Print

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

[Steffanie Saissore]

So, Japan unveiled this 'diminutive' destroyer on Tuesday: not an aircraft carrier.

Now, I'm all for Japan being able to defend itself and respond rapidly to threats, but a flat deck and 820 feet is not a destroyer.  Might not be a true fighter jet capable carrier, but the fact that it is a helicopter platform would still technically classify it as an aircraft carrier.

That said, I'm curious to see more about this ship.

[Kazuma Ry]

Having served in the U.S. Military, and having spent a year in Okinawa Japan. I am all in favor of Japan expanding it's military capabilities.

And while the ship is 820 feet, and has a flat deck, I do think it's just a new direction on the classification of destroyers (kinda like the Amarrian Destroyer Dragoon). Helicopters are more then capable of carring torpedo's and other anti-ship ordiance, and having a ship that is faster then a Aircraft carrier able to move multiple helicopters to a locations needed seems like a good idea.

If this ship turns out to be a good design, I wouldn't be surpised to not see other Navies copy the idea.

~ Kazuma

[Steffanie Saissore]

Yeah, I was doing a little research after reading the article and I figured destroyers were around the 250' mark in length; apparently the US Navy's latest cruise missile destroyer comes in at about 520'...so destroyers have slowly been getting longer in size over the years.

From the initial look of the ship, though it lacks the 'hump' of the Royal Navy's Harrier carriers, it reminded me of said carrier.

[Lyn Farel]

having a ship that is faster then a Aircraft carrier able to move multiple helicopters to a locations needed seems like a good idea.

Unless this one is actually longer than a standard aircraft carrier, that's actually not totally true. Usually the longer the boat, the faster it can be iirc, even if other factors like the shape of the hull, the mass, the ship power, etc are to be taken in account or something...

But in that order or magnitude for military ships, that's mostly the waterline length that is at work if i'm not mistaken.

EDIT : made some checks and with similar hulls (military shaped hulls here) and a modern engine ship, speed is essentially tied to the waterline length. It's not like with the old sail ships anymore.

[Gottii]

These days, ship classifications such as "destroyer" have more to do with a particular ships role and mission than its exact tonnage and dimensions.

[Shintoko Akahoshi]

made some checks and with similar hulls (military shaped hulls here) and a modern engine ship, speed is essentially tied to the waterline length. It's not like with the old sail ships anymore.

That's pretty much the case for any displacement sailing hull (or any displacement hull), too. The greater the waterline, the higher the hull speed. The only way to exceed that is for the hull to start planing.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

A destroyer is defined primarily by it's convoy escort / ASW role. Despite it's size, it seems to be pretty well configured to sit at the centre of a taskforce and maintain 360 degree ASW overwatch, using it's helicopters to do so.

Of course, if those helicopters were Blackhawks it could also transport quite a  few of them from ship to shore by helicopter, too.

I'm also not sanguine about their claims it won't be used for VSTOL aircraft capability. Just because that isn't the plan right now, doesn't mean it couldn't be the plan. I mean, has anyone else noticed she's well over a hundred feet longer than HMS Invincible was?

[Esna Pitoojee]

Of course it's a carrier. Question is, does it matter? They've already got ships capable of firing long-range cruise missiles; just like this thing could be equipped to carry theoritcal future STOVL aircraft, several of their destroyer classes could be theoretically equipped to carry land- or naval-attack cruise missiles.

Frankly, I think trying to produce a "defensive" military by banning aircraft carriers in specific but allowing long-range cruise missile platforms is rather silly and a clear relic from the carrier-dominated era right after WW II.

[Jalenar Frost]

Several US Frigates have Helo's on the back of them, doesn't make them carriers by classification (even if it does by technicality). 

As for using the deck for VTOL fixed wing, that would likely required quite a bit of retooling/refit.  VTOL requires a much more substantial deck than rotor wing (durability/heat resistence primarily & probably launch catapults).

Honestly reminds me of an Amphibious Assault ship more than an Aircraft Carrier, asside from the missing aft bay.

Here's a nice comparison to look at... since someone mentioned it above.

clicky!  (22DDH is Izumo)

[Pieter Tuulinen]

Come on, we don't know HOW well her deck is reinforced, do we?

What we do know is that she's over a hundred feet longer, 2 meters more across the beam and 3,000 tonnes heavier with a full load.

[Katrina Oniseki]

We probably helped build the thing, you know. We meaning Americans. We've been closely tied to JSDF since WWII, afaik. I would not be surprised to learn that we've assisted them greatly in the development of the concept or the ship itself.

Even if we didn't actually help with the R&D or construction, I can almost guarantee we have a hand in its political ramifications. We're much friendlier with Japan than we are with China, and it's entirely likely that American brass are well in the loop about the specifics of the ship and what it will be used for.

[Shiori]

Ah, yes. Destroyer. I'm sure the fact that it's got a command island off one side instead of a proper bridge is a complete accident.

[Repentence Tyrathlion]

These days, ship classifications such as "destroyer" have more to do with a particular ships role and mission than its exact tonnage and dimensions.

I was doing some research into various naval classifications for a project not so long ago.  I think a lot of the general conceptions of ship classes are WWII holdovers.  Frigates, smaller than destroyers, smaller than cruisers, smaller than battleships...

That's kind of the civvie interpretation, though.  'Battlecruiser' is a term that's been out of date since WWI (unless you count the Russian Kirov-class, but battlecruiser is just a nickname for them), 'Dreadnought' likewise (although you can conversely argue that all battleships built since WWI were really dreadnoughts).  Battleships haven't been built since WWII.  Cruisers are classically a generalist, jack-of-all-trades ship, but they've been largely removed from modern usage except as escorts (Russia being a notable exception, since they didn't go down the Nimitz supercarrier route with their navy), due to the increased power of specialists.

Nowadays, it's pretty much all destroyers and frigates, the only difference really being in size.  You could make a decent argument that the only warships in service are destroyers and aircraft carriers; 'frigates' and 'cruisers' are just PR or morale-related redesignations for ASW/AA/support escort ships that hang around the aircraft carriers (again, with a few exceptions like the Russians, who use Kirovs and Kievs and the like as the core, rather than vast aircraft wings).

[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.

[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.

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.