This is NOT the Aircraft Carrier you are looking for...

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crazyewok
 


There's actually a video that some company in Japan released that shows Japan "fighting" China, and includes launching F-35Cs from a full deck carrier. Of course, most of the planes used in it are F-3s, which won't even start development until 2016 or 2017, so it's a long way away.


You might find 2016/2017 is when they start pushing for a carrier then. The company you said may have it all in works and just waiting for then to try and go for it.

To be honnest I think its something they need to go for if they want a real way to defend themselfs without relieing on others.




posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I agree. I'd love to see Japan able to better defend itself, so we could pull some of our forces out and save some money on that. But right now there's no point in them building a carrier, as they have nothing to fly off it. The F-35C won't reach IOC for another 3-5 years.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I agree. I'd love to see Japan able to better defend itself, so we could pull some of our forces out and save some money on that. But right now there's no point in them building a carrier, as they have nothing to fly off it. The F-35C won't reach IOC for another 3-5 years.


Well thats why I said any plans (if there are any) wont come out for another 5 odd years. Though in the mean time Im sure they hare drawing up some concepts. Though it hasnt stoped the UK building our aircraft carriers that most likley wont be done before we get our F-35


I would love to see a Japanese Aircraft carrier though just out of intrest on how they would build one.
edit on 12-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


For something that sized (you're looking at at least 60,000 tons), I wouldn't be surprised if they built it in a US yard and sailed it to Japan when completed. I'm not sure that Japanese yards have the capability to build something that big, without a significant upgrade. You could build her escorts in Japan, but the main hull might have to be done in the US at Ingalls, or Norfolk.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by crazyewok
 


For something that sized (you're looking at at least 60,000 tons), I wouldn't be surprised if they built it in a US yard and sailed it to Japan when completed. I'm not sure that Japanese yards have the capability to build something that big, without a significant upgrade. You could build her escorts in Japan, but the main hull might have to be done in the US at Ingalls, or Norfolk.


Good point. would there be any possiblity of Japan buying a US carrier? Either a Nimitz exiting US service or just paying the USA to build them one for them?



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I can see them paying the US to build it. Buying a Nimitz, no way. The USS Tarawa and USS Nassau are in reserve status and theoretically could be sold to them. You wouldn't get a huge increase in performance though with those over the Izumo. The Tarawa is in the 39,000 ton range, and would carry a similar complement of aircraft. The big advantage to those is the well deck for amphibious forces.

I vaguely recall at least one foreign aircraft carrier that was either built in the US, or underwent a major overhaul in a US ship yard, but I can't remember which one off the top of my head. As long as there is space in the yard, I don't see why they couldn't build it in the US. They'd have to be careful about any classified work going on, but other than that, I don't see why not.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I'm sure the 'carrier alliance' would be happy to go into a build of a third Queen Elisabeth Class carrier if Japan came knocking with a wad of cash.

If you want a 70,000 tonne conventional carrier with F-35B why re-invent the wheel?



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
Besides which, Japan already effectively has a big carrier, the USS George Washington at 100,000 tons plus the LHD-6 Bonhomme Richard at 40,500 tons & all their support ships. Those aren't there because there's no room in San Diego. The US also recently changed emphasis to the Pacific Fleet stationing Navy ships at a 60:40 ratio on the West Coast--also no accident.

I would think Japan is watching the US military capability very carefully, what with the Navy saying they might have to mothball two CVNs because of this sequeseration stuff. As a practical matter, if the US can no longer defend Japan, they will have no choice but to pick up the slack.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
As a practical matter, if the US can no longer defend Japan, they will have no choice but to pick up the slack.


And too right.


I thinks its unfair on American Tax payers and disruptive to world wide military balance if the USA is doing 90% of the defence work.

I stand by what I said. All of the USA Allies that can afford it should have at least 1 prefrably 2 full 60,000+ carriers + a escort fleet. Like France and here in the UK.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


I think the plan was for France to get the third ship of the Queen Elizabeth class, or a slightly stretched version.

But France has run out of money, the 2013 Defense White Paper has imposed large cuts on the Marine nationale and the government has cancelled our 2nd carrier. The French Navy now has to rely on Charles de Gaulle which, at about 41,000 tons, is a mixed bag of a ship in terms of performance.

The 2010 "Lancaster House" agreement doesn't merge the Royal Navy with the Marine nationale but it means the two navies have to coordinate their activities very closely to support each other. The grand plan was for aircraft from Charles de Gaulle and Queen Elizabeth/Prince of Wales to cross operate, but I guess that won't happen since the Royal Navy reverted back to a ski jump. I'm not sure how closer cooperation will work now, but I think there must be at least one joint British/French carrier group guaranteed on service at any time by the end of this decade.

I suppose we're recognising the reality that neither the British or French navies is really big enough nowadays.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
I think this has been built as a safety, in case Japan needs an Aircraft carrier for the dispute with China, over the islands. and who will rein supreme in the China Sea





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join