What went wrong?

They are purpose-built ships that skirt existing laws. If those laws are ever rescinded, the lessons learned will come into play.

>>33496563
Nothing?

Nothing?

>>33496661

Mr. Vice President there is no law that forces Japan to build ships like this. They intentionally chose this set-up because they feel that having dedicated ASW carriers is the right choice for them.

I bet all the parts to convert it into a fixed wing aircraft carrier were already secretly made.

>>33496695

I bet not because that would make the ships less useful than they are in their current configuration.

Why would they need aircraft carriers when they're an island and have American support? These are for sub hunting, to protect US carriers in event of war

>>33496740
>Japan
>Protect America
Lmao

>>33496695
I bet you have no idea how carriers work

>>33496743
You know foreign navies have helped protect US ships before right.

The first missile shot down by another missile in naval warfare was an Iraqi Silkworm heading for the USS Missouri which was shot down by a British Sea Dart

>>33496777

Would have been interesting to see what effect that a silkworm could have had on the Missouri.

>>33496810
AShMs wouldn't even scratch an Iowa class

>>33496743
Japan pays America to be stationed there...

>>33496817

Why say that when you know it is not true.

>>33496817
I think the "battleships are invincible to modern technology" myth has gone too far

>>33496850
>Shitty 400kg chibi warhead
>Vs 500mm turret plate armor

I think I do

>>33496889

>A missile is going to precisely hit the frontal wall of a turret, exactly where the ship's armor is most thick

>Three tons of missile
>With half a ton of explosive
>Moving 274 metres per second

Absolutely delusional

>>33496904
A likely result considering the turrets will be facing oncoming fire during conflict

There's also the 307mm side belt to have fun not penetrating

>>33496904
>>33496889
you're both retarded, the missile would pen and would detonate in the ship.
but that motherfuckers DCC is so good, I think it could actually survive the hit unless it got one right at water level at the very keel. any top attack trajectory and she would still be a viable ship afterwards.

>>33496817
>>33496889
Yeah it was going to be entirely harmless which is why the Missouri activated all its close-in weapon systems and why the Royal Navy shot it down before it hit, they were just fucking around because three tons of metal and explosive is harmless

>>33496920
>Tryibng to use expended fuel weight to puff up the missile weight
Pathetic

>>33496928
The Italian Battleship Roma was sunk with a WWII glide bomb half the weight penetrating 350mm of belt armor

Don't be retarded

>>33496944
>All the weight is fuel
>All the fuel is expended
>The body of the missile is harmless only the warhead counts

Etc etc etc. Keep on with those battleship threads!

>>33496777

>Implying Japan = UK
>Implying

File: image.jpg (33KB, 519x283px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 519x283px

>>33496979
>The body of the missile is harmless only the warhead counts
They are, if they don't hit something major like stored helicopters, unexploded missiles only really cause cosmetic damage

>>33496563
The F-35

>>33496960
>Literally smashes through every deck and explodes under the ship
One battleship sunk and two others crippled with the crudest glide bomb technology you can imagine.

And retards still think we should spend billions on battleships.

File: Admiral_Kuznetsov_aircraft_carrier.jpg (14KB, 300x148px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 300x148px

>>33496563
No sweet ass ramp

>>33496687
They cannot make carriers because carriers are offensive weapons.

>>33497112
Fritz X was pretty hi tech circa 1943 senpai

>>33497137

That's their decision. There is no law that prevents carriers from being made, and fixed-wing carriers are not really something that fits within Japan's budget either.

>>33497160
Yeah that was probably the wrong word for it, shit was pretty clever. Just not as ambitious as the rocket boosted version or the American radar guided bombs.

File: royalcaliphatenavy.png (3MB, 1772x997px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1772x997px

>>33497124
ramps for champs

>>33496563
You tell me?

