Japanese future aircraft carrier concept

[Super_Dreadnought]

This is my first attempt to post something like this so bear with me. :tongue:

 

Way back sometime between April - May 2012 a Japanese magazine posted conceptual photos of the proposed Japanese F3 Shinshin stealth fighter shooting down a Chinese J20 stealth fighter, the reaction of Chinese internet users ranged from nationalistic to bemused. Anyway, the nationalistic [edited] waving between China and Japan is not what we are here for.

 

Of more interest to us World of Warship followers is that the article also had images which depicts an indigenous Japanese aircraft carrier. It should be noted that this is some magazine article writer's fantasy ship. This is not an official design, nor has the Japanese government even hinted that it is interested in building a fixed-wing aircraft carrier. I personally blame America for forcing a pacifistic constitution upon Japan after WW2, which has denied the world the chance to see any new conventional Japanese carriers after Shinano.

 

http://jsw.newpacifi...-02-600x422.jpg

 

 

 

 

The design is an evolution of the Hyuga/Ise class *cough* 'helicopter destroyers', and the larger 22DDH class (basically bigger Hyugas). Note Hyuga on top and this new carrier on the bottom. This ship would use steam catapults–apparently just two. Ship length is 285 meters, or 935 feet. This is just slightly longer than Queen ELizabeth class carrier, but about 70 feet shorter than the PLAN’s Liaoning. I think we can safely put this in the same displacement at around 65,000 tons.

http://newpacificins...417-575x399.jpg

 

Here we see where the Japanese graphic designers got inspiration for their flight deck. I can't help feeling incredibly annoyed that a magazine graphic designer could cook up a better looking ships than profesional warship designers in Britain. The images show about 20 F-35s parked on deck, since the Queen Elizabeth is planned to have 40 F-35s, it would make sense for a Japanese carrier of roughly the same size to also carry 40 if not more.

 

Would it be worth it? My heart says "yes!" because I want to see one built, but the brain says "meh..." Firstly Japan's economy has been stagnant for a long time now. Secondly they don't have an interventionist policy like their US overlords. Thirdly it's most dangerous potential enemies - China, North Korea - are all within range of land based planes and missiles. There's a case that It could be used to provide power projection to cover the Senkaku islands and Okinawa, but how much difference would 40 F-35s really make outside China's front door?

 

Japan has been changing lately. Recently it elected a right wing government, and in past years it has been questioning their pacifist constitution and there are (for now minor) calls for it to be rewritten. And with Japan building progressively larger “helicopter destroyers” it is clearly moving in a direction where eventually a indiginous aircraft carrier might become an option. It depends on Japan's politicians.

 

 

Nippon banzai! :Smile_playing:

[nixxxie]

I don't "blame" pacifistic constitution, i praise it.

[Anikus_Augustus]

No need for Japan to have such vessels, especially when the USA has a CSG (Carrier Strike Group) stationed in Japan, and another nearby in southwest asia. And the yanks would have no problem sending any other CSG to Japan if it was necessary.

[DementedMind]

WW2 is becoming older and older history.  I am sure Japan will start building their carriers, sooner or later.  I personally hope to see it happen as an American.  Japan has been a great friend of United States.  :Smile_honoring:

[Tanz]

Japan has every right to build a Carrier if they want to, and with China having one  :Smile_smile: and others in the planning stage. Japan is sure to follow. We have enough problems just keeping the George Washington there.

[sharlin648]

The JMSDF can't always rely on the USN to provide carriers and their constitution does allow for them to build carriers.  Its a logical and larger evolution of their current 'helicopter' Destroyer designs as it does seem that with those designs the Japanese are at least building up the experience to build and design a carrier on their own.

[NagatoroHayase]

It isn't just Japan that wants to grow it's military a little, America has also made changes to allow it. With the "China" threat (if you can call it that) looming in the minds of some people, Japan wants to increase it ability to defend itself. Of course America shares this idea and is happily letting it happen to.

 

I for one am glad to see Japan bringing itself onto the world stage of carriers.

[Wunderwaffen1945]

Good info

[Haguro]

While building a carrier is certainly within the capabilities of the JMSDF and their associated shipyards, it will also take multiple support vessels to make the carrier a viable asset.  This will mean at least a couple of new guided missile destroyers, frigates, and attack subs for escorts.  Then you will need a couple of replenishment ships just to keep a carrier operational at sea for any length of time.  The replenishment ships will require escorts to and from the operational areas.  As the JMSDF seems to be mainly concerned with the waters around Japan, it will be interesting to see any such carrier program is implemented.

 

The Chinese Navy (PLAN) seems to have at least some interest in building a blue-water navy and trying to project power further into the world's oceans.  To become a viable power in that respect would require at least one or more carriers before many countries would take them seriously.

 

I hear Spain may be taking their aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias out of service due to budget cuts.  Could this ship end up in someone elses navy in the near future?

http://www.naval-tec...s/asturias1.jpg

[Crag_r]

Lets get this straight, An Aircraft carrier can only be effectively used as an OFFENSIVE weapon. What you do is you put one of these things off an enemy's shore and lob aircraft into their country with very little time to intercept and the aircraft have a fast turn around time. Sitting this thing off your own shore on the other hand to play a defensive role if fairly useless as airbases on land can do a better job of it.

 

Now as i said an Aircraft carrier is an offensive weapon, it doesn't really make sense for a country has a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force to operate solely offensive weapon like this.

[NagatoroHayase]

Crag_r, on 23 December 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Lets get this straight, An Aircraft carrier can only be effectively used as an OFFENSIVE weapon. What you do is you put one of these things off an enemy's shore and lob aircraft into their country with very little time to intercept and the aircraft have a fast turn around time. Sitting this thing off your own shore on the other hand to play a defensive role if fairly useless as airbases on land can do a better job of it.

Now as i said an Aircraft carrier is an offensive weapon, it doesn't really make sense for a country has a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force to operate solely offensive weapon like this.

I would only assume one of a couple possibly scenarios in which building them would work.

1. If there was trouble in the area causing massive threat to Japan itself. The carriers would most likely set sail East towards the states or an American harbor away from the problem. And then with a combined force return, bolstering the ranks.

2. Japan wants to secretly take over Korea like they have always wanted to since the 1400's. But this one is a little less likely.

[Shevla13]

Crag- my one issue with that, is that in the end, every weapon is an offensive weapon. A weapon is an implement by which you cause harm- things that are defensive in design aren't weapons, they're armor.

In order to use a weapon, you have to attack with it. If you don't attack with it, it remains inert.

Pepper spray and other such "defensive weapons" temporarily can incapacitate a target, but this doesn't work if you every find yourself in a war- they're just going to come back later, and with a grudge, and probably more backup. These implements are designed to stop an attacker long enough to get away, but a country can't just pick itself up and move.

[Super_Dreadnought]

Crag_r, on 23 December 2012 - 09:28 AM, said:

Lets get this straight, An Aircraft carrier can only be effectively used as an OFFENSIVE weapon. What you do is you put one of these things off an enemy's shore and lob aircraft into their country with very little time to intercept and the aircraft have a fast turn around time. Sitting this thing off your own shore on the other hand to play a defensive role if fairly useless as airbases on land can do a better job of it.

Now as i said an Aircraft carrier is an offensive weapon, it doesn't really make sense for a country has a Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force to operate solely offensive weapon like this.

The Japanese constitution does not allow Japan to possess any offensive weapons whatsoever, however it's vaguely written enough to allow for defense forces. In practice this allows for any weapon system as long as it can be justified under the name of defense. So the military becomes a 'self defense force', Hyuga class carriers become 'helicopter destroyers'.

Full fat fleet carriers still have an image as a offensive weapon in Japan, but all the idea really needs is the political will to push through a 'aircraft carrying destroyer' under the cover of preemptive defense.

