Printable View
I had to laugh this morning when I read one of the headlines about Japan building it's largest warship since WWII. A new class of Destroyer. You have to look at the photos to get the true impression of this destroyer as it is unlike any destroyer ever built before. It amazingly looks exactly like an aircraft carrier. But it has no catapults or a jump ramp so that makes it a destroyer.
LOL
Japan Unveils Largest Warship Since WWII
Just a matter of time before they attack us again
820' and 19,500 tons, yep sounds like a destroyer, interesting to see their new frigate.
I read it too an laughed also....
Yeah well...its like making Mosin Nagant's and no4s to long. It took to the end or WW2 for short handy weapons that the troops wanted to overcome what the generals thought was best. ie I dont think Ive seen a "destroyer" with more than one gun since 1960s? Leander class had a twin turret. Since then a single very fast firing 4inch single at most. Just how often does that get used? Copters would keep the chinese subs further out, outside torp range and you cant usually use a gun on a sub anyway. Hmmm, maybe a better term for this is a destroyer leader, a bit bigger to hold flag and has good long range clout, who'd use the flagship in close?
regards
No doubt it's a political correctness thing on the part of Japanese to not use the word "carrier".
Clearly, it's an ASW helicopter carrier. When they buy STOVL F-35s, they can come up with another PC name.
I'm sure the Chinese understand that it's only a destroyer. What it looks like is the start of an arms race in that region of the world. The Chinese recently put into service an old Soviet carrier and are supposed to be building one similar in capabilities to ours, a full fledged blue water carrier that can project around the world.
But to call it a destroyer simply draws attention to it when that is probably the last thing they wanted.
From what I can see of it, it looks like it has stealth features built into it. Look at the shape of the hull and superstructure.
History repeats itself, what was Germany doing in the 30's? I'll bet ya there're developing "farm tractors" and "single seat recreation aircraft"...
Japanese warships are as useless as ours. missile and GPS capacity has rendered them junk.
IZUMO is Japanese for Sucker Punch....
That is one nice-looking "Jeep" carrier!
I had talked to several Japanese Naval officers about their classification of their "destroyer" a while back. They told me the Japanese Constitution prohibits the manufacturing of aircraft carriers since they are considered offensive weapons. "Destroyers" are considered defensive weapons. LOL
--fjruple
Let's not forget that their abstinence from offensive weapons has been essentially a voluntary thing. With all the sabers rattling in that area, I'm surprised it took them this long to come up with something of this magnitude.
Bob
I seem to remember the Royal Navy having "through-deck cruisers" at one time.
Except the lack of VSTOL it appears to be similar to a Tarawa Class AAS.
Hey guy's check out my Japanese entrenching shovel..... What say you? it looks like a T99? NO,NO,,, it has no bayonet or sling!!
Military Surplus Collectors Forums
[ATTACH][ATTACH]Attachment 45147[/ATTACH][/ATTACH]
The offensive weapons restriction was put on them by the US after WWII. But the US has recently been pressuring them to discard that portion of their constitution. China on the other hand does not want that restriction removed and it seems for the most part, the Japanese people don't either.
The last time I recall much talk on this was the gear to for the war in Afghanistan when the "West" felt Japan should be included in ventures such as this and Iraq. I believe they sent some medical personnel but I don't exactly recall.
A through deck cruiser is considered a hybrid. It can carry some limited forms of aircraft, generally VSTOL and Helicopters but at the same time it is capable of defending itself against external threats. Most true aircraft carriers lack all but minimal defensive capabilities and require escort ships such as frigates or guided missile cruisers to provide for their defense. These are considered to be more economical to both build and use.
This Japanese ship lacks (presently) the capability of operating standard aircraft. It does not have catapults. But we don't know if it was designed to be retrofitted with catapults. It also lacks the angled flight deck which would be required for extensive flight capabilities. It cannot for instance launch and land aircraft at the same time. But again, these can be retrofitted at a later date.
The Japanese were experts at conversions of other ship types into aircraft carriers. They purpose built ships with full intent to convert them to aircraft carriers in the event of war. So it is not a stretch to imagine they could have factored this into this ship.
You don't need catapults or angled flight decks, or even arrestor gear for STOVL aircraft like the F-35B. You don't even need ski-jumps if you're not trying to get every last pound of payload of your aircraft. You can launch and land STOVL from straight-deck carriers at the same time.
Yeah, it is a sinister looking ship isn't it. But it'll probably not even count in a regional conflict with North Korea or China. They'll need many more of them. It's been said it'll serve as a rescue ship too. In such a case, it is something they could have used in the disaster of 2011 in searching for survivors in a debris filled ocean.
Hope you are not trying to FRAC with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by WarPig1976
In a regional conflict with North Korea, or China, it isn't needed other than to defend Japan from a possible end around by the new Chinese aircraft carrier. All these powers can cover the disputed waters from their land bases. An aircraft carrier is a projection of force beyond where their land units can reach in a timely manner.
Oh yes,,, it's one of its many uses!!.... But, it's definitely not a battle rifle even though it looks exactly like one and could be readily converted. After all, don't want to scare my neighbors,,, I mean who digs in the rose bed with a rifle???
Aragon243, yes all what you say is true. An open conflict in that region will be within range of fighter planes from land bases. Carriers are sitting ducks for missile attacks and torpedoes.
I guess it all depends on who it is that has the carriers and who it is that is against the carriers.Quote:
Originally Posted by seabot2
The United States has not lost an aircraft carrier since WWII and they were used extensively in Korea, Vietnam, Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan. In Korea and Vietnam, the two enemy nations had extensive support from China and the Soviet Union. I can't even recall a successful attack causing damage during any of those conflicts although self inflicted damage occurred a few times. Carriers were also vital in all of those conflicts.
Are they vulnerable today? Not really. The massive size alone makes them difficult to sink even with multiple hits from surface to surface missiles. Nuclear torpedoes would sink one but that opens an entirely different can of worms in which almost everything suddenly becomes obsolete and radioactive at the same time. Any ship can be sunk but doing so at present would be extremely difficult for any nation we are likely to face in conflict.
Does not look at all "stealthy" to me; lots of "flat" vertical and horizontal surfaces to reflect rather than redirect radar energy.
China could have sunk my ship, the Intrepid CVA11. at will. They did shoot down 763 F4 Phantoms and lost 13 Mig 21 doing it. They did not want to expand the war they won. They are far more powerful today. They conquered Wall Street.
That's what stealth ships look like. I can't explain it. They are designed to reflect in directions that prevent it from being bounced back to the radar installations.Quote:
Originally Posted by old crow
The United States lost a total of 461 F-4 Phantoms during the Vietnam war. Nearly all of them to ground fire. The Phantom had a kill to loss ratio of 3.73 to 1 in air to air combat. The North Vietnamese air force was very small and the US had near complete air superiority during the war. China did not commit much of anything to the war effort in the air losing only 3 Mig 17's. The North Vietnamese lost 90 Mig 21's in air to air combat.Quote:
Originally Posted by arado
That the Chinese could have sunk the Intrepid at will is opinion. The fact remains they did not, nor did they make the attempt. I'm sure there were much more promising targets than an old Essex class carrier that by that time was designated as an ASW carrier (CVS-11) and had a complement of A-4 Skyhawks and A-1 Skyraiders, which were used in the ground support role. Of note, one of her Skyraider pilots managed to shoot down a Mig 17 with his propeller driving ground attack plane.
The Chinese are attempting to project power today but aside from their massive manpower remain far behind the US in both power and technology. If we stopped funding them through Wallstreet, they wouldn't last long.
India launched their carrier today, due to be ready by 2018. The Vikrant, when operational, will be able to carry 25 to 30 aircraft, including Russian-made MiG-29K light combat aircraft and Kamov 31 multi-function helicopters.
Add to that giving them free access to our technology and their press (read military) access to our fleet. We live in very dangerous times do we not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
Neat trick that. I could see being used in a support role and it is a rather unorthodox way of getting a heli carrier. The superstructure does have a few surfaces that are sloped to refract radar kinda like the DDX was supposed to. Our littoral combat ships are the same way. Japan has a first rate navy within the confines of the asian theater. China is growing as a threat to their shipping lanes and already has occupied some of the Spratly islands. BTW the f-35 is a chicken. Nobody wants it. Europe is going for the eurofighter and asia isn't biting either. China stole almost the whole development data from lockheed martin.
I think but may be wrong arent Russians building a twin hulled carrier capable of having a sub suface between the twin hulls to re arm etc bad tactics really as you are gonna be stationary 2 targets for the price of one sorta rings like the Milch cows of WW II easy pickings for coastal command.
I have a book on the Yamato big big battleship 18" guns and from the grey matter I think her magazines were protected by 37"of armour took allot to sink her and the sister Mushashi @ 19 torpedoes for the Yamato and a few bombs for good measure.
Some say the Iowa class guns were better that the 18's but I cannot remember either ships coming to grips with an Iowa class would have been an interesting stoush though :dunno:
Heres some duff on her;
AP projie weight 1,460 kg Max Range 42,050m
HE - 1,360
Total turret weight with ammo 2,774 tonnes stowed 60 projectiles in the turret rotating structure (20 per gun)
Rifling grooves in barrel 72
Low elevation firing cycle times 28 seconds
45 degree firing cycle times 40 seconds
Total weight in trial condition 70,209 tonnes
And some thing totaly left field to show how exact the Japanese were it took 7,507,536 welding electrodes to build her :dunno:
Source - The Battleship YAMATO By Janusz Skulski
The Yamato would probably easily sink two Iowa's in a gun battle The Iowa's were not built to counter the Yamato's. The last class to be laid out, the Montanas, were. They had four triple 16 inch turrets, were longer, faster and more heavily armored. They would have displace 71,000 tons which was just slightly less than the Yamato. The Iowa's weighed in at 45,000 tons
The Japanese knew their stuff in naval gunnery. Probably the best in the war. They kicked our asses many times. There was a third ship in the class, the Shinano which was competed as an aircraft carrier. She was sunk by a submarine while moving to another base. She was not completed, watertight doors were missing, pumps were working but crew not trained in their operation. 4 torpedoes did her in. She did not have all the armor the battleships did weighing in at a mere 69,000 tons. They stopped adding it when the conversion began.
And the US couldn't even make one of those 16" guns today, RayQuote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS