Japan - plans for a proper aircraft carrier?

[NMaude]

Does the JMSDF have future plans to build and commission proper aircraft-carriers? If so I can see them also acquiring the F-35C.

 

[GTX]

Does the JMSDF have future plans to build and commission proper aircraft-carriers? If so I can see them also acquiring the F-35C.

I don't believe so

 

[Ozair]

Does the JMSDF have future plans to build and commission proper aircraft-carriers? If so I can see them also acquiring the F-35C.

Notionally Japan is prohibited by Article 9 from possessing and operating "attack aircraft carriers" which are both a size and a capability measure. https://www.mod.go.jp/en/publ/w_paper/wp2020/pdf/R02020102.pdf

So moving to a cat and trap carrier that would operate F-35C seems a step too far but the current incarnation of "helicopter carrier" with F-35B has no restrictions.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Drifting off topic as this is the F-35 thread, last I heard the plan is by the time the Finnish Air Force is finished with their Hornets they will be at the end of their fatigue life so probably (hopefully) only usable for museums and scrapping

If they only have a couple hundred hours left that's still viable for combat. say, 100 hours for conversion training and 200 in combat.

Does the JMSDF have future plans to build and commission proper aircraft-carriers? If so I can see them also acquiring the F-35C.

As Ozair said, Article 9 puts a limit on things.

I think even a QE-type STOVL carrier would be pushing the constitutional limits on that. But a glorified LPH like the America-class is fine.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I think even a QE-type STOVL carrier would be pushing the constitutional limits on that. But a glorified LPH like the America-class is fine.

How much different in practice is the Hyuga class from the old British Invincible class they used to operate helicopters and Harriers from? I think it's all matter of terminology at this point. If 'helicopter destroyer' (DDH) is somehow too inaccurate for the politicians and bean-counters call it a 'sea control ship' like the concept the USN was toying with in the 1970s. Although perhaps people would find that as intimidating as the term 'aircraft carrier' evidently is. I would say the term 'aviation cruiser' makes sense, but then I remembered how that term is the basis for the CV designation used for aircraft carriers.

 

[NMaude]

Notionally Japan is prohibited by Article 9 from possessing and operating "attack aircraft carriers" which are both a size and a capability measure. https://www.mod.go.jp/en/publ/w_paper/wp2020/pdf/R02020102.pdf

So moving to a cat and trap carrier that would operate F-35C seems a step too far but the current incarnation of "helicopter carrier" with F-35B has no restrictions.

As Ozair said, Article 9 puts a limit on things.

Given how increasing brazen and aggressive the PRC is getting with its' bullshit territorial claims along with getting more aggressive with Japan and having an unstable thermonuclear armed North Korea to the north-east of Japan I won't be surprised if article 9 of Japan's constitution undergoes some radical revisions to permit the JSDF to own and use proper CVs.

 

[Ozair]

Given how increasing brazen and aggressive the PRC is getting with its' bullshit territorial claims along with getting more aggressive with Japan and having an unstable thermonuclear armed North Korea to the north-east of Japan I won't be surprised if article 9 of Japan's constitution undergoes some radical revisions to permit the JSDF to own and use proper CVs.

For what real purpose though? Japan doesn't have any expeditionary goals, the current small carriers will suit the intent of supporting their territorial islands. Operating a CV will cost significantly more than the value the JSDF would get from it. The other important thing to note is the Japan economy isn't exactly going gangbusters right now, funding a sustaining a massive project like that would significant...

 

[NMaude]

For what real purpose though?

To give Japan options in the future if it feels that it needs to go that route when dealing with an increasingly aggressive PRC.

 

[Ozair]

To give Japan options in the future if it feels that it needs to go that route when dealing with an increasingly aggressive PRC.

Can you define what you mean by options? Power projection isn't in their current mould and building a big CV, that the Chinese are already building weapons and tactics to defeat, just doesn't seem a wise investment to me.

 

[NMaude]

, that the Chinese are already building weapons and tactics to defeat, just doesn't seem a wise investment to me.

The PLA:N is years, possibly a decade or two away from having an effective CV force, it takes time to learn the right naval doctrines to properly use CVs plus having effective naval aircraft and building the necessary corporate knowledge todo so.

 

[Ozair]

The PLA:N is years, possibly a decade or two away from having an effective CV force, it takes time to learn the right naval doctrines to properly use CVs plus having effective naval aircraft and building the necessary corporate knowledge todo so.

You misunderstand. I don't think the PLAN threat is from their own carrier force but their existing DF missile threat.

If we consider that the DF-21 is within range of all Japanese naval bases then there is little place for a Japanese Carrier to hide but at sea.

If the Japanese are not using their carrier to support a Taiwan conflict or targeting mainland China, both of which they could do significantly more easily from their land bases, then what are they using a CATOBAR CV for? Japan can patrol the east sea lanes with the F-35Bs nearly as well and the Bee seems a far better investment given its STOVL capability for them to support domestic and Taiwan Strait issues from Okinawan airfields and dispersed locations.

Hence my question, what are the options on how Japan could actually use a CATOBAR CV. Matching PLAN does not seem a wise solution, better to spend the money on other platforms that would provide an advantage instead of a system they would take potentially decades themselves to master again.

 

[WatcherZero]

Does the JMSDF have future plans to build and commission proper aircraft-carriers? If so I can see them also acquiring the F-35C.

No they havent any interest in full size carriers, their doctrine for carriers is similar to Britain from the 1980's-2010's with the Invincible Class: Anti-submarine helicopter operations and escort carrier.

 

[Forest Green]

You misunderstand. I don't think the PLAN threat is from their own carrier force but their existing DF missile threat.

If we consider that the DF-21 is within range of all Japanese naval bases then there is little place for a Japanese Carrier to hide but at sea.


If the Japanese are not using their carrier to support a Taiwan conflict or targeting mainland China, both of which they could do significantly more easily from their land bases, then what are they using a CATOBAR CV for? Japan can patrol the east sea lanes with the F-35Bs nearly as well and the Bee seems a far better investment given its STOVL capability for them to support domestic and Taiwan Strait issues from Okinawan airfields and dispersed locations.

Hence my question, what are the options on how Japan could actually use a CATOBAR CV. Matching PLAN does not seem a wise solution, better to spend the money on other platforms that would provide an advantage instead of a system they would take potentially decades themselves to master again.

SM-3 kills satellite = No targeting for DF-21D.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

SM-3 kills satellite = No targeting for DF-21D.

I fear shooting down a satellite would rapidly result in an escalation of both sides shooting down the opposition's satellites until this planet's orbit was one massive debris field that would be a very big headache for all space programs and global communications in the near-future. A war between the PRC and USA would be devastating enough on its own without that.

 

[Forest Green]

I fear shooting down a satellite would rapidly result in an escalation of both sides shooting down the opposition's satellites until this planet's orbit was one massive debris field that would be a very big headache for all space programs and global communications in the near-future. A war between the PRC and USA would be devastating enough on its own without that.

Japan has purchased SM-3 IIA now as well, so it doesn't have to involve the US in a hypothetical scenario between japan and China, which hopefully won't happen. I'd also wager than Falcon 9s can put satellites back up faster than any other nation can. That said, if China adopts a more distributed constellation of smaller satellites then SM-3s won't be feasible but the US has some satellite systems for performing various levels of kill on them from orbit. In a serious war I expect a lot of satellites to get destroyed TBH.

 

[joshjosh]

Japan has purchased SM-3 IIA now as well, so it doesn't have to involve the US in a hypothetical scenario between japan and China, which hopefully won't happen. I'd also wager than Falcon 9s can put satellites back up faster than any other nation can. That said, if China adopts a more distributed constellation of smaller satellites then SM-3s won't be feasible but the US has some satellite systems for performing various levels of kill on them from orbit. In a serious war I expect a lot of satellites to get destroyed TBH.

Kessler Syndrome means no one is putting up new satellites, LEO satellites become impossible regardless of how many falcon 9s you have

 

[Ozair]

SM-3 kills satellite = No targeting for DF-21D.

SM-3's primary purpose is BMD and I expect Japan would churn through their limited stock of SM-3s before any foolish notion of using them to target satellites was suggested.

I also doubt that a few satellites destroyed would prevent targeting of the DF series.

I fear shooting down a satellite would rapidly result in an escalation of both sides shooting down the opposition's satellites until this planet's orbit was one massive debris field that would be a very big headache for all space programs and global communications in the near-future. A war between the PRC and USA would be devastating enough on its own without that.

Agree completely, there are way more targets than each nation has interceptors and this plan would not end well for anyone. Far better ways to prevent satellites contributing to a conflict than the simple brute force method.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Given how increasing brazen and aggressive the PRC is getting with its' bullshit territorial claims along with getting more aggressive with Japan and having an unstable thermonuclear armed North Korea to the north-east of Japan I won't be surprised if article 9 of Japan's constitution undergoes some radical revisions to permit the JSDF to own and use proper CVs.

There's still a very strong voting block in Japan that is proud of Article 9 and is absolutely unwilling to change it.

Strong enough that one of their members shot and killed former PM Shinzo Abe over it.

 

[NMaude]

Strong enough that one of their members shot and killed former PM Shinzo Abe over it.

Shinzo Abe's assassination had absolutely nothing to do with this issue, the man who killed him blamed Abe for influencing their mother into joining a religious cult giving away all of the family's money and leaving them destitute.

 

[Firefinder]

Kessler Syndrome means no one is putting up new satellites, LEO satellites become impossible regardless of how many falcon 9s you have

For bout 5 months then enough of the stuff falls back to Earth or Yeets out into the void that its safe again.

After which there be a rush to replace everything.

Kessler Syndromes is very much an issue thats been overblown much like Nuclear Winter. While is a BIT more likely then Winter it also far far less shorter and just as hard hard to do.

Like even if every Starlink sat up right now turned into a fragment bomb and all the frags went the same way.

It just make launches slightly harder for a few months since those Sats are low enough that they face decent Atmospheric Drag and space, even in LEO, is big enough that you can dodge pretty easily.

While in Higher orbits fragments be both light enough and move fast enough to escape earth gravity. Unless you use Really big, talking Fridge sizes plus, Fragments. Like that booster ring from a Sat V that nearly smoke the ISS a while ago. Those are the issue at higher orbits.

And you need oh...

How much Tonnage of metal did tge US make between 1910 and 2010?

Bout that much to block the higher orbits.


TLDR Permanent Kessler bout as likely as a Nuclear Winter and things being flying back up within a year unless you take efforts to keep feeding it.


Cause Space is BEG.

 

[Forest Green]

SM-3's primary purpose is BMD and I expect Japan would churn through their limited stock of SM-3s before any foolish notion of using them to target satellites was suggested.

I also doubt that a few satellites destroyed would prevent targeting of the DF series.

The alternative is leaving them in the tubes and waiting until the inevitable strike gets through and takes them out anyway.

 

[63gehark_]

For what real purpose though? Japan doesn't have any expeditionary goals, the current small carriers will suit the intent of supporting their territorial islands. Operating a CV will cost significantly more than the value the JSDF would get from it. The other important thing to note is the Japan economy isn't exactly going gangbusters right now, funding a sustaining a massive project like that would significant...

if only someone in the UK had read this 10 years ago.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For what real purpose though? Japan doesn't have any expeditionary goals, the current small carriers will suit the intent of supporting their territorial islands. Operating a CV will cost significantly more than the value the JSDF would get from it. The other important thing to note is the Japan economy isn't exactly going gangbusters right now, funding a sustaining a massive project like that would significant...

Ever since "Proactive Defense" became an accepted concept in international relations (striking an enemy while they're still on their own soil before you get invaded/attacked), Japan has had some expeditionary goals over and above "retaking islands".

 

[SK2]

Before considering if they have "expeditionary goals", they do have the goal of protecting their marine traffic line, with 1000 miles proposed in 2000s, and further extended in later years, as it is considered as the life-line and strategically important for the country's existence.

The Japan Coast Guard is overtly adopting this goal, with jet-powered extreme long range patrol craft and large helicopter carrying patrol vessels. The JMSDF are understood to have the same strategic view, in case of "troubles" in SEA, they understand that they cannot avoid trouble and their life-line will be disrupted, if not being cut.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Before considering if they have "expeditionary goals", they do have the goal of protecting their marine traffic line, with 1000 miles proposed in 2000s, and further extended in later years, as it is considered as the life-line and strategically important for the country's existence.

The Japan Coast Guard is overtly adopting this goal, with jet-powered extreme long range patrol craft and large helicopter carrying patrol vessels. The JMSDF are understood to have the same strategic view, in case of "troubles" in SEA, they understand that they cannot avoid trouble and their life-line will be disrupted, if not being cut.

Exactly.

Not to mention that fully 25% of global maritime traffic goes through the SCS. When a fight starts there, it's going to drag everyone in.

 

[Ozair]

if only someone in the UK had read this 10 years ago.

Japan doesn't have the recent memory of fighting a carrier required conflict 12000kms away nor does it have territorial islands located that far away.

Ever since "Proactive Defense" became an accepted concept in international relations (striking an enemy while they're still on their own soil before you get invaded/attacked), Japan has had some expeditionary goals over and above "retaking islands".

Before considering if they have "expeditionary goals", they do have the goal of protecting their marine traffic line, with 1000 miles proposed in 2000s, and further extended in later years, as it is considered as the life-line and strategically important for the country's existence.

The Japan Coast Guard is overtly adopting this goal, with jet-powered extreme long range patrol craft and large helicopter carrying patrol vessels. The JMSDF are understood to have the same strategic view, in case of "troubles" in SEA, they understand that they cannot avoid trouble and their life-line will be disrupted, if not being cut.

For which the current aviation capable platforms are more than sufficient. Maybe Japan could do with a couple more but AFAIK there are no plans for additional Izumo hulls, or bigger, in the future build plan.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For which the current aviation capable platforms are more than sufficient. Maybe Japan could do with a couple more but AFAIK there are no plans for additional Izumo hulls, or bigger, in the future build plan.

They need at least one more Izumo, so that they can keep one out 24/7. I'd actually suggest retiring the smaller Hyuga-class DDH (transferring them to the Japan Coast Guard as extra-large PLHs) while building 4 more Izumos for a total of 6. That would allow them to keep 2 Izumo-class at sea constantly.

 

[Ozair]

They need at least one more Izumo, so that they can keep one out 24/7. I'd actually suggest retiring the smaller Hyuga-class DDH (transferring them to the Japan Coast Guard as extra-large PLHs) while building 4 more Izumos for a total of 6. That would allow them to keep 2 Izumo-class at sea constantly.

Sure, I should have phrased that Japan could definitely use more but as I said nothing in the build plan I am aware of.

 

[NMaude]

Japan doesn't have the recent memory of fighting a carrier required conflict 12000kms away nor does it have territorial islands located that far away.

While it's true Japan doesn't have any recent institutional memory of such carrier operations (That effectively was terminated with the end of WWII) unlike the PLA:N they do have access to allied aircraft carriers with the USN, RN and MN for example. So if the JSDFN wants to relearn the necessary skillsets for flight crew and deck crew they can be trained on those carriers.

 

[BlackBat242]

I have seen a lot of comments about "Article 9 bans this" and "Article 9 prohibits that"... perhaps we should actually look at Article 9.

(THE PREAMBLE) We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution. CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR Article 9: 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. 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.

Yep... that's it. That is the entire text of Article 9!
No mention of carriers, no budget limit... nothing else.

Here is the legal nit-picking used to justify the JSDF:
Constitution of Japan and Right of Self-Defense http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_act/d_policy/dp01.html [Link is dead now]

Constitution and Right of Self-Defense After World War II, Japan has resolved to ensure that the horrors of war will never be repeated and has ever since made tenacious efforts to establish itself as a pacific nation. The establishment of eternal peace is a sincere wish shared by the Japanese people. The Constitution of Japan, upholding pacifism, sets forth in Article 9 the renunciation of war, non-possession of war potential and denial of the right of belligerency of the state. Since Japan is an independent state, it is recognized beyond doubt that the provision in the article does not deny the inherent right of self-defense that Japan is entitled to maintain as a sovereign nation. Thus the self-defense right of Japan is not denied, and therefore, the Government of Japan interprets the Constitution as being allowed to possess and maintain the minimum level of armed strength for self-defense necessary to ensure that Japan exercises the right. On the basis of such understanding, the government has adopted an exclusively defense-oriented policy as its basic policy of national defense, has maintained the Self-Defense Forces as an armed organization and has taken steps to improve their capabilities and conduct their operations under the Constitution.

Following that is a more specific spelling out of the Japanese government policy governing how Japan defends itself.
As this is a policy, not a law, it can be changed at any time.

Especially, with increased threats from the PRC and NK, more defensive measures and equipment can be justified.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I have seen a lot of comments about "Article 9 bans this" and "Article 9 prohibits that"... perhaps we should actually look at Article 9.

(THE PREAMBLE) We, the Japanese people, acting through our duly elected representatives in the National Diet, determined that we shall secure for ourselves and our posterity the fruits of peaceful cooperation with all nations and the blessings of liberty throughout this land, and resolved that never again shall we be visited with the horrors of war through the action of government, do proclaim that sovereign power resides with the people and do firmly establish this Constitution. CHAPTER II: RENUNCIATION OF WAR Article 9: 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. 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.

Yep... that's it. That is the entire text of Article 9!
No mention of carriers, no budget limit... nothing else.

Here is the legal nit-picking used to justify the JSDF:
Constitution of Japan and Right of Self-Defense http://www.mod.go.jp/e/d_act/d_policy/dp01.html [Link is dead now]

Constitution and Right of Self-Defense After World War II, Japan has resolved to ensure that the horrors of war will never be repeated and has ever since made tenacious efforts to establish itself as a pacific nation. The establishment of eternal peace is a sincere wish shared by the Japanese people. The Constitution of Japan, upholding pacifism, sets forth in Article 9 the renunciation of war, non-possession of war potential and denial of the right of belligerency of the state. Since Japan is an independent state, it is recognized beyond doubt that the provision in the article does not deny the inherent right of self-defense that Japan is entitled to maintain as a sovereign nation. Thus the self-defense right of Japan is not denied, and therefore, the Government of Japan interprets the Constitution as being allowed to possess and maintain the minimum level of armed strength for self-defense necessary to ensure that Japan exercises the right. On the basis of such understanding, the government has adopted an exclusively defense-oriented policy as its basic policy of national defense, has maintained the Self-Defense Forces as an armed organization and has taken steps to improve their capabilities and conduct their operations under the Constitution.

Following that is a more specific spelling out of the Japanese government policy governing how Japan defends itself.
As this is a policy, not a law, it can be changed at any time.

Especially, with increased threats from the PRC and NK, more defensive measures and equipment can be justified.

Correct.

Yet there's a very large chunk of the voting population that does not want a strong military. And that means they vote against politicians who say that they will buy new ships for the MSDF.