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

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


Perhaps the aircraft carrier is the next naval platform to fall, after the battleship...




posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Yeah I know the Japanese are on our side lol, kinda figured that one out during cours préparatoire but hey. I'm sure NATO/OTAN are counting on Japan being on our side during the Great Pacific War of, oh I dunno, 2015/16 maybe ?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Depends on what you are using it for I guess.

For offensive purposes it's not so hot.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Depends on what you are using it for I guess.

For offensive purposes it's not so hot.


So why does the USA have 10 of them?

I mean if the USA can have that many then so can a nation who is at more risk from a mainland militray attack than the USA is.

The main conflict will if there is one be over the Senkaku Islands. And the UK proved in the Falkland War how important aircraft carrires are in Defence of Islands. If anything Japan should of started building them in 1982.

Plus if something kicks off with North Korea or even Tawain the USA has a potent ally that can take some of the slack like the UK normaly does in the middle east.

edit on 6-8-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by crazyewok
 


Depends on what you are using it for I guess.

For offensive purposes it's not so hot.


Not good offensively at all. It would be a fleet defense ship like most carriers outside of the US. People hear Aircraft Carrier and they think US super carriers which is why the US call ships like this Amphibious warfare vessels and not Carriers. It would however work nicely in support of the US Navy which is how most US allies and NATO nations design their fleets.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


To be honnest I think every major US ally (thats rich enough) should try and maintain 1 full size fleet carrier.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
Where are the catapults?I don't see the catapults...
Good observation. Aircraft carriers use catapults (unless they have VTOLs on the ship).



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 
The vessel number is 181 not 183. A different ship.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by hp1229
 


Do you know, id noticed that last night as well, late on.
So Japan has two "aircraft carriers" ? Or is it three ?
Wiki says (I know ...) that there's two ships in the class with hull nos 181 & 182. But this hull is 183 ? Im totally confused. And why are we talking about this new ship as if it's their first carrier rather than their second (or third lol).



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


You're seriously comparing a WWII carrier to modern ships? There are destroyers that displace more, and aircraft less than half the size of a WWII heavy bomber that carry the same payload. There's no comparison to a WWII piece of equipment with modern equipment.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
An aircraft carrier is capable of operating fixed wing aircraft off the deck, either through the use of catapults, or a ski jump deck. A ship that operates helicopters only, or a mix of helicopters and a few STOVL aircraft is not classified as an aircraft carrier.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I wonder if it could be designed for easy conversion into a fighter jet carrier? I wonder how long it would take to convert it? 24 hours? 72 hours? A week? Either way, they are still much closer to having a carrier than if they had been held to the letter of their stated policy. Now if anything should happen, instead of waiting the full month or two for an aircraft carrier, (maybe more I have no idea sorry!) they are maybe a week or less away from having a fully functional one, should the need arise... And they are already planning on the next one so that will be 2. Interesting stuff.

Maybe they said "well, we can't just ignore the problem, so here's what we've come up with, we could put alllll this money into finding a solution to this whole Fukushima fiasco...

"...orrrr, we could put all this money into some badass weapons to kick the asses of those illuminati nwo perpetrators who did this to us!!"

"Excellent. I'll have Toshi in robotics devise some type of transformer bots...big ones, the size of an aircraft carrier...not just one, either...it will need 5 helicopters at these key points to enable it to fly after transformation into its robot-fighter state, so we will make it a heli carrier!" yes... its perfect... almost too perfect! ...to be continued...



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
You DO know thats the SDF-1, right???





posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by 3n19m470
 


You couldn't. The deck is too small for fixed wing operations, and the hull is too small for the catapult and attesting gear required.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


No youre missing my point entirely, deliberately I think.

Some say this isnt an attack carrier because it's too small. I disagree. Stick an F35 on this ship, with a ski jump ... or even a sea harrier ... and youve suddenly got a very potent little aircraft carrier, entirely capable of offensive operations ... just like the jap carriers at Pearl Harbor, the Brits at Taranto.

Aircraft carriers dont have to be Nimitz sized to pack a punch.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


No they don't, but an F-35 can't operate off this ship. It would require a complete rebuild of the deck, and parts of the hull.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Thunderheart
 




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


It was initially, I think, called the DDH-220 series... a 'Helicopter Destroyer' in name only. Later, this first version emerged as DDH-193... I think, lol.

No matter... she can load most every rotary winged craft they (and we) have in the collection as well as the VTOL version of the F-35 Lightening II JSF.

Actually, I am rather proud for Japan because she needs to be both ready and capable of tending her own affairs in the region. Following WW2, for the US to assume that duty was absolutely logical, just as it was for Germany.

But... today, we let Germany build tanks and submarines. We should cut Japan loose to stand on her own...

IMESHO, that is.

If China and North Korea would ever actually respect one of their neighbors, it would be a Japan on its own two feet again.

edit on 7-8-2013 by redoubt because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Oh zaphod, do stop being so vexatious, everyone knows what im saying, so do you, being contrary for the sake of it ill suits you.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


No they don't, but an F-35 can't operate off this ship. It would require a complete rebuild of the deck, and parts of the hull.


Not to intrude but... I was under the impression that the VTOL version of the F-35 L2 did NOT need to be catapulted (or ramped). She can go up and come down on that very same deck the very same way...



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


A STOVL, like the F-35 has to take off like a conventional aircraft, it just uses the exhaust to make the takeoff shorter. They can only take off vertically with a small fraction of the fuel they normally carry, , and no weapons load. The deck of this ship IIRC is too short for their takeoff roll.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join