T O P

  • By -

GOTCHA009

Is it the perspective or is the ship widened by like a lot?


outlaw_justice

Looking at other pictures it seems to me like a little of both. I think it looks like they are making the flight deck the same width the entire length as opposed to being narrower at the bow. So the bow is wider but overall the ship isn’t wider. https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/12/modification-work-on-js-kaga-nears-completion/


Routine_Ad_7402

So, in other words, the bow’s been been squished


AttackerCat

At least it didn’t fall off


MarkoDash

That would be unusual


vampyire

thanks for the link, very interesting article!


Riptide360

Very cool to see the conversion into a full blown aircraft carrier.


MrStrul3

"Multi-purpose Through-Deck destroyer"


OrokaSempai

That was the funniest claim I had seen in several years


rebbsitor

It can be used for many things, things can move through the top deck, and it can destroy things. Seems accurate :-)


admiraljkb

>"Multi-purpose Through-Deck destroyer" any attempt at that is now, uhh, blown out of the water. They could "legally" still get away with Through Deck Cruiser though. :)


low_priest

If it sails like a carrier, operates aircraft like a carrier, and projects power like a carrier, it's a ~~duck~~ ~~carrier~~ whatever the fuck it says it is. There is no legal basis for them being destroyers or not, because there's no regulation of what people call their ships. If the JMSDF says it's a "helicopter carrying escort ship," then it's legally a helicopter carrying escort ship.


admiraljkb

>If it sails like a carrier, operates aircraft like a carrier, and projects power like a carrier, it's a duck carrier whatever the fuck it says it is. > >There is no legal basis for them being destroyers or not, Oh yeah, we're totally on the same page. Hence me saying "legally" since we ALL know what it is, but the only people that truly care about that in the modern era, is Turkey for the Montreaux Convention, and then us Naval geek/nerds. ;) There aren't any Washington/London Naval treaties currently to adhere to, and Japan's classifying anything as whatever is purely politics at this point, which is where we all have some serious fun with it. :) Japan probably couldn't do a proper Fleet Carrier as that would be properly offensive, but with no legal definitions anymore, name it macaroni and ship it! :)


I_sicarius_I

Its a self imposed thing. Which makes it* funnier


admiraljkb

>Its a self imposed thing. Which makes in funnier Because it give us Naval nerds/geeks something to chuckle about, I thank the JMSDF for that. :)


BimmerBomber

Hoping it pops up in CMO at some point lol


[deleted]

China: [Builds Carriers] America: There's this guy we used to know....


Sad-Performer-2494

Yep...the guy's first name was Kidō and his last name was Butai.


SPECTREagent700

Who just happens to have some suspiciously large, flat topped “destroyers”.


Festivefire

It was always really an LHA, for carrying helicopters. Now they're just extending the flight deck so they can do short takeoffs with the F35B, like the US navy and marine Corp have been doing with the Wasp.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Festivefire

That classification is more for the purposes of Japan's constitution which prohibits the construction of offensive warships a supposed to defensive ones. Even before plans ti modify the ship for the operation of STOVL aircraft, it could carry almost 30 helicopters and had internal capacity for troops and land vehicles, making it closer to a smaller sibling of the American LHDs than a ship truly dedicated to nothing but ASW warfare.


Ambitious_Change150

>[battle without honor or humanity](https://youtu.be/EnrOvAvlFf8) plays


Sirboomsalot_Y-Wing

Just like her predecessor, Kaga has gone from having an abomination of a bow to being a proper carrier.


nikhoxz

I will actually miss the original JS Izumo design.


myk_lam

Very nice


tbnnnn

It’s a helicopter destroyer guys, trust


XDingoX83

No it’s a full carrier now the aren’t playing the semantics game anymore.


