>Japanese "destroyers"

>>32060408
Well, her task is to destroy submarines using her ASW helicopters

Hence, "Destroyers"

>>32060891

So then why don't other countries use this idea? Japan seems to be the only country that has "helicopter destroyer" as a distinct class of ship.

>>32060408
>>32061022

Oh boy, it's another "let's argue about exactly what a ship is called" thread

>>32061022
Because the USN uses them for more things, all of which fall under the umbrella of Amphibious Warfare. The JMSDF only uses them for ASW, for now.

>>32061022
Because they are exploiting a legal loophole.

After the war, the japanese were and still are prohibited from constructing aircraft carriers

Hence these helicopter carrying "destroyers"

>>32061082

They could have just called them LHA.

>>32060408
Why is this piece of shit allowed to fly the rising sun flag?

We should have banned that mother fucking rag from ever existing again

>>32061082
>After the war, the japanese were and still are prohibited from constructing aircraft carriers
There is no prohibition on aircraft carriers. However, Japanese constitution prohibits warfare, which over time has been interpreted to mean offensive warfare. If Japan wanted to, it could get aircraft carriers right away.

>>32061198
The Wehrmacht still flies the iron cross.

>>32061022
Because Japan is already a giant fucking fleet carrier.

Helicopters are one of the best ASW weapons around, and helicopter destroyers give their ASW screen a greater range than it would have from the islands themselves.

Every nation is unique, and every nation must develop unique doctrines for their specific situation.

>>32061022
Japan is only "allowed" to have a "defensive" navy, and isn't supposed to be able to project power past the range of its land-based aircraft.

That range, however, is wider than that of a land-based helicopter, and therefore they justify a carrier by saying that its purpose is to allow its ASW helos to protect the entirety of Japan's territorial waters.

>>32062620
Why the fuck do people lie so obviously?

Go fucking look up the range of Japanese subs.

>>32060408

It's a destroyer the same way that the Invisible class and Kuznetsov were both crusiers. Their role defined what they are called, not hull.

Just because it's hyperfocused on a certain method (helicopter exclusive) in it's role, doesn't make it not a destroyer.

When will people learn that military designations are arbitrary and can be changed on a whim?

Pic related for example was ordered as DDG-47. Which makes sense, since it was basically an Spruance derivative with Aegis. However because the "true" Aegis cruiser CSGN was first reduced to a Viriginia* derivative and then cancelled all together, they got redesignated as cruisers.


*And of course prior to 1975 that would have been considered a frigate so there you go.

>>32062772
Modern cruiser designation makes even less sense. A cruiser is any ship capable of extended duration independent operation. So not a capital ship (which has escorts), or escorts (which are destroyers, destroyers job is to escort and screen and defend from torpedo boats)

File: 04014717.jpg (405KB, 1429x1147px) Image search: [Google]

405KB, 1429x1147px

>>32062772
Wow I'm a fucking idiot.

op here, sorry guys im a gigantic faggot

>>32062620
-fairly- sure they changed their constitution a couple of years ago and removed all the restrictions.

In the name of supporting their allies, of course.

>>32062863
Japan did not change the text of its constitution and I don't know why you are fairly sure it did.

>>32062951
Oh, sorry, abe just wants to change it. my bad.

>>32062843

That's okay buddy, we wouldn't want you any other way.

It's really about time we stopped pussyfooting around and just declared Japan a US Territory. It's already basically been a colony of ours since the end of WWII.

>>32062481
>Every nation is unique, and every nation must develop unique doctrines for their specific situation.

Fucking this x1000. Thats why threads about what fighter or tank is the best is pointless

File: 130823-N-SU274-106.jpg (766KB, 2100x1500px) Image search: [Google]

766KB, 2100x1500px

>>32062817
Tis Ok I've forgotten to post pics too.

Check this link It's talking about some of the class designations we are using now.

https://news.usni.org/2015/09/04/navy-renames-three-ship-classes-creates-expeditionary-designator-in-naming-system

Nice quick summary

Pic attached is only US Navy ship without a "class"

>>32063059
It's a frigate.

>>32060408

These naval restrictions are retarded. Why can't we allow Japan to build up their navy again? It would put a lot of strain off the USN.

>>32060408
They don't have a well deck or the capacity to carry fixed wing aviation, my dude.

Cheeky as it seems, it's a reasonable classification

>>32061920
Holy shit you retarded fuck, the Iron cross is not a symbol of Nazism. It has been around since the Prussians.

>>32062863
>>32062951
>>32062973

What they did do in 2014 was approve of a new legal interpretation of Article 9's meaning. They've broadened the definition of self-defence to include "collective self-defence" so Japanese forces are no longer limited to Japanese territory itself and can be deployed in support of its allies under attack.

>>32063345
The rising sun flag was created in 1870, your point?

>>32062863
Are you some sort of Asahi Shinbun shill? Thanks for correcting the record

>>32061198

Lets ban the confederate flag too, fellow SJW.

>>32061198
>>32061920

Kill yourselves fucking idiots.

>>32063416
His point is that they are not banned flags or symbols. If you cannot understand that then just go shoot yourself.

Fucking idiots on /k/ confirming the stereotype retarded gun owners and ruining it for the rest.

>>32060408
A F-35 would melt the flight deck if it tried to start vertically.

It needs a ... ski ramp.

>>32063485
What? I'm saying that since the flag is from 1870 it's not an "imperialist" symbol, just like the iron cross is not a symbol of nazism. Just pointing out that the guy sperging at the flag use is retarded.

>>32063294
Because it is not about the US allowing it or not its because the Japanese have this written in their own constitution. It would need to be changed which I believe they actually did not so long ago, not sure tho.

>>32063416
>your point

>>32063555
Why you quote him then and ask what his point is? Why not quote the sperg?

>>32061198
>>32061920
>>32063345
>>32063485
>>32063555
>>32063584

Aww sweet /k/, still retarded and autistic as ever. Instead of talking about the actual subject there is always a few retards that go full retard on random shit. And then there is the autists that go full maximus autimus about some guy getting something wrong.

>>32061022
Don't they? I thought the Italians did and the French did up until a few years ago.

It's not like it's an idea unique to the Japanese.

>>32063626
Italy's flagships were "helicopter-carrying cruisers". Which were real cruisers with a huge landing deck. Italy's first carriers have a similar name, being a "airplane-carrying cruiser".

>>32063683
Because "aircraft carrier" is politically unpalatable in some countries due to the perceived expensive buy cost and operating costs.

>>32063824
And in the Mediterranean, you have to contend with Turkey and going through the Bosporus Strait

>>32061128
Except it's not an LHA.
>it's big and has helicopters
>so it must be the exact same thing as another big ship with helicopters
>I am a genius

File: Baker_shot.gif (986KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 500x300px

>>32061022
Beacause they're not allowed to have carriers of any kind because of that little historical shindig called World War Two. Although with Trump as president he may relax the restrictions and finally allow Japan to go full ninja samurai warrior again.

File: 1479592188818.jpg (32KB, 378x365px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 378x365px

>>32061198
Fuck off, sjw cunt. I bet you want to ban the Confederate flag too.

>>32063918

What makes it not an LHA? Because you say so? Fuck off, cunt.

>>32064007
Uhm, you know it's not us that's stopping them, right? It's their own constitution.

>>32064007
What fucking motivates idiots that, in a thread with dozens of posts, including ones that have already contradicted their bullshit, to regurgitate it anyway?

File: usstarawa.png (1MB, 1485x520px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1485x520px

>>32061022

File: hms-ocean.png (898KB, 778x520px) Image search: [Google]

898KB, 778x520px

>>32064281

>>32063401
That was 2 years ago already? Fuck

>>32064031
Gender is the social one, not sex

>>32064386
>he doesn't know the true depths of SJW insanity

File: tmp_16551-Veneto 4-1944156368.png (3MB, 1275x1006px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1275x1006px

>>32063824
No, it's just a bureaucratic term because the airforce had the exclusive on airplanes and when they removed it they were (and still) butthurt about it. Even on the official site of italian navy the Cavour is called aircraft carrier ("portaerei").

Now, the Vittorio Veneto was a proper helicopter cruiser.

>>32063294
>These naval restrictions are retarded. Why can't we allow Japan to build up their navy again? It would put a lot of strain off the USN.
We have nothing to do with Japan's restrictions and Japan has one of the largest navies in the world in any case.

>>32063401
>What they did do in 2014 was approve of a new legal interpretation of Article 9's meaning
The executive and legislative branches don't get to approve new legal interpretation of the constitution. The judiciary does. What the Jap government did was announce that they will go ahead and act as if Art 9 means something else than what people used to think it means. However there has not been any challenges and no judiciary confirmation AFAIK.
And AFAIK, there has not been extensive litigation over art 9 anyway except a few cases in the early years of the current constitution that allowed Japan to have a military.
It's been a while since my Japanese legal systems class, but collective self-defense is not a recent doctrine.

File: flag.jpg (278KB, 626x640px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 626x640px

>>32061198
Because they don't have communist leaderships.
>We should have banned
>We
And We should have banned your mother from having kids.

File: image.jpg (29KB, 196x257px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 196x257px

>>32061022
>>32064503
This is a real helicopter cruiser

>>32063401
Trump should "reintepret" the 1st amendment.

But to clarify for you, it only enables the JSDF to intervene in "issues that present immediate danger to the Japanese main islands".

Komeito forced that compromise on the LDP.

>>32064699
Essentially the High Court of Japan is controlled by the LDP (LDP has been in power for 67 of the last 71 years).

So even if they make a legal announcement that contradicts the government, they state that the enforcement is up to the discretion of the legislative system.

AKA Japan is not a liberal democracy with separation of powers or checks and balances.

>>32063059
Only US ship to sink an enemy ship in combat, too.

>>32068737
I hope you meant to say "only currently active US ship to sink an enemy ship in combat"

>>32064080

Check the role difference between the two.

Yep, there's your answer.