1) The Japanese constitution does not forbid the construction of aircraft carriers (as Swerve seems to constantly remind people :soldier)
The alliance between the US and the Japanese precludes them from having to field a CTOL or even VTOL carrier. That can change, of course. However, the Japanese are also building a USD 40m base in the Horn of Africa (Dijbouti), to supplement their task forces in combating piracy. This is the first permanent foreign outpost they have built since WW2, and is a quiet but pointed reminder that shipping is Japan's lifeline to the rest of the world.
If you accept the official Japanese interpretation of the clause in their constitution renouncing war & the means to wage it, which is that it applies to offensive warfare, but not self-defence (the justification for every ship, tank, aircraft & gun owned by the JSDF), then a carrier is permitted, as long as it is for self-defence. Note that the official policy (see below) mentions "offensive aircraft carriers". Somehow, I doubt that the word 'offensive' got in there by accident.
]You are correct in assuming that as long as U.S maintains a strong presence in the region Japan doesn't need a carrier. But I seriously doubt Japan has to worry about south Korea, they are pretty friendly and hold a lot of joint exercises together. And as for Japan and India, Japan considers India as a counter weight to China. In the last ten years both countries have achieved milestones in their relations. They both understand that cooperation between the two is a must if they want to face China in a more equal footing.
The Japanese interpretation is more nuanced than that. The Hatoyama interpretation specifically restricts Japan from having forces beyond self-defense needs.If you accept the official Japanese interpretation of the clause in their constitution renouncing war & the means to wage it, which is that it applies to offensive warfare, but not self-defence (the justification for every ship, tank, aircraft & gun owned by the JSDF), then a carrier is permitted, as long as it is for self-defence. Note that the official policy (see below) mentions "offensive aircraft carriers". Somehow, I doubt that the word 'offensive' got in there by accident.
I. Constitution of Japan and Right of Self-Defense
[edited after I noticed Stevo's comment.
They aren't much use for protecting merchant shipping.
No, it bans the "threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes". Not quite the same. If you interpret this (as they do) in view of the next paragraph, where it says '"The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.", then you arrive at the official view, which is that anything is acceptable as long as it is justifiable for defensive purposes.
Well, yes.
Article 9(2)
Wrong use of 'threat'.
One thing to remember - it will take Japan more than a couple of years to regain the knowledge of carrier aviation. All of their institutional memory passed on when WW2 ended, not that there were many veteran aviators left at that point. It's hard to build a working fixed wing deck cadre. The Chinese understand this, which is why they're working so hard to train their pilots in conjunction with the carrier re-build. While there is understandable historical discomfort at the thought of a resurgent Japanese carrier force, there are still many obstacles to overcome from an organizational perspective.
I disagree. building up the knowledge is easy when you have a big friendly ally who is willing to let you attach Sailors and pilots to their training programs, and probably event secondment onto active carriers. For example the first batch of RAAF pilots for the Super Hornets went through the full USN conversion training, including carrier qualifications. The RN is also sending 12 pilots over to the US for F-18 conversion training in preparation for the arrival of the F-35B.
Steve - I respectfully disagree - that's not the same thing as having a mature and capable carrier aviation corps. You're making reference to Type Conversions - switching from one aircraft to another. Now It's one thing to be trained to fly a different a/c, it's another to conduct full-up flight operations - day/night, multiple traps, IFR, bad weather, prolonged low fuel-state recoveries, hot spin-ups - using your own ship and equipment. It would flatten the curve a bit if the learning side was operating the exact same carrier but not by much. I actually oversimplified the problem by referring to the pilots and NFOs only - it takes much more than that to have an effective carrier force. The black shoes have to learn to navigate and run something that big, the flight deck crews have to be trained and develop their own handling procedures, engineering crews have to learn to maintain the support equipment and main propulsion, logistics needs to learn how to flow spares and consumables without getting in the way of combat ops, the list is endless. It helps if you have a developed naval force used to mid-size combatants - many of the skills are transferrable and can scale up.
Indeed. cf the fate of Mrs Swerves oldest uncle, died young, many years before she was born, & commemorated at Yasukuni. One-way pilot.
Yes but you forget they have the most experienced carrier navy at there disposal to train them.Indeed. cf the fate of Mrs Swerves oldest uncle, died young, many years before she was born, & commemorated at Yasukuni. One-way pilot.
You don't adopt that as a tactic until you're running out of skilled & experienced pilots.
I'm missing the joke here if there is one, whose Navy is at who's disposal?Yes but you forget they have the most experienced carrier navy at there disposal to train them.
I was saying that i doubt that Our navy (US) wouldn't help the japanese if they decided to get a carrier force going.I'm missing the joke here if there is one, whose Navy is at who's disposal?