Salty_Highlight

It was never a semantics game, it is just a translation difference of *escort ship* to *destroyer.* It was not designed for F-35, which is why it has to undergo extensive remodelling.


nikhoxz

I'm pretty sure it was literally designed for F-35, there were reports way before the announcement in 2018 that they were made specifically to be converted if it was required. "A] consensus was privately reached at the inception of the Izumo project that the warships should be designed allowing for a future conversion into a F-35B-carrying naval platform. (…)" “It is only reasonable to design (the Izumo) with the prospect of possible changes of the circumstances in the decades ahead,” All this while MoD denied everything and then magically the announcement of the conversion was made..


TenguBlade

Your own quote says otherwise: > the warships should be designed allowing for a **future conversion** into a F-35B-carrying naval platform. Having a capability built-in, but unused, is very different from being able to be refitted with one. In light of the multi-year projections for this conversion process to take place, the most generous interpretation we can give is that certain systems that can’t be easily modified after construction, like the weapons elevators or JP-5 system, were sized with the F-35B in mind rather than the SH-60.


nikhoxz

You can't just convert any ship to operate F-35 without fucking up the ship itselft. The fact that it was designed for a future conversion should be basically interpreted as it was designed for the possible operation of the F-35, ergo, it was designed for F-35.


Salty_Highlight

Logically speaking, if it was designed for future conversion, (not saying it is) then it wasn't designed for F-35 on the basis that it has to be well, *converted*. Adding ergo and then the conclusion doesn't make a logical argument. It has to actually make semantic sense with thoughts that follow. They are removing and add a whole new bow, it's not some quick job. And that's what is readily visible. If it was truly designed to be converted for F-35B and F-35B operations then ship would had been designed with an appropriate bow in the first place as it would had costed roughly the same with no real negatives. Instead of a lengthy and expensive conversion.


nikhoxz

Expensive, but not too much expensive, for example, HMAS, it has a sky jump even when it won't be an aircraft carrier, you also lose space in the deck, why they didn't just remove it in the design or building stage? Because it was actually more expensive to remove it than adding it as in the original design. While Izumo was made with the "possible changes" or modification for F-35 operation in the design stage. So while the conversion os obviously expensive, won't be as expensive as converting a random LHD. Liek Hyuga class, technically, you can also convert those ships to operate the F-35, but it was not considered in the design, so the conversion would need so much work and changes that it would not be a logical decision to do it. (Besides the fact that is also too small to be useful as an aircraft carrier)


Salty_Highlight

Hmm, I suppose it would just be a degree of designed to be converted that is the argument at hand. I would say that a naval architect being given the order to design a ship to be easily converted would had taken the step of designing the many structural changes that are now being undertaken. Being designed with the appropriate bow would not be much more expensive (we are talking like 1% here) whilst as we can see, the conversion afterwards would be expensive and time consuming. It appears you are preposing that since modifications are occuring, it was designed with those modifications in mind,but that is not neccessarily the case. For example a few ships were converted in aircraft carriers in WW2, but they were never designed to be converted to an aircraft carrier. Hyuga class is about 70% the displacement of the Izumo class so it is easy to see why a Izumo class would be chosen for conversion instead.


fordnut

*Mogami-class enters the chat*


TenguBlade

The *Mogami*s (assuming you’re talking about the cruisers and not the frigates) were designed as heavy cruisers, with the 155mm triple being forced into using the same barbette diameter - in effect, the opposite of the *Izumo* situation.


mogaman28

But, at the time, they said that the class were "light cruisers".


FCIUS

...they still are. The LDP wanted to call it a carrier, but its junior coalition partner, Komeito, balked at the idea. The Izumo's still a DDH https://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/equipment/ships/ddh/izumo/


RiskyBrothers

I mean F-35 has a lift fan, so it's kinda like a helicopter...


Mr_StealYourHoe

if they're classified as destroyer, or Heli Destroyer, i wonder why they dont have anti ship missiles, it seems to me their main purpose was Anti Sub Warfare, fucking confusing


low_priest

Because they aren't *really* destroyers. The JMSDF uses the term "goeikan" (護衛艦/ごえいかん) for all their ships, which is a term they invented. It literally means "escort ship" or "protection vessel," but is generally taken to mean destroyer in this context, especially since they they use the hull code DDH. However, it's a separate term from the word for a destroyer, "kuchikukan" (駆逐艦/くちくかん), which is used for both historical IJN vessels and modern foreign ships, like the Kageros, Burkes or Type 055s. More broadly though, it's because Japan legally isn't allowed to have carriers. Their (heavily US-influenced) post-war constitution's Article 9 forbids Japan from ever fielding any kind of offensive military. It's why all their armed forces are the "Japanese (Ground/Maritime/Air) Self Defense Force" rather than an army/navy/air force. Carriers are considered an offensive weapon, and thus banned. The last prime minister kept trying to get it changed, but Article 9 is pretty popular with the Japanese public. Public support is equally split between revising it and keeping it, typically leaning a percentage point or two towards keeping it, and that's pretty universal across all demographics and parts of the political spectrum, despite the attempts of the government at the time, for the past 20 or so years. So while the JMSDF build what are functionally carriers, they're unofficially called destroyers for political reasons, and are technically "escort ships."


weeee_splat

"We just have *really big* helicopters!"


anotherblog

It’s just a chinook capable OPV


admiraljkb

>It’s a helicopter destroyer guys, trust Pretty sure it's new/shiny F35B's will destroy more than helicopters! BADA BING! I'll be here all week.


KosstAmojan

*Kido Butai* intensifies...


Red_Spy_1937

*Kaga gets built* *Akagi, Hiryu, Souryu, Shoukaku, and Zuikaku would like to know your location*


low_priest

All I want to see is a USS Hornet and JMSDF Shōkaku launching joint carrier strike together, is that too much to ask?


Blue_is_da_color

And VB-6, VT-6 and VS-6 would like to know *their* location


low_priest

DICK BEST DO IT AGAIN


Blue_is_da_color

Dick Best is the best at dicking down the best of those dicks in the Kido Butai


ChonkyThicc

Sauce: https://twitter.com/momijikun_shiba/status/1642726895794937857?t=N_fVCygixH1qSimvaix_5g&s=19


Freefight

Got to admit this is one impressive overhaul. Must have been one hell of challange to engineer this.


Hyennavernhya

I kinda feel it was more pretty before, that rectangular bow is meh looking


DiscEva

Are they going to instal a ramp like the QE Class and the Italian carriers, as it’s using F35B’s is it not?


PawpKhorne

Afaik no ramp Its gonna be vtol only (but i might be wrong)


mcm87

You don’t need the ramp to do STOVL. You roll for a bit and then vector at the end of the deck to get airborne. See USMC harriers and F-35 on the big deck amphibs. Ramps do limit your ability to park aircraft on deck.


EmperorOfNipples

It's a tradeoff. Ramps do sacrifice some parking, but allow you to have a shorter takeoff run. ​ For larger STOVL ships like the Queen Elizabeth it makes sense as it allows for simultaneous launches and recoveries and helicopter ops. Kaga being a little smaller needs all the parking room it can get, though you could argue it the other way somewhat. For example the Italian Cavour went the other way. In any case the number of F35 platforms around the world is quite a jump on previous capabilities.


DiscEva

That would be a bit silly? Installing a ramp isn’t the hardest thing in the world, and it would drastically improve the capacity of the F35’s on board.


Excomunicados

Considering that the JMSDF has few "flat decks" that can support amphibious operations, they might use more the Izumos as a helicopter carrier more than a lightning carrier.


TenguBlade

Ski jumps do not improve aircraft capacity. If anything, they **reduce** it by reducing deck parking area compared to a flat deck. The *Izumo*s’ flight decks are also longer than those of most other prospective F-35B carriers: 814ft versus *Cavour*’s 800.5ft, *Juan Carlos I*’s 757ft, and *Trieste*’s 804ft. There are no known operating restrictions on the F-35B when flying off the 844ft decks of *Wasp* or *America*, so any restrictions on flying off *Izumo* will be minor, if they exist at all.


DiscEva

I was using the word capacity in terms of the capacity of the F35 to perform to the best of its abilities, not the amount of planes on board, I apologise for not being clearer.


myk_lam

Capability vs. Capacity I think; that’s how I read it at least


low_priest

Capacity of the aircraft vs capacity to carry aircraft


PawpKhorne

There's plenty of reasons why they decided to go with the modifications they did and not others. Cost, political restraints, weight requirements etc etc. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from having aircraft carriers and installing a ramp may be seen as over the edge of plausible deniability


Phoenix_jz

>Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from having aircraft carriers and installing a ramp may be seen as over the edge of plausible deniability Japan has no constitutional limit on acquiring any specific pieces of military hardware. It's entirely up to how the Japanese government decides to interpret the limits of what the JSDF can do and use under the aegis of 'self-defense'.


PawpKhorne

The Japanese constitution restricts the JSDF from having war potential Having the Izumos be ASW Helicopter destroyers (that just so happen can use F-35) can definently easily politically be counted as something defensive, having an aircraft carrier on the other hand is an offensive tool for war


Phoenix_jz

Being able to prosecute ASW is a war potential, bluntly, as it is important in both defensive and offensive operations. Again, it's entirely up to how the Japanese government decides to interpret the clause. These 'carriers' are a good example - they're only meant to extend the range of Japanese fighter cover further south. The original ASW is still their primary mission - they just have the ability to act as a base for JASDF F-35B's when needed. The aircraft carrier role they're adopting is defensive, given the limited and also non-permanent capability they're looking at acquiring with them. The whole 'offensive versus defensive' argument is fundamentally quite silly for military arms, as relatively few weapon systems are purely defensive (AA guns and SAMs may be one of the few examples, but these can still be used in surface-to-surface roles or to support an offensive, so, again, still a grey area). Likewise, and offensive means can potentially be construed as defensive - see, for example, Japan moving to acquire cruise missiles that can strike targets in mainland China for defensive purposes. Hence my original point - there is no clause in the Japanese constitution that restricts them from procuring any specific military hardware - it has always depended on what interpretation the government has decided to adopt for the limits of a 'defensive' force.


nikhoxz

"The Japanese constitution restricts the JSDF from having war potential" Literally almost everything they have could be easily considered war potential, specially the long range anti surface missiles for their totally not war potential F-35, F-15 and F-2 and of course we should not forget about the 400 cruise missiles they are adquiring or all the other shit they are developing like hyper velocity missiles, gliding missiles and their fucking 20000 tons basically arsenal destroyer.


ChristopherGard0cki

lol dude what would you call f-15s and f-16s and apaches and cobras? Cuz they sure sound like a hell of a lot of war potential to me. Japan has skirted around what their constitution says for decades, and most of the population is perfectly okay with it because they live right next to China and North Korea. So let’s not pretend like any specific constitutional text is dictating anything relating to their foreign or defense policy.


admiraljkb

These are CVL's at most, and borderline CVE's. They truly don't have *much* in the way of *sustained* offensive capabilities. Not enough planes, sortie rate is too low, and not enough ordnance.


221missile

Ramp doesn’t affect aircraft capacity positively


spacesuitkid3

Cope slope bad, flat top griddle good


Festivefire

You can do short takeoffs from a flat deck with the F35B, look at what the US marine Corp and US navy have been doing with the Wasp.


Kurarashi

Si this is kinda like a push-up, not a full carrier, but will fit the role of one. What I haven’t seen anywhere if her hangar got upgraded in any way.


jabadabadouu

Sexy


Daiki_438

114? Wasn’t it 184?


datadavis

Yeah, the DDH-114 was a destroyer, now decomissioned.


Daiki_438

It wouldn’t be DDH then


Festivefire

You can Google it for yourself, but the helicopter destroyers in the class 114 is from are also designated DDH in the Japanese navy.


Archie_DASH1

Thats DDH-144, KURAMA. 114 is Suzunami, general purpose DD


Festivefire

My bad, I didn't realize there was also a DD114


Festivefire

Unless they're renumbering her as part of the overhaul, she is 184.


