Japanese Aircraft Carrier Hyuga - Ships Nostalgia
06:38

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Japanese Aircraft Carrier Hyuga

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 8th November 2007, 16:05
al1934's Avatar
al1934 al1934 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 520
Japanese Aircraft Carrier Hyuga

Japan has launched a new Aircraft Carrier in August, the "Hyuga". See http://www.jeffhead.com/worldwideair...iers/16ddh.htm for details.

However, because of restrictions placed on Japan at the end of WW2, the ship is classified as a Helicopter Destroyer. Who is fooling who! This new ship is approximately the same size as the RN's Invincible class but without ski ramps. When the plans were first approved, they showed the bridge amidships but were later changed to show the bridge as now. Japan insists that the ship is just an expanded model of a DDH and should be still classified as such... This ship is 20,000 tons. Destroyers have never exceeded 10,000 tons!

A sister ship is planned for next year, followed by two more when the first two are operational.

The whole operation seems to be going on behind obvious smoke screens. Why call an aircraft carrier a destroyer when it is so obviously a flat topped aircraft carrier? What happened to the restrictions placed on Japan sixty years ago? It looks rather like a repeat of Japan's way of getting around the Washington Treaty before WW2.

If anyone has brought this subject up before, my apologies but I can't find it anywhere on the site.
__________________
Alick
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 8th November 2007, 16:21
Gavin Gait Gavin Gait is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
My location
Posts: 11,693
Hi Alick , I guess its the exact same reason that our 3 Invincible class carriers were first called "Through Deck Cruisers". I have no problem with the Japanese Navy having STOVL Carriers , I don't think we will ever have a time when they could ever repeat their agression in WW2 ( their population is very very much anti-war ). Let them use the JSF that we are buying for our carriers as that way it will allow cross deck operations if needed.

More likely the biggest problem is the Japanese consitution which expressly forbids Carriers. I guess if they ever manage to ammend the constitution they can re-classify them as carriers.

Davie
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 8th November 2007, 23:11
cboots cboots is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 878
I fear that I cannot share Davie's optimism on modern Japanese culture and pacifism. Japan has not, despite numerous appeals to do so, apologised for any of its war crimes. Senior Japanese politicians attend shrines to people regarded as war criminals elsewhere in the world, and Japanese schools persist in teaching a version of history that portrays Japan as the victim, not the prepetrator of aggression. The rise of Japan throughout the post ww2 era, first economically, and more recently, militarily, has been viewed benighly by the US and its allies for political purposes. This has long been a subject of considerable annoyance to those countries that suffered dreadfully, both attempting to resist Japanese aggression, and under its military occupation. Many of Japan's worst atrocities took place in China, and so it is not surprising that the rise of China as an economic and military power has made them very nervous. That same rise in China's might also causes the US and its allies to look benighly Japanese re-arming. To those of us living in this part of the globe the feeling of, "here we go again," carries a certain chilling of the blood with it. And incidentally, there have been moves to change the Japanese constitution, so far unsuccessfully, but in the future, who know's. They are certainly not spending mega yen on all those floating purveyors of death and destruction for the Emperor to take a fishing trip in Tokyo Bay.
CBoots
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 9th November 2007, 16:16
al1934's Avatar
al1934 al1934 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 520
I must agree with you, cboots.

This is why I posted the item in the first place. Although the published aircraft capacity of the carrier is three or four helicopters, they are capable of operating far more than that, plus VTOL aircraft!

I take your point, Davie, but having lived in the era of Japanese treachery and mindless cruelty to all non Japanese people, I am seriously concerned that other governments such as USA and China are not tapping the Japanese on the shoulder over the build up of their current Navy, never mind what they call it.

Best wishes
__________________
Alick
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10th November 2007, 13:21
Hawkeye Hawkeye is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,168
The Russians did the very trick in the height of the 'cold war'. Aircraft Carriers are banned from travelling though the Straits between Turkey. Yet they built one in one of the Black Sea shipyards. To get it past Turkey, it was classified as a cruiser. They may have got the idea from the Royal Navy with their Invincible class 'though deck cruisers'.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 14th November 2007, 19:51
viking viking is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 63
the original HYUGA and her sister ship ISE were enlarged versions of the american wyoming class 31,700 ton battleships after the loss of 4 carriers at midway the two ships were converted to hybrid battleship/carriers the after 2 turrets were landed and a landing deck was erected over the after end, there were 11 aircraft spots connected by rails to 2 waist catapults below deck was space for a further 11 aircraft and an elevator the normal compliment would have been 22 "judys" aichi d4y3 dive bombers but due to shortages of planes the catapults were removed and the ships ended up deploying and recovering float planes over the side by crane both were sunk by US carrier planes during the last weeks of the war will be interesting to seeif the sister ship of the new build is called ISE.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 13th January 2008, 07:37
duke2780 duke2780 is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3
although i agree that this new ship is a v/stol carrier in all but name, considering the situation japan is in, i.e. china's naval expansion and north korea's threatening actions, this class of ship is a logical result. Also, the way these ships are designed, the only fixed wing aircraft they could operate at present would be f-35 vtol, and so far, japan has not expressed an interest in the aircraft.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 13th January 2008, 15:43
Hawkeye Hawkeye is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke2780 View Post
although i agree that this new ship is a v/stol carrier in all but name, considering the situation japan is in, i.e. china's naval expansion and north korea's threatening actions, this class of ship is a logical result. Also, the way these ships are designed, the only fixed wing aircraft they could operate at present would be f-35 vtol, and so far, japan has not expressed an interest in the aircraft.
Another aircraft capable of VTOL is the Harrier. This aircraft is coming to the end of its service in both the American & British Navy & Air Force, being replaced by the F-35. Perhaps Japan may buy these aircraft on the second hand market or e-bay when they come up for sale.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 2nd April 2009, 19:13
Mendi Mendi is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 85
Why is it a problem if Japan wish to build such vessels?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 25th June 2009, 05:34
Davesdream's Avatar
Davesdream Davesdream is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Coastguard
Department: Deck
Active: 1976 - 1996
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 139
Post

I cannot see how the past relates to present day. I can see no point in holding a war that was 65 or so years ago over the Japanese heads. If Japan feel's the ship is in there national security interest, then so be it. Who can blame them with the current event's in the region.

The other point is the article as written states the ship is part of the ASW group. Accordingly the deck of this ship does/will not support VSTOL aircraft, mainly because of the warload weights and associated support equipment not in place.

What would happen if Germany decided to build an Aircraft Carrier? Would the world hold the past over there heads as well?

With the current down turn in the US Navy I would submit the need for all nations to work together is now.

Regards
Dave
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 17th July 2010, 17:04
Pavle_M Pavle_M is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1
There is really no point in looking too much in the past... Pacific war was a colonial war, and neither of the engaged sides had nothing to do there in the first place. Japan was not attacking free nations of the pacific, but was in war with their colonial masters. I am not saying that Japan would be better, but that is not the point. Japan had Nanking, Batan, alies had Dresden, atomic bomb… and one atrocity does not exclude the other... if we start licitation on past war crimes, UK did the same thing to the chinese in 'opium war', acting as colossal drug dealer killing thousands, but nobody said that Britain doesn’t deserve to have war ships. It is not my intention to protect japanese, but the fact is that there is not a single nation in the world that didn't have it's own dark corner. We must not forget any atrocities done by anyone, but we cannot make whole nations, many generations after, to pay for something that few idiots did.
By the way, the ship looks great
Sorry if my english is not great
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 21st February 2012, 20:45
duke2780 duke2780 is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3
hawkeye, in vtol mode the harrier is to limited in range and payload to really be effective in operations. why do you think all ships designed to operate them, except for the large us lha/lhd, have ski-jumps?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 28th June 2012, 21:22
DAVID ALCOCK DAVID ALCOCK is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 255
Where in that article does it say the deck can not operate F35s !any ship capable of operating helicopters can operate Harriers and presumably F35s ,the weapons for helicopters are basicaly the same size and weight as for a/c the refueling is standard and how long would it take to bolt on a pre built SKIJUMP
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 28th June 2012, 21:41
Jeff Taylor Jeff Taylor is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 227
Interesting that the power plant is a pair of GE 25,000 hp gas turbines, which is what the Queen Mary 2 has in standby up in her funnel surround for topping off power, running above 24kts, or when one of the diesels is down for maintenance!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 23rd July 2012, 07:16
Davesdream's Avatar
Davesdream Davesdream is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Coastguard
Department: Deck
Active: 1976 - 1996
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 139
Post

The ship in question was designed from the start to handle the weight of the current Helicopters of that Navy. And NO it could NOT handle the VTOL aircraft as per the announcement made of the Government when the construction of this ship was approved. The weight of a F-35 fully loaded would and could exceed the weight limit's on the deck. Check out the weight of a F-35 verses a H-60, empty and with a full load of ordnance and you see why. Moreover the the lifts would have to be upgraded to handle the added weight of the aircraft.

Moreover it would have to go before the Japanese Government to approve such an undertaking, which is not likely in the near future, because of the economic's in the recovery from the last major tidal wave.

Regards
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 23rd July 2012, 07:25
Davesdream's Avatar
Davesdream Davesdream is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Coastguard
Department: Deck
Active: 1976 - 1996
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 139
Post

Here's a follow up on my post. Follow the link.

http://www.military-today.com/navy/hyuga_class.htm


The answer to the F-35 question.

Regards
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 23rd July 2012, 20:14
DAVID ALCOCK DAVID ALCOCK is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 255
nowhere does it mention the capacity of the lifts and note the new USS AMERICA does NOT HAVE A SKI JUMP and is designed for the F35B!!!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 4th August 2012, 01:13
Davesdream's Avatar
Davesdream Davesdream is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Coastguard
Department: Deck
Active: 1976 - 1996
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 139
Post

The Ship you mention did in fact allow for that aircraft to operate from that flight deck.......It was designed in to the flight deck!

Look up the information on any aviation site......

Moreover it really does matter what we think the ship can handle, it is up to the Government of Japan who in that body has in it's constitution that NO Aircraft Carriers, mainly fixed wing type will be built.

Regards
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
J & J Denholm Gulpers J & J Denholm 813 6th August 2014 17:54
Model Aircraft Carrier jim prentice Model Ships 2 15th February 2007 20:47
Wreck Of Nazi Germany's Aircraft Carrier dom News and Views from the Shipping World 1 9th August 2006 15:57
Sinking an aircraft carrier jimmyc United States Navy 3 11th June 2006 21:24



Search the net with ask.com
Support SN
Ask.com and get


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.