Help support TMP

"Does Japan Need An Aircraft Carrier?" Topic

12 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2009-present) Message Board

Areas of Interest


572 hits since 9 Oct 2018
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP09 Oct 2018 9:58 p.m. PST

"A floating air base would help defend far-flung islands under Chinese pressure, but at a cost.

In 1983, Japanese Prime Minister Yasuhiro Nakasone promised U.S. President Ronald Reagan that he would make Japan into an "unsinkable aircraft carrier." The irony was, and remains, that Japan has not possessed an actual aircraft carrier in more than 70 years. But that may soon change. The Japanese government is debating retrofitting a class of destroyers to turn them into aircraft carriers. Beyond answering the expected questions of whether such ships would violate its constitution, Japan will need to decide whether the operational need offsets what is expected to be a significant resource strain….."
Main page

YouTube link

Well… the Izumo Class Helicopter Destroyer (DDH 183) looks impressive.


Lion in the Stars10 Oct 2018 5:41 a.m. PST

I thought they'd been designed with decks sufficiently heat-resistant to handle V22 Ospreys (which just so happens to also be enough to handle F35Bs) from the get-go?

If they weren't, they need to be refitted to be able to handle Ospreys ASAP.

The problem is how this intersects with Article 9 of their post-war Constitution.

Ospreys are still justifiably transports. Japan buying F35Bs would be a shot across the bow at China.

FatherOfAllLogic10 Oct 2018 6:17 a.m. PST

They can afford it.

ancientsgamer10 Oct 2018 7:35 a.m. PST

Constitution has already been updated, I believe? Nothing like a few missile tests near your country to wake up the citizenry.

Not sure of their ship building capacity but they definitely have the capability.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP10 Oct 2018 10:50 a.m. PST

No doubt of that….


Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP10 Oct 2018 6:47 p.m. PST

They just landed a few "Marines" in the Philippines on a friendly exercise.

No doubt, given actions by China, their constitution can easily be amended.

I suspect at least some of their "carriers" or "destroyers/amphib ships" will get the F-35Bs.

john snelling10 Oct 2018 8:46 p.m. PST

Drone carriers are the future.

darthfozzywig Supporting Member of TMP11 Oct 2018 7:55 a.m. PST

Let's just make sure when theirs set sail, ours aren't in port… ;)

PVT64115 Oct 2018 7:37 a.m. PST

No they need 6.

Gaz004515 Oct 2018 8:43 a.m. PST

The government are trying to push for a change in Article 9 at the present…..

Cacique Caribe16 Oct 2018 9:38 a.m. PST

I'm thinking it would be best if changes to these externally-imposed restrictions were to take place gradually. How long has it been? :)

PS. I'm more concerned about the ones they are trying to defend themselves against.

Lion in the Stars16 Oct 2018 8:41 p.m. PST

CC, most Japanese are really proud of Article 9. The current PM is seen as a hawk, just by trying to amend Article 9 to explicitly allow the Self-Defense Forces as-is.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.