Aircraft Carriers III

Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
OK next round:

Q (me #5215): "what would be a "non-attack", or perhaps "defensive", aircraft carrier?"
v
A (you #5216): "An aircraft carrier that has no (communication) facilities for overseas missions."
v
Q (me #5217): "what "overseas missions", exactly:"
v
A (you #5218): "far away - on the other side of the ocean"
v
Q (me #5219): "doing what?"
v
A (you #5220): "power projection"
v
Q (me #5221): "does it mean a "non-attack", or perhaps "defensive", aircraft carrier is for "power projection" according to you?"
v
A (you #5222):
"yes

A non-attack carrier is a carrier without equipment to bring power projection overseas."
 
Last edited:
Intrepid

Intrepid

Major
Jura said:
Q (me #5221): "does it mean a "non-attack", or perhaps "defensive", aircraft carrier is for "power projection" according to you?"
Click to expand...
I couldn't see this sentence, when I wrote my answer.

Non-attack means it is not for power projection overseas.

Power projection in the vicinity of the own country may be needed for defence.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Intrepid said:
I couldn't see this sentence, when I wrote my answer.

Non-attack means it is not for power projection overseas.

Power projection in the vicinity of the own country may be needed for defence.
Click to expand...
now you say "Non-attack means it is not for power projection overseas."

so why did you answer my question (#5217) "what "overseas missions", exactly:"

with (#5218) "far away - on the other side of the ocean" and my follow-up question (#5219): "doing what?" with (#5220): "power projection"

?? this sequence should imply (*) 'power projection on overseas missions'

(*) according to Aristotles
 
Intrepid

Intrepid

Major
I do not understand you.

The ability to attack overseas is power projection.

"non-attack" means not to have the ability to attack overseas.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Intrepid said:
I do not understand you.

The ability to attack overseas is power projection.

"non-attack" means not to have the ability to attack overseas.
Click to expand...
two questions:
  1. does "non-attack" mean, according to you, to be able to attack
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    (viewed from Japan as this is the context; Senkaku not viewed from for example Italy)?
  2. should aircraft launched off of a hypothetical Japanese aircraft carrier hit targets on Senkaku, would it be "power projection" according to you?
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Intrepid said:
You can not defend without the ability to attack, so:
1. yes
2. no
Click to expand...
while I began Today at 8:29 PM
with
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


2 The Government’s View on Article 9 of the Constitution
1 Permitted Self-Defense Capability

"For example, the SDF is not allowed to possess intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), long-range strategic bombers, or attack aircraft carriers."


by the way I go to bed now, LOL
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Jeff Head said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree that the F-35Bs are offering attractive carrier aviation options to the other nations. Since China continues to expand its military capabilities including power projection the other nations will have to consider their own options to meet the perceived threats. In view of the distance to the disputed Senkaku islands, an adapted Izumo with F-35B capability will significantly enhance aviation presence and persistence in the outer rim in lieu of distance from land based facilities.

upload_2019-8-17_10-31-13.png


Jeff Head said:
View attachment 53300
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
​

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
Click to expand...

I seriously doubt that Japan will move to catapult based carriers as it is likely to be a bridge too far politically unless the security environment fundamentally changes. However I do agree that the prospect of building a bigger displacement multi purpose destroyer than the Izumo class is very likely for at least two reasons. Firstly having just two Izumo is insufficient capacity for persistent coverage. Secondly, I believe the current displacement probably at best supports 12 F-35B in terms of optimal sortie generation considering onboard aviation fuel capacity. An enlarged displacement around the LHA-7 class (with no well deck) will probably be necessary.

For example, in terms of comparative specs between LHD-8 | LHA-7 | LHA-8 | Izumo

Length overall (ft) - 844 | 844 | 844 | 814
Beam - 106 |106 | 106 |125
Full load displacement - 41,772 | 43,745 | 43,329 | 27,000
Aviation Support (ft²) - 31,559 | 47,284 | 38,049 | ?
Cargo fuel, JP-5 (gal) - 585,000 | 1,330,000 | 585,000| ?
Well Deck LCAC Capacity - 3 | 0 | 2 | ?
Hangar area (ft²) - 18,745 | 28,142 | 28,142 | ?

I don't know what is the aviation fuel capacity of Izumo but say it is around 350000 gal. This will support about 180 F-35 sorties in total. An aviation wing of 12 generating two sorties per day will only have sufficuent fuel to last a week before requiring replenishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top