Japan to buy vertical takeoff F-35B Lightning II aircraft

[Mista]

Having a aircraft carrier is against Japan's constitution. They will need to change it first.

They don't need to, the F-35B can operate from helicopter carriers.

 

[Suika]

Having a aircraft carrier is against Japan's constitution. They will need to change it first.

It's an American imposed constitution that was designed to remove Japan as a power. But time has past, things have changed, and now the same power that imposed that constitution backs Japan getting such military capacity. Against the constitution? meh

 

[gambit]

which surprisingly you have NO CLUE at all; and that really... really show how incompetent and FRAUD you are

And do YOU have any clue at all? The ONLY thing you are good at is asking the same question in different ways to mislead people. You have yet to explain to anyone anything on any subject at the foundation level. I can stump you with just one question on any subject related to the theme of this forum. It is YOU who are the real fraud.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

And they are. How many countries in Asia, not counting China, can afford naval aviation?


This is why you are an idiot who had to fake his credentials.

The Izumo is quite readied for the F-35B. JPN was a partner in the project. They knew what to expect.


Yeah...Am sure the Japanese are shaking in their combat boots at this 'Btw' from an Indonesian fraud. [emoji38]

Yo gambit what are your opinion as an american.That Japanese will now have an "Aircraft Carrier" despite their constitution says they can't have one?

 

[gambit]

Yo gambit what are your opinion as an american.That Japanese will now have an "Aircraft Carrier" despite their constitution says they can't have one?

That supposedly denial of the ship is interpreted, not written. Article 9 renounced war as an option of foreign affairs.

Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

The highlighted is important, particularly the word 'belligerency'. It means that JPN will not use aggression and threats as diplomatic tools, and finally war as an option to achieve what diplomacy failed.

An aircraft carrier is generally an instrument of power projection, of both military and diplomacy. However, power projection can also be used as a deterrence. It is a fine line for JPN to tread.

The South China Sea is vital for JPN's economic well being. The Izumo, and inevitably other ships of the same class, will be interpreted as instruments of self defense and not of conquest.

 

[Suika]

That supposedly denial of the ship is interpreted, not written. Article 9 renounced war as an option of foreign affairs.

Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

The highlighted is important, particularly the word 'belligerency'. It means that JPN will not use aggression and threats as diplomatic tools, and finally war as an option to achieve what diplomacy failed.

An aircraft carrier is generally an instrument of power projection, of both military and diplomacy. However, power projection can also be used as a deterrence. It is a fine line for JPN to tread.

The South China Sea is vital for JPN's economic well being. The Izumo, and inevitably other ships of the same class, will be interpreted as instruments of self defense and not of conquest.

This. Additionally, the extension of what is needed for defense has enabled the reinterpretation of the constitution in 2014 to enable "Collective Self-Defense". In other words, to defend an ally power that is deemed critical for Japan's own security. So it could be the US (Guam, Hawaii for example), the Philippines, Vietnam, Palau, Australia, India, etc. Another policy item that is going to be placed under the interpretation of self defense is the ability to attack an enemy base. This policy item is in consideration of DPRK BM launch pads, to be able to have the option to hit them before they can launch the BM. This policy is not yet adopted policy like how "Collective Self Defense" is adopted policy but it seems like it will be written into the new defense long term plan.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

That supposedly denial of the ship is interpreted, not written. Article 9 renounced war as an option of foreign affairs.

Article 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

The highlighted is important, particularly the word 'belligerency'. It means that JPN will not use aggression and threats as diplomatic tools, and finally war as an option to achieve what diplomacy failed.

An aircraft carrier is generally an instrument of power projection, of both military and diplomacy. However, power projection can also be used as a deterrence. It is a fine line for JPN to tread.

The South China Sea is vital for JPN's economic well being. The Izumo, and inevitably other ships of the same class, will be interpreted as instruments of self defense and not of conquest.

Japanese having a Carrier(CV) is a must, the Izumo is good but its technically only an Escort Carrier (CVL). The crazy asshole actually does have a point. Just having a VTOL aircraft is not going to be a good deterrence against China. The Japanese need to have a larger carrier so it can carry more plane (Japanese carrier are only destroyer sized while the PLAN carrier are cruiser sized) & the capability (steam or electric) to launch a larger aircraft than the F-35B.

Izumo will be a good stepping stone, until the Japanese can develop a larger CV with the american help hopefully.

