Japanese carrier

No name being chossed for those two DDH 22 their building right ? Hope will be Shokaku and Zuikaku or Akagi and Amagi.

I think the JMSDF never announces the names until launch.

The name boat of the latest Japanese submarine class is Sōryū, & another of the class is called Unryū. Chitose. Chiyoda, Amagi, Aso, & Katsuragi have also been re-used, but they were light carriers or never completed.

As yes, Soryu and Unryu already being used for their latest subs. No name being chossed for those two DDH 22 their building right ? Hope will be Shokaku and Zuikaku or Akagi and Amagi.

If they do finish those DDH 22, it will only just a matter of little development to step up at least with Charles de Gaulle sized CV.

Any top view pleas.i would like to see lay out.I Don’t like the lay out of the Q.E. Class as it doesn’t allow for launch and recovery at the same time.

That is what happens when inexperienced CVF designers lay out the flight deck. If the bow cat was on the port side, you could launch and recover at the same time. From drawings posted earlier, I do not think the Japanese made that mistake.

How many times does this tired old argument have to be refuted?

Simultaneous launch & recovery is inefficient because of aircraft movements and so the USN do not do it even though you could theoretically do so on a CVN.

The CVF designers may be considered to have been inexperienced, though they did have a celebrated USN pilot and CVN group commander, CDG designers etc working within the team(s). They are however certainly more experienced than your average poster on a forum.

@J-20 Hotdog
The RN does want it, it will just be in reserve, though I suspect it will end up either as a second carrier on rotation or as an assault ship. It will not have a ski jump IIRC, but won’t have CATOBAR gear either. Nobody has actually shown the Japanese want such a carrier at all so it would be a bit much to suggest they buy a CVF!

bender, kitty-san,

please correct me if I’m wrong.. but
I am under the impression that the first CVF the Red coats are building will be with the Ski Jump ja? but the RN actually doesn’t want the first one?

if so, wouldn’t it be better for Japan to buy it rather than build their own?

But I think you and I can both agree that this carrier is just a pipe dream by some ill informed person- right!

Yup, we can certainly agree on that. 😉

The USA would have no problem whatsoever Japan developing a carrier strike capability, the Pentagon would be delighted and American manufacturers like Boeing, Grumman and Lockheed Martin would be loud cheerleaders due to the possible sales that could entail from that development. With American defence cuts and the new policy focus on the Pacific, allied nations increasing their capability would be welcome.

Well Swervey mate, we are getting way off topic. You and I could debate the Japanese Constitution till the cows come home, but it would get us nowhere.

But I think you and I can both agree that this carrier is just a pipe dream by some ill informed person- right!

No Voodoo, the Japanese can not amend their consititution without refering to the US who are the “Care Takers” of Japan since winning the war, (it was a trade off- Japan got to keep their Emperor, but the US got to make policy for the country).

Japan is a sovereign country, & is completely free to amend its constitution without reference to any other country. This has been true since 1952, when full Japanese independence was restored by the Treaty of San Francisco, & the US occupation formally ended.

The USA has no legal authority over Japan or its constitution, any more than it has any legal authority over Australia.

That said, Japanese governments listen carefully when the USA expresses an opinion. That is, however, their choice. It is not because the USA has any rights in or authority over Japan, but because Japan wishes to maintain close & friendly relations with the USA, its closest ally.

In this particular case, though, Japan could amend its constitution with the blessing of the USA. Indeed, the USA has for many years been saying that while the Japanese constitution is solely a matter for Japan, it would prefer it if the constitution was less restrictive regarding military matters.

Well of course Japan could amend the constitution. But where would the benefit be? Japan isn’t going to develop nuclear weapons or build large numbers of long-range missiles with conventional warheads. So does the constitution as drafted really limit Japanese defence policy? I don’t know that it does. Sure, Japan sometimes likes to dress things like helicopter carriers up as “helicopter destroyers”, but that’s no biggie.

Of more consequence are the self-imposed rules that Japan has on defence policy, such as how its military should be operated. These are not reliant on the constitution. Previously Japan had a lot of regulations that restricted things like who could order a military response, what that response could be, etc. These have been relaxed in recent times. They might be relaxed again (I’m not sure exactly what they’re like right now).

I think that’s a rather cynical view of Japanese politics/diplomacy. Japan doesn’t need the US’ permission. The issue is that it’s unlikely Japan would feel the need to remove Article 9 unless the US also felt that it was somehow necessary because the two countries are so closely allied.

A more significant roadblock at the moment is Japanese opinion. Plus the simple fact that Japan doesn’t gain anything by amending the constitution and it could just be used by countries like China as an excuse to adopt a more aggressive posture.

Yeah, if the Japanese wanted to get rid of article 9, it would be a non-issue here. They’ve more than proven themselves a trustworthy ally the last six and a half decades.

Any top view pleas.i would like to see lay out.I Don’t like the lay out of the Q.E. Class as it doesn’t allow for launch and recovery at the same time.

That is what happens when inexperienced CVF designers lay out the flight deck. If the bow cat was on the port side, you could launch and recover at the same time. From drawings posted earlier, I do not think the Japanese made that mistake.

Simultaneous launch and recovery is never ever used operationally. Actual carrier ops happen in cycles.

That is what happens when inexperienced CVF designers lay out the flight deck. If the bow cat was on the port side, you could launch and recover at the same time. From drawings posted earlier, I do not think the Japanese made that mistake.

Any top view pleas.i would like to see lay out.I Don’t like the lay out of the Q.E. Class as it doesn’t allow for launch and recovery at the same time.

If the JMSDF cant have “offensive weapons”……….could we see a 65,000 ton DDH?:D

Sounds a bit counter-intuitive but you certainly can have a 65000ton carrier that is, undeniably, defensively optimised….though distinctly NOT a DDH!. There is already such a carrier built and deployed in the shape of the Russian Kuznetsov. This actually ties in to the TAKR thread quite neatly as it is this kind of scenario that can provide the justification for that kind of vessel.

In a Japanese context its not difficult to conceive of a modestly scaled up 22DDH with ski-jump and capacity to operate 2 9-plane squadrons of F-35B’s….just enough for round-the-clock maintenance of 2 CAP slots and an alert-5 pair. Add in AEGIS/SPY-x/BMD and deckhouse extensions to the island superstructure to house a 48 cell Mk41 installation fore and aft. Round it out with a STRALES mount on deck edge sponsons on each quarter and you have a very powerful fleet air defence unit with ASAT/ABM capability but only very limited capability to mount strike operations ashore. If they are willing to claim a 27k ton full load hull is a DDH I cant see trying the old Royal Navy dodge of classing such a vessel as a ‘through-deck cruiser’ would hold any problems for them at all!.

Could the Japanese amend their constitution if they see China as a groing threat to their security?

With the way China is re-arming itself, and with Japan having no ambitions for a large empire anymore. Would the rest of the world be more willing to support them?

Well of course Japan could amend the constitution. But where would the benefit be? Japan isn’t going to develop nuclear weapons or build large numbers of long-range missiles with conventional warheads. So does the constitution as drafted really limit Japanese defence policy? I don’t know that it does. Sure, Japan sometimes likes to dress things like helicopter carriers up as “helicopter destroyers”, but that’s no biggie.

Of more consequence are the self-imposed rules that Japan has on defence policy, such as how its military should be operated. These are not reliant on the constitution. Previously Japan had a lot of regulations that restricted things like who could order a military response, what that response could be, etc. These have been relaxed in recent times. They might be relaxed again (I’m not sure exactly what they’re like right now).

No Voodoo, the Japanese can not amend their consititution without refering to the US who are the “Care Takers” of Japan since winning the war, (it was a trade off- Japan got to keep their Emperor, but the US got to make policy for the country).

I think that’s a rather cynical view of Japanese politics/diplomacy. Japan doesn’t need the US’ permission. The issue is that it’s unlikely Japan would feel the need to remove Article 9 unless the US also felt that it was somehow necessary because the two countries are so closely allied.

A more significant roadblock at the moment is Japanese opinion. Plus the simple fact that Japan doesn’t gain anything by amending the constitution and it could just be used by countries like China as an excuse to adopt a more aggressive posture.

Could the Japanese amend their constitution if they see China as a groing threat to their security?

With the way China is re-arming itself, and with Japan having no ambitions for a large empire anymore. Would the rest of the world be more willing to support them?

No Voodoo, the Japanese can not amend their consititution without refering to the US who are the “Care Takers” of Japan since winning the war, (it was a trade off- Japan got to keep their Emperor, but the US got to make policy for the country).

The US has major bases in Japan: Yokosuka being the biggest for the Navy- with a permenantly stationed CVN. If China does become agressive- you can be sure the allies will be ready.

Could the Japanese amend their constitution if they see China as a groing threat to their security?

With the way China is re-arming itself, and with Japan having no ambitions for a large empire anymore. Would the rest of the world be more willing to support them?

