politics

Japan concerned as China's first aircraft carrier starts second trial

116 Comments

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

© AFP/Japan Today

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

116 Comments
Login to comment

Any comments, YuriOtani? Not to worry... you can hide behind the cowering Nakaima.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is pretty scary isn't it? Couple weeks ago Japan's Coast Guard arrested another Chinese fishing boat Captain. China said nothing, did nothing. There's always this calm before the storm. There's no more talking. North Korea fired on South Korea and the South did nothing about it. I wonder if the Japanese would do anything about it if China decided to riddle it's Coast Guard vessel with bullets.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It will be interesting to hear from those who deny the need for the US military. If they were not here, not only would it be cause for concern, certain islands would already without a doubt belong to China.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

An aircraft carrier is a weapon of attack, not defense.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The work has been carried out and it set sail again on Nov 29 to carry out relevant scientific and research experiments.”

Japan's whaling line, I wonder if China did that on purpose :)

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Its amusing to hear the Japanese complaining about the fact that the Chinese are testing their one aircraft carrier. Especially when Japan has commenced building its own aircraft carrier (oops sorry its a Helicopter carrying destroyer) that is capable of launching F-35, and is planning to build 3 in total. So its not ok for China to have one but its totally ok for Japan to have 3. Wow and who out of China and Japan has a history of imperialistic expansion?

2 ( +11 / -9 )

zichi: "An aircraft carrier is a weapon of attack, not defense."

Says who? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you -- in fact I think all 'weapons' are for attack, but still.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

zichi

An aircraft carrier is a weapon of attack, not defense.

Totally agree with your statement, so how does the JMSDF get around this fact? They rename their proposed aircraft carriers as Helicopter carrying destroyers. Despite the fact the plans have been modified to allow for the launch and recovery of fixed wing aircraft.

Gogogo,

Love it, the Japanese cant complain if they paint research on the side of it i.e Japanese style

3 ( +8 / -5 )

smithinjapan,

if a country needs to defend itself with fighter aircraft it can do so with landbases. The purpose of any carrier is to get near the enemy to launch an attack.

Spidapig24,

there could be a difference with a helicopter carrier. What kind of helicopters and could it be used with fighter aircraft? But I agree that Japan does not need a carrier for whatever reason.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

zichi

there could be a difference with a helicopter carrier. What kind of helicopters and could it be used with fighter aircraft? But I agree that Japan does not need a carrier for whatever reason.

As l said in my above post the Japanese are building 1 atm and plan another 2 capable of operating the F-35 or equivalent aircraft as well as helicopters. So Japan has the gaul to complain about China yet are building their own and labelling them something different to bypass the ban on Japan operating aircraft carriers. Funny reminds me of another time when they did this....

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Japan getting upset about other countries doing what it is doing itself. Am sure I've read about this before.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

They have the hardware, doesn't mean they no how to use it. Japanese quickly forget their military past -- tactics and strategy are 80% of the game. Further, China may have a huge military, but its needed to keep the boots on the necks of one billion peasants...

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The Japanese government has no choice but to condemn this, if only not to lose face.

Besides that, any condemnations and requests for "clarity" and "more information" are little more than sabre rattling on behalf of male politicians.

I really don't see the problem with this - this carrier is 25 years old (commissioned by the Russian navy in 1985).

If push comes to shove, this carrier will be easy meat for a few cruise missiles.

And besides navies share vessels all the time: the Indian navy's centaur class carrier, INS Viraat, was originally the British Navy's HMS Hermes.

And let's not overlook the fact that the Aussies sold the decommissioned HMAS Melbourne to the Chinese, and the Russians have also supplied the Chinese with the Minsk.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Japan, "Do I as say , not as I do " policy does not work with china!

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

SushiSake3

The Japanese government has no choice but to condemn this, if only not to lose face. Besides that, any condemnations and requests for "clarity" and "more information" are little more than sabre rattling on behalf of male politicians.

I understand what you are saying, however it does stink of hypocrisy when the Japanese are complaining about China testing their one carrier when Japan is AGAIN using loopholes to get around a rule it doesnt like and build 3 carriers of their own.

And let's not overlook the fact that the Aussies sold the decommissioned HMAS Melbourne to the Chinese,

A little correction here, the Melbourne was sold to a scrap company for the purpose of scrapping. It was not sold for any other reason, however the Chinese didnt scrap it immediately and may have actually removed its flight deck for training etc.

and the Russians have also supplied the Chinese with the Minsk.

Which is now a floating amusement park. Hardly a threat to Japan hey?

6 ( +8 / -2 )

OMG! The Chinese are out to control the world! Head for the hills! Run for your lives! Yeah right, they need a few old boats, maybe they can help us all fight against those stupid pirates out in Somalia etc...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Elbuda Mexicano

maybe they can help us all fight against those stupid pirates out in Somalia etc...

Um, sorry dude but they already have been! They have contributed the most naval forces behind the US. 31 ships in total, they have managed to maintain 3-4 ships at all times as part of the anti piracy task force off Somalia.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Must have taken them months to get rid of all the Russian bugs.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The US asks Beijing to explain why they need a (1) carrier??

Perhaps the US needs to first explain why they have 11??

9 ( +10 / -1 )

If these china pesants wish to start a war ... we will face them again. this aircraft carier is an act of aggression and war against the japanese people, and will not be tolerated by LDP when comes back into power soon. We will have to teach them a lesson of they do not scrap this terrible carier NOW!

-20 ( +2 / -22 )

Japan concerned

They have every reason for that. Japan should have remained rich and strong with lots of money for others to milk her or build a really strong army if wants to avoid war.

No strong capable army, no money to keep the enemy docile around Japan for money policy failed as Japan is going down as the result of their very own greedy businessmen robbed their own country and the US won't be that stupid to bleed herself out for the sake of Japan.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Kentaro75

we will face them again.

Oh so you will invade them again and slaughter millions of their people..... Hmm ok

this aircraft carier is an act of aggression and war against the japanese people, and will not be tolerated by LDP when comes back into power soon. We will have to teach them a lesson of they do not scrap this terrible carier NOW!