 

[Cell_DbZ]

excluding AUS

As far as I am aware, the Australian Royal navy won't be operating any f-35B's on their Canberra class. The Japanese will be operating up to 40 f-35B's On their 2 Izumo class and they also have 2 Hyuga class DDH's. Australia has 2 Canberra class AAS and they won't be operating any F-35B's on them.
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/p...ietly-sunk-by-defence-20150707-gi6qxj?stb=twt

The Japanese also operate a large land based fixed-wing aircraft fleet, while Australia has none. Japan also has a larger maritime helicopter fleet than Australia be quite a margin.


Japan will be the strongest in the region (unless we count the Us Navy), in the future China could surpass them.

Izumo will be a good stepping stone, until the Japanese can develop a larger CV with the american help hopefully.

I agree with you, but the larger the aircraft carrier gets, the more internal opposition there probably will be.
I also think the Japanese can build a larger STOVL aircraft carrier on their own, something like the queen Elizabeth class.

 

[Suika]

Japanese having a Carrier(CV) is a must, the Izumo is good but its technically only an Escort Carrier (CVL). The crazed chinaman actually does have a point. Just having a VTOL aircraft is not going to be a good deterrence against China. The Japanese need to have a larger carrier so it can carry more plane (Japanese carrier are only destroyer sized while the PLAN carrier are cruiser sized) & the capability (steam or electric) to launch a larger aircraft than the F-35B.

Izumo will be a good stepping stone, until the Japanese can develop a larger CV with the american help hopefully.

For the time being, Liaoning isn't really a strong carrier either. Nor is the 2nd one. F-35B is superior to J-15. Liaoning has no aircraft AEW. And Liaoning is slower than Izumo. So its a mute point until China's number 3 carrier is launched, goes through sea trials, and enters service some 5 or so years from now.

As far as I am aware, the Australian Royal navy won't be operating any f-35B's on their Canberra class. The Japanese will be operating up to 40 f-35B's On their 2 Izumo class and they also have 2 Hyuga class DDH's. Australia has 2 Canberra class AAS and they won't be operating any F-35B's on them.
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/p...ietly-sunk-by-defence-20150707-gi6qxj?stb=twt

The Japanese also operate a large land based fixed-wing aircraft fleet, while Australia has none. Japan also has a larger maritime helicopter fleet than Australia be quite a margin.


Japan will be the strongest in the region (unless we count the Us Navy), in the future China could surpass them.


I agree with you, but the larger the aircraft carrier gets, the more internal opposition there probably will be.
I also think the Japanese can build a larger STOVL aircraft carrier on their own, something like the queen Elizabeth class.

Good post. I was puzzled about why AUS.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

As far as I am aware, the Australian Royal navy won't be operating any f-35B's on their Canberra class. The Japanese will be operating up to 40 f-35B's On their 2 Izumo class and they also have 2 Hyuga class DDH's. Australia has 2 Canberra class AAS and they won't be operating any F-35B's on them.
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/p...ietly-sunk-by-defence-20150707-gi6qxj?stb=twt

The Japanese also operate a large land based fixed-wing aircraft fleet, while Australia has none. Japan also has a larger maritime helicopter fleet than Australia be quite a margin.


Japan will be the strongest in the region (unless we count the Us Navy), in the future China could surpass them.


I agree with you, but the larger the aircraft carrier gets, the more internal opposition there probably will be.
I also think the Japanese can build a larger STOVL aircraft carrier on their own, something like the queen Elizabeth class.

Oh yeah, I agree on that. The way they can justify the Izumo in the 1st place was by calling it a "Helicopter Destroyer." Unless the next class is going be called "totally not an aircraft carrier." I don't see it passing the Japanese parliament. But the benefit of having a larger carrier outweighs the benefit of having a couple of escort carrier. Both logistically & strategically.

 

[antonius123]

And do YOU have any clue at all? The ONLY thing you are good at is asking the same question in different ways to mislead people. You have yet to explain to anyone anything on any subject at the foundation level. I can stump you with just one question on any subject related to the theme of this forum. It is YOU who are the real fraud.

I did by having explained you regarding the lead time to adjust Izumo deck and manufacturing lead time, the things that you have no clue.

Your explanation which is resulting from incompetence and cheating from other sources is worthless, even misleading. And unfortunately for you, I have revealed your incompetence by asking your claim where you FAILED to explain (this topic, Semiconductor, etc), - leave alone to defend. Stumping people is EASY, many people can do that to you and me; but defending our own argument is the most, and you failed on this several times, which prove that YOU are the real fraud.

 

[Dinky]

Sad that a country like Japan can't even build its own latest figher Jet like China is, rather they chose to funnel that money to US arm contractors.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

For the time being, Liaoning isn't really a strong carrier either. Nor is the 2nd one. F-35B is superior to J-15. Liaoning has no aircraft AEW. And Liaoning is slower than Izumo. So its a mute point until China's number 3 carrier is launched, goes through sea trials, and enters service some 5 or so years from now.



