As well as the Senkaku islands, there's a dispute over some godforsaken rocks half way between Taiwan & Guam called Okinotori.Musashi_kenshin said:
It would be even easier for the ASDF to cover the MSDF in that region - China's further away (and Taiwan wouldn't try to attack a country that it has good relations with).swerve said:
Ok let see:Mod edit said:
fylr71 said:
Yeah, theres something like 3-4 soldiers stationed on survelience to ensure its not invaded, that posting has gotta suck as they are the only ones there.swerve said:
), it seems like a small landing platform with a missile launcher, this would seem to be a LHD. But with japan not needing to invade anything, it would be useless, hence destroyer. With the idea of F-35B This goes back to the argument of a It's not an LHD, as it doesn't have a floodable dock (the D is for Dock). But Japan does have some amphibious assault ships - the 3 Osumi-class. The 16DDH doesn't seem to have accomodation for troops, but seems to be well-equipped as a flagship, & to support helicopter operations both by itself & by accompanying ships, with the potential, perhaps, to be converted to STOVL operations. Note the "perhaps". How big are the lifts, & how much weight will they take? Are they compatible with F-35B? What about deck construction? Could it handle take-offs & landings?icelord said:Yeah, theres something like 3-4 soldiers stationed on survelience to ensure its not invaded, that posting has gotta suck as they are the only ones there.
This destroyer that they are building(sorry to get bak on topic
adequite air coverage from a converted LHD and use. This is way to small to protect any sort of fleet, or mound of rocks for that matter. A ski jump conversion would be pointless, let alone the space needed to carry enough F-35Bs while operating continous air coverage, enough fuel, supplies and so on.
Theres curretly a big push in Japan for dropping of Article 9, which would see perhaps many of their ships being relabelled if succesful?
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2006/s1685570.htm
Does japan have any form of attack...sry sry, defence helicopter, in way of Apache, cobra?
Yeah, shoulda said LHP. but anyway, i would love to know how they passed a Grade A Assault helo like the AH-64 through Article 9, not exactly a good way of saying defence with a high speed Attack chopper.swerve said:
)The AH-64, & before them the AH-1, were bought to blat invading tanks, & perhaps landing craft (a Hellfire would do that quite well - and Japan developed its own heavy "anti-tank" missile which was issued to coast defence units for exactly that purpose). As for the 16DDH, I think the real reason is for helicopter ops, particularly anti-submarine but also anti-ship & anti-mine, & flagships. Japan has a strong interest in sea control, being utterly dependent on seaborne trade for raw materials, particularly fuel & food. You lot down there, with your ample food, coal, iron ore, etc*., can afford to be a bit relaxed about such things, but not Japan. They're thinking less in terms of the Red Army coming in from the north, nowadays, & more in terms of Chinese submarines. Lots of Japanese islands, very strung out. Count the sea between Japanese islands & it suddenly becomes a huge country.icelord said:Yeah, shoulda said LHP. but anyway, i would love to know how they passed a Grade A Assault helo like the AH-64 through Article 9, not exactly a good way of saying defence with a high speed Attack chopper.
Anyway, the reason i asked was that this "destroyer" could be a staging post for attack choppers if article 9 was dropped, and could be well used in covering any invasion force. As for defending Japan, i fail to see the true need for a DDH, what is the point of having 3 helo's launching if its to block enemy invasion or rescue people, would'nt a LHP such as the San Antonio or even the new dutch CSS, would go better in service with the JSDF.
The whole DDH seems a little, pointless perhaps? Can someone give me a real use and reason, keeping in mind Japan is pacifist and can not attack a dove let alone a country. Even to stop military power to Sth Korea or even china, it just seems like with all their construction of AWDs and such, this is a little out of place. If this is a first step towards japan realising their goal of an aircraft carrier, then they will tread carefully, but keep in mind, it will all be worthless if they still have article 9(my views on this are confusing, and political so i'll avoid it
Just to note, "There has never been a destroyer that exceeded 10,000 tons".
If Japan was attacked, how could it protect itself without such versatile platforms? Article 9 in its current state would technically imply that the SDF cannot exist in any form, so obviously there is room for interpretation. No one, except perhaps people that wish Japan harm (not implying you), would say that it cannot have crucial equipment like attack helicopters when they could be very necessary in a time of war.icelord said:
3 is the official number - in reality it could carry nine or perhaps even more.
As I have tirelessly pointed out, China is committed to greatly modernising its submarine force, while maintaining large numbers of them. This project will help ensure that Japan can counter this threat if necessary. Without it, when the Haruna class is retired over the next several years, Japan would be severely limited in the helicopter-born anti-submarine operations it could undertake.
Plenty of countries have fiddled definitions to suit themselves. We had "through deck cruisers"; the Russians had "aircraft carrying cruisers". Japan isn't doing anything new.
See, i just rekon the range would be smaller compard to, say, an orion operating from Japanese base . A helo might sound good and all, but having as has been pointed out, 9, you've still got me as to why they need 9 for one or two damn subs. unless the enemy tactic is to swarm Kriegsmarine style the japanese oceans this seems like an awful waste.swerve said:As for the 16DDH, I think the real reason is for helicopter ops, particularly anti-submarine but also anti-ship & anti-mine, & flagships. Japan has a strong interest in sea control, being utterly dependent on seaborne trade for raw materials, particularly fuel & food. You lot down there, with your ample food, coal, iron ore, etc*., can afford to be a bit relaxed about such things, but not Japan. They're thinking less in terms of the Red Army coming in from the north, nowadays, & more in terms of Chinese submarines. Lots of Japanese islands, very strung out. Count the sea between Japanese islands & it suddenly becomes a huge country.
The Kongos have awesome air-defence capabilities (Aegis with 90 VLS cells), but can't sustain helicopter ops. These will make good partners for them, & can lead an ASW or sea control flotilla of a Kongo or two & several smaller vessels.
*[edit] - I should have said "and ample wine" - I once spent a weekend touring vineyards around Mudgee.
Flyvefisken is easy when you're part Danish.icelord said:See, i just rekon the range would be smaller compard to, say, an orion operating from Japanese base . A helo might sound good and all, but having as has been pointed out, 9, you've still got me as to why they need 9 for one or two damn subs. unless the enemy tactic is to swarm Kriegsmarine style the japanese oceans this seems like an awful waste.
And while on ASW, thats why i mentioned the CSS, thats a role it can operate in(and i ment danish, not dutch, although i believe they do have CSS.) The flyvefisken-go on, pronounce it!- class multi roles are for anti-surface/anti-submarine, anti-mine, and survellience.:ar15
And lets not forget, we rely on japan for our Tvs and playstations, without, we'd be lost, and i'm not kidding here!
And since when has mudgee made wine, jeez they'll let anyone do it these days.
But Flying Fish aren't intended to operate as far from home, commanding a fleet. They're small country ships, jacks of all trades because they have to be. Japan can build ships to do all roles. Then we went to the town disco, where I was doing very well with a local young lady until one of my bloody colleagues (who'd drunk too much) decided to protect her compatriot (who didn't want protecting) from the randy Englishman & butted in.
Ahh ha, very funny, ya got me there. Freaky deaky Danish is wat it is!
1. It has been explained enough times. If you fail to understand then I can't help you any more. There's nothing wrong with having spare capacity, nor a vessel built to serve as a flagship as Toby said.icelord said:
We, the freaky deaky Danes, use 3,500 tonne OPV's with icebreaking capabilities for patrolling Greenland, the Faroes and Snowland.icelord said:
It isn't an amphibious assault platform. It lacks the cargo & troop space for that. It's fast, pointy-ended, & loaded for bear. But Japan does have some amphibious assault ships (the Osumi-class), & that's fair enough, for a country consisting entirely of islands. Defence requires the ability to retake lost bits. You can't defend every little island all the time.icelord said:
You bring up an interesting point here - are you sure about the ESSMs ? So far I've read of 16 VLS for Sea Sparrow. I don't doubt capability to upgrade, but I haven't read that the upgrade is coming soon.santi said: