The Maritime Self-Defense Force is upgrading its Izumo and Kaga destroyers into de facto aircraft carriers, equipping them to operate the F-35B stealth fighter, which features short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities.
Performance tests conducted in October and November last year, with cooperation from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, confirmed that the upgraded Kaga can accommodate the F-35B without issue.
Japan’s totally-not-an-aircraft-carrier destroyers are being converted into aircraft carriers.
To help explain, let me go dig up some before and after pictures.
This is the post-conversion-into-an-aircraft-carrier Kaga:
This is the pre-conversion-into-an-aircraft-carrier “aircraft-carrying destroyer”, at which point Japan had No Intentions Whatsoever of making an aircraft carrier and totally wanted a destroyer.
For contrast, this is what a more internationally-traditional conception of a destroyer looks like: a US destroyer, an Arleigh Burke-class:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JS_Kaga
Japanese nomenclature called Kaga a “multi-purpose operation destroyer” and its main purpose in the past was destroying enemy submarines.[10] Despite this, only 7 anti-submarine warfare helicopters and 2 search and rescue helicopters were planned for the initial aircraft complement. 400 troops and 50 3.5-ton trucks (or equivalent equipment) can also be carried.
After World War II, Japan’s constitution was rewritten. At this time, the militarists were out of favor, given that they’d kicked off a disastrous war, and the pacifists were running things, and after some initial fracas over Japanese legislators aiming for minimal changes, General MacArthur’s staff lawyers doing the initial draft.
One element had Japan renouncing belligerency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution
Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution (日本国憲法第9条, Nihon koku kenpō dai kyū-jō) is a clause in the Constitution of Japan outlawing war as a means to settle international disputes involving the state. The Constitution was drafted following the surrender of Japan in World War II. It came into effect on 3 May 1947 during the occupation of Japan by the Allies, which lasted until 28 April 1952. In its text, the state formally renounces the sovereign right of belligerency and aims at an international peace based on justice and order.
At present, the government interprets Article 9 to mean that Japan cannot possess offensive military weapons; this has been interpreted to mean that Japan cannot have:
- ICBMs,
- all types of weapons of mass destruction (e.g. nuclear weapons),
- aircraft carriers or
- bomber fleets.
Japan having just Pearl Harbored the US and then fought a major naval war against the US, the US was not really keen on Japan running around with aircraft carriers.
However, the world never stays the same.
https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1950_usjapan.htm
This constitution is sometimes called the “MacArthur Constitution,” because General Douglas MacArthur, commander of all Allied forces in the Pacific, directed its writing. The United States fought and occupied Japan primarily to ensure that it would not go to war again, and Article 9 was written to guarantee this. In 1947 General MacArthur envisioned a postwar Japan that would remain disarmed and that would be overseen by the new United Nations.
Changing American Attitudes Toward Japan’s Defense
The American vision of an unarmed Japan living in peace under the supervision of a world government was short-lived, however, because the international scene changed rapidly in the late 1940s. Chiang Kai-shek, America’s wartime ally in China, was defeated by the communists and fled to Taiwan in 1949. Another one of America’s wartime allies, the Soviet Union, quickly came to be seen as the greatest postwar threat to democracy. And in 1950 the Korean War pitted communist forces in the Far East against a United Nations force made up largely of Americans. Thus, by 1950 when John Foster Dulles was appointed to begin negotiating a peace treaty with Japan to conclude the American occupation, he and most other American policy makers had come to see Japan as very important to the defense of American interests and democracy in the Far East.
In negotiating the peace treaty that would end the occupation and return political control to the Japanese government, Dulles also sought to pressure the Japanese to rearm and to conduct a military alliance with the United States.
Ironically, by the end of the occupation it was the Americans who were pressing for Japanese rearmament while the Japanese government resisted rearmament in the name of the American-inspired constitution.
In the modern world, the US and Japan are on good terms, and the US, rather than objecting to Japan running around with aircraft carriers and maybe Pearl Harboring the US, would rather like Japan to have aircraft carriers, preferably more of them. It turns out that upon further examination, the Japanese constitution is apparently okay with aircraft carriers.
