Japan Unveils Largest Warship Since WW2 282
schwit1 writes with an excerpt from an AP story on some interesting technology afloat: "Japan on Tuesday unveiled its biggest warship since World War II, a huge flat-top destroyer that has raised eyebrows in China and elsewhere because it bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier. Some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically. The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters.Though the ship — dubbed 'Izumo' — has been in the works since 2009, its unveiling comes as Japan and China are locked in a dispute over several small islands located between southern Japan and Taiwan. For months, ships from both countries have been conducting patrols around the isles, called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyutai in China."
Japanese Military (Score:5, Informative)
It's well past time for the Japanese have a decent offensive capability against that of China. Leaning on the U.S. forever is not sustainable.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, well, treaties enforced by the U.S. don't really allow "offensive capability."
Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (Score:5, Informative)
Would you believe that it's extremely complex and and the boiled down version dates back to WWII(and the real version dates way before that). Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it. Japanese nationalists, much like U.S. republicans are unwilling to accept that their country has ever done anything wrong, and view the Chinese assertions about the rape of Nanking and other atrocities as propaganda. The U.S. uses Japan as a proxy in limiting China's imperialism, which only further sours the resentment around these things.
China, for their part, are lead by a bunch of unelected fascists, who do in fact, publish anti-Japan propaganda in addition to the true things, making Japan seem like a inhuman monster in the public consciousness. We're lucky they're only really in a cold war with each other, because the U.S. would almost certainly get drawn into one side or the other.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I don't think any current treaties between the U.S. and Japan limit Japanese offensive capability. It's the Japanese constitution which does. Now everybody knows the U.S. is responsible for the non-offensive military part of the Japanese constitution when it was written. That being said they (the Japanese) could change it if they wanted to.
But they don't, because it's far easier to let the U.S. spend big $$$ on a military along with R&D then it is for them. I'd guess though that if the U.S. ever reduced their pacific capabilities the Japanese would see the light...
Re:Japanese Military (Score:2, Informative)
Pravda has a very good article on how weak the US is in the Pacific Rim, with the main reason that the carrier fleets don't get sunk is because China doesn't really care about the "floating circuses" -- groups of ships which are defenseless against long range sub attacks.
Good Old Days (Score:4, Informative)
The Izumo is a replacement for the existing smaller Japanese helicopter carriers and they plan to build a second one. Some defence-oriented website put up a scale comparison picture -- the Izumo is about the same size as the IJN fleet carriers like the Akagi that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. It's still significantly smaller than the USMC's Tarawa LHD carriers and the forthcoming America class replacements for the Tarawas are even bigger targets^W.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Informative)
The new USS America [wikipedia.org] has a flight deck of the same size. France's (only) aircraft carrier is about ten meters longer. The gigantic Nimitz-class supercarriers are the exception to the rule.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:4, Informative)
It's a DESTROYER. That is a puny ship in modern naval terms.
We probably have Coast Guard ships larger than this thing.
It's roughly the same size as some of the carriers (Hiryu and Soryu) that launched the strike on Pearl Harbor. By the standards of a modern American carrier, they're pretty small (tiny), but 27k tons isn't exactly anything to sneeze at, and calling it a "destroyer" is a bit of a fig leaf as that's roughly the size of a Kirov class BC (IIRC, the largest surface warship class currently in service with any navy that isn't an aviation/amphibious warfare ship).
Re:Japanese Military (Score:2, Informative)
What makes you think that? The Japanese Zero aircraft were extremely capable for their time period, and the US didn't have a serious contender for them until the Grumman Hellcat came along in 1943. The reason that so many were utilized as kamikaze aircraft were that by the later stages of the war, US and Allied patrols had destroyed so many Zeroes and killed so many pilots that the Japanese couldn't train them fast enough to man the aircraft that were sitting on the tarmac. Thus, they were given rudimentary training courses, essentially teaching them to take off, fly towards a target, and crash into it.
Re: Japanese Military (Score:4, Informative)
No one said the Zero was purpose built to be a kamikaze, I believe the parent poster was referring to the Ohka.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Informative)
When the Japanese name a plane Cherry blossom [wikipedia.org], it's not going to be the sort of plane that needs landing gear. Even sadder was The turn toward heaven [wikipedia.org], where the suicide pilot only added marginal value to the torpedo. Japan had reached a very bad place by then.
Zeroes were good but not great and not the best (Score:4, Informative)
Zeroes were excellent mid-speed dogfighter and had tremendous range, but that was the limit of its advantages. The P-40 routinely beat the Zero in China using energy tactics, and the Wildcat and Zero were dead even by actual loss count in carrier battles. The Zero was 30 mph faster than the Wildcat but fragile, and the controls locked up near its top speed, so it was no good in a dive.
Both US planes had the immeasurable advantage of bringing home rookies far more often than the Zero.
Read the two First Team books.
Re:Zeroes were good but not great and not the best (Score:5, Informative)
The Zero had the advantage but it took a top pilot to exploit them. At the start of the war they had plenty of experienced and talented fliers but as attrition mounted they failed to keep their pilot corps properly replaced. As the talent level dropped the US fighters were better able to handle the zero. An aircraft is only as good as it's pilot.