Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Anslol]

I like the part where China condemns Japan for 'aggressive behavior' and warns other countries to be vigilant against their 'military expansionism.' I got a real good giggle out of that.

There's a joke in here somewhere about China being 70 years slow on the uptake, but I'm not sure if it's arrived yet.

Well if it hasn't, you just ruined the surprise arrival of said joke. Way to go Morwen

[Katrina Oniseki]

I like the part where China condemns Japan for 'aggressive behavior' and warns other countries to be vigilant against their 'military expansionism.' I got a real good giggle out of that.

There's a joke in here somewhere about China being 70 years slow on the uptake, but I'm not sure if it's arrived yet.

Well if it hasn't, you just ruined the surprise arrival of said joke. Way to go Morwen

And you completely missed the pun she made.

[Anslol]

I'm not called Anslow for no reason.

[Morwen Lagann]

I like the part where China condemns Japan for 'aggressive behavior' and warns other countries to be vigilant against their 'military expansionism.' I got a real good giggle out of that.

And you completely missed the pun she made.
There's a joke in here somewhere about China being 70 years slow on the uptake, but I'm not sure if it's arrived yet.

Well if it hasn't, you just ruined the surprise arrival of said joke. Way to go Morwen

Kat needs to learn2quotebox, it seems.

[Louella Dougans]

the I-class carriers of the Royal Navy, during their design stage, were called "through deck cruisers", because of political wrangling, over the idea of "aircraft carriers", which the then governments were in favour of scrapping. E.g. HMS Eagle, which I think might have been the only RN carrier to fly the Phantom, when the Fleet Air Arm still had Phantoms, before those were transferred to the RAF.

so "Helicopter Destroyer" is a similar obfuscating term. It's a light carrier. May be able to carry Joint Strike Fighters, or indeed a Japanese indigenous design.

[Katrina Oniseki]

Fixed.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

so "Helicopter Destroyer" is a similar obfuscating term. It's a light carrier. May be able to carry Joint Strike Fighters, or indeed a Japanese indigenous design.

Precisely my thinking.

[orange]

a standard aircraft carrier

I am being a little nit-picky, but what do you mean "standard aircraft carrier"?

[Lyn Farel]

The usual as definitions seems to point out. Not supercarriers, just most carriers we see usually. How would you call them ?

If you want to be nit-picky, maybe then we should ask the same question about what we mean by "destroyers" or "frigates".

[Louella Dougans]

The Japanese fleet has a bunch of these "Helicopter Destroyers" already


That is a pic of a box for a model of an earlier helicopter destroyer, the Hyuga, which is slightly smaller.

It is depicted in a 'fictional scenario', called "Operation Senkaku", defending the Senkaku Islands against "neighboring countries."

The arrow points to a sinking, burning carrier of the Chinese navy, apparently. And those are US Marine Corps V-22 Ospreys as well, so...



In any case, whether or not these ships can carry fighter jets, and are thus "aircraft carriers" instead of "Helicopter carriers", it all depends on what the scenarios are, that the Japanese navy intends them to be used. If they are intending to only be operating within range of the Japanese home islands, they would be under cover by land-based fighter jets. Maybe they don't need to carry fighters.

As a helicopter carrier, the ships would be useful in disaster relief efforts too, e.g. tsunamis.

also, as I understand things, an "Aircraft carrier", normally carries fighter jets for fleet air defence, and usually strike aircraft too, for offensive actions.

[orange]

The usual as definitions seems to point out. Not supercarriers, just most carriers we see usually. How would you call them ?

If you want to be nit-picky, maybe then we should ask the same question about what we mean by "destroyers" or "frigates".

There was a discussion about the definition of destroyers and frigates.

I think the average American is more likely to think of the Nimitz class carriers when they think of an aircraft carrier than they are the Wasp class amphibious assault ships.  I would argue they are also more likely to actually see and recognize the function of a Nimitz. 

[Shintoko Akahoshi]

There's a long and "noble" history of creative naming of warships. For example, all the Soviet aircraft carriers were pretty upgunned in comparison to Western ones and called "Aircraft carrying cruisers", mainly to get around a clause prohibiting aircraft carriers from traversing the Bosporus. I imagine the Japanese have to indulge in similar naming shenanigans to avoid the impression that they have an expeditionary military force. Also see the amusingly named South Korean "Dokdo" (named after an island contested with Japan), an "amphibious assault ship" which was designed to be able to handle VSTOL fighters like the F-35.

[Jekaterine]

Maybe this has been brought up and I missed it.

Could the reason for the creative license in claiming it to be a destroyer be due to some old rule invoked upon the Japanese by the allies (US) as part of the unconditional surrender in WW2?

I know for a fact that the Germans weren't allowed ships above a certain tonnage as part of the Versaille treaty.
If there wasn't a time limit on a rule like "Japan can't have aircraft carriers" they'd be bound by it, not that a breach would be enforced in this day and age.

[Shintoko Akahoshi]

That's exactly right. Article 9 of the Japanese constitution restricts militarization - the Japanese military is technically a civilian police force set up for self defense. Historically the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (their navy) has operated destroyers from pretty much day one, while not operating anything "larger". I'm pretty sure they're calling this assault ship a destroyer for exactly that reason.

[Nmaro Makari]

It's an aircraft carrier.

It's not one now but it has pretty much most if not all prerequisites. Yes, right now it's an ASW Destroyer in role with some rather good aircraft capacity, but then why not just build a straight out ASW destroyer?

Does it matter? Yes, definitely, because the ability to project airpower beyond your airspace is pretty much a key element if you want to operate in other people's shit. It doesn't mean they're about to, nor does it mean they're ever going to, but they have the capability. Pretty much basic deterrence.