Haguro, on 23 December 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

While building a carrier is certainly within the capabilities of the JMSDF and their associated shipyards, it will also take multiple support vessels to make the carrier a viable asset.  This will mean at least a couple of new guided missile destroyers, frigates, and attack subs for escorts.  Then you will need a couple of replenishment ships just to keep a carrier operational at sea for any length of time.  The replenishment ships will require escorts to and from the operational areas.
I hear Spain may be taking their aircraft carrier Principe de Asturias out of service due to budget cuts.  Could this ship end up in someone elses navy in the near future?

Japan already has plenty of destroyers, and subs. And since they practice with the US all the time they could form a carrier group more or less straight away. Of course the existing ships would be really old by the time any hypothetical Japanese carrier was launched, but one assumes that Japan would be replacing these with newer models naturally.

And the Principe de Asturias is 30 year old CVL. Looks like a trip to the scrapheap is more likely than being sold.

[Mermaid_Witch]

ScarlettRain, on 23 December 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

2. Japan wants to secretly take over Korea like they have always wanted to since the 1400's. But this one is a little less likely.

That's not exactly a secret.

[brian333]

I would not like to see Japan building a carrier. There are several practical reasons, one of which is that carrier-based craft sacrifice speed and firepower for their STOL abilities. Land-based stealth aircraft are superior in every way to carrier-based craft, and the cost of funding and fielding a carrier could easily fund a dozen new airfields in far-flung places within Japan. Instead of one easy to find target away from land-based defenses, now the enemy must neutralize a dozen sites over enemy territory.

 

The day of the carrier as force projection is over. It is too vulnerable to assymetric warfare tactics, and far too vulnerable to conventional force-on-force situations. Carriers are an expensive luxury maintained primarily because those in positions of power are by nature conservative, and they maintain the weapons which won the last war until the next war proves them to be inadequate. This is very much like the reorganization of the Polish Army after Poland was reformed post WW1. Their history and traditions informed them that Cavalry was the key to winning wars, but they were faced with the Panzerkampfwagen.

 

As Robert Heinlein said,

Quote

The most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military establishment, good but not good enough to win.

 

Japan should build, not for prestige or 'psychological impact,' but to win. That is the only measure of a Navy that matters.

[AlternateRouge]

while i do want to see japan build its own carrier... but it is more practical to put those funds on building airfields, additional aircraft, additional ships, additional defensive armaments or invest it on R&D or weapons development program. Carrier is a pain to maintain. It has a very high upkeep, very risky to send out and very impractical if its only purpose is to defend... but still it will give japan the ability to project its power anywhere in its archipelago territory and will show anyone that, they mean business. Either way im fine with them.

 

However i do recommend that they should increase their fleet capability and fleet arsenal as china has the numbers to back it up. Although i'm a firm believer that 'Numbers alone doesn't mean you won the war' but still it is a big factor in war... how many enemies do you need to kill for your enemy to lose its will to fight? how much blood do you need to spill so they stop fighting. How many young inexperienced people needed to be sacrificed so that you could defend your freedom? how many wives are needed to be widowed before they stop fighting, how many children are needed to be an orphan for you to win the war? how many lovers will be needed to be separated just for a small group of people to satisfy their greediness? I simply think not enough...

[nixxxie]

brian333, on 04 January 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

This is very much like the reorganization of the Polish Army after Poland was reformed post WW1. Their history and traditions informed them that Cavalry was the key to winning wars, but they were faced with the Panzerkampfwagen.

You are greatly mistaken  :Smile_glasses: . Let's go offtopic.
It was lack of funds and lack of proper industry. There were Polish tanks and quite good ones, just not enough of them. And horses are cheaper to feed, maintain and "produce". Besides, there wasn't that much calvary, it was more kind of dragoons - like motorized infantry, only on horse transport.
And a year later, France with much more tanks and bigger army plus British expeditionary force defended itself roughly the same time (like a week or two more?)...

[Meriv]

AlternateRouge, on 10 January 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

while i do want to see japan build its own carrier... but it is more practical to put those funds on building airfields, additional aircraft, additional ships, additional defensive armaments or invest it on R&D or weapons development program. Carrier is a pain to maintain. It has a very high upkeep, very risky to send out and very impractical if its only purpose is to defend... but still it will give japan the ability to project its power anywhere in its archipelago territory and will show anyone that, they mean business. Either way im fine with them.

However i do recommend that they should increase their fleet capability and fleet arsenal as china has the numbers to back it up. Although i'm a firm believer that 'Numbers alone doesn't mean you won the war' but still it is a big factor in war... how many enemies do you need to kill for your enemy to lose its will to fight? how much blood do you need to spill so they stop fighting. How many young inexperienced people needed to be sacrificed so that you could defend your freedom? how many wives are needed to be widowed before they stop fighting, how many children are needed to be an orphan for you to win the war? how many lovers will be needed to be separated just for a small group of people to satisfy their greediness? I simply think not enough...

I totaly agree.

For the second part can't use this for China, their dictature is still really stable, they do a good brain wash, plus they still have the grudge for what happened during WW2.

We europeans finally made the EU after how many wars? 3000 years of killing each other on scales that in other continents were impossible.

What do you think is happening in Asia, all south Asia has an arms race right now, they have increased their military budget to 10% of their pil that for developing country is a crazy thing. For we occidental it is quite good, we got almost all of the defense industry. Peace is bought at a high cost and we have already learned the lesson, have they?

And i wonder from where they will take funds, Japan has a global debt that is around 510% of their pil (sum of all debts not only pubblic and private)

[triptyx]

Deadnought, on 23 December 2012 - 05:15 AM, said:

Of more interest to us World of Warship followers is that the article also had images which depicts an indigenous Japanese aircraft carrier. It should be noted that this is some magazine article writer's fantasy ship. This is not an official design, nor has the Japanese government even hinted that it is interested in building a fixed-wing aircraft carrier. I personally blame America for forcing a pacifistic constitution upon Japan after WW2, which has denied the world the chance to see any new conventional Japanese carriers after Shinano.

As the son of someone who survived a Japanese POW Camp in the Phillipines, and the Grandson of two people who were killed brutally by their maltreatment, I'm not a huge fan of the political overtones of a number of your statements in this post.  Would you please do me the favor of removing the rhetoric?

[Crag_r]

Shevla13, on 23 December 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:

Crag- my one issue with that, is that in the end, every weapon is an offensive weapon. A weapon is an implement by which you cause harm- things that are defensive in design aren't weapons, they're armor.
In order to use a weapon, you have to attack with it. If you don't attack with it, it remains inert.
Pepper spray and other such "defensive weapons" temporarily can incapacitate a target, but this doesn't work if you every find yourself in a war- they're just going to come back later, and with a grudge, and probably more backup. These implements are designed to stop an attacker long enough to get away, but a country can't just pick itself up and move.

There is a difference between an offensive weapon and Defensive weapon, you use either one for certain tasks otherwise tactics will cause this thing to be lost. After all a Radar station and Air Defense network cannot move, it defends an Airspace well, and the defenders are aware of the terrain that it can and cannot cover. If you then forward deploy this station without fully spending time to test its new location(hence when attacking something) there will be gaps in the terrain where Aircraft can penetrate and you are Very vulnerable to counter attack, proven when Iraq attempted to defend Kuwait. The Issue with Japan is that most of the Asian region is logistically in range of most of its fighter and ground attack Aircraft, anything outside of this region for Japan to be involved in would be considered as an offensive measure.

[Super_Dreadnought]

triptyx, on 10 January 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

As the son of someone who survived a Japanese POW Camp in the Phillipines, and the Grandson of two people who were killed brutally by their maltreatment

Firstly and most importantly, I offer my condolences to your family. However MY family also suffered greatly at the hands of the Japanese. I do not understand why you felt the need to air this in public, and tbh this part carries very little weight with me, as my family has also suffered similarly.

triptyx, on 10 January 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

I'm not a huge fan of the political overtones of a number of your statements in this post.  Would you please do me the favor of removing the rhetoric?

I have reread the part you quoted a few times, and have decided that there is no need to change it at all. I am bemoaning the fact - as a fan of warships - that after Japan lost the war, they lost their ability to carry on designing and building indigenous capital ships. Whatever each person thinks of the Japanese, one must say that they built some very innovative, and iconic ships. One can only wonder how their ship designs would have evolved had they been allowed to carry on making carriers.

