Japan unveils $1.2B not-an-aircraft-carrier aircraft carrier, biggest Japanese ship since WW2

[Spaced Cowboy]

That picture looks like something out of a Godzilla move.

[The Mad Monk]

It's Japan. Everything looks like something out of a Godzilla move.

[Alexander's Horse]

China gets an aircraft carrier and Japan gets a not-an-aircraft carrier, funny that.

[kentonio]

Yes, but whether or not they ever buy planes is an open question.

Not really, we'll be buying F-35Bs.

Except without catapults which means they suck.

Given that we're not exactly likely to be going toe to toe with China or Russia in the near future, no not really.

Currently British naval aviation consists of some Apaches on loan from the army.

Yes, they scrapped the Harrier fleet which lots of people think was a poor decision.

Could the QEs be retrofitted with catapults?

A decision was actually taken to change to a catapult design, but then was cancelled. We basically got ****ed by our shipyards whose estimate for changing the design to catapults rose to a point where it was going to double the price of the ships.

[Docfeelgood]

I get it!
..........to hunt whales!

[kentonio]

What is your opinion on Trident and this dumb idea of the conservatives to replace it like for like?

I think whatever happens we need to retain our sea based nuclear deterrent, because otherwise we're losing something that is integral to UK defense. especially with a rising China and a resurgent Russia. We need to become less dependent on the US, and we can't do that and rely on them for the nuclear deterrent at the same time.

No, it's because MOD procurement is utterly incompetent!

That's also true of course.

You could fire the entire department and replace it with the dumbest poster on poly and STILL see an improvement!!!

They might be terrible but I'd still rather have them running it than Ben.

[kentonio]

Dp

[kentonio]

I agree, just not like for like. Either 2 or 3 subs as opposed to 4. Trident is a US system, how are we not already dependent on the US?

There's a lot of people on the left arguing that we should just do away with a nuclear deterrent and using the US arsenal as a justification. I disagree utterly with that, and find it pretty funny as it's usually coming from the same people who loathe everything about the US.

Personally I'd like to see us maintain our deterrent but try and grow less dependent on the US as much as possible. They are no longer moving in tandem with us, they treat us and their other allies with complete contempt and frankly I see no real need for us to keep looking west instead of east any more. It's time for Europe to step up to the plate and provide the world with the balance of another superpower to sit between east and west and maintain decent relations with both.

I say we make savings on a system we’ve never had to use in the 45 years of its existence and plough that money into systems we do – making us less dependent on the US where it actually matters!

I don't think you can apply that logic to nuclear weapons really. The fact we didn't have to use them, might be the reason we haven't had a world war in the last 60 odd years. If the world suddenly hots up (which let's be fair it could do at any time, with Russia back to being bullish, China rising and the US it's normal paranoid self) then there's every chance we could bitterly regret losing our last line of defense. Being able to destroy any city on the planet does serve as a pretty massive bargaining chip.

I know this is going to sound controversial, but even Ben might do a better job simply randomly throwing darts at a dartboard!

I think we can be fairly sure he'd start commissioning cross shaped ships, and then insisting that the reason they keep sinking is because the engineers are godless heathens with a grudge against Catholics.

[Al B. Sure!]

From looking at the flight deck, I imagine that they gave some consideration to the STVOL F-35B when they designed it. I would imagine that it could be configured to have 15-20 of them operating on that ship.

The Japanese ordered F-35A's, though, not the VTOL version that the Marines and the British will be using.

[PLATO]

Let's be serious...Britain has the 5th largest economy in the world. You guys can afford both if you really want it. The Trident is the best sea launched nuclear vehicle in existence...there is no need for you to develop your own. If it comes to the point where we would no longer supply them to you then we have lost our minds.

Given Britain's diverse holdings around the world, I think that beefing up your conventional forces will be key to holding them in the future. The U.S. deterrent just isn't what it used to be and our reliability to become in a conflict on your behalf is a little suspect nowdays. But...as far as nuclear war, if we don't come to your aid in that situation, then you should use those nukes on us first.

[PLATO]

The Japanese ordered F-35A's, though, not the VTOL version that the Marines and the British will be using.

I imagine we would be happy to sell them to the Japanese if they wanted them. If Japan does pivot to a more offensive posture, I am sure U.S. military contractors will be having a field day. Imagine the potential when the world's third largest economy decides to arm itself!

[kentonio]

How, without spending vastly more money on developing a completely new system? Or by greater cooperation with the French?

The working more closely with the French really wouldn't be a bad thing, our interests are probably closer to theirs than to the US these days.

Also you then get the US actively working against us instead of merely treating us with contempt because of their simplistic ‘If you’re not with us, you’re against us’ doctrine.

You really think they aren't already?

My point is spending less money – not more!

I don't want to save money, if it means whoring ourselves to the US to do it.

The world WILL hot up, mark my words. I think our nukes were inconsequential to that whole idea – we could have spent the last 45 years without any nukes and it wouldn’t have made the slightest difference to world politics! Germany is doing just fine thanks, with an unfair economic advantage derived from decades of saving tens of billions of pounds on pointless military hardware.

Sorry but this is not correct. The only reason the US and USSR were fighting proxy wars was because of the very real risk of global annihilation if they got into a real war. Take nuclear weapons out of the equation, and why wouldn't the USSR have invaded Europe or China or the Middle East during one of the periods where America was weakened?

What we need are larger and more effective conventional forces which aren't compromised by the needless expense of a full scale nuclear deterrent - it's plain to see we can't afford both!

We're a small island nation punching way above its weight internationally. We can't compete on military size and we can't afford to out tech our potential enemies. All we can do is retain a nuclear defense and a small but strong and adaptive army to protect our interests.

Besides, we’ll still be able to destroy any city on the planet – just a few less of them is all…

How? A small number of land based nuclear sites just means you have a couple of extra spots to be targeted first by the enemy. Especially if they are using sea based nuclear platforms themselves.

[kentonio]

The U.S. deterrent just isn't what it used to be and our reliability to become in a conflict on your behalf is a little suspect nowdays.

At the risk of sounding snippy, you didn't exactly rush to join in last time we fought a war on our own.

[PLATO]

At the risk of sounding snippy, you didn't exactly rush to join in last time we fought a war on our own.

Falklands? Kind of true, but we provided massive logistical support. It is doubtful that without our refueling support that your fleet would have been able to prosecute the war successfully. Besides, we knew you guys could handle it. Not to mention, we didn't want to hurt your pride by looking like we were running the show.

I dare say that if Britain itself is threatened that we would not stand on the sidelines. I also doubt that if you got in real trouble that we would not be there also. However, when it comes to your colonies (oops...I mean overseas dependents.), that is up to you to hold them isn't it?

[giblets]

Falklands? Boo hoo.

x-post