. They are already talking and working militarily with both the US and Japan. Is India wary of forming a strategic partnership with the US, absolutely. But that doesn't mean it will never happen. China will force India's hand, one way or another.

The US is slowly inching away from Pakistan and closer to India. Be careful to make overreaching statements you can't back up.

Forming alliances is a method of avoiding conflict. Economics and security are separate issues. Not to mention a lot of foreign investors are bailing China and heading to countries like India.

I told you once not to respond to my posts. Please respect it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

On the graphics link (comparing 'friendly' carriers), the US Ford/Nimitz looks like the Deathstar.

Funny, that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan's recent move to nationalize the Senkaku Islands had more to do with their military plans for the Islands, than for the publically-stated ruse (to ensure China does not send fishermen there). Defense Minister Morimoto has already tasked his staff with obtaining Cost Estimates and studying how to place V-22s at the Senkaku Islands and Nansei Islands. In addition to the Procurement Costs of this Izumo Aircraft Carrier $1.2-billion/ship), Japan should also remember the Procurement Costs of buying V-22s to put on the Izumo (approx. $60-million/aircraft for CV-22Bs); the Flight Costs $83,256/Flight Hour (according to Time USA)), etc. Obviously, there are millions of Japanese people that could be clothed, fed, and housed with this wasted money. The impact V-22s have on Okinawa can be read in a 228-page environmental report...which Japan MOD casually published to the Internet.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Defense Minister Morimoto has already tasked his staff with obtaining Cost Estimates and studying how to place V-22s at the Senkaku Islands and Nansei Islands.

Do you have reference for this? I am not doubting you (yet), but definitely would like to see this with my own eyes.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Owens: "Do you have reference for this?"...Yes, I have the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MOD) websites for the document that describes their plans for V-22s on Senkaku and Nansei Islands, and I have the websites for the V-22 Costs. However, because the V-22 websites also contained a wealth of other closely-held info on the V-22 capabilities and Environmental Impact of V-22 placement (which may impact US military and/or Bell/Boeing plans)...and I do not want to be labeled as the next Snowden...thus, I have sent the info over to Homeland Security for their consideration. Sorry.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites