Japan to build fleet's biggest helicopter destroyer to fend off China
Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/6635212/Japan-to-build-fleets-biggest-helicopter-destroyer-to-fend-off-China.html
{EXCERPT} Telegraph.co.uk, Danielle Demetriou Japan is set to commission the largest destroyer to join its fleet in response to a Chinese military buildup. By Danielle Demetriou in Tokyo The nation's...
Naval Service Discussion/News/Info Exchange Forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/all-things-navy
U.S. and friendly nation laws prohibit fully
reproducing copyrighted material. In abidance
with our laws this report cannot be provided in
its entirety. However, you can read it in full
today at the supplied URL. The subject/content of
this report is not necessarily the viewpoint of
the distributing Library. This report is provided
for your information and discussion.
-- Otis Willie (Ret.)
Military News and Information Editor (http://www.13105320634.com)
The American War Library, Est. 1988 (http://www.amervets.com)
16907 Brighton Avenue
Gardena CA 90247
1-310-532-0634
Military Personnel Database
http://www.amervets.com/library.htm
Military and Vet Info-Exchange/Discussion Groups
http://www.amervets.com/share.htm
Public Information Office
http://www.13105320634.com
Jack Linthicum
<themilitaryto...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Nothing in the press beyond this lone article.
Add http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090319a5.html
Japan to build fleet's biggest helicopter destroyer to fend off China
Japan is set to commission the largest destroyer to join its fleet in
response to a Chinese military buildup.
By Danielle Demetriou in Tokyo
Published: 11:18AM GMT 23 Nov 2009
The Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force escort ship Kurama: Japan to
build fleet's biggest helicopter destroyer to fend off China
The Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force escort ship Kurama (L) sails
during a 2009 fleet review in Sagami Bay, October 25, 2009 Photo: AFP/
GETTY
The nation's Maritime Self-Defence Force is reportedly planning to
construct a new 284 metre long destroyer capable of transporting 14
helicopters, 4,000 people and 50 trucks.
The purchase is part of a wider military build up in which the Defence
Ministry has sought funds to purchase around 40 F-35 fighter jets
which will become the future mainstay of the nation's air force,
according to Kyodo News.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), is projected to cost around £61
million (nine billion yen) and is currently being developed by the
United States, with Britain and Australia as founding partners.
Japan's decision to expand the role of its military despite its
pacifist post-war constitution is a reflection of growing concerns
surrounding military tensions with regional neighbours.
The new destroyer, which will become the largest in the nation's fleet
of 52 vessels in the class, will also provide fuel to other carriers,
transport servicemen and assist with emergencies and international
peace keeping missiles.
"Helicopters are needed to seek out and keep an eye on submarines as
well as to patrol surface ships from as far away as possible outside
the range of enemy missiles," a defence ministry official told the
Asahi Shimbun. "For those reasons, a large destroyer that can carry
many helicopters is necessary."
Its primary function will be to patrol seas contested by China.
Japan's neighbour has strengthened its naval capabilities and advanced
destroyers armed with cruise missiles have been spotted near gas
fields in the East China Sea.
Japan's defence expansion is also believed to be fuelled in part by
growing tensions with North Korea over its nuclear weapons and refusal
to rejoin multi-party disarmament talks.
Reports of the expanded role for Japan's military coincided with a
pledge from Chinese and North Korean defence chiefs to strengthen the
long-standing military alliance.
David E. Powell
David
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> At what point does it officially become a carrier?
>
> David
When it's not Japanese?
ha4h...@kent.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
Hardly believable---I mean it is totally unbelievable---that such a
vessel can worry anyone, Chinese or otehrwise. If it were to carry
F-35's then, well, a different story...
Just as unbelievable is that F-35s will be the future mainstay of the
air force. That would have to be F-22s or something from Europe or the
Soviets, or self-produced in association with (um, I mean under the
control of) the US (um, I mean Lockheed and Company).
Richard Casady
Helo destroyer? A Warthog with about sixty AIMxx on its ten pylons,
and some nice prox fuse ammo for the gun? When was the last time a
destroyer destroyed a torpedo boat. One of them did get PT 109.
Casady
William Black
> At what point does it officially become a carrier?
Catapults and arrestor wires...
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Dean
Royal Navy Invincibles don't have catapults or arrestor wires and I
don't think anyone denies they are carriers. And yes, I know they
were originally "Through-Deck Cruisers". The Italians, Thais and
Spanish also have carriers without catapults or arrestor gear.
Dean
William Black
> On Nov 24, 7:34 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> David E. Powell wrote:
>>> At what point does it officially become a carrier?
>> Catapults and arrestor wires...
>>
>> --
>> William Black
>>
>> "Any number under six"
>>
>> The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
>> Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
>> single handed with a quarterstaff.
>
> Royal Navy Invincibles don't have catapults or arrestor wires and I
> don't think anyone denies they are carriers.
Oh yes they did.
When they were new they were called 'Through Deck Cruisers' because HM
Treasury wouldn't pay for carriers...
The late and unlamented USSR built a couple and sailed them through the
Bospherous on the grounds that 'they aren't aircraft carriers, the
British say so'...
David E. Powell
so-tickle-me wrote:
> Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net> writes:
> > On Nov 23, 4:58 pm, Otis Willie PIO The American War Library
> > <themilitaryto...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Nothing in the press beyond this lone article.
>
The Japanese wanted F-22 pretty badly. It seems they have shifted to
F-35 as F-22 has been cut off. Now F-35 may also be cut short. I hope
they have a domestic option in case that happens :(
ha4h...@kent.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me
I would think so, they aren't conniving little factionalists for nothing
you know :-) They're as likely to stick with limited F-35s as an option
as they are to stick with second-rate chip technology.
Jack Linthicum
so-tickle-me wrote:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/f22-raptors-to-japan-01909/
Dean
Are you saying they DID have catapults/arrestors?
William Black
> On Nov 24, 8:54 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Dean wrote:
>>> On Nov 24, 7:34 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> David E. Powell wrote:
>>>>> At what point does it officially become a carrier?
>>>> Catapults and arrestor wires...
>>> Royal Navy Invincibles don't have catapults or arrestor wires and I
>>> don't think anyone denies they are carriers.
>> Oh yes they did.
>>
>> When they were new they were called 'Through Deck Cruisers' because HM
>> Treasury wouldn't pay for carriers...
>>
>> The late and unlamented USSR built a couple and sailed them through the
>> Bospherous on the grounds that 'they aren't aircraft carriers, the
>> British say so'...
>
> Are you saying they DID have catapults/arrestors?
No.
I'm saying they weren't carriers.
hcobb
> David E. Powell wrote:
> > At what point does it officially become a carrier?
>
> Catapults and arrestor wires...
Those are super carriers (or French).
Skijump defines non-American carriers.
-HJC
Dean
OK William, that's clearer. Agreed.
Dean
deem...@aol.com
Well, V/STOL or helicopter carriers.......
hcobb
If you go to that extent then you'll have to conclude that the entire
world has two carrier fleets. USN and USN.
-HJC
(Plus a little noise near the margin of error...)
deem...@aol.com
Charles DeGaulle?
David E. Powell
Yep. Have to add the French in there. Also the Russkies and Argentina.
Does one of the other South American navies have a carrier?
India also comes to mind.
I would not be suprised if the current French carriers were pretty
capable. They have a pretty solid history of naval aviation since WW2.
David E. Powell
wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:07:52 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
>
> <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 23, 7:48 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> >wrote:
> >> At what point does it officially become a carrier?
>
> >> David
>
> > When it's not Japanese?
>
> Helo destroyer? A Warthog with about sixty AIMxx on its ten pylons,
> and some nice prox fuse ammo for the gun? When was the last time a
> destroyer destroyed a torpedo boat. One of them did get PT 109.
>
> Casady
Oh man. That would be a heck of a helicopter killer. A warthog loaded
with Max AIM-9 load!
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
> On Nov 24, 6:55 am, Richard Casady <richardcas...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:07:52 -0800 (PST), "deemsb...@aol.com"
>
> > <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 23, 7:48 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> At what point does it officially become a carrier?
>
> > >> David
>
> > > When it's not Japanese?
>
> > Helo destroyer? A Warthog with about sixty AIMxx on its ten pylons,
> > and some nice prox fuse ammo for the gun? When was the last time a
> > destroyer destroyed a torpedo boat. One of them did get PT 109.
>
> > Casady
>
> Oh man. That would be a heck of a helicopter killer. A warthog loaded
> with Max AIM-9 load!
I am silently waiting while all the noise about Afghanistan dies down
and we cut all the "strategic" stuff from the DoD budget, for someone
to come up with a Warthog type aircraft for use in a real insurgent
situation.
Jack Linthicum
Peter Skelton
Argentina does not have a carrier, but Brazil has Sao Paulo (ex
Foch).
Peter Skelton
hcobb
wrote:
I am silently waiting while all the noise about Afghanistan dies down
> and we cut all the "strategic" stuff from the DoD budget, for someone
> to come up with a Warthog type aircraft for use in a real insurgent
> situation.
Aren't they doing that already?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force
In response to the conflicts in which the United States has been
engaged since the end of the Cold War, on 1 August 2007, Air Force
Doctrine Document 2-3 was released showing how air power could be used
to support or defeat an insurgency.
In order to help support these missions the USAF is considering
outfitting a counter-insurgency wing with small cheap ground support
fighters that can also be used for training USAF and allied pilots in
addition to counterinsurgency operations.
...
