Hmm. Looks like the JMSDF aren't hiding their ambitions anymore. Seems like the ASEV will be classified as CGs, whereas there could be actual CVs planned after the Izumos. Posted by @Mk18_MOD1 on Weibo.
If Japan is foolish enough to waste money on naval carriers when they will be the easiest target for pla hypersonic missiles to shoot down, then go ahead. Their entire air space will be saturated with PLA long range fighters and their air force will be destroyed on the ground.
What they need is Iran style mass missiles and massive expansion of air defense systems. And yet they waste money on carriers.
I think ballistic missiles would be a dumber acquisition than aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers aren't that decisive; they can still have use in gray zone situations and politically can still be waved off as defensive weapons (think the Spanish or Brazilian carriers; no one looked at those and thought they were plotting to invade other countries). But with ballistic missiles? That is obviously intended to attack another country.
As for air defenses, that is what they are doing. The ASEVs-turned-CGs are replacements for Aegis Ashore, which couldn't be acquired because Japan is so densely populated it would drop booster stages on towns no matter where it was based. The Izumos are being converted on the basis that because airfields are vulnerable, JASDF fighters ought to have an alternative basing method. Based on the Naval News article several posts up, they are apparently planning to equip fixed radar stations with their own organic air defenses.
If anything the JMSDF acquiring a carrier would be a good thing, because it would take money away from the really pointless Tomahawks. It's one thing to have a carrier operating off the coast launching fighters to shoot down cruise missiles, it is another to be launching cruise missiles... that just get shot down, because your military has no experience with long-range strike and you bought a tiny number of them.
It works with small enough aircraft（also, the more persistent space reconnaissance is the thing, the worse).
Japan is big, relaatively remote from land threats, and it one of relatively few countries around, that truly needs heavy fighters.
Japan getting carriers has huge historical implications. Because Japan used Carriers extensively in WW2 to Bomb other countries including US. What comes to mind when people think about Japan and WW2, Its carriers and Carrier based planes bombing cities. So, I don't think you can say Japan getting Carriers do not look threatening.
When it comes to actual military utility, I suggested Japan getting Ballistic Missiles cause those can be concealed and road mobile. This gives japan atleast some way to attack China.
Cause the disparity between China and Japan is so high that it is likely China will quickly destroy most air bases and planes on the ground using its rocket force, and whatever planes are left will be quickly shot down by PLA advanced fighters. Once all the planes are gone, what defense does Japan have against PLA precision bombing using JDAM and glide bombs on the cheap?
PLA hypersonic anti-ship missiles will likely destroy all Japanese navy surface ships including those carriers. There is no hope for them to survive unless they flee to Hawaii. Cause Any place within the second island chain is in range for PLA anti-ship missiles. So, what utility do these carriers provide in wartime?
That's why I feel Japan or any US ally in the first island chain has only one way forward, Iran style Mass ballistic missiles and mass acquisition of air and missile defense.
These are questionable/overly simple assumptions. I understand that China made an incredible leap forward in 2010s-2020s, but this is justification for pride - not arrogance. Especially v. old enemy.
(1)Air bases can be temporarily put out of use by rocket force, but destroying airfileds is an altogether another matter. Repairs are effective, number of individual (and repairable) targets is just too much.
(2)Relatively simple dispersal can protect at least aircraft from such campaign, provided there's sufficient warning. Japan made signifiicant investments into ABM and air defenses, too. This doesn't mean they won't be overwhelmed, but it does mean that reliable hits will require overuse of limited MRBM capability (high tech SFREs aren't sausages).
(3)Japan is a large enough country, which is located far enough from China (like ~500 miles shortest for Home islands, but mostly more). I.e. Japanese fighters will be quickly attrited v. China only if Japan will for some reason go for it.
Japanese(and Korean) geography shields the former well from mainland China, at least until JMSDF/USN are alive and well. Things go south for Japan if DPRK and especially Russia aren't neutral, though.
Range isn't endless killing field, and JMSDF ships are probably one of the best out there when it comes to ABM. They have multiple relatively safe havens(east coast; inner sea; sea of Japan behind Korea...depending on Ru/DPRK stance of course), where chances of succesful OtH attack on them aren't really worth a shot.
That's one way of looking at it, but aircraft carriers themselves (regardless of who uses them) have been used defensively in the past, like at the Battle of Midway by the US. Ballistic missiles are in many ways the modern equivalent of a long-range bomber. In what circumstance has a long-range bomber ever been used "defensively?"
Carriers may not be perfect, but acquisition of ballistic missiles would be wholly outrageous. No one could defend Japan's decision to acquire them, in the same way it is pretty much impossible to justify the acquisition of Tomahawks for "self-defense."
Japan does not need a "way to attack China." Period.
The Izumos are (officially) configured as alternate airfields for F-35Bs, which are otherwise based on land. Back in the Cold War, the JMSDF wanted to buy Harriers for its Shirane-class helicopter carriers. The present day Izumo is an extension of this concept. A purpose-built carrier would probably be justified on similar grounds, at least partially.
To the JMSDF, a carrier is basically just a way of augmenting air defense. Japan can't afford to build a massive, Iran-style all-out defense. Its population is shrinking and its economy isn't too great. Aircraft are just as vital as SAMs when it comes to air defense, and a carrier would be a way of increasing the number of available aircraft and making them more flexible, by being able to move them around.