Clearly Agree! however i still protest this not being in navel thread and instead being Air Force section
Japan gearing up to acquire F-35 fighters
- Thread starter Crusader2000
- Start date
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
That my friend is the definition of a self defeating argument.
Well it gets a little old when you address a statement 3 times.
Crusader2000
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #43
No, this is exactly what I said..............
Quote from post # 9
As a matter of fact the Italian Aircraft Carrier Cavour is 232m long and 22,000 tons. Which, means the Japanese 22DDH is slightly larger (very slightly) and its was design from the outset to operate F-35B's.
" its was designed from the outset to operate F-35's" Was in reference to the Italian Aircraft Carrier Cavour. Which, is of similar size to the 22DDH. (my point)
You are taking my words waaaay out of context!
BTW I "never" stated the 22DDH's were specifically designed to operate fixed winged aircraft. I just plainly stated they are similar in size! Then left the door open.............:duel
okay you need to be more clear i would also suggest that there is no plans in Japan to purchase the F35B which is a the VTOL version of the F35 so chances are that it is not going to happen
this 22DDH seems awesome but there is no concrete evidence yet of what it may be i would like to see Japan with a larger Global; role i just do not see it happening any time soon and i really think japan is taking baby steps right now in regard to carriers any way why not ratify the constitution and call the stinking things CVA's
Is that what you meant? Well then you might want to think about the clarity of your posts - every time I read that quote it still looks as though you're referring to the 22DDH, because in the relevant sentence the 22DDH is the subject. It wasn't "plainly stated" at all.
lets make this really really really clear
this thread will not be allowed to deteriorate into some stupid contest where it will be argued to the "n"th degree.
if threads and responses are taken out of context then posts will be summarily deleted without warning.
All of the Mods are absolutely sick to death of having to micro-manage threads unnecessarily.
and to make it abundantly clear - my responses have been geared around the Hyuga class.
This will be the last warning from any of the Mods about topics derailing.
this thread will not be allowed to deteriorate into some stupid contest where it will be argued to the "n"th degree.
if threads and responses are taken out of context then posts will be summarily deleted without warning.
All of the Mods are absolutely sick to death of having to micro-manage threads unnecessarily.
and to make it abundantly clear - my responses have been geared around the Hyuga class.
This will be the last warning from any of the Mods about topics derailing.
The official interpretation is given here.
Note the very careful use of words:
(my emphasis)
The possibility of building aircraft carriers is left open, as long as they can be justified for defensive purposes. Also note that the constitution says absolutely nothing about specific weapons, such as aircraft carriers: it's all in the interpretation.
Post re-opened
supplementary food for thought:
asahi.com????????New helicopter destroyer to widen MSDF range - English
supplementary food for thought:
asahi.com????????New helicopter destroyer to widen MSDF range - English
Last edited: