Japan departs from pacifist stance, plans two aircraft carriers

The Straits Times ^

[overtaxed_canadian]

Japan departs from pacifist stance, plans two aircraft carriers Perception of North Korean threat may have led to decision

By Richard Halloran

HAWAII - The Japanese navy is preparing to build two small aircraft carriers, its first in more than 60 years, according to Japanese and United States officials.

The plan is further evidence that Japan is departing from its pacifist post-World War II Constitution that restricts its military to self-defence.

Advertisement

The carriers can be deployed as command ships in a task force to give the Maritime Self-Defence Force, as the Japanese navy is called, a modest ability to project power into the sea-lanes that are vital to Japan's trading economy.

That capability is likely to draw protests from China, North Korea and South Korea, which were invaded by Japan during World War II.

Tokyo's decision to go ahead with the aircraft-carrier plan is believed to be prompted by its perception of an immediate threat from North Korea and a longer-term threat from China.

In its 2003 White Paper on defence published last week, the Self-Defence Agency asserted in more forceful terms than in earlier versions that the nation must build up its fundamental defence capabilities to ensure its independence.

In that respect, Japan is on the verge of building a missile defence. It has also just launched a second pair of intelligence satellites to watch North Korea.

Tokyo also recently passed laws giving the Self-Defence Forces wider latitude in defending their homeland.

Funds for the first small carrier have been included in Japan's defence budget for fiscal year 2004, beginning April 1 next year. The second carrier is scheduled for fiscal year 2005.

Japanese naval officers are calling the new ships 'destroyers' instead of 'aircraft carriers' in an effort to avoid triggering opposition from those against enhanced defence in Japan as well as from China and the two Koreas.

Yet drawings of the warship show the flat deck of an aircraft carrier and an 'island', or command structure, at the starboard or right edge of the deck.

Moreover, officials familiar with the ship's design said the deck and hangar below are capable of handling aircraft such as the joint strike fighter being developed by Lockheed Martin, a leading US defence contractor. That fighter, also called the F-35, is scheduled to go into production in 2008 just as the first Japanese carrier is ready for sea.

The F-35 will be a supersonic warplane capable of flying at 1 1/2 times the speed of sound. It will also incorporate stealth technology to enable it to evade radar detection.

The Japanese vessels will be comparable in size to Spain's 16,700-ton Principe De Asturias, which carries 17 planes.

The plan calls for equipping the carriers with new SH-60 Seahawk helicopters, which are designed to patrol the ocean, to detect submarines, and to protect the fleet.

The first ship is to be commissioned in 2008, the second in 2009. Two more may be built later.

An earlier proposal by the Self-Defence Forces to buy 'jump jets', that can fly as fighters or bombers, for four 14,700-tonne assault ships ran into political opposition. But that was before Japan got worried about North Korean missiles and nuclear arms.

[17th Miss Regt]

That capability is likely to draw protests from China, North Korea and South Korea, which were invaded by Japan during World War II.

Bad history. Korea was a Japanese possession before World War II and China was invaded after the Manchurian incident in 1931. This type of poor historical research is what I would expect from something like the New York Times, not a respectable paper.

[Pyro7480]

As the Japanese (quoting Bush) like to say recently, "Kakkate Koi!" (Bring it on!) Bring it on China!

[wardaddy]

Well said.

[Southack]

"Do not be surprised if the Japanese and the Americans pool design teams to develop a "common carrier" plan."

Are we taking bets on whether Mitsubishi Heavy Industries wins the "scrapping" bids to purchase CV 34 and CV 66?!

So, you want a budget-conscious aircraft carrier? What could be cheaper than buying one (or two) for "scrap" that are already built, that already have structurally sound landing decks, and then either refitting it/them or else designing an external towing system to push 'em around?

[Southack]

"I'm shocked at the design. It is so 1970's. I would expect a stealthy one similar to the corvairs the Penatogon is touting."

The Japanese had at least one giant submarine during WW2 that had two small bombers on board. The sub could surface, they would attach the wings, and then off they flew.

If you want to be really stealthy and modern, simply combine the best of both worlds.

Light carriers should be submersible. It's not like it hasn't been done before. Either a deck-mounted catapult, a float-plane design, or the use of Harrier-style fighters should be readily available for such a concept off-the-shelf.

[TexConfederate1861]

Come on guy...that war is OVER.....Japan can make a good ally......

[skeeter]

The Japanese had at least one giant submarine during WW2 that had two small bombers on board. The sub could surface, they would attach the wings, and then off they flew.

The Japanese completed 3 or 4 I-400 class subs built specifically to bomb the Panama Canal. The IJN was always fixated the biggest...

[LN2Campy]

Saratoga and Forrestal are mothballed in Newport RI

[Snerfling]

The only thing that would tighten sphincters in China today would be for us to deploy an effective missile defense system. I believe that the US intends to share our tech with Japan when we finish one.

While Asians in general are credited with having high IQs, one must regard the Japanese in almost another category. Their technology rivals/surpasses ours in many areas. Warfare is moving way beyond physical assets. If anyone can come up with an effective missle-defense system, it's the Japanese.

Once a system like that is deployed, aggressors are vulnerable to advanced offensive systems that rely on sophisticated technology that others can barely comprehend even if provided the blueprints (hint).

[John O]

You know that's what I thought but the NVR had it listed as Alameda, ALA. Of course being a gov site the NVR could be wrong (typo's happen)

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Tokyo was actually a target but overcast on one of those days

Look here

Commanded by Major Charles Sweeny, Bocks Car and its accompanying aircraft took off from Tinian Island and headed for its primary target, an arsenal in the middle of the industrial city of Kokura. Arriving over Kokura, it was determined that the bombardier could not clearly identify the target due to heavy smoke and haze. The bombardier was under strict orders not to drop the bomb by radar ; a visual approach had been mandated by General Groves.

Two more [attempts] which took about 55 minutes, were made to locate the target but to no avail. It was then decided between the weaponeer and Major Sweeny to divert to the secondary target which was Nagasaki. Arriving over Nagasaki quite low on fuel, it was determined that Bocks Car could make only one pass before it had to head back to Tinian Island. Again, clouds obscured most of the city, but at the last minute an opening revealed the target point and Captain Kermit Beahan dropped the bomb visually at 11:58.

There was a conventional raid on Tokyo which caused more fatalities than either atomic raid. Curtis LeMay noticed that unlike the Germans the Japanese had very little triple-A and none that worked at higher altitudes. He also noticed that Japanese cities had exceptionally high fuel loading - combustables per square mile. An incinderary raid from 15,000 feet was like tossing a match into a haystack.

See also, "When can we have that bomb?”

[Southack]

The S-1, with a fully assembled MS-1 seaplane on deck.

1923
Most major navies have tried to use submarines as aircraft carriers, though never with much success. The S-1, the 105th U.S. submarine, was equipped with an on-deck hangar and the Martin MS-1 seaplane. Wishful thinking: Crew had to disassemble the MS-1 to fit it in the hangar and had to reassemble it before flight, forcing the submarine to remain exposed for too long. In addition, launching and recovery proved virtually impossible in the open ocean.

[Arthalion]

Does anyone know if the carriers are going to be nuclear powered, or diesel?

I would assume nuclear. The Japanese have a nuclear program on par with our own in any area except weapons. They have decades of experience with plutonium reactors, and have reactors running in nearly every large city, so building a diesel navy wouldn't make much sense.

Oh, and I'd assume THAT fact probably scares the Chinese more than the potential for Japanese carriers. The Japanese have, through their space program, developed rocket building and guidance technology nearly as accurate as our own (they could build an ICBM TODAY if they wanted). They have the experience, the technology, and (most importantly) the plutonium to build dozens of nuclear warheads in less than a year.

The ONLY reason the Japanese don't have carriers, long range fighters, and an advanced nuclear weapons program is the fact that they haven't wanted one. Until recently, the Japanese have lived under the illusion that the U.S. would protect them from potentially hostile neighbors, so they remained pacifists and only supported minimal rearmnament. With the increased muscle flexing by the Chinese, North Korean nuclear brinksmanship, and the fact that the U.S. military is getting stretched kind of thin across the globe, the Japanese are starting to realize that we might not be able to protect them against hostile neighbors. If the Japanese are smart as they like to believe they are, they'd scrap their constitution tomorrow and six months from now announce that their newly minted nuclear arsenal is pointed squarely at Pyongyang and Beijing.

[B-Chan]

If the ChiComs are against it, I tend to be in favor of it...

[RightWhale]

Japanese naval officers are calling the new ships 'destroyers'

One could be named 'annihilator', the other 'obliterator,' obviously peacekeeping, nothing to see here. Or they could be named 'justice' and 'judgement,' to put peoples' minds at rest.

[rmlew]

my point is not the size or the progression thereof. Rather, I am surprised at the non-stealthy nature of the diagrams. One would think that they japanese would round the endges and have a less boxy design.
Signature Reduction: Curved flight deck edges, enclosed antenna farms, smaller islands and internal aircraft elevators add up to maximum stealth.

Check out some of the designs proposed for future US carriers and scale down:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-77.htm

[katana]

Nice looking ship. The Japanese (like the Russians with aircraft) have a flair for design. This is Beijing's worst nightmare coming true.

[AFreeBird]

now the next step is to get taiwanese aircraft carriers...:-)

Subs man, SUBS!

The ChiComs's would $#!t bricks over it too.

[skeeter]

I didn't know about our efforts in this regard. I guess the Japanese ironed out the wrinkles in the process over the next 18 years, as they managed to launch & recover from subs during the war.

They even pulled off the only arial bombing ever suffered by the continental US in '42 (at least until 9/11), launched from a sub. Killed several old growth redwoods.

[ahadams2]

hmm, you're right, especially if they were cruise missile capable subs... good point!