Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

It’s a proposal. We talked about it a couple weeks back in the Aircraft carrier thread.
Japan at this point seems more likely to make more minor modifications so she can host the F35B. some advocate for a ramp. I think just an angled deck and thermal coating would do with the B.
Where that (Catbar) would Need EMALS and Arresting gear, blast deflectors demanding more power for a small air arm. Might as well build a larger carrier.
On the other hand with the exception of the F35C the Japanese operate everything on that deck already. V22, E2D,MH60.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Where that (Catbar) would Need EMALS and Arresting gear, blast deflectors demanding more power for a small air arm. Might as well build a larger carrier.

Click to expand...

Upgraded "just destroyer" is still a "just destroyer"!
Just with 4/5 new shiny 8" turrets... I wonder, where i already saw such an upgrade...

It’s just a proposal. Like so many never built Russian carriers.
In the case of Izumi class it’s destroyer in name only. It’s a small carrier

TerraN_EmpirE said:

It’s just a proposal. Like so many never built Russian carriers.
In the case of Izumi class it’s destroyer in name only. It’s a small carrier

Click to expand...

Keeping this name still retains some importance, at least for now.
Btw, one modern Russian(Soviet) carrier was indeed rebuilt at a comparable scale, so this kind of work isn't unprecedented.

Technically Russian Carriers aren’t Carriers they call them Aircraft Cruisers

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Technically Russian Carriers aren’t Carriers they call them Aircraft Cruisers

Click to expand...

bit like helicopter carries of JMSDF

thats Kinda where we started.
The Izumo as a destroyer is classed because of rules in the Japanese constitution imposed post war. Article 9 places restrictions on the type and forms of arms for the Japanese. As yet no one seems to want to use Article 96 to impose reforms to 9.
The Russians use the classification as “Heavy Aircraft Cruiser” primarily due to the Montreux Convention. This places stipulations on who and what can transit into the Black Sea. Aircraft carriers from non Black Sea powers have to be under a set tonnage 15,000 tons. Which in the 1930s was do able not today. For Black Sea states it forbids aircraft carriers but it places no limits on Cruisers and Aircraft carrying heavy cruisers were a thing then. Normally carrying a single scout plane much like today how destroyers carry a helicopter.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

thats Kinda where we started.
The Izumo as a destroyer is classed because of rules in the Japanese constitution imposed post war. Article 9 places restrictions on the type and forms of arms for the Japanese.

Click to expand...

Actually that is a misnomer since within the Japanese constitution article 9 as shown within below, it does not point to any type of weapon by name or type.

(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
(2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

Click to expand...

Basically it's an interpretation of the above article that some believes that an aircraft carrier should be banned since it is a tool intended to project force beyond Japan's shores which can be interpreted as a violation of section 2 of article 9 BUT if it is used purely for self protection of sovereign territory, property and/or people of Japan then it is allowed since article 9 does not forfeit the right of self defense.

SamuraiBlue said:

Actually that is a misnomer since within the Japanese constitution article 9 as shown within below, it does not point to any type of weapon by name or type


Basically it's an interpretation of the above article that some believes that an aircraft carrier should be banned since it is a tool intended to project force beyond Japan's shores which can be interpreted as a violation of section 2 of article 9 BUT if it is used purely for self protection of sovereign territory, property and/or people of Japan then it is allowed since article 9 does not forfeit the right of self defense.

Click to expand...

If that so, (I'm not saying your interpretation is incorrect,)! Why not just call it what it is?

North Korea threatens Japan with 'real ballistic missile'