Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Japan unveils new carrier-like warship, largest in navy since WWII
FoxNews ^ | 8/6/2013 | AP

Posted on 08/06/2013 9:52:49 PM PDT by Ron C.

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 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: big; carrier; japan; navy; search
Something tells me this will become a full-blown aircraft carrier almost overnight... some week close in time.
1 posted on 08/06/2013 9:52:49 PM PDT by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

2 posted on 08/06/2013 9:58:13 PM PDT by Ron C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

They can call it whatever they like, but the world knows a carrier when they see one.


3 posted on 08/06/2013 10:05:31 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

The question is no longer how many F-35’s something like that could carry; it’s more like how many Japanese versions of the X47B it could carry.....


4 posted on 08/06/2013 10:08:03 PM PDT by varmintman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
It'll be 12-18 mmonths before it is completely fitted out and sea trialed.

They already have two of the smaller Hyuga Class that look almost exactly the same, just smaller, and there will be a second one of these.


JAPANS NEW IZUMO, DDH-183 AIRCRAFT CARRIER

This is all in response to The Rise of the Chinese Navy.

5 posted on 08/06/2013 10:12:43 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

I noticed that the infrastructure looks very much like the aegis destroyer, so maybe in this sense it is a destroyer mounted on top of an aircraft carrier hull.


6 posted on 08/06/2013 10:26:00 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Maybe it will become a big Giant Robot!

7 posted on 08/06/2013 10:56:44 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
So will its fighters!


8 posted on 08/06/2013 10:58:15 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Given the extremely low birth rate in Japan who will they get to crew it?

I guess they could sell them to the Philippines


9 posted on 08/06/2013 11:52:25 PM PDT by Fai Mao (Genius at Large)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GraceG

HAH! that’s what I was thinking...wait till it transforms ;)
Also, if the Capt. goes by the name of Harlock...well....


10 posted on 08/06/2013 11:53:16 PM PDT by Norm Lenhart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

The Philippines needs a real military but I doubt they could afford this.

They have a frigate and one about to be commissioned as the stars of their navy fleet. They do not have the support vessels to even dream of a carrier, not even a small one.


11 posted on 08/06/2013 11:55:22 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
Zero. No arresting gear. That would be a major modification requiring removal of the aft third of the flight deck, radical changes to the ship infrastructure below deck, a huge weight distribution problem and massive electronics upgrades for the precision landing system.

Nope.

Now, if you want to talk about adding a ski-jump bow... now you have something to go with. notice how nice and flat it is up front? Take off the vertical skin, about 1/8th of the deck plating and I'll bet there's mounting for the jump frame work there.

As to handling a squadron of F-35’s... No problem. It's designed to carry MV-22’s... If they can fit those below deck for maintenance, they can do those as well.

The bigger problem is how to handle mid-air refueling and the functions of an E-2. Now those are problems.

12 posted on 08/07/2013 4:19:31 AM PDT by Freeport (The proper application of high explosives will remove all obstacles.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

I’ve been to China—it is not that impressive. A lot of buildings going up, that are of very poor quality. You see new buildings interspersed with slums. Contrary to popular opinion, the Chinese are very disorderly....you see it in their behavior and their traffic.

If it ever came to a real conventional war, I think Japan would kick their a$$. Of course, the Chinese have nukes and the Japanese supposedly don’t. I say supposedly, because it wouldn’t surprise me if they had a few secretly tucked away for emergencies.


13 posted on 08/07/2013 4:22:03 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

That’s one big target.


14 posted on 08/07/2013 4:26:40 AM PDT by gotribe (Vladimir Putin is MY President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

What’s the second “destroyer” called? Akagi?


15 posted on 08/07/2013 4:29:17 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

http://www.examiner.com/article/global-hawk-uav-aerial-refueling-will-accomplish-a-real-milestone

did they ever do the Global Hawk refueling another Global Hawk?

btw- if an a-6 can be a tanker, why can’t an MV-22 refuel other MV-22’s or even F-35’s in a pinch?


16 posted on 08/07/2013 4:48:00 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

ruh-roh...


17 posted on 08/07/2013 4:48:44 AM PDT by OldNewYork (Biden '13. Impeach now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble
Hyuga

launched in 2007

Ise

Launched in 2009

18 posted on 08/07/2013 4:53:05 AM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
“I noticed that the infrastructure looks very much like the aegis destroyer,”........

The Japs have been the greatest “copiers” the world has ever known. Why reinvent the wheel?

19 posted on 08/07/2013 5:04:35 AM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Good morning. I hope you are doing well.

That's easily converted into a carrier with VSTOL aircraft. The Japanese should have named the ship "Agaki." That would have pissed off a lot of people.

5.56mm

20 posted on 08/07/2013 5:19:02 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

With an 820’ deck there’s no need for a skijump. The USN/USMC have done studies showing that at around a 650-700’ deck run the benefits of a ski jump are negligible. And not worth the loss of a helo spot or two. That’s why the Tarawa/Wasp/America classes don’t have them.


