TurbiniaI’d be amazed to see the CVF carriers built with catapults, arrestor gear and Eurofighters, I believe that they will almost certainly be STOVL with the F35 BUT it is not just idle fantasy to consider a “Sea Typhoon” and the proposal has been examined more than once as has already been pointed out here, and at one point when the UK was spitting the dummy over F35 technology access it was a genuine fall back position and very much on the table for the RN/RAF.
TurbiniaJapan already has the essentials IMO, some superb SSK’s, excellent surface combatants, a new maritime patrol/AWS platform at an advanced stage of development, some very good maritime strike fighters and missiles of an excellent quality. Really, from a practical point of view they’re already pretty well sorted and just need to continue developments as they are. That’s my view anyway. The 16DDH gives them an excellent new ASW platform very similar to the concept of the ASW cruiser that spawned the Invincible class and it’ll be useful for humanitarian relief ops and general support of Japanese state agencies, seems a very useful ship.
TurbiniaA shame the RNZN didn’t buy a LSD(A) for moving their Army, their chosen vessel is a slightly militarised freight Ro-Ro, useful but a lot more limited even than the LSD(A) design, which IMO is a very useful type and a massive boost to UK capability over the old LSL.
TurbiniaIt will have offshore oil and gas assets it will need to protect. Taking on a larger role internationally is also a positive use of defence forces that can earn brownie points in other areas of politics.
Why do you think aircraft carriers are needed to protect offshore energy fields?:confused: I’ve never yet seen offshore energy fields using aircraft carriers for defence, this is as crazy as Venezvuela justifying a big submarine force by claiming they need to protect offshore oil and gas fields.
If Russia wants a big navy then it’s their choice, they can spend their money however they like, but IMO there are more important things Russia should be doing with it, and even from a security stand point it is not naval threats that should be top of their concerns.
TurbiniaWhat’s all this got to do with the 16DDH?:confused:
Yes, Japan behaved like *****s in the 30’s and 40’s, but just about every country in the world has skeletons in the cupboard and since 1945 Japan has been a peaceful country who has posed no threat to neighbours. Can we get over the grudge bearing and xenophobia, lets face it if people want to bear grudge then the Chinese communist party has a lot more skeletons to worry about than Japan in the years since 1945 and I’m sure they don’t want old muck being raked up every 5 minutes to score cheap points:rolleyes:
TurbiniaJapan spends a derisorily small figure on defence as a % of GDP, far less than the UK from a larger economy and the UK spends far too little on defence IMO. Yes, for Japan to build large carriers would be expensive, but if Japan increased defence spending to 2-3% of GDP (which wouldn’t require that much shuffling of budgets) they’d be able to afford them. Certainly carriers on a scale of CVF/PA2, USN style CVN’s are a different matter and would require a massive shift in Japanese government spending.
For the UK to build the CVF is actually a much more adventurous and risky proposition than if these ships were being built by Japan IMO. Ship building in the UK has dwindled to a virtual irrelevance and the industry has a huge skills crises, reflected in some of the high profile problems suffered by BAE in recent times in their ship building division. The management and engineering project base is bad enough but skilled labour on the shop floor is even worse as ship building just can’t attract suitable staff in many areas when alternatives like power companies and construction companies pay better and offer better career prospects, ship building offers mediocre pay, short term contracts and zero job security here. The result is that we just don’t have a skilled base for ship building anymore and haven’t done probably since the early 90’s. One reason Astute is so late is that BAE Barrow basically had to re-learn how to build submarines. Japan is in a totally different position, true they haven’t got the same experience in carriers (though the last UK experience in carriers is a LPH designed over a decade ago, some STOVL carriers evolved from ASW cruisers designed over three decades ago and true fleet carriers basically based on WW2 designs that were withdrawn over three decades ago) but their technical base and shipbuilding industry and all that is associated with it (propulsion, electrical equipment, control systems etc.) is world class, the best in the world indeed IMO.
TurbiniaBA deserve these fines, but to see BA punished and Virgin walk is absurd, this was not a trap by Virgin, they were in on this, the fact that they went to the authorities doesn’t alter the fact that they were partners in an illegal cartel, the fact they went to the authorities is grounds for [I]reducing[I] their fine, not to let them walk away unpunished. Pathetic:mad:
TurbiniaI’d be amazed if the CVF gets catapults and a navalised “Sea Typhoon” but it is also noticable that the MoD has specifically excluded details on aircraft from recent CVF announcements and a lot of studies were done a few months ago when the UK was close to spitting the dummy on the F35 over technology access. As I say, personally I think the CVF will be STOVL and will use the F35, but the alternative has certainly been considered and is far from just being empty speculation.
TurbiniaThat’s why one report suggested putting it on the San Antonio hull. It’s large enough to house large radars, VLS for KEI (and the ballistic missile version that is being toyed with) and could operate as a theater command ship. The idea the you’re talking about is more along the lines of the Arsenal Ship concept of 20 years ago or so. Problem is you’d still need room for the radars, self defense, etc. With that amount of capability you may as well use the resources and make it a command ship and park some IRBMs on it too.
I always thought the arsenal ship concept had a lot of merit. I can see the argument for including C&C functions on a ABM carrier, but I think a front line nuclear cruiser with stealth technology would just make the cost astronomical for a vessel that just doesn’t need nuclear power or front line features like stealth if the reason for building big is to carry large ABM weapons. A simple hull with diesel engines would do the job perfectly well.
TurbiniaWhile both Countries have very capable ship building industries. Constructing large and very complex Warships like Aircraft Carriers is far from a simple task as your posting implys! In either case help from the US would be required and on a very large scale. So, building them and paying for them is a very real issue…………:eek:
The only area that Japan would need external assistance with is the flight deck and associated problems, but that would not be insurmountable for them even without outside help. The actual hull, propulsion systems, hangar decks etc etc would be no problem at all to Japanese ship builders, these builders have immense expertise in large projects and ship construction that dwarves other nations these days with the possible exception of South Korea. They also have the infrastructure, building docks, high quality steel manufacturing etc. needed already in place.
TurbiniaNo, and considering Japan has probably the greatest ship building expertise on earth (followed by south Korea) they are more than capable of building carriers themselves, perhaps with some help from a third party (probably America) on the modern aspects of flight deck design and aircraft handling. And they have plenty of locations that could build them with no modification needed. If Japan does want carriers, building them is not the issue, neither is paying for them.
TurbiniaIf they want a ABM ship why not just stick some ABM launch tubes in a basic hull with the launch control and targeting gear? Strikes me that such a ship doesn’t have to be much of a military ship, just a powered barge that can sit somewhere between US targets and enemy launch sites to launch interceptor missiles.
TurbiniaThat doesn’t make sense. The 16DDH class is in many ways a response to the PLAN’s focus on submarines. So does this mean China is determining Japanese defence policy? Countries react to the changing military situation in the areas and the world. That doesn’t mean they can’t do their own thing, but they would be stupid not to respond where necessary to foreign developments.
Military programs should be based on need. The JMSDF has percieved a need for improved ASW capability and they’re building ships very similar in concept to the RN ASW command cruiser idea that became Invincible, a large helicopter carrying ASW through deck vessel. All programs should be based on need and threat. However, building a aircraft carrier because China will is altogether different, there is no inherent need for Japan to build aircraft carriers as a result of this and in doing so they’d blow $$$$$$$’s better spent elsewhere. My comparison with super destroyers was carefully chosen, before WW2 some countries built super destroyers, the RN saw no point to them but felt obliged to follow anyway as they couldn’t be left behind and invested a lot of money in the Tribal class that achieved no more than standard destroyers costing half as much that they could have built in larger numbers, for the simple reason the role played by their destroyers simply didn’t need such large ships. To me, building a Japanese carrier would be exactly the same “keeping up with the Jones'” ego driven procurement. I agree they may do it for the said reason of national ego, but there’ll certainly be no military neccessity to do so.
TurbiniaJapan doesn’t need a carrier to defend against attack, carriers are offensive, not defensive, ships and are not required for Japan (or South Korea) to defend their territorial waters or homeland. For Japan to aquire a strike carrier would be to allow China to determine Japanese defence policy, and usually allowing foreign factors to dictate defence aquisitions results in short sighted and wasteful programs (witness the inter-war 8″ cruiser races, or the inter-war “super” destroyers). A carrier in itself doesn’t really alter much in East Asia, and Japan has the defensive air and sea assets to counter any Chinese carrier program without needing one herself.
If they do buy a carrier, it’ll be a political aquisition rather than a military one IMO.
TurbiniaA Chinese carrier does not neccessarily mean a Japanese carrier, although it may well mean changes in Japanese defence policy. The “through deck cruiser” has always been seen as subterfuge and lies by the RN to get carriers approved without politicians noticing it, but actually the design did evolve from a planned ASW command cruiser requirement and the design ended up being “through deck” as it was decided it made the most sense operationally and wasn’t really a deliberate piece of deceit at all. The politicians knew fine well what they’d approved with the design and it was re-classified pretty early on in it’s life. The ASW command cruiser evolved into a carrier thanks to the Harrier, without the Harrier, which was not designed as an attempt to circumvent the RN losing carriers, the Invincibles would have probably served as ASW helicopter carriers just like the DDH or commando assault carriers.
Sign In
