Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Japan Unveils Largest Warship Since WW2

timothy posted 1 year,13 days | from the would-you-like-to-play-some-brinksmanship? dept.

China 282

schwit1 writes with an excerpt from an AP story on some interesting technology afloat: "Japan on Tuesday unveiled its biggest warship since World War II, a huge flat-top destroyer that has raised eyebrows in China and elsewhere because it bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier. Some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft that have the ability to take off vertically. The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters.Though the ship — dubbed 'Izumo' — has been in the works since 2009, its unveiling comes as Japan and China are locked in a dispute over several small islands located between southern Japan and Taiwan. For months, ships from both countries have been conducting patrols around the isles, called the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyutai in China."

cancel ×

282 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Japanese Military (5, Informative)

Danathar (267989) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487059)

It's well past time for the Japanese have a decent offensive capability against that of China. Leaning on the U.S. forever is not sustainable.

Re:Japanese Military (5, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487111)

Yeah, well, treaties enforced by the U.S. don't really allow "offensive capability."

Re:Japanese Military (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487177)

When the shit hits the fan the definition of 'defensive' will be very vague.

Re:Japanese Military (3, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | 1 year,13 days | (#44488003)

I think the time to be concerned is, if Japan starts mass producing new kamikaze planes.....

Re:Japanese Military (5, Informative)

Danathar (267989) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487187)

Actually, I don't think any current treaties between the U.S. and Japan limit Japanese offensive capability. It's the Japanese constitution which does. Now everybody knows the U.S. is responsible for the non-offensive military part of the Japanese constitution when it was written. That being said they (the Japanese) could change it if they wanted to.

But they don't, because it's far easier to let the U.S. spend big $$$ on a military along with R&D then it is for them. I'd guess though that if the U.S. ever reduced their pacific capabilities the Japanese would see the light...

Re:Japanese Military (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487443)

Pravda has a very good article on how weak the US is in the Pacific Rim, with the main reason that the carrier fleets don't get sunk is because China doesn't really care about the "floating circuses" -- groups of ships which are defenseless against long range sub attacks.

Re:Japanese Military (3, Insightful)

HornWumpus (783565) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487609)

Everything is, more or less, defensive against ICBMs. Including Shanghai and Beijing. MAD hasn't really changed.

There are American fast attacks under every carrier group that will have something to say about 'defenseless' if you are talking about closer then ICBM range.

Russia is a failed superpower, telling it's self what it wants to hear.

Re:Japanese Military (2)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487629)

In a war between the US and the old Soviet Union, the aircraft carriers weren't expected to last more than a day or two at most. Too many missiles, even if you ignore torpedoes.

Has China gotten to that level? I doubt it. And there's a lot more stopping them than the threat of an aorcraft carrier or two. Never forget that the US was capable of cranking out one major ship a week 70 years ago when someone got us started.

Re:Japanese Military (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487767)

Never forget that the US was capable of cranking out one major ship a week 70 years ago when someone got us started.

We'd have to outsource that now though...

Re:Japanese Military (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487803)

Unfortunately, that was when things were actually produced inside the US, rather than bought from China, Malaysia or the Philippines.

Re:Japanese Military (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487701)

You don't think the US can intercept toepedoes? Carriers project rapid hit and refuel capability to kep the enemy pinned down. Future carriers could be packed with drones.

Re:Japanese Military (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487773)

Last I saw the Japanese pay far more than it costs the US for that defense and that isn't even including all the land for military bases.

Re:Japanese Military (3, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487239)

Yeah, well, treaties enforced by the U.S. don't really allow "offensive capability."

Do you think that the US would have the slightest interest in enforcing them? Anything short of strategic nuclear weapons could be brushed off with a 'my, my, Japan's coast guard is looking so robust lately!' unless the US actually has a continued interest in disarming Japan.

Re:Japanese Military (2)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487283)

As someone else said, I was mistaken, and it's Japan's constitution, not a treaty that establishes the defensive nature of their military.

If it were a treaty, the U.S. has every interest in establishing the appearance of a nation that enforces its treaties, for fear that other nations would flout them.

Re:Japanese Military (2)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487153)

You sir haven't taken any classes on foreign policy lol. It's not about logic. It's about maintaining a boot on the neck of a former enemy under the guise of peace. I do agree that we should use the Japanese as a counterweight against growing Chinese military power, but the offset is risking another industrial giant leveraging location to push us out of the theater.

Re:Japanese Military (1)

loufoque (1400831) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487161)

You realize the US have been restricting the Japanese military and even have military bases on Japanese soil?

Re:Japanese Military (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487545)

The US has been in the process of moving those troops and bases to other places in the Pacific. Some to Guam, some to Hawaii, and some to Australia.

Re:Japanese Military (3)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487555)

You realize the US have been restricting the Japanese military and even have military bases on Japanese soil?

Winston Churchill once said that the purpose of NATO is to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down. The US has bases in Japan for the same reason except China==Russia and Japan==Germany. If the American bases are removed, Japan will be forced to re-arm to defend themselves (including nukes), and the Chinese will then feel obligated to do likewise, ... which will then lead to an arms buildup in India and SE Asia. It is far cheaper for the US to maintain the bases than to deal with the consequences of their removal.

Re:Japanese Military (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487615)

You're leaving out that China is already doing this. Hence why Japan is starting to feel the need as well, especially with the American retreat currently going on.

Re:Japanese Military (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487825)

Churchill could be an idiot though. Germany is one of the strongest militaries in Europe today. What two militaries (besides the US) did not run out of supplies after 11 weeks of supporting a no fly zone in Libya? Answer: GB and Germany.

Japan is one of the leading economies in the world, and if they didn't have the laws in their Constitution preventing an offensive military force they'd probably be one of the strongest militaries in the Pacific theater. The Japanese are hardly being kept down. China has been building up regardless of Japan. China's more worried about the US and Russia than it is with Japan.

Also let's ignore that the US is already in the process of removing its bases from Japan.

Re:Japanese Military (4, Funny)

the_humeister (922869) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487407)

You know what? It's also well past the time for them to have a flying space carrier with a huge mounted laser gun in the front too (which was what I was expecting with this new ship). Or maybe even a transforming space carrier with a massive super weapon on its shoulders. Very disappointed.

Re:Japanese Military (5, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487431)

Actually, the U.S. designed it that way. They were the ones who stipulated as a condition of surrender that the Japanese have no standing army (only a "defense force" whose training and armament is tightly-controlled by the U.S.). The U.S. wants a base of operations in the far east, and maintains tight controls over Japan for that purpose. They have other bases in the Pacific, but they set up Japan before long-range aircraft, requiring them to be close to Russia/China/North Korea.

So no, it's not by choice the Japanese have to rely on the U.S. for military protection. It's a consequence of losing WWII that they're effectively subjugated to U.S. military "protection" (in the same sense of "protection" money).

Re:Japanese Military (-1, Troll)

jedidiah (1196) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487675)

An "aircraft carrier" with a 250M flight deck? Really?

This is like ignorant liberals getting hysterical over guns.

They simply have no clue whatsoever. Show them something a little scary and they will start screaming and running amok.

It's a DESTROYER. That is a puny ship in modern naval terms.

We probably have Coast Guard ships larger than this thing.

Re:Japanese Military (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487805)

The new USS America [wikipedia.org] has a flight deck of the same size. France's (only) aircraft carrier is about ten meters longer. The gigantic Nimitz-class supercarriers are the exception to the rule.

Re:Japanese Military (1)

MiG82au (2594721) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487859)

Apparently you're the dick with no clue whatsoever.
It's similar in size to the next British carrier class which has been sized for 36 JSFs.
Sorry your shitty segue onto a pet topic didn't work out.

Re:Japanese Military (3, Informative)

Zak3056 (69287) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487987)

It's a DESTROYER. That is a puny ship in modern naval terms.

We probably have Coast Guard ships larger than this thing.

It's roughly the same size as some of the carriers (Hiryu and Soryu) that launched the strike on Pearl Harbor. By the standards of a modern American carrier, they're pretty small (tiny), but 27k tons isn't exactly anything to sneeze at, and calling it a "destroyer" is a bit of a fig leaf as that's roughly the size of a Kirov class BC (IIRC, the largest surface warship class currently in service with any navy that isn't an aviation/amphibious warfare ship).

Re:Japanese Military (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487729)

Leaning on the U.S. forever is not sustainable.

Perhaps, but right now it's the best way of preventing a second Sino-Japanese War. China trusts the US military much more than they do a Japanese military, and US abandonment of the region would trigger an arms race (conventional and otherwise) that would make Indian-Pakistani relations look warm and fuzzy.

Re:Japanese Military (3, Funny)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487927)

They can't really help how large their ships get, they are just mutated. See the next story on leaks at Fukushima!

Forget about defending against the Chinese - wait until giant lizards and moths start attacking, they'll need all the firepower they can get!

Why can't you just be friends and get along? (0)

Joining Yet Again (2992179) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487065)

Seriously, why not?

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (5, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487175)

Would you believe that it's extremely complex and and the boiled down version dates back to WWII(and the real version dates way before that). Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it. Japanese nationalists, much like U.S. republicans are unwilling to accept that their country has ever done anything wrong, and view the Chinese assertions about the rape of Nanking and other atrocities as propaganda. The U.S. uses Japan as a proxy in limiting China's imperialism, which only further sours the resentment around these things.

China, for their part, are lead by a bunch of unelected fascists, who do in fact, publish anti-Japan propaganda in addition to the true things, making Japan seem like a inhuman monster in the public consciousness. We're lucky they're only really in a cold war with each other, because the U.S. would almost certainly get drawn into one side or the other.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (1)

NSash (711724) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487317)

Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it.

On the surface, it seems like the Japanese government has repeatedly acknowledged its crimes during World War II. See List of war apology statements issued by Japan [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487711)

Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it.

On the surface, it seems like the Japanese government has repeatedly acknowledged its crimes during World War II. See List of war apology statements issued by Japan [wikipedia.org] .

They have indeed. They have also repeatedly retracted those apologies. The strongest apologies have come from lower level officials. Even an apology by the prime minister is really like John Boehner apologizing for America. An clear and unambiguous apology by the emperor would carry far more weight.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (1)

mlts (1038732) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487479)

From what I've seen, the US has been a moderating force in the region since the 1900s, from keeping Japan from attacking Russia, through WWII, to keeping the peace in the area.

People seem to forget, but if that area went to war, it would make the turmoil of the Middle East look calm, so even though the US isn't perfect, the peace has been kept in that area for the most part.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487875)

The US stopped a war between Japan and Russia. A war the Japan was winning. There was no prevention. It's how Japan got a contested island that Russia feels belongs to them. And it's still why Japan and Russia are at war since WWII. As neither side has signed a peace treaty to officially end WWII between them.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (2)

Crosshair84 (2598247) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487493)

Japanese nationalists, much like U.S. republicans are unwilling to accept that their country has ever done anything wrong,

Since when has Obama been a Republican? Last time I checked the Democrats have been just as happy to bomb third world countries as Republicans have. The only outspoken criticism of these policies are coming from Tea Party Republicans like Rand Paul. The problem is not Dem or GOP. It's a problem with the federal government.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (2)

rahvin112 (446269) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487893)

The US officially protects the Japanese with their nuclear weapons, this has been official US policy since WWII. In political science parlance Japan is under the Nuclear Umbrella of the US. In other words they are a country on a very short list that the US will defend with Nuclear weapons.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487335)

Because it's bad for the industry 'cause they can't sell as much if people don't have to rebuild, and it's bad for politicians because people actually worry about real problems if you don't show them a boogeyman.

Duh.

Re:Why can't you just be friends and get along? (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487873)

Seriously, why not?

One reason is China's one child policy and the resulting gender imbalance. The crowds of young men outside the Japanese Embassy in Beijing, chanting "War! War! War!" would probably have something better to do if they had a family or even a girlfriend.

Carrier? (1, Interesting)

djupedal (584558) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487073)

Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.

Re:Carrier? (1)

sycodon (149926) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487145)

Ya have to wonder why it has "...has raised eyebrows in China..."

Did they think everyone would just sit around while they grew their military and acted like buffoons?

Re:Carrier? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487183)

Ya have to wonder why it has "...has raised eyebrows in China..."

Forget about the why, I'm wondering about the how. Try raising your eyebrows while squinting. Ya can't do it, not possible.

Re:Carrier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487307)

Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.

They should be worried about their own carrier shaped ships since they don't have a battle group either.

Besides japan does have a battle group [navy.mil] .

Re:Carrier? (3, Interesting)

Nidi62 (1525137) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487379)

Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.

They should be worried about their own carrier shaped ships since they don't have a battle group either.

Besides japan does have a battle group [navy.mil] .

Dont forget China's deadly and groundbreaking land carriers [defensetech.org] .

Re:Carrier? (1)

rwise2112 (648849) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487391)

From the article:

Though technically a destroyer, some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft

Anybody know how this thing can be classified as a destroyer?

Re:Carrier? (1)

Hartree (191324) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487645)

The same way you can call a lion a housecat.

Doesn't mean anyone will believe you, though.

Re:Carrier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487659)

From the article:

Though technically a destroyer, some experts believe the new Japanese ship could potentially be used in the future to launch fighter jets or other aircraft

Anybody know how this thing can be classified as a destroyer?

Naval classifications are largely arbitrary and change frequently.

It's classified as a "destroyer" because Japan decided to call it a "destroyer".

Re:Carrier? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487673)

You press that big button on the top (not shown in the picture) and the flight deck folds up and guns pop out.

Sheesh. Haven't you seen the Transformers movie yet?

Re:Carrier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487677)

>Anybody know how this thing can be classified as a destroyer?
Because there's no standard universally agreed upon definition of "destroyer". For example, it displaces only a bit more than the US Zumwalt class destroyer is projected to.

Re:Carrier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487687)

Japan considers aircraft carriers to be "offensive weapons", which their constitution does not allow them to posses, therefore this ship (and their two Hyuga-class ships that are the same thing except slightly smaller) are "helicopter-carrying destroyers".

Sort of like how the US has ten aircraft carriers when you don't count the Wasp-class "amphibious assault ships" that would be called aircraft carriers by any other navy.

Re:Carrier? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487419)

Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.

Even with a battle group, Japan and China are, what, ~800 kilometers apart (and the islands that Japan and China have special togetherness problems about are roughly equidistant); is anyone feeling lucky against the number of anti-ship missiles that you could launch, from shore or from land-based aircraft?

Re:Carrier? (4, Interesting)

gadget junkie (618542) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487523)

Carriers are sitting ducks without a battle group when outside land based fighter range. I doubt the Chinese are worried over this at all.

Fixed it for you. But I admit that even Japanese F 15 Eagle would not be able to keep a continuous air cover on the Sea of Japan.
Be aware tough, that the Japanese navy already has the basic capability of a carrier group. Kongo Class destroyers [globalsecurity.org] are equipped with the SPY-1 phased array radar and the SM2 block 3 missile, the same suite defending American carriers.
If anything, given the cold war capabilities of the Japanese navy, their carrier group is a bit skewed towards anti submarine warfare, but who's complaining?
given your original post, I must say that China has no reason to complain. Even if Japan builds another three of these (one for each battle group that it has available now), there's no way that it can mount a credible threat to China itself. It can, tough, be a credible threat against China's expansionary policy in the Spratleys, etc., and above all China's wayward province, North Korea.

Re:Carrier? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487575)

With rail guns being developed that are significantly harder to intercept than cruise missiles, it makes sense to switch to a smaller faster carrier. Long runways wont be necessary once they develop vtol drones. I'm guessing the US didn't have the money in the budget to build a prototype right now, so they asked to Japanese to build a drone carrier while they are having arguments with China.

  Take what you see in those pictures, build some vtol drones, drop a rail gun on deck and two upgraded versions of these [wikipedia.org] and you have yourself a nice little 21 century drone carrier.

Re:Carrier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487633)

Japan has existing anti-air ships, destroyers, and submarines. This ship will join a battle group..and it can be retrofitted to carry planes quite easily, very easily.

Re:Carrier? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487737)

Not to mention China is easily within range of aircraft fighters and bombers. They can take off from the heart of Japan and strike Beijing; they don't need carriers.

Re:Carrier? (1)

Zcar (756484) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487983)

You mean like the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force's (JMSDF) fleet of Atago class (modified US Burke Flight IIA) and Kongo class (modified US Burke Flight I) Aegis guided missile destroyers? Seems to me like they could put a pretty credible group of AAW escorts from that. Add in the indigenous Akizuki and Takanami class ASW frigates, and I think the JMSDF could field a pretty credible short range carrier battle group with 2-3 Aegis destroyers and a similar number of ASW escorts if they had an appropriate carrier.

Their main weakness is a lack of replenishment ships, just having oilers, not general purpose replenishment ships like the US Lewis and Clark class for various dry supplies (munitions, provisions, spare parts, etc.) during long deployments. To be fair, they'd really only need these to project military power outside their coastal waters.

Through Deck Cruisers (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487137)

Sounds very familiar to the RN Through Deck Cruisers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Through_deck_cruiser

Article 9 (3, Insightful)

barlevg (2111272) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487173)

So am I correct in inferring that no one really takes Article 9 [wikipedia.org] very seriously any more?