Ah so China may not have 1 but Japan may have 3 and the US 11. Ok so by your logic Japan and the US are the aggressors as they have more than China. True.

Sorry l hope l havent confused you with logic, it can be hard to hear over the vans speakers....

8 ( +12 / -4 )

if their ships work as good as their fast trains, great!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

TakahiroDomingo

if their ships work as good as their fast trains, great!

Exactly right, between the poor design of the Chinese ships and the Japanese airforce planes falling out of the sky for no reason should be funny to watch.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I would like to see Japan with two copter carriers, one based in the Japan Sea, the other in the Pacific Sea, which are fully equipped hospitals to be used in major disasters.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

if their ships work as good as their fast trains, great!

And where do you think the mechanical parts, bolts and nuts, the electric switches, the computer screens, digital displays, cooling fans for sensitive CPUs, smaller units, and many others that are built in the Japanese vessels, tanks, war vehicles, and communication devices were made?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Rich developed countries MNCs and the folks from these countries have themselves to blame as it is this group that has pumped money onto China. More money equals more power. How about returning to your home nation, stimulating employment and removing the imminent consequences that will no doubt cause global problems.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

FDI is at incredibly high levels in China. Too high.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

China can`t do anything with their new aircraft carrier in Japan, what can they do?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

zichi

I would like to see Japan with two copter carriers, one based in the Japan Sea, the other in the Pacific Sea, which are fully equipped hospitals to be used in major disasters.

That is a good idea, however Japan already has 5 helicopter carriers, 3 of which are amphibious vessels that can carry helicopters and be used for disaster relief (they are stationed in Kure), they also have 2 dedicated helicopter carriers (one stationed in Yokosuka and the other Kure) that can and have been used for disaster relief.

Now on top of that they are building these 3 light aircraft carriers, and interestingly there is talk that the 2 existing helicopter carriers will be fitted out to carry F-35 aircraft as well. Which will give Japan 5 light aircraft carriers and yet have the gaul to complain about China's 1 carrier. Bit rich l think

3 ( +4 / -1 )

zichi: "if a country needs to defend itself with fighter aircraft it can do so with landbases. The purpose of any carrier is to get near the enemy to launch an attack."

What era are you from? 'A country' includes any islands it may have, as well as sea based resources it may wish to defend, and it's easier to scramble jets in the direct vicinity than from land bases that may be far off. In either case, I'm not suggesting in any way China is building this for defense any more than Japan is building its carriers (renamed helicopter carriers) for defense.

Anyway way you slice it, this is a case of Japan complaining about what it itself is doing, and once again looking to the world for victim status and defense. Next you'll have Japan saying they want to strengthen ties with the US so that they can be protected from China while asking the US forces to get out of Okinawa as they are not needed.

Bottom line is that they cannot realistically expect China to not do what it is doing while Japan does the same.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

someone should just find some way clever to sink it while it is still in early sea trials and make it look like an accident.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

someone should just find some way clever to sink it while it is still in early sea trials and make it look like an accident.

That would be a declaration of war.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Thanks Spidapig! I do know that the Chinese are helping with their navy and you should see what the Indian navy does to pirates!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Someone heat up the carbon and haul a iceberg down here.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

the August sea trials were met with concern from regional powers including Japan and the United States, which called on Beijing to explain why it needs an aircraft carrier..............................

same reason why the US, the British, the French ,the Russian, the Indian all have carrier force. To protect their commercial interests of course.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

This is troubling news for anyone who loves peace, as all Japanese do. China is the single greatest threat to world peace at the moment and their continued buildup of military and weapons can only be interpreted as an act of aggression. As we shift into a China Containment policy, we must remain aware that China's one and only goal is world domination at any cost. Luckily none of the major powers trust China enough to accept terms of an axis, but under the radar approaches to high level Russian intelligence agents is yet another sign that we not only need to be worried, but need to start taking action against China.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The Chinese government has never adopted a so called 'pacifist constitution' that has an obligation to maintain 'submmissive' like Japanes does. China has never defeated in Korean war and the US was cowardice to act agaisnbt Chian no matter what the Chinese government has done. China made nuclear blasts in 1960s, China shooting down satellites iout of space..etc, were met with firece against from US and her allies! Because China is never being Japan: A defeated and humilated state! Of course China has no obligations to listen what the Japanese government has concerned! Please respect yourself a little bit, Mr Noda, the refugees of 311Tsunami were crying in their tents. For the Chinese aircraft carriers is definately nothing your business!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

smithinjapan wrote;

zichi: "An aircraft carrier is a weapon of attack, not defense."

Says who? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you -- in fact I think all 'weapons' are for attack, but still.

+1

0 ( +1 / -1 )

China did liared to the whole world that the half finished aircraft carrier Varyag shall be used as a 'casino' and the whole world has got to believes it 'willfully'! And Turkey as being a Nato country was China's greatest friend, the leaders of Turkey defy America's opposition but allowing the ship to pass through their strait! China is definately having more supports from around the world helping China's military buildup as a counterbalance of america's bullying !

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

SushiSake wrote;

The US asks Beijing to explain why they need a (1) carrier??

Perhaps the US needs to first explain why they have 11??

You're talking "Apples" and "Oranges" here...

And it use to be 15, which it will be again after we kick Obama out!!!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This is just another excuse to send the sheeple to panic mode, just as the panic buttons used for Israel & Iran, wake up people, the media controls what we need to believe and what we need to be afraid of.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Unlike Japan, no people in China will behaves 'submmissive' like Japnese does to foreign troops stepping on soil! Japan wants to build their own aircraft carriers as well, just there was a 'noose' around her neck that forbidden her to do so...japan was just jealous instead of talking peace!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

smithinjapan

"What era are you from?"

why, this one! Japan has no territory outside of Japan. Currently, Britain which is an active member of NATO and also part of the Commonwealth does not have a single carrier and is unlikely to have one until 2020 or even later. Japan does not need carriers for defense.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Spidapig24

thanks for the info but none of the ships you mention are actual purpose built hospitals?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

zichi wrote;

smithinjapan

"What era are you from?"

why, this one! Japan has no territory outside of Japan. Currently, Britain which is an active member of NATO and also part of the Commonwealth does not have a single carrier and is unlikely to have one until 2020 or even later. Japan does not need carriers for defense.

Britain has two carriers right now with one to be mothballed in 2014...and in 2020 as you mention, the new HMS QE class of carriers are to be delivered...

You are correct though...Japan does not need carriers...the US Navy is being paid well by the JN Tax Payers to maintain military presence in and around Japan for the Japanese...

But Japan does have quite a few subs with "Cruise" capabilities...they can sit in Yokosuka, drink Sake and launch...YEAH...that's what I'm talking about!!!...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Just some thoughts on the issue of weapons being inherently defensive or offensive. Most weapons systems are not designed to be one or the other – there are a few defensive only weapons – certain ABM systems such as the Patriot are purely defensive while ICBM/IRBM systems are used to attack and are inherently offensive. But aircraft carriers can perform in both an offensive and defensive role. As we’ve seen from Pearl Harbor and WW II, though the Korea and Vietnam wars, and Desert Storm and the Falklands campaign, aircraft carriers can be used to project offensive power – primarily air power. But they can be used defensively also. In Japan’s case, there are no airfields close to the Senkakus, so having land based aircraft provide a sustained defensive air cap around the area to defend the airspace is problematic. Japan having a small carrier that could sail to and stage in the area would solve this problem. China uses this same rationale – they say they will use this carrier to defend its littoral areas. What raises questions however, is that China already has a robust IRBM (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile) capability that fulfills this role – along with substantial numbers of submarines. Japan has no offensive missiles. So one has to ask, are the Chinese merely using this rationale as an excuse to use this carrier in an offensive role, to project power and secure its claims in the Senkakus and South China Sea? It seems clear that Japan, and the other nations in both Northeast and Southeast Asia, all think so.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

why japan so scared? is it china wanna bomb japan? ridiculous!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

did you all ever see china did invaded other countries? they are the one who have been invaded by other countries! Japan must look at themselve first! did you ever invade china before?

4 ( +7 / -3 )

if china is a treat to the whole world, did they ever invaded other countries like the American? The American did attack Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, Japan as well! is it the American is a good guy? you all guys think bout it! PEACE! no more war please American!

1 ( +4 / -3 )

zichi: "why, this one! Japan has no territory outside of Japan."

Wow... a nation has no territory outside of its territory... how revealing. The French islands in French Polynesia or off the coast of Africa are not technically outside of France either, being French territory. So if they were attacked should jets from France be scrambled to arrive a day or so later?

And yes, Japan doesn't need carriers for defense, so why do they have them or are in the process of building them (again, under a different name)? If they are not for defense, Japan is going against its own constitution. China can likewise claim to use their carrier for 'defense', as such.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yes, the aircraft carrier is definately an offensive weapon. But so what? Does there exist a resolution to ban China owning offensive weapons? Is Japan going to complain China in the UN security council? Does China has to apologise to japan for owing nuclear weapons that will be used at japan? The Chinese government just 'despising' japan from head to toes...is Japan going to cut off trades with China? Now you get a clue why China needs an aircraft carrier!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If China has to explain to US or Japan 'why' her navy needs an aircraft carrier, then US has to explain why aiming Chinese cities with B-2A stealth bombers in Guam! Obviously the answer from both sides is :None of your business!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

i think the US is behind the plot. they can sell weapons to other countries, they can invade other countries. China sell armes, they blast the chinese these and that. what kind of these human living on the earth! Obama is a twat!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Hey Munya times:

And where do you think the mechanical parts, bolts and nuts, the electric switches, the computer screens, digital displays, cooling fans for sensitive CPUs, smaller units, and many others that are built in the Japanese vessels, tanks, war vehicles, and communication devices were made?

i thought everything in this world has a sign that says "made in china". or haven't you noticed?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just-a-guy: Unlike Japan, no people in China will behaves 'submmissive' like Japnese does to foreign troops stepping on soil! Japan wants to build their own aircraft carriers as well, just there was a 'noose' around her neck that forbidden her to do so...japan was just jealous instead of talking peace!

Well I think the whole problem started with Japanese troops pretty much stepping all over China's soil at will, was it not? Then the US got invoved and saved the Chinese.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You guys are ignorant about how China used aggression to seize the islands claimed by the Vietnamese.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

China is still ridiculously behind. Forgive me if I don't have a panic attack.

I think the SDF could take down a Chinese naval attack all by itself, no need of the U.S. military, except to make sure its a perfect skunking rather than lose a couple of Japanese ships.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

You guys are also ignorant about the fact that China claims half of pacific ocean all the way to hawaii as their sea. They had this agenda from long ago.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Did you guys forget how China used trade power tactics last year and banned rare earth metal to Japan?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You guys are also ignorant about the fact that China and Japan have sea border issues in Okinawa area as there are oils equivalent to middle east burried there.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well I think the whole problem started with Japanese troops pretty much stepping all over China's soil at will, was it not? Then the US got invoved and saved the Chinese.

Well that's part of the picture but not the whole picture. Japan went to pursue the wrong ideology of colonialism 1st) to defend against the west and 2nd) to gain territory and resources trying to become a colonial power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The PLA (presumably People's Liberation Army) is the "World's most active military."

It may be active in the sense that it's moving about, but I would think the prize for the most active in terms of number of kills and destruction of property has to go to the U.S.A.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

China mentioned about carrying out relevant scientific and research experiments.

I think maybe China is trying to make significant improvement on their Dong Feng 21 anti carrier missile based on their experience studying their own aircraft carrier. Who knows they might even use their aircraft carrier as a target practice for their missile but with empty warhead and proper procedure of course to avoid damaging it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It may be active in the sense that it's moving about, but I would think the prize for the most active in terms of number of kills and destruction of property has to go to the U.S.A.

Sorry JohninNaha but it's still Great Britain. You lot still have much to answer for.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

ihrwjns - "SushiSake wrote;

The US asks Beijing to explain why they need a (1) carrier??

Perhaps the US needs to first explain why they have 11??"

ihrwjns - You're talking "Apples" and "Oranges" here...

So, you're saying that aircraft carriers are somehow different from other ...aircraft carriers?

How exactly is a that so?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The answer is the Senkaku Islands, pure and simple. There is OIL there ripe for the picking. China wants it as does Japan adn a list of ther claims as well. China has been testing the waters (pun intended) and are now "gearing up" for their play. Check List: Real big Army... Check, Stealth Fighters.... Check, Air Craft Carrier.... check

Shall we play a game?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

T_rexmaxytime - "Did you guys forget how China used trade power tactics last year and banned rare earth metal to Japan?"

Could that just possibly be because China owns about 95% of them?

What’s wrong with doing what they want with what they own?

Is that a crime?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Invade China? Never heard of anything more STUPID. For once I believe the Peoples Republic Government, this carrier is not much of a threat to anyone. Stupid thing has a ski jump on it, limited to vtol or stol aircraft. Not a lot of them at that perhaps 20 or so. It was made in the "workers" paradise and has quality control problems. My guess is this will be a learning and training platform. The new generation of carriers built by them will be dangerous. About Japan having carriers, well they have a lot of sea to patrol from Hokkaido to the last island in Okinawa and from Tsushima to Iwoto. There is a legitimate reason for search and rescue.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

TakahiroDomingoNov. 29, 2011 - 10:35PM JST

Hey Munya times: i thought everything in this world has a sign that says "made in china". or haven't you noticed?

No, not everything, that's still a long way to go. Many Chinese products still have a sign that says "Made in Japan, EU, USA" etc.

Military supply, pharmaceutical industry and some others are sensitive areas, those products don't carry that sign and in many cases not even the makers are aware of where their suppliers got the parts and units. The Japanese SDF is not an exception, but they will find out when their stuff breaks down and can't get supply. It has already happened in Japan that some makers had to make a recall and realized too late they were cheated and didn't know what they had built in their products. Everything is business.

So where did we leave off? The first posts on this issue, yes, the Chinese carrier has a good chance to crash, and so have many Japanese military equipments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Its amusing to hear the Japanese complaining about the fact that the Chinese are testing their one aircraft carrier. Especially when Japan has commenced building its own aircraft carrier (oops sorry its a Helicopter carrying destroyer) that is capable of launching F-35, and is planning to build 3 in total. So its not ok for China to have one but its totally ok for Japan to have 3."

Total nonsense. The deck strengths of the JMSDF heli-carriers aren'tr capable of supporting VTOL aircraft like the F-35 which is hardly in Japan's hands yet anyway.

" Wow and who out of China and Japan has a history of imperialistic expansion?"

Wow and what country has been and continues to be an authoritarian dictatorship for the last 50 years, is on a massive miltary expansion program, bullies all of it's neighbors and is considered a threat by all nations in Asia ascwell as Oceania? Japan's past short lived imperialist history doesn't justify China's behavior today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If it's as poorly constructed as all the 'Made in China' crap we have here it will sink to the bottom of the bloody ocean in no time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wow and who out of China and Japan has a history of imperialistic expansion?

Han, Ming, Qing, and the current PRC ring a bell?

I don't think the world (especially the SE Asian nation) would give a hoot if China builds an aircraft carrier or two if it weren't for the recent ambitions in South China Sea.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The US is more likely to strike China first than China strike the US. If the US needs something, they will come and invade.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

An aircraft carrier is a weapon of attack, not defense...

This is generally considered true in strategy planning. Aircraft carrier task groups are for "projection of power." Or, as the popular poster says, "Acres of soverign US territory, where ever it's needed" or something to that effect.

As far as the US invading China is concerned, I don't see that as at all likely. No more than China invading the US. Too far away, too large. History has proven that such an invasion was bound to fail.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This was in the CCP's editorial last month:

"If these countries don't want to change their ways with China, they will need to mentally prepare for the sounds of cannons. We need to be ready for that, as it may be the only way for the disputes in the sea to be resolved."

At least they're honest.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Transparency? And Japan's sure got a lot of that lately... The joint exercises between the JASDF and the US military are also increasing in scale. What I'm concerned about is the impact of this militarization in the Pacific on local islands and their inhabitants too.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If the entire world would use all of this $$$$$ for PEACE instead of WAR, I believe our world would be a much better place, this includes the USA, CHINA, RUSSIA etc..have a nice PEACEFUL day!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/world/news/111129/chn11112914320000-n1.htm

LOL. No arresting wires installed since China pissed off Russia.

中国は同ワイヤを製造する技術を持っていない

China does not have the technology to build such wires.

Yep. Just like their high speed rail.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

OssanAmerica

Total nonsense. The deck strengths of the JMSDF heli-carriers aren'tr capable of supporting VTOL aircraft like the F-35 which is hardly in Japan's hands yet anyway.

So l see you have trouble reading, try reading the comment you quoted again. The three vessels have yet to be built (one is being built at the moment). So how exactly can you make that comment? And just so you are aware they modified the design of these 3 UNBUILT vessels to enable them to handle these aircraft. As for the 2 current carriers in service they are reportedly modified to carry aircraft much like the US Wasp class vessels. So you say nonsense, LOL. Try looking it up for yourself there Ossan

Wow and what country has been and continues to be an authoritarian dictatorship for the last 50 years, is on a massive miltary expansion program, bullies all of it's neighbors and is considered a threat by all nations in Asia ascwell as Oceania? Japan's past short lived imperialist history doesn't justify China's behavior today.

So China is building up its military, who isnt? As for your inane comment about " Japan's past short lived imperialist history", Japan has invaded and killed more in its "short lived imperialistic past (around 40 years by the way) than China has in its 50 years of communism. But funnily when you said what country is on a military expansion program, bullies neighbours, and is considered a threat l thought you meant the US.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Spidapig24 Great, defend China as much as you want. They are great, everyone likes them, the world will be a better place with China as the leader, right ? I'm sure you get happier every time you hear China, NK, Iran spending more money on weapons but you can't stand if Japan says or does anything. You are very impartial, no bias whatsoever

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Unreconstructed -

Sorry JohninNaha but it's still Great Britain. You lot still have much to answer for.

You're not wrong there.

Although the U.S.A. seems to doing its best to catch up over the last ten years.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Eh. I'm not particularly terrified that China is refrubishing and ancient soviet aircraft carrier. The US has a grand total of 11 Nuclear Supercarriers. China (along with the rest of the world) is lightyears behind.

All this aquisition does is to serve as evidence that China is on the rise. But you already knew that. So relax.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dont be surprised if the F-35 program is on the 'hit list' of the coming 1 trillion defense cut program! Until then Japan will found her air fleet very safe!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spidapig 24Nov. 29, 2011 - 04:15PM JST

Its amusing to hear the Japanese complaining about the fact that the Chinese are testing their one aircraft carrier. Especially when Japan has commenced building its own aircraft carrier (oops sorry its a Helicopter carrying destroyer) that is capable of launching F-35, and is planning to build 3 in total. So its not ok for China to have one but its totally ok for Japan to have 3. Wow and who out of China and Japan has a history of imperialistic expansion?

The Japanese Helicopter Carriers are not capable of launching F-35s, and would have to be significantly modified to do so. What they are designed to do is launch anti-submarine helicopters, presumably to keep Chinese subs under watch.

The Chinese Aircraft Carrier is capable of launching full-size fighter and attack aircraft, and is over three times the size of the current Japanese Helicopter Carriers.

However, if Japan procures Airwolf, all bets are off.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Star-viking

The Japanese Helicopter Carriers are not capable of launching F-35s, and would have to be significantly modified to do so. What they are designed to do is launch anti-submarine helicopters, presumably to keep Chinese subs under watch.

What is it with people who cant read? Please read the part of my post that you copied, and note the bit that states "the vessels that they are building." Building not built, they havent even finished building them yet! It is widely reported that these vessels are being built with builtin capability to operate VSTOL aircraft. So why would they need to be significantly modified when a. they arnt built yet, b. they are being built with the capability built in so if in the future the Japanese want to use them as such they are capable. Gawd cant people read these days.

And again the 2 current ones would need modifications to handle them but again not major modifications please try reading a reliable source other the Wikipedia...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hide Suzuki

@Spidapig24 Great, defend China as much as you want. They are great, everyone likes them, the world will be a better place with China as the leader, right ?

No-one is defending China buddy, what l am doing is being critical of Japan. Who is being two faced is saying China cant do this but all the while Japan is doing exactly what they are complaining about. Damn doesnt that sound familiar...

I'm sure you get happier every time you hear China, NK, Iran spending more money on weapons but you can't stand if Japan says or does anything. You are very impartial, no bias whatsoever

Wow how perceptive of you, lets see this story is about your PM Noddy (sorry Noda) complaining about China testing its 1 and only carrier correct? Yet Japan is building 3 vessels (for those that cant read l will say again BUILDING) capable of operating aircraft. Now do you see the hypocrisy in this? I doubt you will so l wont bother to spell it out. And you call me bias it seems you are another of these firm believers in the Japanese policy of do as l say not as l do!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

On the other hand, think of how many Chinese are working refurbishing that carrier. They are smart putting people to work building things all over China. It keeps people happy there with jobs. Maybe the US and Japan should think about putting more people to work that way. In Japan, all I see is road construction day after day. Don't hold your breath before you see more Chinese things happen. Space the final frontier.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America has a huge army, and as Russia is somewhat out of the picture, and China is an Emerging super power it is only logically that they increase their fleet/army. now what they will do with it, is the question.

@Zinc an aircraft carrier is purely a scouting vehicle with aircraft as defense mechanism ;)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spidapig24Nov. 30, 2011 - 01:09PM JST

Star-viking

The Japanese Helicopter Carriers are not capable of launching F-35s, and would have to be significantly modified to do so. What they are designed to do is launch anti-submarine helicopters, presumably to keep Chinese subs under watch."

What is it with people who cant read? Please read the part of my post that you copied, and note the bit that states "the vessels that they are building." Building not built, they havent even finished building them yet! It is widely reported that these vessels are being built with builtin capability to operate VSTOL aircraft. So why would they need to be significantly modified when a. they arnt built yet, b. they are being built with the capability built in so if in the future the Japanese want to use them as such they are capable. Gawd cant people read these days.

What is it about people who know nothing? Japan has built two Helicopter carriers: Hyuga and Ise (DDH16 and DDH18 repectivily). They can carry 11 Helicopters. The DDH22, which is building, is bigger than them, an will be able to carry 14 helicopers. Another DDH22 class ship is planned. That's 4 Helicopter Carriers, two smaller than the British VSTOL Carrier Invincible, two a little bit bigger.

And again the 2 current ones would need modifications to handle them but again not major modifications please try reading a reliable source other the Wikipedia...

Really? The decks would need to be reinforced to deal with the heat of the F-35B's VTOL thrust. To get a good range on them it would need a Ski-jump like the British VSTOL Carriers. Larger maintenance bays and shops would need to be fitted, bigger munitions stores, bigger lifts, a taller hangar roof, flying control stations, larger aviation fuel tanks, probably a fight deck extension to provide the larger deck park that jets need. That's what I can think of off the top of my head.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Star-viking

What is it about people who know nothing?

Funny one..... Considering your first response to me was well wrong. I was talking about something not yet built and you went off by saying "The Japanese Helicopter Carriers are not capable of launching F-35s, and would have to be significantly modified to do so" This is what l was refering to when l corrected your fault.

Japan has built two Helicopter carriers: Hyuga and Ise (DDH16 and DDH18 repectivily). They can carry 11 Helicopters.

Correct they can, and as l pointed out it has been long speculated that these 2 vessels would be fitted out to carry a reduced compliment of VSTOL aircraft. As mentioned by various sources.

The DDH22, which is building, is bigger than them, an will be able to carry 14 helicopers. Another DDH22 class ship is planned. That's 4 Helicopter Carriers, two smaller than the British VSTOL Carrier Invincible, two a little bit bigger.

The decks would need to be reinforced to deal with the heat of the F-35B's VTOL thrust. To get a good range on them it would need a Ski-jump like the British VSTOL Carriers.

Actually the F-35B can take off with a usable payload without a ramp (550ft) while the deck on the DDH16&18 is 600ft. This method is used by the US aircraft when embarked on the Tarawa and Wasp class (both of which have no ramp). Also amusingly a study in 2004 funded by the Japanese Defence budget came to the conclusion this class could carry 13-17 of these aircraft. Interestingly by adding a ski ramp it only reduces the take off run to 450 ft and would require a 10 addition to the flight deck.

Larger maintenance bays and shops would need to be fitted, bigger munitions stores, bigger lifts, a taller hangar roof, flying control stations, larger aviation fuel tanks,

LOL, lets see the hanger roof doesnt need to be heighten given that the height of the F-35 is lower than the MH-53, CH-47, SH-60 and EH-101 which the vessel can and does carry. The rear elevator is also large enough to handle the dimensions of the F-35. As for the larger aviation fuel tanks not really as there would obviously be a reduction or removal of helicopters.

And as l said in my initial post these items have been factored in to the design of the new class in the design stage (with the exception of the ski ramp although some drawings actually have that as well). So rather than relying on Wikipedia maybe you should look elsewhere, but my point stands. Japan is whining about China's carrier yet say nothing of their own plans and interestingly nothing is mentioned in the J press about Japans neighbours concerns about Japans new class of light carriers. Maybe one should read what the neighbours such as Korea think of these new vessels.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

At least Japan can build new ships unlike China which needed to buy an old one from a former Soviet State. As I said the sodai gomi the Chinese call a "carrier" is no problem. After cleaning up it will make a great artificial reef.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spidapig 24Nov. 30, 2011 - 04:35PM JST

Star-viking

"What is it about people who know nothing?"

Funny one..... Considering your first response to me was well wrong. I was talking about something not yet built and you went off by saying "The Japanese Helicopter Carriers are not capable of launching F-35s, and would have to be significantly modified to do so" This is what l was refering to when l corrected your fault.

So I was referring to the DDH16 and 18 - so what?

"Japan has built two Helicopter carriers: Hyuga and Ise (DDH16 and DDH18 repectivily). They can carry 11 Helicopters."

Correct they can, and as l pointed out it has been long speculated that these 2 vessels would be fitted out to carry a reduced compliment of VSTOL aircraft. As mentioned by various sources.

And where are these sources?

"The decks would need to be reinforced to deal with the heat of the F-35B's VTOL thrust. To get a good range on them it would need a Ski-jump like the British VSTOL Carriers."

Actually the F-35B can take off with a usable payload without a ramp (550ft) while the deck on the DDH16&18 is 600ft. This method is used by the US aircraft when embarked on the Tarawa and Wasp class (both of which have no ramp). Also amusingly a study in 2004 funded by the Japanese Defence budget came to the conclusion this class could carry 13-17 of these aircraft. Interestingly by adding a ski ramp it only reduces the take off run to 450 ft and would require a 10 addition to the flight deck.

The F-35B has had basic ship trials on USS Wasp this year. As for the Tarawa-class, only one, USS Peleliu, is still active and has not had the F-35 operating on it. Perhaps you are thinking of Harriers?

As for ski-jumps, the LHA America will not have them - but it's almost a third longer than the DD16s, and 10 meters longer than the DDH22. Also, the point of the Ski-Jump is to increase the payload carried - which is why most harrier carriers use them.

As for the study - got a link?

"Larger maintenance bays and shops would need to be fitted, bigger munitions stores, bigger lifts, a taller hangar roof, flying control stations, larger aviation fuel tanks,"

LOL, lets see the hanger roof doesnt need to be heighten given that the height of the F-35 is lower than the MH-53, CH-47, SH-60 and EH-101 which the vessel can and does carry. The rear elevator is also large enough to handle the dimensions of the F-35. As for the larger aviation fuel tanks not really as there would obviously be a reduction or removal of helicopters.

As far as I know the DDH-16 class only carries SH-60s and EH-101s. Using the F-35B operationally would mean you'd need to be able to swap out the engines - which means jacking up the aircraft. The Royal Navy carriers planned for the F-35 have a hangar height of 7 meters, with an over 9 meter high maintenance area. DDH-16s have a hangar height of 6 meters and a maintenance area height of 7.8 meters. Two lifts would be needed on an operational ship, and the fast jets would burn much more fuel. And you's also need jet blast deflectors.

And as l said in my initial post these items have been factored in to the design of the new class in the design stage (with the exception of the ski ramp although some drawings actually have that as well). So rather than relying on Wikipedia maybe you should look elsewhere, but my point stands.

I rely on defense websites, blogs and forums - how about you?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What's the worry? Aircraft carriers are today's equivalent of battle ships or the Maginot Line. Swarms of cheap UAV's will be sending aircraft carries to the bottom of the ocean in the next shooting war between super powers. China intends to have Military World Dominance within the next ten years. They are following the path that Russia once did. Y.S. need to demonstrate our world dominance once again. The difference is that U.S. utilized the world dominance as a "Deterance" unlike China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

China has every right to build aircraft carriers and project its military might throughout Asia and elsewhere as the 21st century progresses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Patrick Hattman, sure they have the right to buy and build carriers. However they have no experience at building, operating and maintaining. Americans have been flying planes off of ships for over 90 years. Been flying jets off of carriers for over 6o years. China is going to have to work hard to catch up to the Americans. One thing who is going to train their pilots to land their planes and crew to man the carriers?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

YuriOtani

Patrick Hattman, sure they have the right to buy and build carriers. However they have no experience at building, operating and maintaining. Americans have been flying planes off of ships for over 90 years. Been flying jets off of carriers for over 6o years. China is going to have to work hard to catch up to the Americans. One thing who is going to train their pilots to land their planes and crew to man the carriers?

So what does it matter to Japan if China has no experience or not with carriers. But to answer your question regarding training it seems they are getting some experience and training from a certain South American country that has operated carriers for many years in return for military equipment.

But l am actually starting to think that the issue is not so much the carrier but the fact that China is building up their military and with their well founded dislike of the Japanese for Japans past actions. Maybe the Japanese have good reason to worry afterall as they say karma is a b****

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hope the Chinese don't come looking for their pound of flesh here in Japan. It's a good looking carrier, but we all know about the Chinese Shinkansens and their bridges and infrastructure not being up to scratch. I sincerely believe that this ship has more bite than bark, but GULP! Who wants to find out!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Spidapig24, think the SDF wants an increase in budget and is using this as an excuse. So you really think Brazil will train the Chinese Navy? Not in their best interests, and so you are saying China still has a grudge against Japan? If this is true relations with China and trading with them is not in Japans bests interest.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

YuriOtani

Spidapig24, think the SDF wants an increase in budget and is using this as an excuse.

They already have approved an increase in the SDF budget from 51.81 billion per year to 70.49 billion per year for the next 4 years.

So you really think Brazil will train the Chinese Navy?

No l dont think its fact, here is an extract from an article about the matter "The Brazilian Minister of Defence has stated that Brazil and China have reached an agreement to train Chinese naval personnel in Brazil. Chinese officers will be stationed aboard the NAe São Paulo, Brazil’s aircraft carrier. A Brazilian spokesperson indicated that the Chinese want aircraft carriers to project power. The Brazilians hope that this agreement will lead to defence cooperation in other areas."

Not in their best interests,

Obviously it is.

and so you are saying China still has a grudge against Japan? If this is true relations with China and trading with them is not in Japans bests interest.

LOL resorting to the usual argument Yuri, getting tiring.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I bet they sink it by mistake.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Spidapig 24Dec. 01, 2011 - 09:06AM JST

So what does it matter to Japan if China has no experience or not with carriers. But to answer your question regarding training it seems they are getting some experience and training from a certain South American country that has operated carriers for many years in return for military equipment.

Good for China - but not great. The Brazilian navy is a recent newcomer to operating jets on their carrier - and small one at that (Skyhawks). Their carrier has arrested landing, like the Chinese carrier - but catapult launches - the Chinese carrier uses a ski-jump. They also have no experience in using their carrier and aircraft offensively.

As for experience or not with carriers - that is the key point. No use having a weapon if you don't know how to use if effectively.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Star-viking

Good for China - but not great. The Brazilian navy is a recent newcomer to operating jets on their carrier - and small one at that (Skyhawks).

The Brazilians may be newcomers to jets on carriers (1997) l believe, but they have been operating carriers with aircraft on board since the mid 60's so while they may not have the jet experience of say the US they certainly have plenty of experience with the vessel and handling, air operations etc. Oh and your forgetting the Argentinians also use the carrier annually for its Super Etendards for training so the Brazilians would also benifit from this as now will the Chinese.

Their carrier has arrested landing, like the Chinese carrier - but catapult launches - the Chinese carrier uses a ski-jump. They also have no experience in using their carrier and aircraft offensively.

Yeah so the carrier has catapults not a ramp, working on your theory then even the US would be useless to get information from as non of their vessels have a ramp. Maybe the Chinese should talk to the Indians, Thai's, or Brit, Maybe even the Italians or Spanish they would in your opinion have more knowledge than the US, true?

As for experience or not with carriers - that is the key point. No use having a weapon if you don't know how to use if effectively.

Well gee that would be why they are training with the Brazilians afterall they have been using a carrier for 46 years they can learn a lot from them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Spidapig 24Dec. 01, 2011 - 03:53PM JST

Star-viking

"Good for China - but not great. The Brazilian navy is a recent newcomer to operating jets on their carrier - and small one at that (Skyhawks)."

The Brazilians may be newcomers to jets on carriers (1997) l believe, but they have been operating carriers with aircraft on board since the mid 60's so while they may not have the jet experience of say the US they certainly have plenty of experience with the vessel and handling, air operations etc. Oh and your forgetting the Argentinians also use the carrier annually for its Super Etendards for training so the Brazilians would also benifit from this as now will the Chinese.

Sure, they have experience of handling propeller-powered ASW aircraft, helicopters and light strike aircraft. But the vast majority of the Brazilian Navy's carrier experience is in ASW, and they have never used their carriers in anger. As for the Chinese using the Brazilian Sao Paulo for training - the aircraft China intends to use off their carrier will be incompatible with the carrier - unlike the Argentinian ones.

"Their carrier has arrested landing, like the Chinese carrier - but catapult launches - the Chinese carrier uses a ski-jump. They also have no experience in using their carrier and aircraft offensively."

Yeah so the carrier has catapults not a ramp, working on your theory then even the US would be useless to get information from as non of their vessels have a ramp. Maybe the Chinese should talk to the Indians, Thai's, or Brit, Maybe even the Italians or Spanish they would in your opinion have more knowledge than the US, true?

That was not a theory Spidapig - it was an observation. As for the Chinese - yup, they could probably get info from the Thais.

"As for experience or not with carriers - that is the key point. No use having a weapon if you don't know how to use if effectively."

Well gee that would be why they are training with the Brazilians afterall they have been using a carrier for 46 years they can learn a lot from them.

And there's a lot they can't learn too - which was my point Spidapig. Why don't you show us the depth of your knowledge and explain the difference between the usage of ASW Carriers (Brazil) and Strike Carriers (what China wants to know about).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Star-viking, very nicely stated! stands up and claps. You are so right Brazil has never done offensive operations and their carrier is limited to 35 aircraft. An American carrier has a full strike force, fighters, bombers, ew and control aircraft, tankers and more. Then add to this there will be at least 2 American carriers given time 6 or more. Then add their tasks force, all balance with many years of training and operating tougher. Again the Chinese carrier should have "sink me" written on its side. It is more a threat to its own crew than to others.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Headline should read: China launches aircraft carrier, doesn't have technology to land planes

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This thing is not a true aircraft carrier in the normal sense of the word. It is similar to the small carriers made by Britain and France for the North Sea. They have a ski-jump ramp that can throw planes in the air. If weather conditions are good they can come back to the ship using VTOL/STOL. Other wise they have to ditch after mission and hope for a pick-up. We learned this the hard way when France was supposed to provide carrier support for the Libya operation

Building a conventional carrier is easy, but training pilots who can wire-cap is not. This ship is just a stunt and of little tactical value. The Russians would not have sold it otherwise

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Who know, how many airplanes was fly from that aircraft?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

spiudapig "So China is building up its military, who isnt?

No body at China's rate and with China's degree of non-transpareccy, Also China is the only nuclear power that is officially INCREASING it's nuclear warheads.

" As for your inane comment about " Japan's past short lived imperialist history", Japan has invaded and killed more in its "short lived imperialistic past (around 40 years by the way) than China has in its 50 years of communism. "

Deaths attribiuted to Japan during WWII = 20 to 30,000,000. Deaths attributed to the PRC sice inception: 77,000,000.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

spidapig, I'm afrarid it's you who can't read. The 16DDH and 18DDH already are in operation with the 22DDH to be built. None of these vessels are fittted for VTOL aircraft which Japan DOESN'T EVEN HAVE and is merely internet gossip and speculation. These ships are dsigned to operate as platforms for anti-sub helicopters. You;re argument that China should be allowed to have aircraft carriers because Japan has them is nonsense.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

OssanAmerica

spidapig, I'm afrarid it's you who can't read.

Oh ok, sorry you are so right as usual. Bowing humbly at your feet oh master....

The 16DDH and 18DDH already are in operation with the 22DDH to be built. None of these vessels are fittted for VTOL aircraft which Japan DOESN'T EVEN HAVE and is merely internet gossip and speculation.

In regards two the first two you mention l have actually stated that they currently cant operate these aircraft. What l have said if you care to read rather than making inane comments is that it is proposed (do you understand that phrase). As for the 22DDH l also stated they are being built, what l also said is that they are being built with the capability built in to handle the V-22 and F-35. Even the illustrations (drawings) put out by the JMSDF showed F-35 aircraft on these vessels so maybe the JMSDF is part of your internet gossip hey? And yes l do realise they dont have the aircraft but doesnt mean they wont in the future, for example Australia is building similar vessels to the 22 DDH and has no plans to buy F-35B but they are still building in the facilities to their ships in case they change their minds.

These ships are dsigned to operate as platforms for anti-sub helicopters.

Well maybe you should talk to the JMSDF about that, as mentioned yesterday they afterall conducted a study on the DDH16 & 18 in 2004 to determine what changes would need to be made to operate VSTOL aircraft from these vessels. So while they are being used as you describe they have been assessed for use as l described.

You;re argument that China should be allowed to have aircraft carriers because Japan has them is nonsense.

I actually am not arguing that China should be allowed to have them because Japan does, if you read my posts l actually said Japan has no right to complain when they are chasing the same technology (a vessel that can carry aircraft) as China is. That sir was my point if you try reading my posts which you are so critical of. My point once again is how can Japan be critical of China for having a Carrier to learn on when they aspire to having a vessel that can launch aircraft themselves.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They have one carrier to go against the US 11 and Japan is going nuts. Why not invest in some missile technology and put a battery of anti-ship missiles on Senkaku Island? Then sit back and laugh. Seriously though, any one of the US’s carriers equals about four of smaller light carrier China trying to roll out. This thing is more bravado than actually being a tactical threat.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@notasapDec. 03, 2011 - 01:55AM JST

They have one carrier to go against the US 11 and Japan is going nuts. Why not invest in some missile technology and put a battery of anti-ship missiles on Senkaku Island? Then sit back and laugh. Seriously though, any one of the US’s carriers equals about four of smaller light carrier China trying to roll out. This thing is more bravado than actually being a tactical threat.

My respect to you!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

YuriOtani Dec. 01, 2011 - 11:54PM JST

Star-viking, very nicely stated! stands up and claps. You are so right Brazil has never done offensive operations and their carrier is limited to 35 aircraft. An American carrier has a full strike force, fighters, bombers, ew and control aircraft, tankers and more. Then add to this there will be at least 2 American carriers given time 6 or more. Then add their tasks force, all balance with many years of training and operating tougher. Again the Chinese carrier should have "sink me" written on its side. It is more a threat to its own crew than to others.

Thanks Yuri, though we should not be too dismissive of the Chinese carrier - the primary focus of the Russian Carrier Force was to disable the US Carrier Force, as evidenced by the 12 large carrier-killer missiles they placed in silos on the flight deck. If the Chinese build on this capability and keep the carrier out of harm's way it could be a potent threat against any US-led Task Force. On the other hand...it's only one carrier.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

1 Good Bad

Jim N Helen Hill Dec. 02, 2011 - 02:14AM JST

This thing is not a true aircraft carrier in the normal sense of the word. It is similar to the small carriers made by Britain and France for the North Sea. They have a ski-jump ramp that can throw planes in the air. If weather conditions are good they can come back to the ship using VTOL/STOL. Other wise they have to ditch after mission and hope for a pick-up. We learned this the hard way when France was supposed to provide carrier support for the Libya operation

I think you're mixing up the carriers. The Russian carrier have a Ski-Jump, but have wires to provide an arrested landing. Also VTOL capable planes (Harrier, F-35B) can actually land in rougher weather than wire-arrested planes, as we discovered in the Falklands.

Building a conventional carrier is easy, but training pilots who can wire-cap is not. This ship is just a stunt and of little tactical value. The Russians would not have sold it otherwise

Actually, the Ukranians sold it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The only reason to have an aircraft carrier is to project political power.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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