Aircraft Carriers III

TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Jura said:
as I think Japan should not go back into aircraft carriers (no matter if spin doctors would then call them 'defensive aircraft carriers', 'non-offensive aircraft carriers', 'through-deck cruisers' or what ever else),
Click to expand...
In there current form the aircraft they carry helicopters lack the range to do more than fleet support by deploying LAMPS choppers.
In a Augmented form adding F35B they would still be limited to fleet support with short range. You get a fighter on deck but the range is restricted by SVTOL necessity.
It might be able to launch anti ship missiles although as it stands today F35B is lacking in those. Fleet air defense, and CAS missions close to shore. Because of the small size of the air wing and short range.
Jura said:
in case Japan went back into aircraft carriers, even bigger arms-race would begin in the Far East
Click to expand...
To late that started with The PLAN Carrier #1.
Even the Russians didn’t place there carrier in the Pacific. The US was the only real carrier force save for India with a token carrier and Thailand’s Royal yacht. Once the Chinese started building carriers, and with the Chinese placing naval forces around disputed territories the race is already on.
And counting on the US to stand solely against any nations potential territory dispute is fool hardy unless you as a state can actively assist. The Japanese fear is that if push came to shove the US might have another leading from behind in the Oval Office.
Now with the PRC building carrier #3 no end in sight as to how many they aim for the USN is in a trouble spot it can be out numbered regionally as it operates globally.
Example In World War Two the USN was pouring resources back and forth between the two major oceans fortunately the German Navy had been locked in home port allowing the USN a free hand. Yet today that could play differently.

If a crisis in the Gulf is happening at the same time as one in the Pacific that starts draining resources. Not just of the combat forces but of the leadership. This can be seen play out in the last decades as now three administrations have been micromanaging there attentions back and forth between Afghanistan, Iraq and the Pacific. The result is not a great outcome anywhere.

The US has had the goal of building up allies in the regions where we operate who could support operations. Not subservient as many try to paint them but who have similar aims.
In example The ROK land forces and US Land forces vs the DPRK Army. The DPRK May have large land forces of its own but it’s “hash and trash” vs two Very modern Armies standing in line.
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Jura said:
OK I'm going to keep an opposite opinion from the rest of long-time members here,

as I think Japan should not go back into aircraft carriers (no matter if spin doctors would then call them 'defensive aircraft carriers', 'non-offensive aircraft carriers', 'through-deck cruisers' or what ever else),
Click to expand...
Bro,
Your attempt in presenting your view (even though misconceived) deserve at least a reply. I have even given you a like for your effort.

Jura said:
because
  1. the US forces in the Pacific should take care of a hypothetical Senkaku or any other Japan-related crisis, and because
Click to expand...
Every sovereign nation has an inherent responsibility and a right to self defense. This principle is so fundamental that it is embodied within the Articles of the United Nations Charter. Japan is no exception that it is its primary responsible for defense of its own territory and not that of the US. As such your position is not grounded in fact or reality - just simply your personal opinion. The US policy especially the Trump administration has emphasized including to Japan their need to step up in taking on responsibility of their own national security. That doesn't mean the US is in some way relegating but in my view is how it should be.

Jura said:
  1. n case Japan went back into aircraft carriers, even bigger arms-race would begin in the Far East
Click to expand...

Mate,
You are probably 20 years behind if you think somehow Japan's action will start an arm race. China has been aggressively expanding its military capability and asserting itself in the SCS and ESC. That arms build up has been happening regardless unless you have been practising as a hermit inside a cave for the last 20 years.

There is always a cause and effect unless you are expecting Japan and other nations to be passive observers to Beijing's belligerent actions.

Jura said:
(just strategic considerations above, I set aside what would happen to the rest of a relatively small Japanese military budget, what the CONOPS would be like what if one of the carriers off a remote hostile island is hit and burning -- what do you do then? and other questions)
Click to expand...

TE has done an excellent reply on this unless you have further thing to add. .
 
Brumby

Brumby

Major
Jura said:
strength needed in
Hong-Kong Protests https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/hong-kong-protests.t8580/
thread though, perhaps I should've felt as if I had been the CIA operative, LOL! even my google search disputed, in addition to every thing else

but it's been fun
Click to expand...

Precisely why I just post news on that thread and don't reply to any comments. There is one thing I learned in this forum i.e. don't engage in silliness because it goes no where. As Bruce Lee said " be like water".. Lol.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
just a side note here:
TerraN_EmpirE said:
...
It might be able to launch anti ship missiles although as it stands today F35B is lacking in those. ...
Click to expand...
always very suspicious when the F-35 enthusiast mentions what "today F35B is lacking", thought you'd go like F-35 game-changer F-35 game-changer F-35 game-changer LOL

here's what a spin doctor said in the USNI News linked I think two pages back:
“Armed with short-range anti-ship missiles, the F-35B would be very effective against ‘swarm tactics’ by patrol craft or maritime militia vessels. In an “island grab” scenario, the F-35B would be invaluable in establishing the local air control required for Japan’s new amphibious regiment to retake remote islands.”

anyway now I'm going to finish, below:
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
Brumby said:
... unless you have further thing to add. .
Click to expand...
in fact there's one thing:

I think I've been well aware of Japanese military accomplishments, and this the main reason why I'm opposing an idea of Japan possibly getting aircraft carriers, in addition to other reasons Yesterday at 12:40 PM
Jura said:
OK I'm going to keep an opposite opinion from the rest of long-time members here,

as I think Japan should not go back into aircraft carriers (no matter if spin doctors would then call them 'defensive aircraft carriers', 'non-offensive aircraft carriers', 'through-deck cruisers' or what ever else),

because
  1. the US forces in the Pacific should take care of a hypothetical Senkaku or any other Japan-related crisis, and because
  2. in case Japan went back into aircraft carriers, even bigger arms-race would begin in the Far East
(just strategic considerations above, I set aside what would happen to the rest of a relatively small Japanese military budget, what the CONOPS would be like what if one of the carriers off a remote hostile island is hit and burning -- what do you do then? and other questions)
Click to expand...

time will tell the rest
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Jura said:
LOL! yes!

most members just keep extolling/bashing the same for years (probably decades),

and it's very funny it works throughout the threads I mean usually those who boast about for example US capabilities, real or perceived, would downplay China and vice versa
Click to expand...

Now you are "trolling and generalizing" about those who are pro-US or pro-China, no one here has been more "complimentary" to the J-20 and the J-20 program, I'm also a fan of the J-31/FC-31, F-35, being honest about aircraft issues and program deficiencies in each of those birds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top