[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

martin14 martin14:

Pretty strange looking destroyer.

Yea, an aircraft carrier without aircraft launchers. Could it be for unmanned drones?

A. I don't think the reporters got a look what maybe hiding underneath the deck.
one steam tube, just cut the top off.

B. You could weld a launching ramp on in a week or so.
Part number XYZ 789 in the box.

C. VTOL planes


Let's just hope they don't run this puppy like their power plants.

[martin14]

Thanos Thanos:

Shoulda put a giant gold chrysanthemum emblem on the prow and named it the Yamato. Create some nervousness among the Americans as much as it would the Chinese.

pffff, big piece of shit boat that lost every engagement she was in.

[DrCaleb]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

martin14 martin14:

Pretty strange looking destroyer.

Yea, an aircraft carrier without aircraft launchers. Could it be for unmanned drones?

C. VTOL planes


Let's just hope they don't run this puppy like their power plants.

I looked at a couple other articles that also speculated VTOL of some unnamed future tech. I wondered why not Helos . . .but said articles also indicate no helos. I wondered too, if Canada was the pioneer in putting big helos on small destroyers, why woudln't this be used to give the destroyer bigger teeth?

Nothing about this boat makes any sense to me.

And I hope they make it as overengineered as their power plants! Fukishima was designed to survive a magnitude 8 earthquake, and it survived a 9 - and no one will be likely to die from the radiation released from the core melt down! This ship should be so lucky as to overperform like that.

[Jabberwalker]

I like the drone theory. The Americans are already messing about with carrier launched stealth drones. It's a hell of an idea ... the next generation of fighter plane is much smaller, unmanned and capable of operations off of heavily disguised destroyers..

[bootlegga]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

... "technically a destroyer"?

How is that "technically a destroyer"?

Oh, I know The box that is came in says: Contents: One (1) Destroyer.

I remember talking to an old WWII Corvette veteran when the Halifax class first came out. He was angry and indignant that all the Canadian government would supply to the navy were merely Frigates. They sure aren't what he thought a Frigate should be. In his world, these would be classified as light cruisers. Anyway, the definitions of warship types have become nonsense with the various revolutions in weaponry that they carry. The classifications are downright silly, sometimes.

Anyway, I'm glad to see Japan take their defences seriously again ... and on our side, again.

Destroyers are getting bigger and bigger every year - the Arleigh Burke (USN) are around 9,000 tons, while the DDX is going to be around 14,000 tons. In any other era, they would be cruisers. Japan has destroyers ranging from 6000 tons to 14,000, so this shouldn't come as much of a surprise, if you ask me.

Heck even our Halifax 'frigates' are 20 metres longer and only a few hundred tons lighter than our Iroquois destroyers.

Destroyer used to mean small ASW ships, nowadays in most navies, it typically means a robust, multi-role major surface combatant.

[bootlegga]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I looked at a couple other articles that also speculated VTOL of some unnamed future tech. I wondered why not Helos . . .but said articles also indicate no helos. I wondered too, if Canada was the pioneer in putting big helos on small destroyers, why woudln't this be used to give the destroyer bigger teeth?

Nothing about this boat makes any sense to me.

And I hope they make it as overengineered as their power plants! Fukishima was designed to survive a magnitude 8 earthquake, and it survived a 9 - and no one will be likely to die from the radiation released from the core melt down! This ship should be so lucky as to overperform like that.

Actually, the article here says it is designed to carry 14 helos, while Wikipedia says it will carry only 7 ASW and 2 SAR choppers initially.

$1:

The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 820 feet long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters.

This is simply a larger version of the ship it is replacing (Hyuga-class helicopter destroyer).

I agree that it could operate drones or VTOL planes at some time in the future - this article speculates about operating F-35Bs, Ospreys or drones;

$1:

Japanese accounts suggest that one of the reasons for the drastic increase in size of the 22DDH design is a planned shift to the V-22 Osprey as the primary air group element for these ships. It is not clear whether these would be replacements for or supplemental to the SH-60Ks that equip the Hyuga class. These accounts also make it clear that the F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the Joint Strike Fighter is seen as a key system for these ships. Apparently, provision for the operation of UAVs is being included within the design.

http://www.defencetalk.com/details-of-n ... yer-27119/

Given the long service life of surface ships, it makes sense to plan for future systems like drones (this ship will probably still be in service until 2040 or so).

[Hyack]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

martin14 martin14:

Pretty strange looking destroyer.

Yea, an aircraft carrier without aircraft launchers. Could it be for unmanned drones?

$1:

The ship, which has a flight deck that is nearly 250 meters (820 feet) long, is designed to carry up to 14 helicopters. Japanese officials say it will be used in national defense — particularly in anti-submarine warfare and border-area surveillance missions — and to bolster the nation's ability to transport personnel and supplies in response to large-scale natural disasters, like the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011.

I hope they have better luck with this "monster" ship than they had with the Yamato......

link

[llama66]

With the F-35 VTOL. I wonder how many F-35's it could carry. Strange Destroyer indeed.

[Jabberwalker]

llama66 llama66:

With the F-35 VTOL. I wonder how many F-35's it could carry. Strange Destroyer indeed.

... if they can actually make an F-35 work as a VTOL ...
I'll believe it when I see more than one.

[DrCaleb]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

llama66 llama66:

With the F-35 VTOL. I wonder how many F-35's it could carry. Strange Destroyer indeed.

... if they can actually make an F-35 work as a VTOL ...
I'll believe it when I see more than one.

So, the number of F-35 VTOLs that this ship can carry is 'all of them'.

[Hyack]

An interesting article on Japanese "destroyers" and "aircraft carriers".....

$1:

In the Late 1950's and early1960s the Japanese began seriously rebuilding their navy Maritime Self Defense Force. The reason for this was that although war as an instrument of policy was forbidden to them by their postwar constitution, the reality is that Japan imports most of its calories and virtually all of its energy and resources. Defense of the sea lanes was vital as was the ability to fend off invaders from certain of Japan's neighbors that defined "peace" as an absence of non-communist nations.

To this end, Japan began producing destroyers for antisubmarine warfare, that is convoy protection of Japans sea lanes. This is a purely defensive operation well within the purview of Japans constitutional restrictions on its military self defense forces. The 1950s destroyers carried fearsome torpedo batteries, but these were seen in the context of coastal defense and convoy defense, particularly with long range ASW torpedoes.

By the early '60s though, the concept of heavyweight ASW torpedoes was looking less tenable. The US and Australia were developing rocket boosted torpedoes and the Canadians, French and Italians were looking at big ASW Helicopters, which could do many of the things the US Blimps had done in WW2 but had much shorter range.

The Japanese decided to go with both options, buying ASROC from the US and developing the American Sea King as an ASW platform. The Sea King was a huge chopper, and to be effective, at least one (preferably 2) needed to be on station around a convoy, dropping sonar buoys and dipping their big sonar at any time. However helicopters have very short legs and the Sea King is awkward to handle on a small ship*. For destroyers the Japanese joined with the Americans in producing an ultimately abortive small torpedo carrying drone but this was no substitute for the capabilities of the Sea King.

To this end the Japanese ordered an experimental small helicopter carrier as part of the same procurement program as their prototype guided missile destroyer Amatsukaze. I've found very little on this ship. It reportedly was to have been about 10,000 tons and armed with 8 3" 50 caliber guns and 8-10 Sea Kings. As such it would seem to be a purely defensive ship with next to no capability to do anything except guard Japans sea lanes...it also would have been exceedingly useful in that role and made Japanese convoy defense operations vastly more effective. Japan was looking at 4-6 escort groups each built around one of these vessels.

more of the story

[ShepherdsDog]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Heck even our Halifax 'frigates' are 20 metres longer and only a few hundred tons lighter than our Iroquois destroyers.

Our DDE and DDH 'destroyers' were technically frigates

[Freakinoldguy]

llama66 llama66:

The "Hurricane" Bow is standard on most Aircraft Carriers Destroyers.

I love it an 820 foot destroyer. What's next a 103,000 ton Frigate?

But for the record that type of bow on a conventional destroyer would kill the crew, but on a Japanese destroyer not so much.

[saturn_656]

$1:

By the early '60s though, the concept of heavyweight ASW torpedoes was looking less tenable. The US and Australia were developing rocket boosted torpedoes and the Canadians, French and Italians were looking at big ASW Helicopters, which could do many of the things the US Blimps had done in WW2 but had much shorter range.

The Japanese decided to go with both options, buying ASROC from the US and developing the American Sea King as an ASW platform.

The Canadians decided to go with both options as well... unless I dreamed the octuple ASROC launchers on some of the DDE's.

[bambu]

Here we go again!

Japan should've been disarmed after WW2 and never allowed to arm itself again.

Wouldn't surprise me if Japan sent it to Antartica in 4 months time to guard its whaling fleet from Sea Shepherd.
Oh but Sea Shepherd could afford a ship like that.

http://www.3news.co.nz/PHOTOS-Japan-remembers-Hiroshima-bombing/tabid/417/articleID/307796/Default.aspx

PHOTOS: Japan remembers Hiroshima bombing


Japan is commemorating the 68th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima with pledges to seek to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Some 50,000 people gathered Tuesday (local time) in Hiroshima's peace park near the epicentre of the 1945 blast that killed up to 140,000 people. The bombing of Nagasaki three days later killed tens of thousands more, prompting Japan's surrender to the World War II Allies.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that as the sole country to face nuclear attack, Japan has the duty to seek to wipe out nuclear weapons.

#####

No thanx...the Allies must keep their nukes [Obama must be stopped from reducing America's nukes] so that Japan can never do again what it did in WW2.

Japan nuked WW2...only got what it deserved.