SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 05 2018, @06:21AM (4 children)
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
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)
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
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday March 05 2018, @03:28PM
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.