21 posted on 08/07/2013 5:33:20 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Freeport

I’ll bet you that the aft flight deck might just be a bit stronger than you postulate and there might just be hidden spaces and fittings for easy addition of arrestor gear!


22 posted on 08/07/2013 5:37:04 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("Madison, Wisconsin is 30 square miles surrounded by reality.", L. S. Dryfus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe

Don’t you mean “Akagi”?


23 posted on 08/07/2013 5:38:31 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("Madison, Wisconsin is 30 square miles surrounded by reality.", L. S. Dryfus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Redleg Duke
Good morning.

Don’t you mean “Akagi”?

Yes. I blame lack of coffee or the Mods messing with my post. That's my story, and I'm stick'n to it.

Thanks.

5.56mm

24 posted on 08/07/2013 6:00:22 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble; Jeff Head
My money says the Izumo's unnamed sister will be named Iwate.

Then again, someone pointed out to me yesterday that a former Izumo was converted into the aircraft carrier Hiyo. If we use the same logic, and assume that Izumo's sister will be named for the vessel that was transformed into the Hiyo's sister carrier Junyo, then the sister will be named...Sharnhorst!

I'm thinking not. ;-)

25 posted on 08/07/2013 6:00:51 AM PDT by jboot (It can happen here because it IS happening here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Freeport
The bigger problem is how to handle mid-air refueling and the functions of an E-2.

In the anticipated area of operations these activities could be handled by land-based aircraft. The Japanese don't seem interested in projecting power outside of their immediate neighborhood. Now, if they were to deploy these to the Horn of Africa things could get interesting. I suspect that if they go global they will want to co-deploy with a US carrier task force.

26 posted on 08/07/2013 6:08:27 AM PDT by jboot (It can happen here because it IS happening here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe; Jim Noble

The name Izumo is appropriate. It is the name of the flagship the Japanese naval force that invaded China. And the Chinese have noticed and do not like it one bit.


27 posted on 08/07/2013 6:21:19 AM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jboot

AEW could be handled with helos ( like the Brit Sea King/Searchwater that’s been adopted by the Spanish and Italians, or the projected Merlin-based follow on) or V-22s (using the ramp mounted radar that the AEW Merlins are going to use)

The Brits were also looking at buddy refueling using the F-35C, but then switched back to the F-35B. Not sure if the B would work given weights, wing loading, bring back limitations.

They could use V-22s tho. A roll on package for using the V-22 as a tanker (hose deployed through the ramp) was announced by Boeing last Spring.


28 posted on 08/07/2013 6:22:17 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
The Japanese built two carriers, the Hyuga Class (Hyuga, DDH-181, and Ise, DDH-182) already. They displace 20,000 tons full load and were known as the 16DDH project.

This is the 22DDH project and is the first vessel of that class, the Izumo. There will be two of those. They displace 27,000 tons reportedly, but I believe they are closer to 30,000 tons full load.

Here is an image of how the two would look together:

The Japanese are not sitting on their laurels as The Chinese Navy builds up rapidly. They are building up themselves.

29 posted on 08/07/2013 6:32:36 AM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Interesting info. One way or the other, it is no oversight.


30 posted on 08/07/2013 6:33:01 AM PDT by jboot (It can happen here because it IS happening here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
And the Chinese have noticed and do not like it one bit.

Good.

5.56mm

31 posted on 08/07/2013 6:33:09 AM PDT by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Yes. An EV-22 AEW Osprey would be a huge game changer for all of our LHAs and LHDs as well as our allies STOVL carriers like this.

Add to that a CV-22 ASW version and you end up with a very effective and powerful Sea Control aircraft carrier for any of these types vessels when deployed with F-35Bs and those two aircraft.


32 posted on 08/07/2013 6:38:55 AM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.
Whoa....

Dai Nippon Teikoku, here we go (again)...

Yamato ... Musashi....Shinano... Akagi ... Kaga ... Hiryu ... Soryu and now Izumo

My uncles (USMC and US Army) fought these guys in the Pacific... if they were still around, I can just imagine the commentary I'd hear about this.

In all the time I knew them, they were not too crazy about those guys from the Empire of the Sun (which is totally understandable)....

33 posted on 08/07/2013 8:25:29 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

If I recall correctly, this is not the first time the Japanese have had Ise and Hyuga as sister ships. I believe they had two dreadnoughts of the 1912 class with those names, both “bastardized” as “hermaphrodite” carriers with the rear turrets removed and made into flight decks.


34 posted on 08/07/2013 8:48:09 AM PDT by henkster (The 0bama regime isn't a train wreck, it's a B 17 raid on the rail yard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

NO it going be this one LOL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya7LVIN01Qw


35 posted on 08/07/2013 10:06:37 AM PDT by SevenofNine (We are Freepers, all your media bases belong to us ,resistance is futile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

Not that I care but this gets awful close to an offensive weapons platform which by their terms of surrender in 1945 they cannot build.


36 posted on 08/07/2013 11:59:08 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SevenofNine

lol


37 posted on 08/07/2013 12:00:47 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I remember watching that series on KTLA Channel 5 here in SO CAL on Saturday afternoon LOL!


