Skip to comments.
Japan departs from pacifist stance, plans two aircraft carriers
The Straits Times ^
Posted on 07/15/2003 8:38:05 PM PDT by overtaxed_canadian
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
To: overtaxed_canadian
That capability is likely to draw protests from China, North Korea and South Korea, which were invaded by Japan during World War II.Bad history. Korea was a Japanese possession before World War II and China was invaded after the Manchurian incident in 1931. This type of poor historical research is what I would expect from something like the New York Times, not a respectable paper.
To: overtaxed_canadian; AmericanInTokyo
As the Japanese (quoting Bush) like to say recently, "Kakkate Koi!" (Bring it on!) Bring it on China!
62
posted on
07/16/2003 7:57:23 AM PDT
by
Pyro7480
(+ Vive Jesus! (Live Jesus!) +)
To: Southack
Well said.
63
posted on
07/16/2003 9:06:31 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(DIVERSITY IS BEST SERVED EARNED)
To: section9; AmericanInTokyo
"Do not be surprised if the Japanese and the Americans pool design teams to develop a "common carrier" plan."
Are we taking bets on whether Mitsubishi Heavy Industries wins the "scrapping" bids to purchase CV 34 and CV 66?!
So, you want a budget-conscious aircraft carrier? What could be cheaper than buying one (or two) for "scrap" that are already built, that already have structurally sound landing decks, and then either refitting it/them or else designing an external towing system to push 'em around?
64
posted on
07/16/2003 9:27:03 AM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: rmlew; Jeff Head
"I'm shocked at the design. It is so 1970's. I would expect a stealthy one similar to the corvairs the Penatogon is touting."
The Japanese had at least one giant submarine during WW2 that had two small bombers on board. The sub could surface, they would attach the wings, and then off they flew.
If you want to be really stealthy and modern, simply combine the best of both worlds.
Light carriers should be submersible. It's not like it hasn't been done before. Either a deck-mounted catapult, a float-plane design, or the use of Harrier-style fighters should be readily available for such a concept off-the-shelf.
65
posted on
07/16/2003 9:36:36 AM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: setcapt
Come on guy...that war is OVER.....Japan can make a good ally......
To: Southack
The Japanese had at least one giant submarine during WW2 that had two small bombers on board. The sub could surface, they would attach the wings, and then off they flew. The Japanese completed 3 or 4 I-400 class subs built specifically to bomb the Panama Canal. The IJN was always fixated the biggest...
67
posted on
07/16/2003 9:43:03 AM PDT
by
skeeter
(Fac ut vivas)
To: Bobby777
Saratoga and Forrestal are mothballed in Newport RI
68
posted on
07/16/2003 9:48:38 AM PDT
by
LN2Campy
To: Centurion2000
The only thing that would tighten sphincters in China today would be for us to deploy an effective missile defense system. I believe that the US intends to share our tech with Japan when we finish one. While Asians in general are credited with having high IQs, one must regard the Japanese in almost another category. Their technology rivals/surpasses ours in many areas. Warfare is moving way beyond physical assets. If anyone can come up with an effective missle-defense system, it's the Japanese.
Once a system like that is deployed, aggressors are vulnerable to advanced offensive systems that rely on sophisticated technology that others can barely comprehend even if provided the blueprints (hint).
To: skeeter
You know that's what I thought but the NVR had it listed as Alameda, ALA. Of course being a gov site the NVR could be wrong (typo's happen)
70
posted on
07/16/2003 10:03:50 AM PDT
by
John O
(God Save America (Please))
To: Centurion2000
Tokyo was actually a target but overcast on one of those daysLook here
Commanded by Major Charles Sweeny, Bocks Car and its accompanying aircraft took off from Tinian Island and headed for its primary target, an arsenal in the middle of the industrial city of Kokura. Arriving over Kokura, it was determined that the bombardier could not clearly identify the target due to heavy smoke and haze. The bombardier was under strict orders not to drop the bomb by radar ; a visual approach had been mandated by General Groves. Two more [attempts] which took about 55 minutes, were made to locate the target but to no avail. It was then decided between the weaponeer and Major Sweeny to divert to the secondary target which was Nagasaki. Arriving over Nagasaki quite low on fuel, it was determined that Bocks Car could make only one pass before it had to head back to Tinian Island. Again, clouds obscured most of the city, but at the last minute an opening revealed the target point and Captain Kermit Beahan dropped the bomb visually at 11:58.
