Japanese naval aviation returns.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-20 04:34am

Steve wrote:How many years until Round 2?

Maybe ten, followed by a thirty-five minute fight.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-07-20 12:41pm

Once an empire falls, it tends not to get back up again —especially if it got brutally knocked down. The Japanese are not likely to entertain the dream of empire in a world where such dreams are already an anachronism and where the Japanese now get everything in trade that they once sought through war. So it's unlikely that there's going to be a "round 2" in the Pacific.

At most, two light STOVL carriers brings the Japan Sea Defence Force to parity with the other regional powers —two of whom have a developed submarine capability of their own. And given their economy, it's about all the Japanese will ever be able to field. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if one never makes it onto the slips for bugetary reasons.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-20 12:55pm

Patrick Degan wrote:Once an empire falls, it tends not to get back up again —especially if it got brutally knocked down. The Japanese are not likely to entertain the dream of empire in a world where such dreams are already an anachronism and where the Japanese now get everything in trade that they once sought through war. So it's unlikely that there's going to be a "round 2" in the Pacific.

Japans plan for the conquest of south east Asia was written out in 1927, when Japan was also getting everything it needed via trade. It’s the fact that they've sought to alter their own history of WW2 and the decade before it that is of concerned, because while anyone who knew what happened would never seek it again someone who does not or who has heard a twisted version might find the idea appealing. Though I agree another round of open war between the US and Japan is unlikely.

Hasler · Post by **Hasler** » 2003-07-20 06:05pm

Speaking of written OUT most of the history of WW2 is no longer in Japanese text books. One of the extange studens at my school had no knowledge of the A-bomb being dropped on Hiroshima and nagasaki.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-07-20 06:19pm

A sad thing that Germany still is pacifistic.
I long for some proud carriers.
May the Bismarck sail again

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-07-20 07:54pm

Patrick Degan wrote:At most, two light STOVL carriers brings the Japan Sea Defence Force to parity with the other regional powers —two of whom have a developed submarine capability of their own.

*snicker*

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-07-20 09:14pm

Dahak wrote:A sad thing that Germany still is pacifistic.
I long for some proud carriers.
May the Bismarck sail again

Let's hope if they do, it's not an Essex knock off. Bismarck was the best battleship of WW1.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-07-20 09:32pm

Stormbringer wrote: Let's hope if they do, it's not an Essex knock off.

Nay, the next Bismarck shall be a CGN

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2003-07-21 12:37am

Hold it a second, they're trying to pass off carriers as destroyers? Why not just call them Omega-class and be done with it?

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-07-21 04:46am

Sea Skimmer wrote:Most of South East Asia isn't going to like this, and the Japanese aren't helping by trying to pass them off as destroyers. Of course the rest of the world will be busy laughing when they end up costing more then a Nimitz.

now now, unsuported opinion.

Crown wrote:Phhht, far too small. They need to at least be Invincible Class size, Clemenceau or Charles de Gaulle class would be better.

It’s a bit harder to pass a 20,000 ton vessel off as a destroyer and it would raise questions about if their offensive weapons or not.[/quote]

You cannot pass of a 20 000 ton carrier as a destroyer, but you can pass it off as a through deck cruiser

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-07-21 05:33am

Stuart Mackey wrote:
now now, unsuported opinion.

Japan has a long history of building military hardware that costs several times more then its American equivalent. There more recent fighter, the F-2 cost three times as much as the most recent F-16 models while having inferior performance. That cost is not counting the expensive development work they did to get that inferior performance and capability, the whole thing was based directly off an F-16 airframe.

You cannot pass of a 20 000 ton carrier as a destroyer, but you can pass it off as a through deck cruiser

A cruiser would be seen as an offensive weapon I expect. The British just had to not call them a carrier.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2003-07-21 06:53am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Stuart Mackey wrote:
now now, unsuported opinion.
Japan has a long history of building military hardware that costs several times more then its American equivalent. There more recent fighter, the F-2 cost three times as much as the most recent F-16 models while having inferior performance. That cost is not counting the expensive development work they did to get that inferior performance and capability, the whole thing was based directly off an F-16 airframe.

Should have said it the first time

You cannot pass of a 20 000 ton carrier as a destroyer, but you can pass it off as a through deck cruiser

A cruiser would be seen as an offensive weapon I expect. The British just had to not call them a carrier.[/quote]

A carrier can be seen as an offensive weapon, esp given how Japan has used them. To that end I would expect to see some slippery slopes coming from the Japanese far left.

The British navy had to overcome the political ideology of the day. A similar thing has happned in NZ over the scrapping of our air combat arm and a few other bits and peices{ a few dodgy dealings in that wee action}. The RN has been more fortunate than the RNZAF.