Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday March 05 2018, @01:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the big-flat-ship dept.

Japanese Ministry of Defense executives have outright admitted that despite the Japanese government's past denials that the Izumo class "helicopter destroyers" were not designed to accommodate fixed-wing short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) tactical jets, they actually were designed with exactly that in mind.

The Asahi Shimbun quoted Maritime Self Defense Force sources stating the following:

"It is only reasonable to design (the Izumo) with the prospect of possible changes of the circumstances in the decades ahead... We viewed that whether the Izumo should be actually refitted could be decided by the government."

When the Izumo first entered service, the vessels' ominous profile and massive proportions led many, including the author, to allege that these vessels were intended to one day carry fixed-wing tactical jets. It also wasn't really clear why the country would need larger vessels than the Hyuga class helicopter destroyers already in production if they weren't going to gain more offensive capabilities. Although they have amphibious capabilities, Japan's helicopter carriers are traditionally more focused on anti-submarine warfare.

Asahi Shimbun's sources went on to say that a consensus was privately reached among the service's leadership that the Izumo class would be designed for conversion into a fixed-wing capable aircraft carrier in the future but the Japanese government would deny this due to the issues surrounding violating Article Nine of the Japanese constitution.

[...] The justification of Japan's military posture, and the weaponry that supports it, all comes down to how one interprets "self defense" as per the Japanese constitution, but really, things have been rapidly changing for Japan when it comes to morphing its military into a far-reaching force with substantial offensive punch.

[...] Considering that Japan is looking to arm itself with long-range cruise missiles and more capable fighters in the near term, a fixed-wing capable Izumo and her sister ship Kaga won't be far behind, ushering in a new era of power projection for Japan the likes of which the world has not seen since the end of World War II.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by dltaylor on Monday March 05 2018, @01:55AM (29 children)

    by dltaylor (4693) on Monday March 05 2018, @01:55AM (#647815)

    A few reasons:

    since they are not currently fixed-wing capable, they are not an immediate constitutional crisis

    with the US in decline, Japan may have to deal with threats like North Korea, Russian Federation, and the PRC militarily as a last resort should all diplomacy fail, and building the capability for conversion in now is economically practical

    conversion is much quicker to accomplish than building a whole new vessel from the keel up, should a change in capabilities become necessary (can't fully comprehend the public outcry in Japan if it were revealed that the government had authorized construction of nuclear weapons, but, that is something that I think they have the technology to do quickly, if the country were sufficiently threatened to feel the need).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday March 05 2018, @02:07AM

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Monday March 05 2018, @02:07AM (#647817) Homepage

    Fucking hilarious that people would be surprised by this.

    The Wasp class LHD's [wikipedia.org] have been around for decades, and their predecessors even more than that. Extend their numerous use cases and equipment complement to anything else with all that topside real-estate.

    I think it's okay for Japan to flex their muscles a bit. Sure, they were once our enemies, bit it's time we loosen the leash a bit and let them be proud alongside us.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by The Shire on Monday March 05 2018, @03:05AM (26 children)

    by The Shire (5824) on Monday March 05 2018, @03:05AM (#647838)

    "with the US in decline"

    My internet laugh of the day, that's awesome.

    The US currently has the most powerful military on the planet. This is a demonstrable fact not a boast. The amount of naval and air power we can project anywhere around the world far exceeds any other nation. Our annual military budget is roughly four times larger than China's and that's during peacetime. There would have to be one hell of a decline for it to ever even get to the point of being a fair fight, let alone lose that top slot as a global superpower. The only thing China and North Korea have in abundance is the amount of two legged meat they can throw into a blast zone.

    China, by the way, is #3 on that military power list after Russia. You want to know where North Korea is on that list? They're #23 with Japan at #7.

    Not that any of this even matters - the top military powers would never take any action towards Japan, not only because it's economically foolish, but because the entire world would come to Japan's aid. And I'm quite sure North Korea is well aware that any military attack on South Korea or Japan would be suicide, that little fiefdom would be removed from the map in short order.

    No, I don't think Japan, as one of the US's greatest allies, has anything to fear in that regard.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by coolgopher on Monday March 05 2018, @03:54AM

      by coolgopher (1157) on Monday March 05 2018, @03:54AM (#647849)

      The OP didn't say the US's military power was in decline. Rather, the US *influence* is in decline, because under Trump the US is looking within its borders more so than without. In recent times the US has opted out of trade agreements, and gone backwards on "free trade" with the imposition of new tariffs. There have been rumblings about reducing its participation in NATO as well, for that matter, though I expect that to be largely posturing. Over all though, the US's influence is in decline, by the leadership's own volition. This is not necessarily a bad thing at all, more self-focus could turn out to be just what's needed to get employment levels up for example. What it does mean is that allies which have in the past relied heavily on the US now had better find their own two feet.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by driverless on Monday March 05 2018, @04:00AM (12 children)

      by driverless (4770) on Monday March 05 2018, @04:00AM (#647852)

      The US currently has the most powerful military on the planet.