If the JMSDF cant have “offensive weapons”……….could we see a 65,000 ton DDH?:D

exxxactly.. the way they worded “offensive carrier” allows much flexibility to determine what exactly is offensive 😮

maybe it’ll be a defensive carrier :diablo:

If the JMSDF cant have “offensive weapons”……….could we see a 65,000 ton DDH?:D

Ohhhhh Swerve, you crack me up mate- Article 10 of the Surrender stated that Japan will give up all forms of agression and renounce all weapons that can be viewed as agressive. The weapons you call “Strike weapons” are used in a defencive posture only. ASM’s are not only a strike weapon but can also be employed to stop ships getting close to the Island Nation.
…..
I agree, what I could read mentioned no government source thus someone has a great dream- besides, Japan wont have carriers again as these are recognised as Strike weapons and thus fall under the terms of Article 10.

The Surrender document was only in effect until Japan placed in effect a Constitution of which the US approved.

That Constitution has been in place for many, many decades now, so what the surrender document said is no longer applicable. (On May 3, 1947, Japan’s postwar constitution went into effect.)

THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN

CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR
Article 9:
Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. 2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

The official interpretation of the constitution (which overrides the surrender document) is that the only weapons which are forbidden are those with no defensive purpose, & that anything which can be used defensively is acceptable. The important point is the intention: does Japan intend to use the weapon for defence or aggression?

Aircraft carriers are specifically mentioned in the official interpretation. It states that Japan will not acquire “offensive” aircraft carriers. Note the implication that “defensive” carriers are OK, although it’d be very hard to tell them apart.

The red letters are my emphasis of the text.

Japanese Ministry of Defense website discussing the Constitution of Japan and Right of Self-Defense

The Government’s View on Article 9 of the Constitution

A. Self-Defense Capability to Be Possessed and Maintained.

The self-defense capability to be possessed and maintained by Japan under the Constitution is limited to the minimum necessary for self-defense.

The specific limit has a relative aspect of varying with the international situation, the level of military technology and various other conditions. It is defined in the Diet, the representatives of the people through deliberations about each fiscal year budget etc. However, whether or not the said armed strength corresponds to “war potential” prohibited under paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution is an issue regarding the total strength that Japan possesses and maintains. Accordingly, whether or not the SDF are allowed to possess some specific armaments is decided by whether the total strength will or will not exceed the constitutional limit by possessing such armaments.

But in any case in Japan, it is unconstitutional to possess what is referred to as offensive weapons that, from their performance, are to be used exclusively for total destruction of other countries, since it immediately exceeds the minimum level necessary for self-defense. For instance, the SDF is not allowed to possess ICBMs, long-range strategic bombers or offensive aircraft carriers.

B. Requisites for Exercise of Right of Self-Defense.

The use of armed force for the exercise of the right of self-defense under Article 9 of the Constitution is confined to corresponding to the following three requisites:
(i) there is an imminent and illegitimate act of aggression against Japan;
(ii) there is no appropriate means to repel this aggression other than the use of the right of self-defense; and
(iii) the use of armed strength is confined to the minimum level necessary for repelling.

C. Geographical Scope of Exercise of Right of Self-Defense.

The geographical scope of use of the minimum force necessary to defend Japan as the use of self-defense right is not necessarily confined to the Japanese territorial land, sea and airspace. Generally speaking, however, there is no specific definition of how far this geographic area stretches, since it would vary with each individual situation.

It is, however, not permissible constitutionally to dispatch armed troops to foreign territorial land, sea and airspace for the purpose of using military power, as a so-called overseas deployment of troops, since it generally exceeds the minimum level necessary for self-defense.

D. Right of Collective Self-Defense.

Under international law, there is recognition that a state has the right of collective self-defense, that is, the right to use armed strength to stop armed attack on a foreign country with which it has close relations, although the state is not under direct attack. It is beyond doubt that as a sovereign state, Japan has the right of collective self-defense under international law. It is, however, not permissible to use the right, that is, to stop armed attack on another country with armed strength, although Japan is not under direct attack, since it exceeds the limit of use of armed strength as permitted under Article 9 of the Constitution.

E. Right of Belligerency.

Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution provides that “the right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

As already mentioned, it is, however, recognized as a matter of course that Japan can make use of the minimum force necessary for self-defense. It is a quite different conception from exercising the right of belligerency

BTW; They (Japanese Navy) already revive 4 IJN Battleships/Battlecruisers name that I know of (Ise, Hyuga, Kongo, and Kirishima), but none of carriers name. I do hope Shokaku and Zuikaku can come out in some way 🙂

The name boat of the latest Japanese submarine class is Sōryū, & another of the class is called Unryū. Chitose. Chiyoda, Amagi, Aso, & Katsuragi have also been re-used, but they were light carriers or never completed.