Good post. I was puzzled about why AUS.

But they can carry more planes. A destroyer carrier is not going to be enough unless the japanese gov wants to build more & if so the logistics will be harder than maintaining a small number albeit larger carriers. Queen Elizabeth is a good ships to look at for example.

 

[Nan Yang]

They don't need to, the F-35B can operate from helicopter carriers.

For the time being, Liaoning isn't really a strong carrier either. Nor is the 2nd one. F-35B is superior to J-15. Liaoning has no aircraft AEW. And Liaoning is slower than Izumo. So its a mute point until China's number 3 carrier is launched, goes through sea trials, and enters service some 5 or so years from now.

Same as for Japan.

I am not an expert on carriers but Izumo is built as a helicopter carrier so its infrastructure is optimized for helicopters and for assault troops.

It would be better to build a completely new Izumo optimized for F35s. And that will also take a while.


However China third carrier will be a game changer. Once the third carrier is launched and the J-15 optimized for the third carrier, J-15 will have longer range and will be able to carry a heavier load than any carrier based fighter in the world.

 

[gambit]

As far as I am aware, the Australian Royal navy won't be operating any f-35B's on their Canberra class.

When I excluded Australia, I do not mean in the technical sense but in the geographic sense.

Geographically speaking, Australia is quite removed from the South China Sea (SCS), so geopolitically speaking, the most immediately affected by China will be Viet Nam, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea, and Japan.

That does not mean Australia will be immune from any economic hardships created by a China controlled SCS or that Australia cannot contribute to deter that possibility. What I am saying is that the current SCS situation demands constant vigilance and presence of arms, and that a stronger Asian naval power like Japan is of a greater necessity than the same need from Australia.

The Japanese will be operating up to 40 f-35B's On their 2 Izumo class and they also have 2 Hyuga class DDH's. Australia has 2 Canberra class AAS and they won't be operating any F-35B's on them.
https://www.afr.com/news/politics/p...ietly-sunk-by-defence-20150707-gi6qxj?stb=twt

The Japanese also operate a large land based fixed-wing aircraft fleet, while Australia has none. Japan also has a larger maritime helicopter fleet than Australia be quite a margin.

Here is what Japan have done for the Izumo class...

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201802230054.html

“It is only reasonable to design (the Izumo) with the prospect of possible changes of the circumstances in the decades ahead,” a then MSDF executive told The Asahi Shimbun. “We viewed that whether the Izumo should be actually refitted could be decided by the government.”

I have worked with the Japanese when I was active duty. In peacetime, there is something calls TDY (temporary duty) that everyone in the USAF looks forward to. We have a chance to see other countries, experience other cultures, and relate to men and women that we shares a common bond -- military service.

Never mind what that Indonesian idiot implied about the Japanese. The Japanese are not stupid. They knew what they wanted for the Izumo. The interior of that ship was ALREADY designed for the F-35. People focused on the surface issues like the lack of a ramp and whether the deck paint can handle the F-35B's hot exhaust, so they missed the more subtle point of what JPN have been planning all these yrs.

Qualitatively speaking, the JPNese navy, forget the 'Self Defense' label, is higher than the PLAN. The JPNese navy have been keeping up with US on the technology front for as long as the alliance have been around.

Ever since the Izumo's construction, experts both in and outside Japan have pointed out the possibility of turning it into a full-fledged aircraft carrier.

However, the Defense Ministry publicly denied any plan to deploy fighter jets with strike capabilities on the Izumo and contended that it was not an aircraft carrier.

The ministry has since done an abrupt about-face and now is mulling the possibility of refitting the vessel into an aircraft carrier.

Of course the Defense will publicly deny the Izumo was designed as a full fledged 'aircraft carrier'. But the technical aspects of the ship and the experience of observers cannot be denied of what the Izumo really is -- a genuine aircraft carrier. Putting on a ramp and reinforcing the deck for temperature rating is technologically easy for the JPNese, no matter how much JPN haters may bark about those two items.

Japan will be the strongest in the region (unless we count the Us Navy), in the future China could surpass them.

Even if China surpassed JPN in terms of naval power in the SCS, that does not mean JPN cannot be a military thorn and prickly enough to prevent the SCS from falling into China's hand.

Naval battles are not the same as land battles. Sailors do not fight each other like soldiers do. On the waters, who wins depends equally on technology as well as how good are the sailors know of their ships. You are deterred if you perceive the other side to be as good as you are.