The newest "Destroyer" of the JMSDF

[Zor]

The Izumo. Totally not an aircraft carrier.

YOKOHAMA, JAPAN — 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.

The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters. Japanese officials say it will be used in national defense — particularly in anti-submarine warfare and border-area surveillance missions — and to bolster the nation’s ability to transport personnel and supplies in response to large-scale natural disasters, like the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

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.

The tensions over the islands, along with China’s heavy spending on defense and military modernization, have heightened calls in Japan for beefed-up naval and air forces. China recently began operating an aircraft carrier that it refurbished after purchasing from Russia, and is reportedly moving forward with the construction of another that is domestically built.

Japan, China and Taiwan all claim the islands.

Though technically a destroyer, 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. That would be a departure for Japan, which has one of the best-equipped and best-trained naval forces in the Pacific but which has not sought to build aircraft carriers of its own because of constitutional restrictions that limit its military forces to a defensive role.

Japan says it has no plans to use the ship in that manner.

The Izumo does not have catapults for launching fighters, nor does it have a “ski-jump” ramp on its flight deck for fixed-wing aircraft launches.

Zor

[TimothyC]

The question I have is one of the deck - if it's not rated for F-35 operations, then she's just an LHA. If her deck can take F-35s, then she's really pushing the CVS category.

[Sea Skimmer]

Don't worry the BBC moved quickly to label it a battleship. Only twenty four feet and a few thousand tons short of being a Shokaku, capable of thirty knots, totally not a carrier at all. Just the biggest police patrol boat ever. I mean literally in a strictly legal sense, that's what all SDF warships are. Comical thing.

She's a CVS if she fits any carrier type vessel, the assault ship capability is trivial, a World War 2 LST can transport more vehicles and troops. CVS doesn't actually require an active fixed wing capability to exist on board in any explicit terms, and was used at the same time CVL was still a designation on existing units. The USN actually invented CVV to cover dedicated STVOL or VTOL carriers but never used it, nor it seems, planned to do so had it built Sea Control Ship in the 1970s. It was kicked around in the 1960s when the future was all VTOL all the time no matter how inane.

Historically the IJN didn't between its different types of purpose built carriers even though they plainly varied radically in capabilities and in some instances ability to maintain fleet speed, its only distinguishment was different naming conventions for purpose built vs converted hulls. The name Izumo meanwhile comes from one of Japans important old age provinces, and was the sort of name Imperial Japan used for armored cruisers and then later exclusively battleships. So maybe the BBC wasn't so crazy stupid.

[Zaune]

Only twenty four feet and a few thousand tons short of being a Shokaku, capable of thirty knots, totally not a carrier at all. Just the biggest police patrol boat ever. I mean literally in a strictly legal sense, that's what all SDF warships are. Comical thing.

Not so funny when the Chinese -and arguably the US- are in the market for a casus belli.

[The Romulan Republic]

Are you claiming that China and possibly America are looking for a reason to start a war that would probably become a nuclear war? If so, do you have any evidence to support that claim?

[Zaune]

I draw your attention to... well, pick any half-dozen news stories to come out of the vicinity of the various disputed islands in the region in the last eighteen months or so. Not to mention the ample historical precedent for seeking to divert attention from internal political strife by drumming up a foreign menace.

[Gandalf]

That's still a far cry from a casus belli.

[Sea Skimmer]

Japans plans to greatly expand its coast guard patrol force is about a thousand times more likely to spark a war then this ship is on its own.

[The Romulan Republic]

I draw your attention to... well, pick any half-dozen news stories to come out of the vicinity of the various disputed islands in the region in the last eighteen months or so. Not to mention the ample historical precedent for seeking to divert attention from internal political strife by drumming up a foreign menace.

Causing a nuclear war to deal with domestic problems would be like using a gunshot to scratch an itch.

Edit: Their may be people in the government who want a war, but for that reason?

[Pelranius]

The PLAN probably won't lose too much sleep until Japan gets F-35Bs to operate off of it (assuming that its flight deck allows that).

[Sea Skimmer]

Weight wise the deck should be fine, as the MH-53Es Japan flies weigh more then an F-35B and are intended to be able to operate off her. The elevator is also big enough for F-35B. The only mod needed would be a thermally protected area of the deck for vertical landings, a feature the ships do not have, but neither do US assault ships, yet. Very much a mod that could and would be done if such aircraft were bought. 40 million bucks IIRC, is the cost per Wasp by USN estimates. Should be similar for this thing.

[Zaune]

Causing a nuclear war to deal with domestic problems would be like using a gunshot to scratch an itch.

Edit: Their may be people in the government who want a war, but for that reason?

I don't suppose any of the pro-war lobby believe it'll come to a nuclear exchange; nobody ever advocates these things unless they're absolutely convinced they'll win handily. And how much of the continental United States can China actually hit, anyway?

[The Romulan Republic]

Doesn't China have ICBMs?

Edit: According to Wikipedia they have a lot of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_ ... ar_weapons

[K. A. Pital]

Japan needs to keep its constitution intact - very badly - in the light of this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-23527300

On Monday, Mr Aso had said in a speech that: "The German Weimar constitution changed, without being noticed, to the Nazi German constitution. Why don't we learn from their tactics?"

...

Constitutional reform is a delicate issue in Japan. Under Article 9 of its post-war constitution, Japan is blocked from the use of force to resolve conflicts except in the case of self-defence.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose party now controls both houses of parliament, has indicated he wants to re-examine the role of Japan's military to meet the changing security environment in the Asia-Pacific region.

Mr Abe has said he wants to "expand and deepen" debate over the constitution in order to ease tight restrictions on the armed forces.

[Purple]

Japan needs to keep its constitution intact - very badly - in the light of this:

You seem to feel that the current one they have is good. I'd like to see the reasoning for that if it is no bother.

[K. A. Pital]

You seem to feel that the current one they have is good. I'd like to see the reasoning for that if it is no bother.

It explicitly prohibits Japanese military to act not in self-defense. It outlaws war as a means of settling territorial disputes (thus Japan, despite whatever revanchist crap gets thrown up by Japanese politicians, cannot attack other nations to take over some islands, without breaching their own constitution).

I find this a very welcome state of things for a powerful industrialized nation. This renouncement of militaristic imperialism also caused Japan to engage in a far more limited strategy of foreign investment (among the developed nations Japan is somewhat an outlier regarding the low volume of export capital) and therefore one can say reliably that Japan is by and large one of the less imperialist developed powers, it has striven to keep itself out of imperialist conflicts - which most foreign non-defensive actions are by definition - and thereby earned my respect despite other criticisms that I have for Japan.

[Borgholio]

I have always been curious if their constitution prevents the military from being as big as it needs to be to adequately defend the home islands. As a question to those in the know, how well could Japan resist if China launched an all-out assault?

[Raw Shark]

I have always been curious if their constitution prevents the military from being as big as it needs to be to adequately defend the home islands. As a question to those in the know, how well could Japan resist if China launched an all-out assault?

Considering the US-Japan Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement of 1954, and the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security of 1960, I'd say, "Better than average."

[Thanas]

Nukes fly, the end.

[Raw Shark]

Nukes fly, the end.

Neither China nor its major trading partner the US is wearing that kind of crazypants. We would both sooner write off Japan than escalate beyond conventional war on its behalf in the absence of a threat to the homeland, but we've fought by proxy before and would cheerfully do so again, IMHO.

[Borgholio]

So Japan's whole defense strategy is to have it's military be a speedbump until the US can mobilize? Brilliant.

[K. A. Pital]

So Japan's whole defense strategy is to have it's military be a speedbump until the US can mobilize? Brilliant.

Japan's Navy can easily sink a good chunk of the PLAN. That with a "self-defence force". It is already exceeding the limits of the constitution, I believe. What next? Does Japan need a fleet so big and strong (pardon, couldn't resist) that all of their neighbors would shiver in fear? And why?

As a question to those in the know, how well could Japan resist if China launched an all-out assault?

Pretty well actually - they have submarines, and they can use them. And it is not like China would attack Japan's home islands - that is simply nonsensical.

[Phantasee]

I don't see why they wouldn't have used the JSDF as a speed bump when that's what all of West Germany and maybe Western Europe was, facing the Soviets.

[Kane Starkiller]

Japan is a $5 trillion,127 million people located on a heavily mountainous resource poor group of island. Having secure naval trade routes is absolutely critical for such a country. For the last 50 years it relied on US naval dominance to achieve that. If it can't rely on US then it needs to have a navy of its own to protect the sealines.
Or to be able to respond (or initiate) to a possible invasion of disputed islands.

[K. A. Pital]

Or to be able to respond (or initiate) to a possible invasion of disputed islands.

Am I really seeing what I am seeing here (initiate a possible invasion of disputed islands), or it is a bad choice of words on your part?

For the last 50 years it relied on US naval dominance to achieve that. If it can't rely on US then it needs to have a navy of its own to protect the sealines.

Japan's sizeable AEGIS-equipped fleet full of modern missile destroyers can sink everyone and his dog around - with the exception of PLAN - and with a very high probability. Pirates are not an issue for Japan with such a massive fleet. I think saying Japan "needs" something it already has is being deliberately dishonest.

What about the Philippines and Indonesia? They are very reliant on naval trade. Do they need a massive navy? Would you be advocating for a massive naval build-up for these nations? If not, why?