On 21 October 2019 a senior U.S. military officer in Tokyo said that “Japan’s avoidance of offensive weaponry under its constitution is no longer acceptable.” The officer stated that Japan needs to rethink its rejection of offensive weapons and that the government should discuss it with the public. The officer said that the government of Japan should inform the public about the threats of China and North Korea.[58]
* insert “Corporate needs you to tell them the difference between USS Arleigh Burke and JS Kaga Meme” here *
The WW2 jokes about Japan having an aircraft carrier Kaga (again) write themselves, though.
In World War 2, the British had the Hawker Tornado, succeeded by the Hawker Typhoon, succeeded by the Hawker Tempest, partially succeeded by the Hawker Sea Fury, in that order.
They then were involved with multinational European multirole fighters, which I am very sure that they had a hand in naming.
-
Panavia Tornado…co-built with the Germans.
-
Eurofighter Typhoon, its successor. Also co-built with the Germans.
-
BAE Tempest, its successor.
I am pretty confident that I know what the name of the UK’s next multirole fighter will be, even if it will be decades down the line from now.
Militaries like their traditions.
-
You just said this, but reiterating from why I had heard. Japan designed these to be aircraft carriers and called them helicopter carriers with the intent of converting them when they were needed.
When the Kaga was built, it was only designed to accommodate helicopters (as can be seen in your before picture) and maybe a couple of tilt-rotors.
It was an aircraft landing platform, but not an airplane launcher. Even a VTOL jet would have a bad day trying to land and take off on such a narrow and moving target.
Now with America’s blessing, it’s being retrofitted to allow for all type of aircraft and be a true carrier in the military sense.
It’s actually a little bit of history repeating. Some of Imperial Japan’s aircraft carriers were also retrofits of ships that weren’t originally meant to serve that purpose (including the IJN Kaga).
Now with America’s blessing, it’s being retrofitted to allow for all type of aircraft
It’s being retrofitted to allow for STOVL aircraft, not “all type of aircraft”. They are not installing catapults, arresting gear, or the angled deck needed for CATOBAR operations. They won’t be launching Super Hornets, Growlers, F-35C’s (which are much more capable than the B models). They certainly won’t be operating E-2 Hawkeyes, “buddy tankers”, or electronic warfare aircraft. They will be reliant on long-range, land-based support aircraft for tankers, airborne early warning, electronic warfare, reconnaissance, etc.
and be a true carrier in the military sense.
True. It will definitely be a true carrier in the military sense. The F-35B is a very capable aircraft, and they will be able to operate a wide variety of helicopters and the Osprey.
Just to put it in perspective: It will be comparable to what the US navy calls an “Amphibious Assault Ship” (Wasp and America classes, carrying ~20 aircraft each) than its current “Carriers” (Nimitz and Ford classes, with ~90 aircraft each).
Also, the original Kaga being an aircraft carrier was because the US was more-concerned about Japan having a ton of battleships that might be a threat to the US and negotiated battleship limits in the Washington Naval Treaty, so it was converted into an aircraft carrier…which turned out when World War II came around, to be a lot more potent than battleships were, so there was an even earlier reversal in position.
Japan’s what!
The aircraft carrier is about power projection. Kinda weird for a “defensive” force to want some.
We are living in times where countries are doing or threatening land grabs even to their supposed allies. I think this is a preemptive message of don’t fuck with.
And exactly what do you expect them to use in a surprise kaiju attack?
Aircraft carriers have been useful about once since 1945. The Falklands. A war fought in the middle of nowhere about a tiny island that nobody really needs. The last colonial battle. Every other conflict has been better served from ground bases. The gulf wars could easily have been served almost exclusively from Cyprus for instance.
So usefulness: not so much, mostly offensive
Costs: exorbitant. Massive issues with the most recent pair in the UK. And don’t buy Japanese (or anyone else’s) exceptionalism. These things are money pits in hardware, manpower, training, testing, supplying, fueling, maintenance, and repairs.
Modern day defence capabilities: almost fuck all. No anti missile defences, no anti AUV, anti-submarine is usually a heli on board. With glide bombs being de jure primary weapons currently and them having a range of approximately 70Km. Combined with the threat of hypersonic missiles. Usually housing vast quantities of marines too.
These things are massive white elephants, obvious targets, expensive to boot. Why the fuck would you convert a destroyer? (Even one as obviously not a destroyer)
It’s almost like the people who made these decisions don’t agree with your esteemed analysis.
https://onukdefence.co.uk/military-capability/are-uk-aircraft-carriers-vital-or-white-elephants/ - ain’t just my analysis!