>>33496687
t. retard

Even the MOD disagrees with ou

>>33496777
>British Sea Dart
I thought it was a Sea Wolf

>>33496817
Nigga, you dumb

>>33496904
It's a shaped charge more than a meter in diameter. It will go through

File: 1490748987163.jpg (115KB, 800x1177px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 800x1177px

>>33497511

Not only will it go through, it will cause a massive explosion if it triggers the magazines. Seriously, the turret of a battleship is the last thing you'd ever want to get hit if you're on-board. If a magazine goes off, you won't just go down, you'll go down fast with no time to reach life-boats.

File: 1024px-USS_Iowa_BB61_Iowa_Explosion_1989.jpg (218KB, 1024x725px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1024x725px

>>33497588
Bitch please, the turret of a battleship blowing up will kill anybody in it, but it won't take out the ship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_turret_explosion

>>33497502
HMS Gloucester fired it and Type 42's don't have Sea Wolf

At least it doesn't have a ramp

>>33496743
I mean, if USN CVNs are the most important assets worth protecting due to their capabilities and expense, you'd damn well bet that a ship designed for ASW is going to do its job.

>>33498361
The magazines didn't explode in that incident... Can you read you retard?

>>33498361
That was a charge for one barrel going off. The turret was damaged and some of the forced escaped out.
Magazine explosions destroy everything on the ship. Arizona, Hood, Yamato, numerous British ships at Jutland just to name a few examples.
Your magazine goes off and you are done.

>>33498729
Of course they didn't that's what blast doors are for.

>>33496810
Well, another ship's CIWS also engaged the missile and ended up spraying the bridge of the Mis with 20mm.

>>33497160
I think he was calling it crude by todays standards

>>33496889
I think you mean 400kg shaped charge. Silkworms are no fucking joke.

>>33497164
You are a fucking moron.

The law is (or to be 100% correct, WAS) their constitution. Furthermore their military budget is close to $50 billion and most of it is geared towards naval/anti-air and aircraft expenditure, because they are a fucking archipelago.

>>33497588
The turret is nowhere the magazine

>>33497137
But that's not a carrier tho. That's a destroyer

>>33496563
It's a budget LHD without a well deck

Japan is going to be fucked if they ever need to do amphib

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

29KB, 196x257px

>>33496563
If you're going to build an anti submarine cruiser you might as well go all out like the soviets

>>33497124
They can be retrofitted tho

>>33501094
>The law is (or to be 100% correct, WAS) their constitution.
Their constitution is just as vague and flexible as ours. Literally read, it forbids all and any military whatsoever. Japan has had no issues skirting around the text of their constitution and having one of the largest militaries in the world.

No laser ciws

>>33507181
>Literally read

I see you are retarded and don't understand courts

>>33496661
Just looks like an amphibious assault ship to me.

>>33505257
Ivan of all trades...

>>33496817
battleship babies are the fudds of ocean warfare

>>33496817
>this is what battleshipfags ACTUALLY believe!

>>33496817
An A-10 could kill an Iowa with it's gun alone.

>>33510700
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRTTTTTTTTTTTTT

>>33510726
30mm from A-10 can penetrate any tank in the world.

>>33510737
in the 1970s

>>33510749
In tests they could penetrate the frontal armor of T-90 as easily as T-64 and T-55.

>>33510749
Yea, in the 70s they still had depleted uranium. Technically it is now illegal, no?

>>33510773
No they couldn't. The Air Force even started giving out coloring books to A-10 pilots in the mid 80s about where they could and couldn't penetrate tanks with the gun. The primary weapon used to kill tanks by the A-10 has always been cluster bombs and Mavericks.

http://imgur.com/gallery/fd4sK

>>33510782
Other countries like to use tungsten because of the bad connotation that DU has. Although the gun is primarily used for lightly armored vehicles and other non-heavily armored targets.

>>33510877
>No they couldn't.

Do you have any facts to back that up? Like penetration numbers or test results?

>>33510892
Well the thing i linked which was given to the Air Force to it's own pilots in the 70s for one.

