Jura The idiot
General
I don't but it;
instead of relying on scrap, they should speed up and hopefully outrun a torp
OK could be just sort of 'whistling past the graveyard' activity, LOL 'morale booster'
Aircraft Carriers III
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
instead of relying on scrap, they should speed up and hopefully outrun a torp
This is old...for seven year s ago, and right after I began predicting similar things. But now that Japan is moving forward with the two Izumos and making them F-35B capable...its relevance is resurfacing.
I personally believe that Japan, Korea, the US and Australia brigin F-35Bs aboard their capable vessels is sending a direct message to China to not try and out build these allied nations in carriers.
I believe if China continues with 2 and more carriers, you will see Japan build two larger carriers than the Izumos. They have looked at 50,000 full load designs with catapults...and if they have cats, they
will buy E-2Ds and F-35Cs to go with them.
Time will tell.
@bd popeye @Air Force Brat @Obi Wan Russell @asif iqbal @duncanidaho @TerraN_EmpirE
I personally believe that Japan, Korea, the US and Australia brigin F-35Bs aboard their capable vessels is sending a direct message to China to not try and out build these allied nations in carriers.
I believe if China continues with 2 and more carriers, you will see Japan build two larger carriers than the Izumos. They have looked at 50,000 full load designs with catapults...and if they have cats, they
will buy E-2Ds and F-35Cs to go with them.
Time will tell.
@bd popeye @Air Force Brat @Obi Wan Russell @asif iqbal @duncanidaho @TerraN_EmpirE
Last edited:
Jura The idiot
General
Jeff a possession of aircraft carriers would go against the Constitution of Japan as far as I know
No it would not.
This keeps rearing it's head, and it's a wilful misreading of the constitution, which bans Japan from possessing OFFENSIVE Weapons. Every weapon can be considered offensive in the right context, and Aircraft carriers aren't even mentioned by name or type in the constitution. Besides they already POSSESS Aircraft Carriers in the form of the Hyugas and the Izumos, despite the nonsensical description of them as 'Destroyers'. So long as their PURPOSE is defensive and not for overseas conquest and aggression, they are allowed under the Japanese Constitution.
Jura The idiot
General
2 The Government’s View on Article 9 of the Constitution
1 Permitted Self-Defense Capability
ends with "For example, the SDF is not allowed to possess intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), long-range strategic bombers, or attack aircraft carriers."
so let me ask this Forum:
- what would be a "non-attack", or perhaps "defensive", aircraft carrier?? all I can think of were converted civilian ships during WW2 (sorry I don't remember any name), but even those of course wouldn't have become carriers if there were no WW2; note typical escort carriers like the USN Casablancas (here I happen to know the Gambier Bay) were not limited to anti-submarine patrols or nothing
- even if there were "non-attack" aircraft carrier available now (there isn't), what for would Japan need her?? I don't know the geography of Japan much, but I guess coast-to-coast is 500 km MAX (on Honshu, right?) so a string of airports covering each other should work for the Archipelago protection, I think Japan should leave the rest to the US 7th Fleet
Intrepid
Major
An aircraft carrier that has no (communication) facilities for overseas missions.
Jura The idiot
General
what "overseas missions", exactly:
Intrepid
Major
far away - on the other side of the ocean
Jura The idiot
General
doing what?
Intrepid
Major
power projection