OT: New Japanese Aircraft Carrier?

[Footslogger]

Well mates, that helicopter carrier that the Japanese is going to be converted to an Aircraft Carrier. I wonder
how long it will take to convert her?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd8ScnqnxfU

[Korvar]

There's little or no conversion needed; these "destroyer flat-tops", "ASW ships", or whatever the Japanese have decided to label them this week have always been thinly-veiled carriers. They haven't even bothered to give them new names - may I present the "destroyer" Kaga:




If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....




Video Link

[Lovejoy]

I wonder how many F-35s she could carry. Come to think of it, how many would she need to carry in order to be effective?

I'm not surprised that the Japanese Government would want to have aircraft carriers as a part of their fleet. I think that you pretty much need to have one in order to be a member of the 1st tier of navies (17 attack subs and 44 surface combatants is not bad either)

Lovely ship: looks sleek and modern, but not like something out of a science fiction movie.

[Korvar]

The displacement of the Izumo class destroyer/carriers is about that of the British Centaur class. The HMS Hermes, the flagship of the Falklands War fleet, was Centaur class and carried up to 28 Sea Harriers. That's probably a decent ballpark figure of what the Kaga would be expected to carry, perhaps a few less, along with a handful of helicopters.

The "effectiveness" depends on how you define it; it would never go toe-to-toe with a modern fleet carrier, but would probably serve well in the amphibious support role.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Korvar
The "effectiveness" depends on how you define it; it would never go toe-to-toe with a modern fleet carrier, but would probably serve well in the amphibious support role.

So where do the Japanese want to land? In Pearl Harbour I guess NOT [8|]

[Korvar]

I never said they wanted to land anywhere - the question was how many F-35s would be needed to be "effective" which necessitates the addition of "for what?"

These carriers are the rough modern equivalent to a CVE - able to support landings, escort convoys, support larger task forces, and perhaps in sufficient quantities act more or less as the typical carrier group. This is based on the fact that their displacement and configuration is roughly equivalent to the British Centaur class or the US Wasp and America classes (minus the amphib ship bay).

[Alpha77]

Well if the "Germans" already have a new kind of Afrika Korps the Japanese can also have a new KB, right ? Luckily none of these "institutions" have any debts and more than enough money for new millitary toys...[:'(]

[Korvar]

What do you mean by a "new Afrika Korps"? Are they using old unit patches / names? Or are you just referring to the forces Germany contributes to peacekeeping missions and such? I haven't heard of any modern "Afrika Korps", so now I'm curious.

As far as I know, Germany doesn't have any (external) restrictions on its military with exception to the size of the army and the possession of nuclear weapons. The Japanese have a specific restriction against the possession of aircraft carriers (among other things) - hence the classification as destroyers. Although I suspect the US gov't is looking the other way due to the Chinese activity in the South China Sea and growth of Chinese influence in general. The Chinese, for one, are not happy about any growth in Japanese military potential.

Both Germany and Japan have been tremendous bastions of democracy post WW2 (even during Germany's divide, it was a sharp contrast of capitalistic / communist economies as are South & North Korea today) and have very undersized militaries relative to the strength of their economies, so I'd expect their militaries to grow over the course of this century.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: Korvar

a) What do you mean by a "new Afrika Korps"? Are they using old unit patches / names? Or are you just referring to the forces Germany contributes to peacekeeping missions and such? I haven't heard of any modern "Afrika Korps", so now I'm curious.

b) As far as I know, Germany doesn't have any (external) restrictions on its military with exception to the size of the army and the possession of nuclear weapons. The Japanese have a specific restriction against the possession of aircraft carriers (among other things) - hence the classification as destroyers. Although I suspect the US gov't is looking the other way due to the Chinese activity in the South China Sea and growth of Chinese influence in general. The Chinese, for one, are not happy about any growth in Japanese military potential.

c) Both Germany and Japan have been tremendous bastions of democracy post WW2 (even during Germany's divide, it was a sharp contrast of capitalistic / communist economies as are South & North Korea today) and have very undersized militaries relative to the strength of their economies, so I'd expect their militaries to grow over the course of this century.

I realize the topic is too complicated and one would need to understand certain law texts in German and English and also know how you need to lay every word in such texts on the "Goldwaage" (weight of gold, means be very exact what they really mean)... so I better leave that out LOL [;)] But try a short version which also tries not to be "political" (cause it could lead to closing of thread).

a) Yes I refer to both, there was a pic of some "German" unit using Afrikakorps Symbol. Also Ger troops ARE in Afrika. And over half of the world, instead defending European borders. "Peacekeeping" is a nice word I rather leave alone....

b) There is no real "Germany" and even if it is, this construct also called "BRD" has no peace contract, only a ceasefire and is not a souvereign country. I had to research a lot of stuff - also law texts I refer to above - and realized that this is true. When a contract does not explicit say there exists a state of peace between country A and B, they only have a ceasefire. I also researched the same for Japan and in contrast they have a peace contract. Re. China, they are no threat or perhaps their supposed threat is just overstated (?), they are dependend of exports of their stuff, stop buying/importing their crap and if they really should threaten the US or Japanese positions, they will soon give in. No warships or millitary neccessary for stopping buying consumer crap you do not really need anyway.

c) Japan perhaps (have not researched them so much as the construct called BRD/Germany), but in case of BRD I would say the opposite, the DDR (aka communists) took over, this not only evidenced by many more laws coming for surveilance / big brother etc. but also by the personnel now playing CEOs in this kind of company, eg. Merkel, Gauck, Kahane and a bunch of others were Stasi or at least "East Germans", just like you had in so called democratic parties like CDU in the BRD ex-Nazis.

[;)]

Edit, if you understand complicated German texts then here is a video, it is called "It is war" and I first thought the guy would be a bit mad or at least over-reacted to the situation - however as said I researched this for myself also using the original contract documents in English, and I would say this video is 90-95% correct. This is also why I changed my location in profile [:)] But HEY DO NOT BELIEVE ME, look into this yourself and find your won conclusion. Perhaps also about the country you live in, it is possible "BRD" is not the only strange construct in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c65YQsC2qw

[Korvar]

Yeah, I agree - it is very difficult to describe things without getting political and/or completely derailing the thread. That said, thanks for taking the time to distill the info; it's food for thought for sure. [:)]

[Alpha77]

Yeah I was angry for a while cause I realized the democra(z)cy here is fine and good as long you do and pay what the "state" wants, but when you try to defend yourself against unfair "fees" (or whatever it is in English but in the UK it is called "tv fee" I believe) the so called administration makes own regulations that strangely stand over the law for the whole country. [:@] At least in the UK you only need to pay if you use it and have a tv or radio here regardless of this....

..but if one begins looking into these things, one can find more curious topics like the one above..

Edit, someone agreeing with me and also showing the ugly face of EXTREMISM in Europe today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fsz9zouMkJQ

[Jorge_Stanbury]

ORIGINAL: Lovejoy

I wonder how many F-35s she could carry. Come to think of it, how many would she need to carry in order to be effective?

I'm not surprised that the Japanese Government would want to have aircraft carriers as a part of their fleet. I think that you pretty much need to have one in order to be a member of the 1st tier of navies (17 attack subs and 44 surface combatants is not bad either)

Probably she won't carry any F-35, not only because all Japanese orders are from conventional "air force" A version, but also because the most credible Chinese/ North Korea threat against Japan are submarines. It makes total sense to build these flattop ASW ships.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

ORIGINAL: Lovejoy

I wonder how many F-35s she could carry. Come to think of it, how many would she need to carry in order to be effective?

I'm not surprised that the Japanese Government would want to have aircraft carriers as a part of their fleet. I think that you pretty much need to have one in order to be a member of the 1st tier of navies (17 attack subs and 44 surface combatants is not bad either)

Probably she won't carry any F-35, not only because all Japanese orders are from conventional "air force" A version, but also because the most credible Chinese/ North Korea threat against Japan are submarines. It makes total sense to build these flattop ASW ships.

Exactly what I was thinking. The North Korean subs have violated coastal sovereignty in South Korea many times so it is likely they will poke around Japan's extensive coastline given the latest verbal threats toward that country. Japan's big "crime" lately is letting the USN use its ports.

I am not a warmonger by nature but if one of these new ASW carriers caught an NK sub in its waters I hope it can keep it trapped and force it to surface. The Swedes did that with a Russian sub and I haven't heard of any subsequent Russian prying around their waters.