38 posted on 08/07/2013 12:43:05 PM PDT by SevenofNine (We are Freepers, all your media bases belong to us ,resistance is futile)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jboot

You don’t have to “suspect” -—remember during gulf War I and from then on in the middle east the Japanese were paying our naval fuel bill——and getting it to us. They were/are part of Task Force 150 patrolling the Arabian Sea. It was only recently that they pulled back from supplying fuel.


39 posted on 08/07/2013 1:21:51 PM PDT by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ron C.

That Chinese carrier was purchased from Ukraine-—started by the Russians but never finished and abandoned in Ukraine after the breakup. The Chinese are still learning how to drive it.


40 posted on 08/07/2013 1:24:43 PM PDT by cherokee1 (skip the names---just kick the buttz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
I like em. Smooth lines. Nice floating targets..


41 posted on 08/07/2013 1:42:25 PM PDT by zeugma (Be a truechimer, not a falseticker!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe
To get a better feel for just how big the new Japanese 22DDH, Izumo, DDH-183 that was just launched really is, I thought I would compare it directly to the Wasp Class LHD of the US Navy. So, here is a port side view of the USS Bataan, LHD-5, the fifth US Navy Wasp Class, and from the same perspective on the port side, the view of the newly launched JMSDF Izumo, DDH-183.

The Wasp is 30 feet longer, it is about 10 feet taller, but it's beam is actually 3-4 feet less, although it's flight deck is a good 15-20 feet wider.

As you can see, the new Japanese vessel is a very large ship. Even at 30,000 tons full load, which is 3,000 tons larger than they admit to, I believe if fully outfitted with aircraft and fuel, it will be closer to 35,000 tons. The Japanese are already building the second vessel in this class.

BTW, in the Sea Control role, the Wasp Class can carry 20+ AV-8B Harrier II aircraft, or ultimately 20+ F-35B Joint Strike Fighters. Given the size of the Japanese vessel, you have to believe it could do something similar if necessary and if the Japanese purchase the aircraft. That would be something to watch for.

42 posted on 08/07/2013 1:47:07 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
20+ F-35B Joint Strike Fighters. Given the size of the Japanese vessel, you have to believe it could do something similar if necessary and if the Japanese purchase the aircraft.

As if obamanation would ever sell weapons to a nation that wasn't communist or muslim.

43 posted on 08/07/2013 1:49:17 PM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

No angled deck, no catapaults. It’s an amphibious assault ship, aka helicopter-only-carrier.


44 posted on 08/07/2013 3:55:58 PM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head

If you look at their Aegis “destroyers”, at full load they are as heavy as our cruisers. Germany and Japan did this before the first World War as a way of getting around the treaty restrictions. Japan could not have battleships so they made carriers and the rest is history.


45 posted on 08/07/2013 8:16:33 PM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: USAF80
If you look at their Aegis “destroyers”, at full load they are as heavy as our cruisers. Germany and Japan did this before the first World War as a way of getting around the treaty restrictions. Japan could not have battleships so they made carriers and the rest is history.

Please do the research. The Japanese absolutely could build battleships. They had a large battelship fleet. You should have seen the scale of their plans that were scrapped by the Washington Treaty of 1922! They were going to build 4 new battleships and 4 new battlecruisers, almost matching American plans for the time. The CONFERENCE ON THE LIMITATION OF ARMAMENT, aka the Washington Treaty of 1922 stopped an arms race that would have bankrupted Japan. It did however allow the construction of aircraft carriers and the conversion of battleship and battlecriuser hulls into aircraft carriers. The Japanese had already built the Hosho, the first purpose built carrier. The Amagi class battlecruisers Amagai and Akagi were converted into carriers. The Amagi was damaged in the 1923 earthquake, so the Tosa class battleship, Kaga, was converted. The US converted two Lexington class battlecriusers (Lexington and Saratoga). The British had already converted three "Large Light Cruisers: Courageous, Glorious, and Furious.

As for the Aegis destroyer, do you know anything about the modern US navy? Our Arleigh Burke class destroyers are almost the size of our Ticonderoga Cruisers. (btw, the Ticos were originally designated as destroyers) The 4 Japanese Kongo class destroyers are basically Japanese versions of the Flight 1 Arleigh Burke class destroyer. The 2 Atago-class destroyers are Flight IIA Arleigh Burkes.

46 posted on 08/07/2013 11:17:51 PM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe

This ship will have vtol drones, by the hundreds.


47 posted on 08/09/2013 12:15:19 PM PDT by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

Yea yea. They could have battleships but not the same amount as the Allies.

I’m an AF guy so I don’t claim to be an expert. We are just chatting here.

The basic idea is that they can’t have “offensive” weapons by their constitution. A cruiser is an offensive weapon so they call their “cruisers” destroyers. Carriers are offensive so they call them “helo carriers” which is defensive. etc etc.


48 posted on 08/14/2013 11:17:42 AM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
The are both the size of a Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier or an Essex class carrier from WW2
49 posted on 08/14/2013 11:38:10 PM PDT by rmlew ("Mosques are our barracks, minarets our bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson