# Japan's Latest Carrier/Destroyer



## tomahawk6 (6 Aug 2013)

At over 800 feet the ship will carry 14 helicopters,which would make it ideal for ASW or amphibious operations.Its called the Izumo.







http://www.toledoblade.com/World/2013/08/06/Japan-unveils-largest-warship-since-World-War-II.html


----------



## jeffb (6 Aug 2013)

Has Japan had any carriers since the Second World War?


----------



## CougarKing (6 Aug 2013)

jeffb said:
			
		

> Has Japan had any carriers since the Second World War?



No. 

Unless you count the Osumi class assault ships as carriers, or the Hyuga class "helicopter destroyers" (both classes look like carriers) as carriers.

Here's also a size comparison of the _Izumo_ class (22DDH class) compared to other contemporary ships (such as the South Korean Navy's LPX/_Dokdo_ class assault ships) and two World War II-era ship warship classes:






As long as a WWII _Kaga_-class aircraft carrier.  That's a _Yamato_-class battleship above the _Nimitz_.


----------



## CougarKing (25 Mar 2015)

The JDS _Izumo_ is about to commission...

Reuters



> *Japanese navy gets biggest flat-top since WWII-era aircraft carriers*
> Wed Mar 25, 2015 12:45am EDT
> 
> YOKOHAMA (Reuters) - *Japan's Maritime Self Defense Force on Wednesday took delivery of the biggest Japanese warship since World War Two, the Izumo, a helicopter carrier as big as the Imperial Navy aircraft carriers that battled the United States in the Pacific.*
> ...


----------



## Lightguns (25 Mar 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> At over 800 feet the ship will carry 14 helicopters,which would make it ideal for ASW or amphibious operations.Its called the Izumo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Old IJN name, I thought the rising sun flag was banned as a symbol of militarism?


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2015)

While not explicitly designed to do so, a ship of that size *could* operate F-35's. It is close in size to the new British Queen Elizabeth class carriers, as well as the USN's new generation of "America class" assault ships (which also can operate F-35's).

This is pushback against agressive Chinese sabre rattling in the region, as well as a response to increasingly agressive activity by the DPRK.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Mar 2015)

She is nowhere near the size of the QUEEN ELIZABETH class. The QE's are more than double the size at 70,000 tons full load to IZUMO's 27,000 tons, same condition (not to mention 120 feet shorter and 75 feet narrower, even though, as we (Navy type) keep telling you non Navy types, ships are measured by displacement, not length).

IZUMO has a good flat deck and so, could operate some F-35 B (STOVL version). I doubt you could pack much more than about twenty of them on board. However, the mere fact that you have a flat deck and a hangar does not make you an aircraft carrier. You need different facilities below deck to handle the planes/engines/ordnance. 

Ordnance is the big one: While she is a dedicated ASW platform, she has torpedo handling facilities. Those are not directly adaptable to the missiles/bombs mix and handling required for F-35 ops. Not to mention that the volume of magazines for 20 F-35 doing air-to-air or land-attack would likely be much larger than the size on hand for the ASW ordnance required to support say, 20 ASW helicopters.

BTW, Lightguns, I suspect that the name was carefully selected by the Japanese government: The Original IZUMO was part of the Imperial Navy Six-Six program developed to modernize the fleet as a result of the Sino-Japanese War and then became an important player in the Russo-Japanese War. I think there is a message in the name as a warning to specific potential regional players.


----------



## cupper (25 Mar 2015)

Correct me if I am wrong, but you would need a catapult system to operate the F-35 regardless, otherwise you would be sacrificing payload as vertical takeoff severely limits total takeoff weight. This is why the Brits developed the ski-jump method in the 80's.

Vertical landing wouldn't be an issue. And for local defense where smaller fuel loads could balance off weapons payload when vertical takeoff was necessary.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Mar 2015)

You would not need catapults "regardless". It all depends on which 35's you are operating.

Obviously, if you select the Air Force version (the A's), then just "fugget-bout-it".

If you operate the Navy variant (the C's), then you need catapults, barrier recovery system (wires), and to be safe, an angled landing deck.

But if you operate the Marines version - the C's - then you don't need anything but some space on deck. The Americans operate them (and have operated the Harriers) from their LHD/LHA's without any ski-jump installed. They just make a short rolling take-off, and since their vessels are longer than the British/Italian/Spanish ships and their Harriers have more powerful engines, it works fine. The advantage of the ski-jump is that you may get in the air in a shorter distance with a greater load. But contrary to your view, landing is actually a problem, at least it was with the Harriers (don't know about F-35B): You could not land vertically with a Harrier with the full load you had when you left, so you either had to carry a less than maximum load, made sure you burned most of your fuel - or dump ordinance in the briny before landing.


----------



## cupper (26 Mar 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You would not need catapults "regardless". It all depends on which 35's you are operating.
> 
> Obviously, if you select the Air Force version (the A's), then just "fugget-bout-it".
> 
> ...



Seen. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Mar 2015)

Wasn't HMCS _Bonaventure_ more of an ASW carrier when she was around?

Source: the Diplomat



> *Japan's New Helicopter Carrier: Bad News for Chinese Subs?*
> 
> This week, Japan’s Maritime Self-Defense Force commissioned the JS Izumo (DDH-183), a helicopter destroyer, in a ceremony at the JMSDF Yokosuka naval base in Yokohama.
> 
> ...


----------



## Halifax Tar (30 Mar 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Wasn't HMCS _Bonaventure_ more of an ASW carrier when she was around?



In her final "configuration" was as an ASW carrier.  Her Banshees were retired in 1962 and she had Trackers, Sikorsky HO4S and Seakings from then on.


----------