The GAO found that Air Force plans should cover strategic airlift, but
that it may fall short in providing tactical airlift in support of the
United States Army.
-HJC
Jack Linthicum
Wait until the "hot fighter pilot jocks" learn they will be flying low
and in danger.
William Black
> In order to help support these missions the USAF is considering
> outfitting a counter-insurgency wing with small cheap ground support
> fighters that can also be used for training USAF and allied pilots in
> addition to counterinsurgency operations.
They're going to be trying to get some A-1 Skyraiders running again?
William Black
Low slow and effective ground attack aircraft have never managed to get
any advocates in the US Air Force.
The 'fighter jocks' rule.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> hcobb wrote:
> > In order to help support these missions the USAF is considering
> > outfitting a counter-insurgency wing with small cheap ground support
> > fighters that can also be used for training USAF and allied pilots in
> > addition to counterinsurgency operations.
>
> They're going to be trying to get some A-1 Skyraiders running again?
>
> --
> William Black
>
OV-10 Broncos have been mentioned......
William Black
That should be fun, they're like helicopters in that they don't have
the altitude to be effective in Afghan mountain regions.
Andrew Robert Breen
William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>hcobb wrote:
>
>> In order to help support these missions the USAF is considering
>> outfitting a counter-insurgency wing with small cheap ground support
>> fighters that can also be used for training USAF and allied pilots in
>> addition to counterinsurgency operations.
>
>They're going to be trying to get some A-1 Skyraiders running again?
Trouble is, SAMs are now pretty ubiquitous. I wonder if anyone in BAe
(sorry, BAE SYSTEMS) is, even now, blowing the dust off the SABA
proposals...[1]
[1] OK: SABA was primarily intended as an anti-helicopter platform, but it
would be eminently adaptable to doing nasties to folk on the ground.
--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)
hcobb
> hcobb wrote:
> > In order to help support these missions the USAF is considering
> > outfitting a counter-insurgency wing with small cheap ground support
> > fighters that can also be used for training USAF and allied pilots in
> > addition to counterinsurgency operations.
>
> They're going to be trying to get some A-1 Skyraiders running again?
>
> --
> William Black
Last time this came up, I pointed out that a P-51 derivative was on
offer for the role...
-HJC
deem...@aol.com
> deemsb...@aol.com wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 12:32 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> hcobb wrote:
> >>> In order to help support these missions the USAF is considering
> >>> outfitting a counter-insurgency wing with small cheap ground support
> >>> fighters that can also be used for training USAF and allied pilots in
> >>> addition to counterinsurgency operations.
> >> They're going to be trying to get some A-1 Skyraiders running again?
>
> >> --
> >> William Black
>
> > OV-10 Broncos have been mentioned......
>
> That should be fun, they're like helicopters in that they don't have
> the altitude to be effective in Afghan mountain regions.
>
> --
> William Black
>
The 'D' has a 30,000' ceiling....I'm sure the upgrade 'X' would do
better. I'm thinking SAMs would be a bigger problem. A couple were
lost to SAMs during Desert Storm.
William Black
I don't think the Taliban have shot anyone down with small SAMs yet.
I very much doubt anyone will give them some either.
Syria managed, against all the odds, to piss off both the Israelis and
the Russians by passing out RPG-39s to Hizbollah. This would be as
nothing to what would descend on their heads if they started passing out
SA-18 to the Taliban and kill a couple of US aircrew...
Jack Linthicum
I have heard that Syria got some SA-5s sometime back. Not exacvtly
manpack.
David E. Powell
wrote:
I'm very suprised it hasn't happened yet. There has been noise about
turboprop planes, but it is eight years since 2001 and they are still
at the soliciting demos phase. No mention at all of a more "all up"
A-10 follow on.
deem...@aol.com
It's not just Afghanistan. These are supposed to be the newer,
cheaper COIN aircraft. If they're used as such, they're going to come
up against MANPADs sooner or later.
dump...@hotmail.com
> > In order to help support these missions the USAF is considering
> > outfitting a counter-insurgency wing with small cheap ground support
> > fighters that can also be used for training USAF and allied pilots in
> > addition to counterinsurgency operations.
>
> They're going to be trying to get some A-1 Skyraiders running again?
Secret Program Works to Field SEAL Plane:
http://www.military.com/news/article/secret-program-works-to-field-seal-plane.html?col=1186032310810
"In July, the Air Force announced it would buy up to 100 small,
affordable, “light” fighters, to equip a new counter-insurgency
wing.":
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/08/proposed-light-fighter-could-out-perform-a-10/
Roger Conroy
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:heme3t$cgu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
There is a COIN version of the Embraer Tucano available
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB-314_Super_Tucano
I'm certain other turboprop trainers are also capable of doing the job once
they are similarly equipped.
