PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

As to fighter aircraft, I believe it is the same issue. Japan has the technological and manufacturing capabnility of building their own...they just haven't seen the need to do sustain such production yet, though they have made some starts.

Click to expand...

No they don't. Not unless they are willing to put in another 15 to 20 years or so. They already tried to do so before and had to approach the US, which attached some strings. That led to the debacle known as the F-2. You sure don't have any idea how long it would take to develop an indigenous gas turbine for fighters, this being the crucial part because otherwise, the country of the engine supplier is capable of pulling strings on you.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

As to fighter aircraft, I believe it is the same issue. Japan has the technological and manufacturing capabnility of building their own...they just haven't seen the need to do sustain such production yet, though they have made some starts.

Click to expand...

No they don't. Not unless they are willing to put in another 15 to 20 years or so. They already tried to do so before and had to approach the US, which attached some strings. That led to the debacle known as the F-2. You sure don't have any idea how long it would take to develop an indigenous gas turbine for fighters, this being the crucial part because otherwise, the country of the engine supplier is capable of pulling strings on you.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

As to fighter aircraft, I believe it is the same issue. Japan has the technological and manufacturing capabnility of building their own...they just haven't seen the need to do sustain such production yet, though they have made some starts.

Click to expand...

No they don't. Not unless they are willing to put in another 15 to 20 years or so. They already tried to do so before and had to approach the US, which attached some strings. That led to the debacle known as the F-2. You sure don't have any idea how long it would take to develop an indigenous gas turbine for fighters, this being the crucial part because otherwise, the country of the engine supplier is capable of pulling strings on you.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Sorry...we disagree.

Japan definitely can see the need for helicopter carriers to help in ASW operations. In fact, without stretching their constitution at all they can, and now have, built such carriers.

Click to expand...

A platform that carries few dozen heliocpters that all do ASW operation... talk about overkill. All the money they put into acquiring carriers and helicopters can be put into P-3's instead.

Na, you don't seriously think I would buy that, do you?

Jeff Head said:

The Hyuga is not an amphibious or OTH assault carrier. The Osumi Class fills that role already, and they have built three of them. The Hyuga is strictly a helo carrier, principally for ASW and C&C work and that role is a very critical role for the Japanese as an island nation, and one they have been doing for a long time. Now they have a new, capable tool to help their destroyer flotillas in that regard.

Click to expand...

Which proves my point that they built carriers because they can, and not because they have serious needs to. Afterall, they can't go oversea, they have no one to invade, thus they have no reasons to keep building carriers. Unless you are suggesting that they are going to invade someone through amphibious landings, in which case the carriers would be assets and justify the needs part.

Jeff Head said:

Understand, I am not talking about some immediate, design it in a year and your done...I am talking about developing the infrastructure and experience to do so...which would take several years. Just like the Chinese are doing with their Aircraft carrier and fighter development programs. Japan could do the same if they were sufficiently motivated.

Click to expand...

In other words, they are not capable of building fighter aircraft, but are merely capable of building the capabilities that build fighter aircraft. Big difference!

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Sorry...we disagree.

Japan definitely can see the need for helicopter carriers to help in ASW operations. In fact, without stretching their constitution at all they can, and now have, built such carriers.

Click to expand...

A platform that carries few dozen heliocpters that all do ASW operation... talk about overkill. All the money they put into acquiring carriers and helicopters can be put into P-3's instead.

Na, you don't seriously think I would buy that, do you?

Jeff Head said:

The Hyuga is not an amphibious or OTH assault carrier. The Osumi Class fills that role already, and they have built three of them. The Hyuga is strictly a helo carrier, principally for ASW and C&C work and that role is a very critical role for the Japanese as an island nation, and one they have been doing for a long time. Now they have a new, capable tool to help their destroyer flotillas in that regard.

Click to expand...

Which proves my point that they built carriers because they can, and not because they have serious needs to. Afterall, they can't go oversea, they have no one to invade, thus they have no reasons to keep building carriers. Unless you are suggesting that they are going to invade someone through amphibious landings, in which case the carriers would be assets and justify the needs part.

Jeff Head said:

Understand, I am not talking about some immediate, design it in a year and your done...I am talking about developing the infrastructure and experience to do so...which would take several years. Just like the Chinese are doing with their Aircraft carrier and fighter development programs. Japan could do the same if they were sufficiently motivated.

Click to expand...

In other words, they are not capable of building fighter aircraft, but are merely capable of building the capabilities that build fighter aircraft. Big difference!

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Sorry...we disagree.

Japan definitely can see the need for helicopter carriers to help in ASW operations. In fact, without stretching their constitution at all they can, and now have, built such carriers.

Click to expand...

A platform that carries few dozen heliocpters that all do ASW operation... talk about overkill. All the money they put into acquiring carriers and helicopters can be put into P-3's instead.

Na, you don't seriously think I would buy that, do you?

Jeff Head said:

The Hyuga is not an amphibious or OTH assault carrier. The Osumi Class fills that role already, and they have built three of them. The Hyuga is strictly a helo carrier, principally for ASW and C&C work and that role is a very critical role for the Japanese as an island nation, and one they have been doing for a long time. Now they have a new, capable tool to help their destroyer flotillas in that regard.

Click to expand...

Which proves my point that they built carriers because they can, and not because they have serious needs to. Afterall, they can't go oversea, they have no one to invade, thus they have no reasons to keep building carriers. Unless you are suggesting that they are going to invade someone through amphibious landings, in which case the carriers would be assets and justify the needs part.

Jeff Head said:

Understand, I am not talking about some immediate, design it in a year and your done...I am talking about developing the infrastructure and experience to do so...which would take several years. Just like the Chinese are doing with their Aircraft carrier and fighter development programs. Japan could do the same if they were sufficiently motivated.

Click to expand...

In other words, they are not capable of building fighter aircraft, but are merely capable of building the capabilities that build fighter aircraft. Big difference!

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

A platform that carries few dozen heliocpters that all do ASW operation... talk about overkill. All the money they put into acquiring carriers and helicopters can be put into P-3's instead.

Click to expand...

Acually, the Japanese Hyuga or the Osumi do not come close to carrying " a few dozen helos". They each can carry a few helos. And for ASW work, the Hyuga is therefore well suited as the center piece of such a task force.

Engineer said:

Which proves my point that they built carriers because they can, and not because they have serious needs to.

Click to expand...

Of course they build them because they want to, but that want is based on the perceived need of the Japanese leadership. Juts because you disagree with it, does not mean that they do not see it.

Engineer said:

In other words, they are not capable of building fighter aircraft, but are merely capable of building the capabilities that build fighter aircraft. Big difference!

Click to expand...

No, IOW, they are capable of putting together a program when they see the need for it, regardless of what you may think of that need. Just like they did with the Osumi and the Hyuga. No need for circlular arguements or terminology in that.

If they have the capability to have the capability, then by definition...they have the capability as soon as they choose to exercise it. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

A platform that carries few dozen heliocpters that all do ASW operation... talk about overkill. All the money they put into acquiring carriers and helicopters can be put into P-3's instead.

Click to expand...

Acually, the Japanese Hyuga or the Osumi do not come close to carrying " a few dozen helos". They each can carry a few helos. And for ASW work, the Hyuga is therefore well suited as the center piece of such a task force.

Engineer said:

Which proves my point that they built carriers because they can, and not because they have serious needs to.

Click to expand...

Of course they build them because they want to, but that want is based on the perceived need of the Japanese leadership. Juts because you disagree with it, does not mean that they do not see it.

Engineer said:

In other words, they are not capable of building fighter aircraft, but are merely capable of building the capabilities that build fighter aircraft. Big difference!

Click to expand...

No, IOW, they are capable of putting together a program when they see the need for it, regardless of what you may think of that need. Just like they did with the Osumi and the Hyuga. No need for circlular arguements or terminology in that.

If they have the capability to have the capability, then by definition...they have the capability as soon as they choose to exercise it. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Engineer said:

A platform that carries few dozen heliocpters that all do ASW operation... talk about overkill. All the money they put into acquiring carriers and helicopters can be put into P-3's instead.

Click to expand...

Acually, the Japanese Hyuga or the Osumi do not come close to carrying " a few dozen helos". They each can carry a few helos. And for ASW work, the Hyuga is therefore well suited as the center piece of such a task force.

Engineer said:

Which proves my point that they built carriers because they can, and not because they have serious needs to.

Click to expand...

Of course they build them because they want to, but that want is based on the perceived need of the Japanese leadership. Juts because you disagree with it, does not mean that they do not see it.

Engineer said:

In other words, they are not capable of building fighter aircraft, but are merely capable of building the capabilities that build fighter aircraft. Big difference!

Click to expand...

No, IOW, they are capable of putting together a program when they see the need for it, regardless of what you may think of that need. Just like they did with the Osumi and the Hyuga. No need for circlular arguements or terminology in that.

If they have the capability to have the capability, then by definition...they have the capability as soon as they choose to exercise it. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

Re: Ideal chinese carrier thread

Jeff Head said:

Acually, the Japanese Hyuga or the Osumi do not come close to carrying " a few dozen helos". They each can carry a few helos. And for ASW work, the Hyuga is therefore well suited as the center piece of such a task force.

Click to expand...

Right, they like to go with the most expensive route possible, and with ALL that deck space they would only put a few helicopters on it. Very convincing.

Jeff Head said:

Of course they build them because they want to, but that want is based on the perceived need of the Japanese leadership.

Click to expand...

They could conjure up some justifications, yes, but that doesn't translate to needs. If they are that serious about ASW, then they can get P-3's, a lot of P-3's, for the amount they are putting in to their carriers. If they want to invade someone, that would be another need, and in which case you would be right and I would be wrong. However, they are a pacific nation, at least that's what I'm told, so the second reason is out of the question. They are not getting P-3's either, so it means carriers are something they are investing but don't serious need.

Jeff Head said:

Juts because you disagree with it, does not mean that they do not see it.

Click to expand...

Just because they see something and you see something, that doesn't mean I have to be convinced about them.

Jeff Head said:

If they have the capability to have the capability, then by definition...they have the capability as soon as they choose to exercise it. If A=B, and B=C, then A=C.

Click to expand...

A=B is not the definition of capability, it is call equivalent. For example, they can build a fighter aircraft means they can build a fighter aircraft.

Having the capabilities of building a fighter aircraft means they already have the experience, knowledge, and infrastructure to do so. By your own words "I am talking about developing the infrastructure and experience to do so...which would take several years", meaning they do not have that capability yet and but is working it. Building up these requirements is not the same as having these requirements already.

But for argument's sake, let say you are right in that capability to have capability to do A is equal to capability to do A. By that same logic, China has the capability to have the capability that can acquire... the capability to build a portal to Mars, which means China has the capability to build said portal. Isn't that awesome? :roll: