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."
Carrier? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Carrier? (Score:4, Interesting)
Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.
They should be worried about their own carrier shaped ships since they don't have a battle group either.
Besides japan does have a battle group [navy.mil].
Dont forget China's deadly and groundbreaking land carriers [defensetech.org].
Re:Carrier? (Score:5, Interesting)
Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group when outside land based fighter range. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.
Fixed it for you. But I admit that even Japanese F 15 Eagle would not be able to keep a continuous air cover on the Sea of Japan.
Be aware tough, that the Japanese navy already has the basic capability of a carrier group. Kongo Class destroyers [globalsecurity.org] are equipped with the SPY-1 phased array radar and the SM2 block 3 missile, the same suite defending American carriers.
If anything, given the cold war capabilities of the Japanese navy, their carrier group is a bit skewed towards anti submarine warfare, but who's complaining?
given your original post, I must say that China has no reason to complain. Even if Japan builds another three of these (one for each battle group that it has available now), there's no way that it can mount a credible threat to China itself. It can, tough, be a credible threat against China's expansionary policy in the Spratleys, etc., and above all China's wayward province, North Korea.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:5, Interesting)
According to both Douglas MacArthur and the memoirs of the Japanese prime minister at the time, Kijuro Shidehara, article 9 was written by the prime minister. Because he was afraid that having a weak military would only provide an opening for those wanting to rearm. His answer to that was to preclude that in the constitution. So it was Japanese internal politics rather than the US ramming it down their throats that gave them article 9. Just as their politics have prevented it from being changed. Simply becaue a substantial portion of the Japanese population still supports the idea behind article 9. The current LDP government would like to change article 9 but can't even really push it because their coalition partners, New Komeito, are commited to preserving article 9.
There is one part of that constitution that I have read was rammed down Japan's throats over the screaming objections of their government. That is the part about equal rights for women. They were not the least bit happy about that.
Re:Japanese Military (Score:4, Interesting)
Cruise missiles can be shot down, either by interceptors or CIWS, and nuclear weapons that are shot down don't detonate. In what way are they unstoppable?
Nuclear torpedoes have the yield to take out a single ship, not an entire carrier group, and can be defeated the same way any other torpedo can (if unguided, it can miss or be evaded, especially if fired from extreme range, if guided, it can be tricked). This assumes that the militaries involved even have any; the US got rid of their nuclear torpedoes in the 70s, probably because they could never fire them (without starting a nuclear war) but took up limited space that could be used for torpedoes with conventional warheads.
This also assumes that China or the US, if starting a war, was willing to go nuclear. I find that highly unlikely: most probably any war between the two countries would be conventional.
Re: Japanese Military (Score:5, Interesting)
A big nuke detonated near the surface (I forget now whether it's just-above, or just-below that's optimal) will sink most smaller craft and take capital ships out of the war - probably permanently - from a considerable distance. It's been years since I looked at the weapon tests, but a big nuke folded the superstructure over onto the deck from something like a mile away.
Most damage from nukes falls off very fast with distance - some radiation effects fall off with the 10th power of distance, IIRC. But a nuke in the ocean creates an outrushing wall of water with destructive power that only falls off directly with distance at first.
The open question (which we can hope remains so forever) is whether use of tactical nukes at sea requires strategic nuclear retaliation. Either way, nuking a carrier group means the US will take the gloves off when it retaliates, and if that retaliation doesn't involve the strategic nuclear arsenal it will only be because it didn't need to.