The Ayers Vigilante (based on a cropduster) is also an interesting concept -
with a significant advantage over trainer types when it comes to brute
weightlifting ability - about double the payload of the Super Tucano.
As for the "but what about manpads" argument - I don't see why they should
be more vulnerable than helicopters.
There don't seem to be too many arguing that helicopters are too vulnerable
to use.
deem...@aol.com
wrote:
> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:heme3t$cgu$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
>
>
>
> > hcobb wrote:
>
> >> In order to help support these missions the USAF is considering
> >> outfitting a counter-insurgency wing with small cheap ground support
> >> fighters that can also be used for training USAF and allied pilots in
> >> addition to counterinsurgency operations.
>
> > They're going to be trying to get some A-1 Skyraiders running again?
>
> > --
> > William Black
>
> > "Any number under six"
>
> > The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
> > Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat single
> > handed with a quarterstaff.
>
> I'm certain other turboprop trainers are also capable of doing the job once
> they are similarly equipped.
>
> The Ayers Vigilante (based on a cropduster) is also an interesting concept -
> with a significant advantage over trainer types when it comes to brute
> weightlifting ability - about double the payload of the Super Tucano.
>
> As for the "but what about manpads" argument - I don't see why they should
> be more vulnerable than helicopters.
> There don't seem to be too many arguing that helicopters are too vulnerable
Helicopters are very vulnerable to both manpads and
gunfire....and they're better able to use terrain, etc.
Peter Stickney
They're much more vulnerable than helicopters.
Helicopters in the threat area are down amongst the trees (if available) and
terrain, keeping themselves close to the horizon and behind
concealment/cover as much as possible. Think of the behavior as more like
a Tank or an APC, than a flying machine. This also means that they are
presenting themselves for missile shots as little as possible.
Other than the less than useful "Deep Strike" efforts that saw unsupported
AH-64s pushing deep into Iraq in 2003, they're also operating in close
contact with Army ground troops and recon/surveillance units for target
location and designation. They've got more to fear from tank main guns
than missiles.
These light turboprops, and, for that matter, A-10s, can't do that. They're
buzzing around at 250-300 Kts, at an altitude low enough to allow them to
visually spot a target, and high enough to directly attack it. (Dive
Bombing). They live smack in the middle of the MANPADS envelope, and don't
have the excess power to evade more than a single attack. (As in 2 SAMS in
a crossfire, or a "Dr. Pepper" setup, and you're toast. They're hopeless
against a competent opponent, and assuming that future opponents will
remain incompetent is criminally bad planning.
It's worth noting that in Desert Storm, the A-10 was an SA-16 magnet. It
took a lot of hits that other airplanes flying the same missions weren't.
Now that, through the miracle of GPS, the troops on the ground actually know
where they are, and, with the help of laser rangefinders, can provide
accurate offsets to where the Bad Guys are, the best response is a small
PGM dropped from a fast platform at high altitudes. With the high launch
energy, the bomber can fling the bomb a long distance, and arrive at the
release point quickly. With high preceision guidance and good coordinates,
the results are better than just about all visual direct bombing will ever
be. And they're too high and fast for MANPADS to reach.
--
Pete Stickney
Failure is not an option
It comes bundled with the system.
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :David E. Powell wrote:
> :> At what point does it officially become a carrier?
> :Catapults and arrestor wires...
> :
>
> So the UK has no carriers and won't have any for the indefinite
> future?
>
Yep...
William Black
> Dean <dama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> :On Nov 25, 12:09 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
> :wrote:
> :> Dean wrote:
> :> > On Nov 24, 8:54 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :> >> Dean wrote:
> :> >>> On Nov 24, 7:34 am, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :> >>>> David E. Powell wrote:
> :> >>>>> At what point does it officially become a carrier?
> :> >>>> Catapults and arrestor wires...
> :> >>> don't think anyone denies they are carriers.
> :> >> Oh yes they did.
> :>
> :> >> When they were new they were called 'Through Deck Cruisers' because HM
> :> >> Treasury wouldn't pay for carriers...
> :>
> :> >> The late and unlamented USSR built a couple and sailed them through the
> :> >> Bospherous on the grounds that 'they aren't aircraft carriers, the
> :> >> British say so'...
> :>
> :> > Are you saying they DID have catapults/arrestors?
> :>
> :> No.
> :>
> :> I'm saying they weren't carriers.
> :>
> :
> :OK William, that's clearer. Agreed.
> :
>
> So by Wee Willie's reasoning, a 65,000 ton ship with some 70 high
> performance fighter aircraft on it is *NOT* an aircraft carrier.
>
While Harriers are nice aircraft they're not exactly what you'd call
'high performance'...
But the point I was making (you must work away, this thread is days
old) is that they were always described as 'Through-deck Cruisers'
rather than aircraft carriers until the Falklands nonsense.