At no point do I feel I have written anything disrespecting the victims of WW2, or condoning any of Japan's war crimes. It has never been my intent with this topic, and imho any misunderstanding is not of my making.




That is all I'll say in response. Now I hope we can drop this matter, it is not my wish for a topic regarding a fantasy japanese aircraft carrier to descend into a political debate.

[Straight]

DementedMind, on 23 December 2012 - 06:58 AM, said:

WW2 is becoming older and older history.  I am sure Japan will start building their carriers, sooner or later.  I personally hope to see it happen as an American.  Japan has been a great friend of United States.  :Smile_honoring:

I'd very much prefer Japan to stay pacifist. People seem to forget the atrocities committed by Japan during WW2 and the fact that many of the perpetrators were never brought to justice. 3 million civilians were killed by the Japanese in World War 2. Really, the whole concept of bigger and bigger navies is becoming less and less important and more and more of a liability.

Economics has taken over from pure military might. Many of the reasons the US is so belligerant towards Iran and not North Korea over nuclear weapons is because NK is conveniently located in between 3 of asians largest economic powers and nobody wants any sort of confrontation let alone conflict.

If a single shell landed in Seoul, property values would drop dramatically, investment would grind to a halt, the world would likely reel into a recession especially if SK retaliates.

If a single shell landed in Tehran, the world would continue business as usual with the only activity happening on the front page of the NYT.

[thegreenbaron]

Crag_r, on 10 January 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

There is a difference between an offensive weapon and Defensive weapon, you use either one for certain tasks otherwise tactics will cause this thing to be lost. After all a Radar station and Air Defense network cannot move, it defends an Airspace well, and the defenders are aware of the terrain that it can and cannot cover.

Um, Crag, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but air defense networks CAN move.  They have been able to for pretty much as long as they have existed, and it's how the Serbians kept theirs in business so long despite pretty much daily attacks by the US.  I can even buy you (if you have the coin to pay me back) a Russian radar station that's mobile on the market at this very moment, though it's wildly out of date compared to the latest bleeding edge gear, it still works fine.

triptyx, on 10 January 2013 - 08:36 PM, said:

As the son of someone who survived a Japanese POW Camp in the Phillipines, and the Grandson of two people who were killed brutally by their maltreatment, I'm not a huge fan of the political overtones of a number of your statements in this post.  Would you please do me the favor of removing the rhetoric?

Members of my family were robbed, their places of worship burned, imprisoned in death camps, tortured, some murdered, and many had their children taken from them and killed.

And yet, you don't see me complaining about the United States being allowed carriers.  

Frankly, it makes a lot of sense given the geography of Japan to have one or two, even if limited to defense.  One of the major draws of the carrier over the battleship is it has a lot of utility outside war, particularly for humanitarian missions and anti-piracy operations.

[Crag_r]

thegreenbaron, on 21 February 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

Um, Crag, I hate to be the one to tell you this, but air defense networks CAN move.  They have been able to for pretty much as long as they have existed, and it's how the Serbians kept theirs in business so long despite pretty much daily attacks by the US.  I can even buy you (if you have the coin to pay me back) a Russian radar station that's mobile on the market at this very moment, though it's wildly out of date compared to the latest bleeding edge gear, it still works fine.

My point was it is hard to use Air Defense effectively as an offensive weapon... Sure you can move a radar truck around a certain area, but that freedom of moment only comes with your own control of the Area, hence a defensive weapon...

[thegreenbaron]

Crag_r, on 21 February 2013 - 01:10 AM, said:

My point was it is hard to use Air Defense effectively as an offensive weapon...

Ok, I'll agree with that was long as we understand that 'hard' is relative.  Remember that the 88mm was an air defense weapon right up to the moment someone loaded an AT shell into one.  (And Stingers can make for great anti-light vehicle weapons, too, in a pinch.)  You just have to remember that the only real limit any weapon system has is the knowledge and creativity of the men involved and the materials at hand.  

Saying something 'can't be done' is just asking for trouble.