"Japans new Aircraft Carrier No it's a Destroyer..." Topic

Japan commissions the Kaga, their second Aircraft Carrier, no wait, it is a "Flat Top Destroyer". You decide.

link

The name should be a clue.

-Will

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck …

It strikes me that this is the Japanese using the same sort of linguistic camouflage that the Royal Navy did when it brought the 'Invincible'-class 'Through Deck Cruisers' back in the 1980s. Everyone could see that they were aircraft carriers, but the RN wasn't supposed to have any, hence the linguistic camoflage.

Sheesh!

If they're going to make an end run around their Constitution, they could at least try to be a bit diplomatic in choice of name.

They only carry 14 helos and no fixed wing… Not much of an aircraft carrier.

I love the name! Better than our politician of the hour method.

Actually a win for Armand..

TMP link

The Invisible, the see through cruiser!

It was sunk along with the Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu at Midway.

Until they have something that can launch and recover FA18s they don't have an aircraft carrier.

Maybe an end around. At the rate that RPVs are progressing this could very well be a CVA.

Poor choice of name.

"They only carry 14 helos and no fixed wing… Not much of an aircraft carrier."

It can actually carry 28 helos, but isn't getting that, yet.

Start flying PBY's out of Preal its happening again.

I wonder how many UAVs it could carry, two dozen maybe. 12 to 18 could be armed with AMRAAMS. Throw in a couple equipped with ECM, and long range search radar, add a long range SSM launcher and you have somethin.

Re the RNs "through deck cruiser" with the name chosen to get round the politicians – it is a nice story but only a story. They were "cruisers" because they were replacements for the Tiger class ASW cruisers and the politicians knew exactly what they were and the moves to develop and embark the Sea Harrier.

David Manley,

Having just read a rather interesting book about the various cruiser designs that were put forward to replace the 'Tigers', I can see what you mean. The design was definitely a cruiser in origin, even if it ended up looking like a carrier.

On a slightly different tack, I was struck by the similarity between the vehicle transporters used to carry cars etc. from the Far East to Europe to the size of the WW2 Escort Carriers. Had they been around at the time they might have been quite useful as the basis for such conversions.

I thought it was a "Helicopter Carrier" not a true "Aircraft Carrier." I believe it is a specific purposed anti-submarine ship. One of the articles I read did say that it either has or could have short or vertical take-off craft capabilities. I don't think Pearl Harbor or Midway have anything to worry about just yet.

Yes, both DDH classes are ASW platforms. Honestly, a ship with a large flight deck makes an excellent ASW platform and isn't a slouch at anti-surface warfare.

Got a small-boat problem? hang some Hydra 70s on the stub wings of either a Seahawk or a Seacobra. If you have the right weapons setup, you can also use the helos to deliver a pretty serious antiship missile like a Penguin or Harpoon.

And that's without using F35s or Harriers.

^Lion has the right of it. A flattop full of helicopters has far more offensive potential than most people give them credit for.