Comments on: Japan’s un-carrier

By: Younghusband

Younghusband — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:22:30 +0000

Eventually, maybe. But the current plan is simply to “modernize” the current F-15 series. The Mid-Term Defense Program meetings will start next year. That is where they will decide which direction to go, and whether they will pursue a new F-X platform.

By: Jupiter

Jupiter — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:34:39 +0000

Since Japan is shopping for a new fighter and their F-22 dreams fell through, isn’t there a healthy chance that they’ll eventually pursue the F-35? I’d have to laugh if Japan were to field an aircraft carrier before China gets theirs on the water.

By: Sionnac

Sionnac — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:27:11 +0000

This is interesting given the speculation that aircraft carriers are extremely vulnerable in the modern environment. There was an infamous war game in the Persian Gulf a few years where the Op-Ror commander managed to maul a carrier fleet with swarms of light craft and planes. And on the other hand weren’t the Chinese developing some sort of ballistic missile that could target large carriers? That being said, it seems like this would be a very effective anti-piracy tool.

By: Younghusband

Younghusband — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:22:54 +0000

We’ll see. These things are decided under 5 year plans. The next National Defense Program Guidelines should be out next month. It may be too late for the DPJ to make any big changes even of they wanted to.

By: Alfred Russel Wallace

Alfred Russel Wallace — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:06:14 +0000

Fascinating – will support continue with the new administration?

By: McKellar

McKellar — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:09:59 +0000

They can be used as escort carriers with ASW helos, or as amphibs with a different set of helicopters. The former is purely defensive, the latter has a limited offensive capability, but without any ability to defend against enemy aircraft. This makes the ships useful for their ostensible roles, fighting piracy and aiding in relief efforts, but makes them useless as offensive weapons against a well-armed foe, unless, of course, they operate alongside U.S. carriers or in range of land-based fighters.

A real ‘attack’ carrier is capable of launching 1st rate fighter aircraft, thus allowing the owner to project power far beyond their borders. The F-35B might give these ships that capability, though in slight numbers.

Their real significance, as Younghusband points out, is that they build (or keep alive) a tradition of naval/carrier aviation in the Japanese navy, so if they want to build a real carrier decades from now, they have enough experienced NCOs and officers, as well as a training infrastructure, to make it effective.

Coincidentally, the ships’ WWII predecessors where also ‘un-carriers’ – battleship/carrier hybrids:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Ise

By: feeblemind

feeblemind — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:14:04 +0000

Interesting post and comments.

By: Younghusband

Younghusband — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:18:11 +0000

Exactly, Aceface. The exact quote is:

“Normal” aircraft carriers, if I may use that term, are about naval aviation and air superiority on the sea. A non-attack carrier seems a contradiction. That is why these ships have limited power projection capabilities.

I don’t think it is a big deal really. But the Chinese may not feel the same way.

By: Aceface

Aceface — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:56:40 +0000

“Japanâ��s 1988 declaration that it would never build aircraft carriers again.”

By: M Brueschke

M Brueschke — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:19:00 +0000

This is similar to how the Soviets classed their carriers and helicopter carriers as not carriers so they wouldn’t violate the Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Turkish Straits. They called them, “heavy aircraft carrying cruisers”.