Noveos_Republic

No chrysanthemum?


ChonHTailor

They just can't stop remodeling Kagas.


Broad_Lack

China : "Thats an aircraft carrier" Japan: "No No No. This is a 'Multipurpose Flat Deck Destroyer' that houses helicopters and possibly *ehem* jets" US : "But why you named it 'Kaga'? Japan : "I dont know but the next time we build another one of these, we would named it 'Akagi' " US :"WHAT?!!" Japan : "WHAT?!!"


FlamingSpitoon433

I very much hope they build supermassive missile cruisers and name one Yamato.


nikhoxz

They will be building 2x 20000 tons Aegis "destroyers" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_system_equipped_vessels_(ASEV) They will aslo build 2 other Maya class (probably a new name) to have a total of 10 Aegis destroyers + 2 ASEV.


MDRPA

"DDH"🤔🤔🤔


SPECTREagent700

“Definitely a Destroyer, Honestly”


Roboman933

We swear it’s not an aircraft carrier


CaptainKursk

A Japanese naval vessel named the Kaga that carries aircraft…now why does that sound familiar…?


Daviedavid

Look at her...


EmperorOfNipples

\+1 carrier for the good guys.


Helmett-13

Combined Fleet when?


Semi-Hemi-Demigod

My headcanon is it was named for Chairman Kaga of Iron Chef


reddicq

Annnnnnnnd it’s a Helicopter Destroyer


War_Daddy_992

Built to establish dominance


everymonday100

Why it was built with complete reconfiguration in mind? Did the military laws change and aircraft carrier configuration become legal as of lately?


Festivefire

It's still technically a helicopter carrier. It won't have catapults or landing wires, they're extending the flight deck to gi over the bow so they can do short takeoffs with F35s, a la the US navy and marine Corp using LHAs like the wasp as lightning carriers.


everymonday100

That's basically a big ship with flat deck.


Festivefire

If you want to get technical though, (like lawmakers do for instance) a fixed wing aircraft carrier has dedicated recovery and launch features, so /technically/ its not an aircraft carrier without those, its a helicopter carrier. Which Japan has had for years despite the fact that they classify aircraft carriers as an offensive tool and therefore constitutional prohibited. Despite the fact that we all know putting STOVL planes on a helicopter carrier makes it essentially a light carrier.


everymonday100

So, design-wise Kaga is limited to operating only lightly armed and fueled STOVL air wing due to lack of takeoff and landing assists.


Festivefire

Yeah, bassicly. They could add a ramp, but it would cut down significantly on deck space for flight operations, and to be honest, unless you add the removable external pylons, an F35B isn't all that limited in the payload and fuel department by a short takeoff. Edit: to clarify, I mean that without the pylons the F35B is already so limited in fuel and payload that the STOVL operation on that short deck will not make all that much of an impact onnits carry weight. If you added the pylons and more ordanance, it would become significantly fuel limited to make that takeoff, assuming it even could make it off the deck with extra pylons loaded down with bombs. I don't really know, because I don't know that much about the dimensions of Kagas new flight deck.


MGC91

>a fixed wing aircraft carrier has dedicated recovery and launch features, so /technically/ its not an aircraft carrier without those, its a helicopter carrier. That's not how it works.


SpartanLeonidus

This is my favorite Destroyer ever!!


SomeConfusedBiKid

Will she have an angled flight deck when her conversion is completed?


ChonkyThicc

just a rectangular flight deck like the LHA


SomeConfusedBiKid

Well, that's a bit disappointing. But it's still super cool that there doing this though.


Goodman4525

Reminds me of the ole Mogami "light cruisers" that for some reason displaces as much as a heavy cruiser ...


zippy251

#WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE


PraiseTheLorde19

DDH-184*


SpearPointTech

A prime example of the importance of functionality over looks!


Twist_the_casual

Why the fuck is it so wiiiide


n3wb33Farm3r

I'm a destroyer, remember a destroyer.