Officials Admit Japan's 'Helicopter Destroyers' Were Also Designed for Jets

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18855/officials-admit-japans-helicopter-destroyers-were-also-designed-for-jets

by IntronExon • 8 years ago

41 39 8 years ago

All this threatening and tensions and military buildup between the US, it’s clients and China as well as Russia sure makes me nervous about the future. Not to mention the recently announced movement of the doomsday clock to two minutes before midnight by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

It would be terrible if the world were plunged into another catastrophe like WW1 or WW2. Unfortunately the lessons from those wars seems to be leaders are only to eager to start war to extend their power and prestige.

I’m sure nobody here wants war, it’s up to us to stop it!

IntronExon• 8 years ago

I wouldn’t worry about the clock, but the rest scares me too. Russia sending SU-57’s to Syria for example, to paraphrase Hugo Rifkind, reminds me of how WWIII starts in all of those crap novels I read as a teenager.

Synaesthesia2• 8 years ago

I am worried about the clock. These are sober experts who run it. There’s lots of things which could lead to a war. The tension in Syria, Ukraine, South China seas and over North Korea. They believe it’s the most dangerous times since the Cuban missile crisis and I think it’s serious.

The US performs provocative military exercises outside the borders of Russia, China and North Korea. We have jets buzzing each other and having close calls.

tropo• 8 years ago

War may be like earthquakes. Keep putting it off, and you'll get a 9.

Already__Taken• 8 years ago

What if it's like heart attacks, You can only survive take so many then it's all over.

meddlepal2• 8 years ago

Terrible loss of life, but both of those wars were catalysts for major technical and industrial breakthroughs... I'm curious if the tech advancements of those wars outweigh the direct deaths.

whatshisface• 8 years ago

I hear this a lot, but it's silly on its face. What if the money was just put directly in to research instead? If any government action leads to spin-off technologies, I'd rather it be in the form of a space program than in the form of a war that kills many of the next generation's great scientists.

noobermin• 8 years ago

You cannot be serious. No, you don't need mass war to catalyze major breakthroughs.

I don't know why someone would even think that unless they were extremely ignorant of history.

mc322• 8 years ago

With N. Korea provoking them for decades, I'm surprised they have kept article 9 of their constitution.

It made sense to defang Japan in the post-war period, but unilateral disarmament is foolhardy --and they know it given they have SDF as a workaround the limitations... so given they are by no means foolish, why keep on being somewhat hamstrung by article 9, specially given N. K's behavior?

ldp01• 8 years ago

If I understand correctly- the pacifism of article 9 is broadly popular and part of their national identity now.

It is an inspiring idea to give up weapons, even if it hasn't worked in practice.

mc322• 8 years ago

The idea is noble, certainly, but foolish in practice as evidenced by their actually having armed forces disguised as self defence forces. Now, of course to keep up appearances, it does hamstring them --but as further evidenced by this "helicopter destroyer" it's more of appearances --it's like whaling but calling the whaling "cetacean research" rather than just whaling.

yoshyoshi• 8 years ago

I am Japanese, and I don’t feel that not all our society agrees with whole article 9 thing anymore. North Korea has been too much threat for sure... real missiles flew over our houses few times in last 6 months..

seanmcdirmid• 8 years ago

It is up to Japan to decide to do this or not, the USA is already ok with article 9 repeal and have even encouraged it. It probably won’t happen until North Korea and China rattle their sabers more.

icelancer• 8 years ago

Yeah, USA is not enforcing it in the least outside of political posturing.

oldcynic2• 8 years ago

They've already started the process to rewrite, by 2020 I believe.

gkanai• 8 years ago

America wants Japan to take responsibility for more of Japan's own military defense. So the US wants changes to Article 9 as well. Trump moreso than Obama even.

rkachowski• 8 years ago

what would actually be the repercussions of repealing article 9 on an international level? are there any interests that lean heavily on Japan not investing in military or would the consequences - aside from the obvious neighbouring tensions of having more guns in the world - be entirely internal?

oldcynic2• 8 years ago

I would have thought they needed to rewrite their constitution before building these, not a few years after!

SllX• 8 years ago

Japan's constitution bans war and sets a percentage of GDP limit on their military, but it doesn't force them to forego having a military altogether.

Japan is also a very rich nation, still 3rd in the world by GDP I believe and were only relatively recently overtaken by the PRC in that regard as they were 2nd in the world for a very long time. So even with a limit of 1% of national GDP, that is a pretty large budget and they still rank among the big spenders in terms of absolute dollars spent on their military every year.

Given they live under the American nuclear umbrella, and American treaty obligations state that the US will come to Japan's aid should it be attacked, the Japanese have focused their defense dollars around a Self Defense Force, less blue water and more green water for their navy for example. Helicopter carriers rather than large aircraft carriers because their focus is on anti-submarine warfare, not force projection.

If their focus had been on force projection and the restrictions in their constitution didn't exist, then the PRC would most likely have been stymied long ago trying to project power out into the South China Sea.

antiviral• 8 years ago

When the Japanese start naming these carriers things like Kaga, Akagi, Hiryū, and Sōryū, then it will really be time to worry :) (1)

But seriously, given all of the provocations by North Korea and China, this should be expected and may even provide deterrence against others' destabilizing moves in the region. The Japanese haven't displayed any aggressive policies since 1945.

(1) Carriers of Battle Of Midway 1942 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Carrier_Division)

anabis• 8 years ago

It is named Kaga.

sologoub• 8 years ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JS_Kaga

hrktb• 8 years ago

Kaga, Akagi, Hiryū, and Sōryū

Kaga and Akagi are classes of ships so there is and wil be a bunch of them. Hiryu and Soryu were specific ships, hopefully these names stay with them.

It’s “funny” how all the army ship games and manga

sdrothrock• 8 years ago

To add to this, these names are fairly generic and do not actually have any connotation of warlike-ness like, say, "Imperial Star Destroyer" or even something like a traditional US/UK Navy name "Victory."

Kaga: A region of Japan

Akagi: A mountain in Japan (perhaps familiar to fans of Initial D)

Souryuu: lit. "Blue Dragon"

Hiryuu: lit. "Flying Dragon" -- really a modified Souryuu, named with the "dragon" (ryuu) suffix to show the relation to the Souryuu class.

The JMSDF also maintains several traditions from the Imperial Navy, such as the songs, ensigns, and technical terminology. One of the most well-known traditions that's been maintained across the two navies is the Japanese curry lunch served every Friday (there are even ads on trains for it as a tourist attraction).

IIRC the current naming system was also inherited from the Japanese navy, if you were curious about why two of the ships you named are named after places. Wikipedia has some more information on that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Maritime_Self-Defense_Fo...

forapurpose2• 8 years ago

The Japanese haven't displayed any aggressive policies since 1945.

That is not at all the view of Japan in East Asia. Their neighbors, including S. Korea and China, distrust and even hate Japan to an extreme extent. For example, S. Korea recently negotiated military cooperation with Japan against N. Korea, but had to cancel it due to public outcry against deals with Japan. Japan is not viewed like Germany; Japan is viewed as unrepentant about WWII, unapologetic, and restrained only by the US and the East Asian order that depends (or depended) on the US providing security so that the countries there didn't get caught in an arms race to protect themselves from Japan (and vice versa), and run a high risk of wars due to the high levels of distrust and hostility.

That view has some basis in fact. Germany took full responsibility for its crimes, has major museums and memorials addressing them, outlaws Nazis, teach their children about their evils (AFAIK), transformed their country, is tied tightly in excellent relationships with its neighbors via the EU and NATO, and now feels a responsibility to be a leader in human rights. Japan has made some apologies which their neighbors feel are equivocal (though the neighbors have their own biases), but AFAIK they haven't done much more. Now their textbooks teach a revisionist history that whitewashes the war (based on a few articles I've read) and right-wing nationalists, who deny the crimes and praise the war, are gaining power.

This disruption is greatly magnified by the U.S.'s withdrawal from its security guarantees, China's expansion, and North Korea's nuclear weapons - all giving everyone there existential considerations. Japan's military expansion is a long-predicted step in a process that wiser people have strenuously avoided since WWII; it begins with nationalism, in the US and E. Asia, and ends very badly.

may even provide deterrence against others' destabilizing moves in the region

This idea seems to be the first mistake everyone makes about international relations. Escalation doesn't deter escalation, it incites more. The other side won't cower, they will react in fear and/or anger to protect themselves. If you bought a knife to protect yourself against your dangerous neighbor and then your neighbor escalated and bought a gun, would you just say 'oh well' and capitulate? In reality, maybe you'd call the police, but there are no international police; maybe you'd move, but countries are stuck with their neighbors forever; so now what? You're stuck next to this armed crazy person. So you buy a gun and both sides become even more scared, inviting yet more escalation and overreactions. The original escalation provided no additional security; it cost both sides money and made the situation even more unstable and dangerous.

The mission of international relations is to not let B-level conflicts turn into A-level conflicts (said some expert whose name I can't remember).

skmurphy• 8 years ago

"escalation does not deter escalation"

I think there are examples both ways. Hiroshima, Cuban Missile Crisis, Berlin Crisis, involved escalations that were not met with further escalation.

Arn_Thor• 8 years ago

to the surprise of exactly 0 people

dingaling• 8 years ago

Reminds me of the Through-Deck Cruiser episode for the Royal Navy.

"Work on the design of the new cruiser continues. Our plans for its development are not dependent on the outcome of the Harrier trials"

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1971/oct/21/throu...

Handily enough, when the RN was forced to decommission its big-deck carriers in the mid-1970s the through-deck cruiser was outfitted for Sea Harriers and became a light carrier...

callesgg• 8 years ago

Thinking of "the pentagon wars" the engineer that designed that thing for helicopters and now when it is all done they announce yeah and also it should be able to handle f-35's.

Featurecreap.

Officials Admit Japan's 'Helicopter Destroyers' Were Also Designed for Jets

Related Stories