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm
The GAU-8 just doesn't cut it for killing tanks anymore. It'll damage parts and chip the paint and that's only if you get close enough, which puts you in range of even the most basic shoulder launched SAM. At a point it becomes more cost effective to fly a missile into a tank.

>>33510892
The burden of proof belongs to the anon who claimed it could.

>>33496563

Nothing went wrong. Japan has to move slowly for political reasons. Chinks and their own pacifists would have gone apeshit if they were to build a carrier straight away.

>>33508795
I'm a lawyer and went to an ivy league law school, where I took an elective on Japanese legal history incidentally. What are your qualifications?

>>33511776
>1776

not him but nice rare get, if you're a burger

File: image.jpg (39KB, 432x341px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 432x341px

>>33496563
This is now a helicopter carrier cruiser thread

File: JGSDF_OH-1_(32634)_in_Camp_Yao.jpg (3MB, 4240x2400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4240x2400px

>>33513246

File: image.jpg (37KB, 463x318px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 463x318px

>>33496563
>>33513246
>>33513328

File: image.jpg (23KB, 487x302px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 487x302px

>>33513730

>>33510773
Bullshit, the US doesn't have any captured T-90s.

>>33497334
anon I really really like this image

>>33511776
I like to jerk off to pictures of anime girls getting farted on. Please, do not lecture me on japan Mr. "Ivy League Lawyer".

>>33513868
That doesn't mean we don't know what the frontal armor is made of.

>>33514918
I don't give a fuck. The original comment was "In tests they could penetrate the frontal armor of T-90"

There has never any T-90 variant in US control in the US mainland and there has certainly never been a case of an A-10 engaging a T-90, enemy or otherwise.

>>33515736
Fuck off Russian shill. If the US even have S400 lying around in the desert, 1 or 12 T-90S is not unbelievable.

>>33514918
Doesn't mean anyone has a fucking clue. But the Russians have probably said how many mm of RHA it's armour is equivalent to. They do try to sell the things to foreign countries.
That said, there's noting to say the tests that penetrated weren't strikes that struck perpendicular to the armour.

>>33517073
Point to one shred of evidence that they do.

I'm waiting.

File: Moskva Class.jpg (262KB, 1280x1004px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1280x1004px

>>33513246

Okay.

>>33517073
S-300*

>>33511776
'Murica!

>>33511776
Are you the same guy on /tv/ who thought that the appearance of the Japanese Army in the newest Japanese Godzilla movie was a fake thing made up by the director?

>>33517168
RHAe is not a 1-1 comparison when it comes to composite armor, retard

>>33511776
I study East Asian international and strategic studies at the PhD level in both English and Chinese and I can tell you that either you're being wilfully ignorant or obtuse.

Japan can't and won't militarize to the extent of building a full-fledged aircraft carrier (yet) because of the political fallout both domestically and regionally if a ruling government decides to build and aircraft carrier. The constitutional excuse is a way for the government to save face and have a ready-made explanation for the domestic hawks. Both the Hyuga and the Izumo class clearly demonstrate the Japanese capability to build a carrier if they think they have the political capital to do so.

In a sense you're right that their constitution doesn't explicitly say 'no carriers', but their courts and lawmakers will interpret it to mean 'no carriers' because of political reasons.

>>33517073
No, the latest is an S-300 built in the late 2000s given to Cyprus.

The fuck is going on in this tread? First BBfag then A-10fag?

>>33513760
>>33513730
>>33513246

>Jeanne D'Arc class.
>Has two aft facing 100mm cannons
>Now you can shoot and cover our own retreat hon hon hon.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 455x323px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 455x323px

>>33517441
Damn Moskva class are sexy too bad they didnt handle the higher sea states too well
>>33521550
Kek

>>33513730
>>33513760
>>33521550
>>33523424
>Jeanne D'Arc class

I like this ship. I wish there were more ships out there like this ship. I hope they make modernized versions of this ship in the future.