      So did Germany, from 1939 until about mid 1942.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Monday March 05 2018, @04:14AM (11 children)

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 05 2018, @04:14AM (#647857)

        Almost the entire world, including the hitherto slumbering United States, banned together to oppose them and their allies and it still took years and millions of dead to defeat them. We are way more powerful than Germany was at that time, relatively, and we have lots of powerful allies. Our recent election has put us in a bad place, but we'll recover. Our friends know this is a temporary thing.

        ...I hope.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Monday March 05 2018, @04:25AM (4 children)

          by driverless (4770) on Monday March 05 2018, @04:25AM (#647861)

          However, Germany's military was run on a deficit almost from the day Hitler started rearming, and relied on continued expansion and plundering of surrounding countries to continue running (read e.g. Tooze's Wages of Destruction for an economic analysis). The easiest way to "win" the war, with perfect hindsight, would have been to blockade Germany as much as possible and wait for the balance-of-everything deficit to cause a total collapse.

          Which seems to be where the US is heading at the moment, they're propping up a vast military with a government that's massively, monstrously indebted (makes 1930s Germany seem trivial in comparison) and that seems determined to isolate itself from the rest of the world. At some point the debt, decreasing revenue-generating trade with the rest of the world, and massive overexpenditure on the military will hit hard. Like it did the Soviet Union in the 1980s.

          • (Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @06:34AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @06:34AM (#647881)

            Y'know what happened instead?
            GHW Bush's daddy and Dubya's granddaddy, Prescott Bush, financed them. [google.com]
            Whenever you see a Bush running for office, it's blood money that got them that far.

            ...and Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh were pro-Fascist.
            IBM notoriously sold the Nazis machines and kept them in top condition so that the profitability of the death camps could be accurately calculated.

            -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 2) by kazzie on Monday March 05 2018, @06:36AM

            by kazzie (5309) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 05 2018, @06:36AM (#647882)

            So, trench warfare all over again?

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Monday March 05 2018, @08:33AM (1 child)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 05 2018, @08:33AM (#647904) Journal

            However, Germany's military was run on a deficit almost from the day ...

            God help us in the times an army will be run at a profit!!!
            (haven't happened since dark ages and I'm not sure I want to see times like those)

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by driverless on Monday March 05 2018, @03:54PM

              by driverless (4770) on Monday March 05 2018, @03:54PM (#648009)

              However, Germany's military was run on a deficit almost from the day ...

              God help us in the times an army will be run at a profit!!!

              Germany's armies were actually run as profit centres. For example the Hague Convention allowed costs of occupation to be charged to the occupied nation, so France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc all paid for the Wehrmacht. Then Germany fiddled the exchange rates to overvalue the reichsmark while requiring payment in the local currency, so the Dutch paid in guilders at an artificially low exchange rate, in effect paying far more than required. Then troops were also allowed by the convention to requisition items from the civilian population provided that receipts were issued (to allow later reconciliation), the Reichskreditkasse fiddled this by printing pseudo- Reichsmark for occupied countries that functioned as, uh, "receipts" and that were required to be exchanged at the fiddled exchange rate by the country's banks. So troops in e.g. France were paid in RKK notes that the Banque de France was required to accept as if they were francs, and could go on a shopping spree in France paid for by the French taxpayer (this was separate to the occupation costs the French were already paying).

              Now repeat this, and much more, for every occupied country.

              The comment about being run at a deficit was that they were so short of everything that they manufactured e.g. millions of shells in the mid 1930s without the copper driving bands they needed to fire them, because they had so little copper. It wasn't until Molotov-Ribbentrop that they could get their shells into a state where they could be fired. The fact that Hitler started so-and-so battle with only X weeks' fuel is well-known. etc.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 05 2018, @06:21AM (4 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 05 2018, @06:21AM (#647876) Journal

          The allies arrangement could change, as well. You point at an election that may or may not damage some of those alliances. I disagree, somewhat, that Trump is really damaging those alliances, but yes, it's possible. My point is, twenty, fifty, or seventy-five years from now, the US may very well be on it's own. What if - just think about it for a bit - what if Trump is remembered as "The last decent president we had"? Things can get worse, very quickly.

          Someone once said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". It's difficult to remain vigilant when half of our businessmen are traitorous bastards, and almost as many of our politicians are the same.

          Our most serious threat today is China. One of our presidents actually sold military technology to China, and granted that nation "most favored trade partner" status. Another presidential candidate (who was defeated) made his fortune by selling the assets of ailing American corporations to China.

          We are surrounded by traitors, and we fail to even recognize them.

          We may very well be on our own, soon.

          • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday March 05 2018, @07:44AM

            by mhajicek (51) on Monday March 05 2018, @07:44AM (#647899)

            Half? You're too optimistic.

            --
            The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 05 2018, @08:41AM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 05 2018, @08:41AM (#647906) Journal

            what if Trump is remembered as "The last decent president we had"?

            You mean... you intend to elect an exhibitionist or a worse kink at the next election and keep doing it for the foreseeable future?

            If so, it may actually be a... ummm... tremendous improvement.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by TheRaven on Monday March 05 2018, @09:22AM

              by TheRaven (270) on Monday March 05 2018, @09:22AM (#647913) Journal
              During my lifetime, I think the best Prime Minister that we've had in the UK was John Major. During his time, I remember thinking he was pretty terrible, but subsequently I've learned that just mediocre incompetence is a long way from the worst possibility.
              --
              sudo mod me up
            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 05 2018, @03:28PM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 05 2018, @03:28PM (#647989) Journal

              Sexual misconduct is one thing that could get worse - but there are more important things to consider. How about, some ultra-left person is elected, who decides that we must disarm, unilaterraly? All the nukes, 3/4 of our ships with the remainder assigned to the Coast Guard. Our conventional arsenal slashed by 80%, and manning levels cut by half or more. Aircraft simply aren't replaced, Everything possible is sold off as military surplus.

              That done, we begin paying appeasement to China, Russia, maybe Iran . . . maybe anyone who asks. There would be no more "military aid" to foreign countries, because all our money would be going to tribute.

              It probably sounds like a joke to most people reading this, but, no, it is no joke. We only THINK that things are bad today.

        • (Score: 2) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 05 2018, @07:05AM

          by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Monday March 05 2018, @07:05AM (#647888) Homepage Journal

          Our military, we have some amazingly wonderful things going on in our military. We’re rebuilding our military. We’re making it, we’re bringing it to a level that it’s never been at. Our ships, our nuclear, all of it. We have a new aircraft carrier, the USS Ford, nobody can hack the cyber on that one because you have to be Einstein to figure it out. And it's costing a lot of money. A LOT. But we're going to be saving money. We'll save so much money. Because nobody will want to fight us. They'll see that if they fight us, they'll lose. Big time. So, no more wars. Big savings!

          And we're going to have tremendous elections. The 2016 election was a DISASTER. Because so many illegals voted. And we had people voting 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 times. Maybe 7 times. My DHS -- my Department of Homeland Security -- is looking very carefully at our elections. So we can make them great again! The job I gave to my Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is going to get done by my DHS. Without costing a lot of money. Without a lot of lawsuits. Maybe, probably, a few lawsuits, we'll win those very quickly.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @04:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @04:14AM (#647855)

      "with the US in decline"

      My internet laugh of the day, that's awesome.

      The US currently has the most powerful military on the planet. This is a demonstrable fact not a boast. The amount of naval and air power we can project anywhere around the world far exceeds any other nation.

      This is all true. We are not just a superpower but the superpower. We can and do build magnificently deadly things. But we don't maintain shit. And that is why we are in decline. We'll run it into the ground and then replace it. But we won't do much in between.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 05 2018, @06:06AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 05 2018, @06:06AM (#647872) Journal

      Don't be so very certain that our military is the "best" or "most powerful" today. Things are changing. We have only fought proxy wars for the past several decades, and we had our asses handed to us in Vietnam. Sure, we can still bully third world dysfunctional countries, no problem - but we haven't faced off with a major power.

      Things change, and change is not always good. For instance, we hear our Navy whining today when Russian pilots and ship masters come close. You didn't hear that during the Cold War. We had nerves of steel, and ice water in our veins, back then. Today? Excitable little boys feel the need to notify the media if the Ruskies come close enough to shout insults.

      If the military wants to remain "the best", then they need to grow up, and act like the best.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by ilPapa on Monday March 05 2018, @06:29AM (2 children)

      by ilPapa (2366) on Monday March 05 2018, @06:29AM (#647879) Journal

      "with the US in decline"

      My internet laugh of the day, that's awesome.

      The US currently has the most powerful military on the planet.

      The Roman Empire also had the most powerful military on the planet when they were in decline, so I'm not sure why you're laughing so hard. So did the British Empire. In fact, having the most powerful military on the planet may be a special property of empires in decline. Another special property of empires in decline is having a bloated, corrupt, decadent fool as its leader. So, we're two for two.

      --
      You are still welcome on my lawn.
      • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:00PM (1 child)

        by The Shire (5824) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:00PM (#648554)

        The Roman Empire lasted over 500 years. I'm not too concerned.

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by ilPapa on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:34PM

          by ilPapa (2366) on Tuesday March 06 2018, @08:34PM (#648664) Journal

          The Roman Empire lasted over 500 years. I'm not too concerned.

          The Romans didn't have Trump.

          --
          You are still welcome on my lawn.
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @06:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @06:53AM (#647886)

      Russia has more nukes.

      China has a bigger army.

      The budget is big because we count lots of random stuff (medical for soldiers, etc.) and because we buy American. China saves money because they buy Chinese equipment.

      By portion of GDP, we're way behind North Korea.

      I think you could say that the US is the most powerful, but it isn't completely obvious. It's also important to realize that there is great benefit in having overwhelming power. That lets us crush enemies without much risk to ourselves. It means that every other country knows that war is no big deal to us, so we're actually serious when we make a threat. It mean that we can crush enemies and make believable threats while already engaged in war with the next most powerful country.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @07:08AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @07:08AM (#647889)

      We only have 5,433 aircraft. That includes 913 fighters. Most planes are decades old, some from the 1950s, and most are running out of airframe lifetime. We've used up well over 90% of the lifetime of our F-15 airframes.

      We built 100,000 bombers and 100,000 fighters for World War II.

      We are completely unprepared for a serious war. Failing to prepare for it is as stupid as failing to prepare back in 1935, thinking that such a terrible thing couldn't possibly happen again. We have less than 1% of the fighters we used in World War II.

      It's been over 70 years since we had a serious war. We're getting weak because almost nobody remembers the horror. We ought to prepare for the worst.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 05 2018, @08:46AM

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 05 2018, @08:46AM (#647909) Journal

        We only have 5,433 aircraft

        How many drones you have and how fast can you scale up? Send 5 drones against a fighter and very likely the fighter will lose.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday March 05 2018, @09:28AM (2 children)

        by TheRaven (270) on Monday March 05 2018, @09:28AM (#647914) Journal

        We built 100,000 bombers and 100,000 fighters for World War II.

        Those numbers sound very big in comparison to 5,433, but that's largely because of the high attrition rates. I'm not sure about the stats for the US, but I seem to recall that British airmen on average survived three combat flights. They were given a few weeks of training (which was possible, because the planes were very simple and the Germans were similarly poorly trained). Many of the British planes had canvas and wood wings - they were produced as cheaply as possible and were closer to missiles than planes in modern usage. From Wikipedia

        At its height, Bomber Command under Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur "Bomber" Harris could put over 1,000 aircraft into the air over Germany. Over 12,000 Bomber Command aircraft were shot down during World War II, and 55,500 aircrew were killed, the highest attrition rate of any British unit.

        The numbers of aircraft are smaller now because they're more concentrated. A single F117 can cause as much damage as a squadron of Lancasters, more accurately, and have a far higher probability of returning undamaged.

        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:34PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @09:34PM (#648198)

          When (not "if") we get into a serious war, we'll be facing attrition rates that are horrible. Average survival of 3 combat flights will once again be normal.

          We can prepare for it, or we can lose the war.

          • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday March 07 2018, @09:59AM

            by TheRaven (270) on Wednesday March 07 2018, @09:59AM (#648935) Journal
            Those kind of attrition rates are not sustainable with modern aircraft. They are sufficiently complex and difficult to fly that it's now incredibly expensive to train a combat pilot. You can't send someone up after a few training flights and expect them to do anything other than lose their aircraft.
            --
            sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @02:51PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @02:51PM (#647972)

      The US currently has the most powerful expensive military on the planet.

      FTFY

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @07:12AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @07:12AM (#647890)

    Japan has uranium enrichment facilities. Japan has fuel reprocessing, which can used to obtain plutonium. Japan has orbital rockets.

    It's pretty certain Japan could throw together an ICBM in less than 6 months. That is without even having already done any design work in secret.