These so-called helicopter destroyers appear to be more like mini aircraft carriers. Supposedly they can carry up to 11 aircraft. The only reason a country would build ships of this type would be to project power but in Japan's case the only real strategic reason for needing ships like this would be long range ASW warfare. The only potential enemies of Japan are North Korea which could only effectively attack Japan with missiles, and China. The Chinese navy will soon have the ability if they don't already have it to attack Japan by air and sea. Even if the 3 ships planned were built and equipped with the 11 helicopters each, 30 or so helicopters would do very littile against a large armada of surface ships. Land based planes or Aegis destroyers would fare much better as most naval helicopters are optimized for ASW warfare rather then anti-surface warfare.
Japenese 13,500 ton helicopter destroyers
- Thread starter fylr71
- Start date
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Given you just started a thread, is there a particular question or idea you would like to address? Or is this just a general discussion thread?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
It is both, the idea I'm expressing is in regard to what purpose they are to be for JMSDF which consideres itself a "defense force". Why do they need 13,500 ton helicopter destroyers which are clearly offensive ships for defensive purposes. Japan's only possible enemy with a significant navy is China and I fail to see how 30 ASW helicopters would be of any impact to a large surface fleet.Musashi_kenshin said:
stryker NZ
New Member
does anyone know if these ships could operate fighter aircraft like the F-35B or the harrier
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
In theory yes, but they lack things like a ski-jump, so their use would be limited. And I don't see Japan adding one on later. The only possible aircraft carrier related aspect of this is Japan trying to push the boundaries of Article 9 and/or getting experience in operating & building small carriers like this.stryker NZ said:
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
You've rather missed the point of these ships. They aren't for engaging surface vessels - they're for ASW primarily. They're a lot like our Invincible-class carriers (before they were modified to take the harrier). China has a lot of submarines, so these ships will really bolster the JMSDF's ability to counter them.fylr71 said:
I think helicopter destroyer is just a fancy name for aircraft carrier after all i recall reading once that the invincible class is techniclly classified as through deck cruisers(correct me if im wrong).
does anyone have pictures of this "destroyer" particulary the flight deck and hanger facilities. That would help in deciding if it's vtol or stovl capable, cheers.
does anyone have pictures of this "destroyer" particulary the flight deck and hanger facilities. That would help in deciding if it's vtol or stovl capable, cheers.
contedicavour
New Member
These DDHMs are fast (30kn) ships capable of operating 15-25 helos, either SH-60s or the Japanese version of EH-101. These are excellent ASW helos with already some ASMs (Hellfires). I'm almost sure SSM-1Bs could be adapted for launch from helo - these Mitsubishi missiles are after all clones of the Harpoon...
Harriers and F35Bs can operate from such a big flight deck, though with only minimal load (basically only AAMs) because of lack of a ski jump. As on the Osumi LPHs, it's pretty clear a ski jump can be added anyway...
So for the moment these DDHMs will replace Haruna and Shirane DDHs and focus on ASW against PLAN SSNs and SSKs (and, to be honest, South Korean T209s and U214s...), but can be converted as light CVs to counter tomorrow's potential PLAN aircraft carriers (starting with the Varyag if it is made operational...)
cheers
Harriers and F35Bs can operate from such a big flight deck, though with only minimal load (basically only AAMs) because of lack of a ski jump. As on the Osumi LPHs, it's pretty clear a ski jump can be added anyway...
So for the moment these DDHMs will replace Haruna and Shirane DDHs and focus on ASW against PLAN SSNs and SSKs (and, to be honest, South Korean T209s and U214s...), but can be converted as light CVs to counter tomorrow's potential PLAN aircraft carriers (starting with the Varyag if it is made operational...)
cheers
contedicavour
New Member
The first of class will be launched August 2007, so no pictures are around of the completed hull. I've got Jane's under my eyes however and the drawing from the side and from above resembles hugely the Garibaldi (though w/o ski jump) or the UK's Ocean LPH.kilo said:
Your point on fancy definitions is correct. Politically some countries couldn't (UK and Italy in the late '70s) state clearly that they needed aircraft carriers, hence the curious thorough deck cruiser definition. In the Japanese case, these ships are supposed to replace existing DDHs, so some clever admiral just kept the definition though these ships are twice the size of the replaced DDHs (in tonnage).
cheers
That was a long time ago. The navy did that to sneak them into service after the real aircraft carriers were scrapped. Pretended all they were for was carrying ASW helicopters. But the RAF already had Harriers, & it would be an awful waste not to fly some off the new "cruisers", wouldn't it, since they were capable of it? And since RAF Harriers had no radar, it made perfect sense to build some modified Harriers with radars & AAMs, so they could provide the navy with air defence . . . Bingo! The navy had carriers again. The Invincible-class was reclassified as aircraft carriers before the first entered service in 1980, & all were commissioned with carrier pennant numbers - R05, R06 & R07.kilo said:
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Here's one of the designs - I'm not sure if this is the exact one they went with, but it does have a through-deck.
Maybe japan will make a true vtol, a stovl that can take off from that short a deck, a stol that can take take off and then land if they add cables, or add a ski jump(the most likely option). So theres a lot of ways they could do it, but anyway you look at it japans navy is well on its way to having a fleet that can defend itself and and any ships its escorting from any threats.
kilo said:
There is an interesting artist impression on this link:contedicavour said:
http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideaircraftcarriers/osumi.htm
It's right below the text. You might also be able to google a satellite image if you happen to know the shipyard.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I don't think they'd do it with those ships - they'd want the ASW capability. When they build carriers they'll do it properly.kilo said:
The JMSDF is already the premier navy in the Far East, bar the USN. It could take anything another country's navy could throw at it. These new helo-carriers will only improve their capabilities. What they lack is the offensive expeditionary capability that is prohibited by the Constitution.
contedicavour
New Member
The moment Japan will acquire F35Bs I bet we'll start seeing integration of ski jumps on both these DDHs and on the Osumis... The ships will keep a defensive posture as these F35s will be primarily for fleet air defence, so no issues with the Japanese Constitution. Of course, I'm just speculating, but chances are I'm rightMusashi_kenshin said:
cheers
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Smitty makes a good point. The new cruiser-carriers could only carry a relatively small number of F-35s, while sacrificing a lot of the helo capability. They wouldn't use them offensively, and I can't see how having a limited number of carrier-born F-35s would help Japan defensively, especially when their ASW capability would be reduced.
So I think, conte, I would have to disagree with you.
So I think, conte, I would have to disagree with you.
Well if you compare number of modern ships in Chinese and Japanese navy it becomes obvious that Japanese navy is much more capable force.kilo said:
Also while PLAN is going true intensive modernization it can be still considered as costal defense navy (but that is slowly changing) while Japan has real blue water navy.
As for Russian navy they still have quite modern fleet but they seriously lack decent maintenance and training. Majority of ships is in real bad condition and they are spending majority of time in harbors instead on sea…