Re:Article 9 (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487263)

Article 9 is taken only as seriously as outside threats permit. You know, the same basic argument used by the US and the State of Massachusetts in their highly unconstitutional occupation of Boston earlier this year, where warrantless searches of homes, detention of nonconsenting homeowners, and a general loss of freedom to do anything but shut up and stay inside occurred.

Re:Article 9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487309)

[citation needed]

Re:Article 9 (1)

barlevg (2111272) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487413)

I was actually unaware of the warrant-less searches in the aftermath of the marathon bombing, but doing a Google search, I found this analysis [slate.com] . So, just to make sure I'm understanding your point, are you're saying that in Japan the debate concerning what constitutes an offensive military vs. a "self-defense force" is regarded similarly to the "grey area" in the US about what is considered "exigent circumstances" justifying a warrant-less search?

Re:Article 9 (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487757)

From the point of view of the respective governments, yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm not claiming to agree with their position, but that certainly appears to be their line of reasoning.

Re:Article 9 (1)

gadget junkie (618542) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487653)

So am I correct in inferring that no one really takes Article 9 [wikipedia.org] very seriously any more?

No, and this is another victory for reality over idealism. History is chock full of those, or at least, of the dead bodies of the hapless victims of ill advised good faith. For reference, see "this is an era of peace", "open covenants openly arrived at", etc.
For an explanation why tough, nobody beats General Von Mannerheim [wikipedia.org] , who was quoted as saying, when asked why Finland should have a standing army: "Every country has an Army. Either its own, or an army of occupation"

Raised eyebrows in China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487203)

What do they expect Japan to do when China outright bought a used aircraft carrier from Russia? [wikipedia.org]

The only reason Japan hasn't built an actual "aircraft carrier" is the presence of the US Seventh Fleet [wikipedia.org] that it can operate from. Well that and the pesky terms in their constitution.

Re:Raised eyebrows in China? (1)

kevinT (14723) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487483)

China did purchase a used aircraft carrier from Russia. A gutted, empty hull of a ship with no equipment or propulsion. China spent millions rebuilding the ship, not to have a carrier, but to learn what it takes to build one. China already has a least one carrier and possibly more under construction.

None of the carriers china is building is anything close to the Nimitz class ships the United States has.

Re:Raised eyebrows in China? (1)

cbraescu1 (180267) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487665)

It wasn't from Russia but from Ukraine. And it wasn't a "used carrier" but an unfinished one.

Re:Raised eyebrows in China? (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487771)

> None of the carriers china is building is anything close to the Nimitz class ships the United States has.

Meanwhile, back at the shipyards [wikipedia.org] ...

History (1)

HungWeiLo (250320) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487221)

Re:History (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487295)

Yeah, that's a plan, let's learn from the loser and repeat his idiocy.

But then, who are we to talk, we copy from the late 1920 how to deal with economic troubles.

What happened to the Japanese industry? (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487257)

What about their zeal to make everything smaller and more efficient? I'd have expected them to produce the smallest aircraft carrier with a few hundred fully automated drones that can conduct pinpoint strikes and play some soothing melodies while they clean themselves.

Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487279)

No Wave Motion Gun, no interest. File it under Kaiju Fodder.

Neat Boat, but... (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487299)

So... when is it gonna transform into a giant robot?

You're probably closer than you know. (2)

ron_ivi (607351) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487345)

While everyone else is speculating about 1990's "fighter planes" - you're probably closer to the truth. I suspect it's not a carrier for conventional fighters, but, as you say, robots^H^H^H^H^H^Hdrones.

Re:You're probably closer than you know. (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487453)

All joking aside, that's pretty much what I assumed. I wouldn't be surprised to find out the navigation system can function with complete autonomy as well.

That's no moon... (2)

funwithBSD (245349) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487315)

And that is not a Helicopter Carrier.

It is going to be a "full sized" drone carrier.

ours is bigger than yours (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487319)

by comparison, the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier (aka the floating island) is 332.8 meters (1,092 feet) long.

compensating, wha?

Gundam Hanger (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487327)

How many mobile suits can it hold?

fock (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487331)

Fock yu dorphin!

Could this be it (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487399)

Ya know... it's little stuff like this that ends up turning into a world war

Power source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487409)

Hopefully if it is powered by a nuclear reactor it is more robust than the design at Fukushima. Then again: Reactors used aboard ships tend to be simpler and hence more reliable.

Nice way to spend money (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487435)

Way to go Japan... instead of trying to fix Fukushima...

Re:Nice way to spend money (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487993)

Yeah, that's the right way to do things: put everything on hold while you solve problems one by one.
Fucking idiot.

How is this "technically a destroyer?" (1)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487437)

>> huge flat-top destroyer...bears a strong resemblance to a conventional aircraft carrier. The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters.

OK, if it's designed with a "flight deck" that designed to carry aircraft (helicopters), how is this NOT an aircraft carrier?

Re:How is this "technically a destroyer?" (1)

alexhs (877055) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487717)

how is this NOT an aircraft carrier?

Simple, pick your favourite:

Ceci n'est pas un porte-avions. (René Magritte)
This isn't the aircraft carrier you're looking for. (Obi-Wan Kenobi)

Re:How is this "technically a destroyer?" (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487743)

A lot of people who fly fixed wing planes really don't consider helicopters as 'aircraft'.

"Helicopters do not fly. The ground repels them because they are so ugly."

VTOL aicraft? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487503)

Unless they changed something about the surface mix during the move from the Hyuga class to the new Izumo class, the downward heat from a launching VTOL fighter like the F-35 would melt the runway. Not the kind of surface you'd want to take off from.

Re:VTOL aicraft? (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | 1 year,13 days | (#44488027)

Unless of course they added the piping and pumping systems necessary to water cool the deck. Right?

Good Old Days (3, Informative)

nojayuk (567177) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487525)

The Izumo is a replacement for the existing smaller Japanese helicopter carriers and they plan to build a second one. Some defence-oriented website put up a scale comparison picture -- the Izumo is about the same size as the IJN fleet carriers like the Akagi that attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. It's still significantly smaller than the USMC's Tarawa LHD carriers and the forthcoming America class replacements for the Tarawas are even bigger targets^W.

This flirting with carriers isn't new: (1)

Hartree (191324) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487585)

Japan has been fielding "destroyers" that are really helicopter carriers for some time.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga-class_helicopter_destroyer [wikipedia.org]

for example.

They probably also could be refitted to launch VSTOL aircraft like the Harrier.

Destroyer? Really? (5, Insightful)

Ioldanach (88584) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487623)

This is a VTOL carrier, through and through. I don't see any significant weaponry on board beyond the aircraft carrying capabilities, and no sources that I can find indicate the armanent of DDH-183 Izumo [wikipedia.org] . Helicopters and VTOL manned and drone aircraft would be ideal uses for that flight deck.

On August 6? Really?? (1)

perry64 (1324755) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487689)

Not an auspicious date in Japanese military history.

Time to celebrate! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487715)

Cause we all know that this world needs MORE war ships to gussle down all that oil and fight for some stupid little island!

What a fucked up world.

armored robot (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487721)

Am I the only one around here who sees giant robots coming out of this thing???

Largest on purpose? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487749)

Are you sure they built it large and its not just a side effect of the newly discovered leak in the next article?

Godzilla vs new warship (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#44487775)

I wonder what the world would be like if Japan ever again raised the Zulu flag from a warship in anger.

Not a warship! lol (1)

intermodal (534361) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487789)

This is totally self-defense.

Izuma? Not Yamato? (1)

whitroth (9367) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487799)

And where's the wave motion gun?

                    mark

Remember WWII, anyone? (2)

scotts13 (1371443) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487841)

For several years before war broke out, German airliners looked suspiciously un-airliner-like. Examples the HE-111 and FW-200. War breaks out, and surprise! Turns out with a few twists of a wrench they make much better bombers than they ever did airliners. Izumo may be a destroyer now, but I guarantee you there are plans - and possibly fittings already installed - for launch equipment.

what's wrong with japan (1)

beefoot (2250164) | 1 year,13 days | (#44487967)

Japan seems wanting to hang on to their past and bad image during the WW2. All they need to do is to apologize to the world of their aggressive behaviour in WW2 and promise it will not do it again. Put everything behind it and start building anything they want. What they did though is to continue worship those generals who kill thousands during WW2 and pissed off all the neighbours. Which country did not kill thousands of people during WW1, WW2, Vietnam War, Korean War. Look at German, they admitted the mistakes and now they have one of the strongest military in the world. I just don't get it.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>