Japan Unveils Largest Warship Since WW2

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."

Article 9

[barlevg]

So am I correct in inferring that no one really takes Article 9 [wikipedia.org] very seriously any more?

Re:Japanese Military

[Anonymous Coward]

When the shit hits the fan the definition of 'defensive' will be very vague.

Re:Japanese Military

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Yeah, well, treaties enforced by the U.S. don't really allow "offensive capability."

Do you think that the US would have the slightest interest in enforcing them? Anything short of strategic nuclear weapons could be brushed off with a 'my, my, Japan's coast guard is looking so robust lately!' unless the US actually has a continued interest in disarming Japan.

Re:Japanese Military

[steelfood]

Actually, the U.S. designed it that way. They were the ones who stipulated as a condition of surrender that the Japanese have no standing army (only a "defense force" whose training and armament is tightly-controlled by the U.S.). The U.S. wants a base of operations in the far east, and maintains tight controls over Japan for that purpose. They have other bases in the Pacific, but they set up Japan before long-range aircraft, requiring them to be close to Russia/China/North Korea.

So no, it's not by choice the Japanese have to rely on the U.S. for military protection. It's a consequence of losing WWII that they're effectively subjugated to U.S. military "protection" (in the same sense of "protection" money).

Re:Japanese Military

[HornWumpus]

Everything is, more or less, defensive against ICBMs. Including Shanghai and Beijing. MAD hasn't really changed.

There are American fast attacks under every carrier group that will have something to say about 'defenseless' if you are talking about closer then ICBM range.

Russia is a failed superpower, telling it's self what it wants to hear.

Destroyer? Really?

[Ioldanach]

This is a VTOL carrier, through and through. I don't see any significant weaponry on board beyond the aircraft carrying capabilities, and no sources that I can find indicate the armanent of DDH-183 Izumo [wikipedia.org]. Helicopters and VTOL manned and drone aircraft would be ideal uses for that flight deck.

Re:Japanese Military

[lgw]

Carriers exist to project power when it's not a case of total war against a strong opponent (i.e., every conflict since WWII). Nothing else does that job as well - not even close. When war gets hot then of course its the Boomers that matter, and surface ships are irrelevant.

Destroyers have never been able to project power - that's never been their mission in the history of navies.