There was a conventional raid on Tokyo which caused more fatalities than either atomic raid. Curtis LeMay noticed that unlike the Germans the Japanese had very little triple-A and none that worked at higher altitudes. He also noticed that Japanese cities had exceptionally high fuel loading - combustables per square mile. An incinderary raid from 15,000 feet was like tossing a match into a haystack.
See also, "When can we have that bomb?
To: skeeter
![S-1](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostsub/images/hist1918_02.jpg) The S-1, with a fully assembled MS-1 seaplane on deck.
|
|
1923Most major navies have tried to use submarines as aircraft carriers, though never with much success. The
S-1, the 105th U.S. submarine, was equipped with an on-deck hangar and the Martin
MS-1 seaplane. Wishful thinking: Crew had to disassemble the
MS-1 to fit it in the hangar and had to reassemble it before flight, forcing the submarine to remain exposed for too long. In addition, launching and recovery proved virtually impossible in the open ocean.
72
posted on
07/16/2003 10:14:54 AM PDT
by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: JohnnyRidden
Does anyone know if the carriers are going to be nuclear powered, or diesel?
I would assume nuclear. The Japanese have a nuclear program on par with our own in any area except weapons. They have decades of experience with plutonium reactors, and have reactors running in nearly every large city, so building a diesel navy wouldn't make much sense.
Oh, and I'd assume THAT fact probably scares the Chinese more than the potential for Japanese carriers. The Japanese have, through their space program, developed rocket building and guidance technology nearly as accurate as our own (they could build an ICBM TODAY if they wanted). They have the experience, the technology, and (most importantly) the plutonium to build dozens of nuclear warheads in less than a year.
The ONLY reason the Japanese don't have carriers, long range fighters, and an advanced nuclear weapons program is the fact that they haven't wanted one. Until recently, the Japanese have lived under the illusion that the U.S. would protect them from potentially hostile neighbors, so they remained pacifists and only supported minimal rearmnament. With the increased muscle flexing by the Chinese, North Korean nuclear brinksmanship, and the fact that the U.S. military is getting stretched kind of thin across the globe, the Japanese are starting to realize that we might not be able to protect them against hostile neighbors. If the Japanese are smart as they like to believe they are, they'd scrap their constitution tomorrow and six months from now announce that their newly minted nuclear arsenal is pointed squarely at Pyongyang and Beijing.
To: All
74
posted on
07/16/2003 10:21:43 AM PDT
by
B-Chan
(Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
To: blam
Japanese naval officers are calling the new ships 'destroyers' One could be named 'annihilator', the other 'obliterator,' obviously peacekeeping, nothing to see here. Or they could be named 'justice' and 'judgement,' to put peoples' minds at rest.
75
posted on
07/16/2003 10:31:20 AM PDT
by
RightWhale
(Destroy the dark; restore the light)
To: Oztrich Boy
my point is not the size or the progression thereof. Rather, I am surprised at the non-stealthy nature of the diagrams. One would think that they japanese would round the endges and have a less boxy design.
Signature Reduction: Curved flight deck edges, enclosed antenna farms, smaller islands and internal aircraft elevators add up to maximum stealth.
Check out some of the designs proposed for future US carriers and scale down:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/cvn-77.htm
76
posted on
07/16/2003 10:38:15 AM PDT
by
rmlew
("Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.")
To: Oztrich Boy
Nice looking ship. The Japanese (like the Russians with aircraft) have a flair for design. This is Beijing's worst nightmare coming true.
77
posted on
07/16/2003 10:39:12 AM PDT
by
katana
To: ahadams2
now the next step is to get taiwanese aircraft carriers...:-) Subs man, SUBS!
The ChiComs's would $#!t bricks over it too.
To: Southack
I didn't know about our efforts in this regard. I guess the Japanese ironed out the wrinkles in the process over the next 18 years, as they managed to launch & recover from subs during the war.
They even pulled off the only arial bombing ever suffered by the continental US in '42 (at least until 9/11), launched from a sub. Killed several old growth redwoods.
79
posted on
07/16/2003 12:20:34 PM PDT
by
skeeter
(Fac ut vivas)
To: AFreeBird
hmm, you're right, especially if they were cruise missile capable subs... good point!
80
posted on
07/16/2003 1:20:15 PM PDT
by
ahadams2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-89 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson