Talk:Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer/Archive 2

Way too few points of view
I have only recently joined this discussion, and share Bellhalla's sense that some contributions have been overly wordy. Consensus won't be reached here by having the same editors add more words, but instead by having words added by more (and more diverse) editors! I have thus solicited input from other members of WikiProject Anti-war, and marked this article as being within the scope of that project. (sdsds - talk) 19:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just to note, a paragraph on different classifications which have been applied to the ships' was developed above and endorsed by a consensus before being added to the article. I'm sure that it can be improved, but it's not the case that there is not already a consensus on the article's existing text. I agree that if the article is expanded to cover a discussion of whether there are constitutional implications from Japan building these ships this text would benefit from multiple editors' views. By the way, have these ships led to notable protests in Japan and/or its neighbours or been discussed extensively in the media or by academics? - if not, we need to be mindful of WP:UNDUE. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed edit: one changed word and one added link
editprotected

The article would be improved by changing:
 * called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for political reasons

to:
 * called helicopter destroyers (DDH) for constitutional reasons

This provides a link early on in the article to other wikipedia material which discusses how the Japanese Constitution has influenced post-WWII re-armament in Japan. With that link in place, there might be less need for coverage of the issue in this article. (sdsds - talk) 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Endorse per response to User:Tenmei's suggestion above. Coldmachine Talk 07:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Nick Dowling (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Endorse --Tenmei (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Cheers.  lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation lodged
Please note that User:Tenmei has lodged a request for mediation on this article at Requests for mediation/Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. I am posting this notification here as Tenmei does not appear to have notified the other editors he states are involved in this mediation case. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The step-by-step instructions for filing a request for mediation did not explain that I needed to notify others. I will remedy that oversight without further delay. --Tenmei (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've looking in on this a few times without really being able to figure what the fight's about, or who's on which side. Somebody wants to characterize the ship as an aircraft carrier, and several others object? Or the other way around? Can someone write a summary of the dispute, spelling out what's generally been settled, and what people are still disagreeing about?
 * —WWoods (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments requested on inclusion of Stennis and Illustrious image


While Hyūga is somewhat shorter than Illustrious, the comparison implicit in this image is still apt. The untrained observer who imagines all modern aircraft carriers are supercarrier-size sees: (a) that not all are, and (b) that a vessel approximately the size of Hyūga can be used as a STOL fixed-wing carrier. (Of course it would be better to include an actual photo of Hyūga next to a Nimitz-class carrier, but for that we'll have to wait a few years! ;-) (sdsds - talk) 19:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It would be bit missleading to include this photo IMO given that it doesn't show the subject of the article. While the Hyūgas are potentially capable of operating VSTOL aircraft such as the F-35 and A/V-8, they would aparantly require significant modifications (in particular, fitting a ski jump) to do so safely. Large ships with big flight decks aren't automatically capable of operating fixed-wing aircraft. For instance while Australia's new Canberra class Landing Helicopter Docks are going to be nearly identical to a Spanish ship which will be able to operate F-35s, the Canberras aren't going to be fitted with the necessary radars and other equipment needed to safely operate fixed-wing aircraft and won't be able to serve as aircraft carriers unless these are fitted. Similarly, the HMS Ocean, which is a variant of the Invincble class design (but without a ski jump) can't serve as an aircraft carrier as she is not fully fitted out to operate fixed-wing aircraft (she can land and refuel Harriers, but is not fitted with the magazines and all the other facilities needed to support their operations). The USN's Wasp class ships are bigger than the Incincibles and can operate up to 20 Harriers, but they're not generally designated aircraft carriers either as this isn't their main or intended role. Nick Dowling (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. For observers who have an expert level of understanding about naval vessels, the details in the image could be misleading. But the "untrained observer" I mention above is someone like me, with only a little knowledge of aircraft carriers. The main thought I take away from the image is, "Gee, that little boat is nowhere nearly as big as the big boat. They are clearly not the same kind of thing at all!" (sdsds - talk) 07:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a line art drawing to scale would best convey comparitive size. Say a Nimitz class ship, an oil tanker, a normal destroyer and Hyūga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.152.182 (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration requested by Tenmei
Please note that Tenmei has lodged a request for arbitration concerning this article at Requests for arbitration. Editors who have been involved in this matter may, or may not, wish to make comments there. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What the Hey-Diddly-Ho?
The Hyūga'' may demonstrate Japan's capability to construct aircraft carriers in the future. This marks a return to Japan's WWII extremism that in many instances proved to be just as cruel if not crueler to its Asian neighbors than the Germans were to the Jews.''

The second sentence is bald, and its relationship to the topic of the article is extremely tenuous. Regardless of how one feels about the implications of the Hyuga for Japanese militery power and/ or foreign policy, inserting unreferenced, off-topic diatribes serves no one's purposes. It would be more appropriate to find sources that link these new ships to fears of waxing militarism or international assertiveness in Japan, and link to those.

For the record, this passage seems logically flawed. Simply building a ship with a flight deck does not mark a "return" to anything. The horrors the Japanese inflicted on conquered peoples were largely brought by infantry on the ground. Sea-based air power may have contributed, but were aircraft carriers a key technology without which the atrocities would not have happened? It is certainly true that the Japanese had ships with flight decks at the same time their soldiers committed atrocities like the Rape of Nanking. The United States had gold-colored dollar coins when its government sponsored the rounding up of the native population and their placement in reservations (or worse). Did the issuance of the Sacajawea Dollar mark a return to American Frontier Days extremeism that in many instances proved to be just as cruel if not crueler to its native population than the Europeans were to the Aztecs and Mayans?

Finally, the first sentence here is not well written, is not referenced, and hides a very bold, again very bald, implication behind the weasel-word "may." Read directly, the sentence is inaccurate, if not misleading. The Japanese seem to be more than capable of constructing ships across a wide variety of types, and are probably more than capable of physically building a proper aircraft carrier. However, it has been over a half-century since they operated aircraft off a proper flight deck, and (as the Russians and Chinese can probably attest), attaining some level of expertise in modern carrier flight operations is desireable before constucting full-sized aircraft carriers. That was already alluded to previously, so why touch on it again?

--72.179.28.45 (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Commissioning, March 2009
The official commissioning of the JDS Hyūga on March 18, 2009 was widely reported in the Asian press and elsewhere:

A. RTTNews (link) noted interest in the event:
 * "Anticipating international concern over the launch of the mammoth destroyer, the Japanese government insisted the vessel would not carry fighter planes and that it was different from an aircraft carrier."

B. AvioNews (link) reports that Japan has commissioned the helicopter carrier Hyūga:
 * "The Ministry of Defense underlined that, even if it resembles a light aircraft carrier, the "Hyuga" is an helicopter carrier and respects the pacifist constitution imposed to Japan by the United States after World War II. The Country renounced to use force in international disputes, but anyway it has one of the best organized armies in the world."

C. The Straits Times (link) published an Agence France Presse (AFP) news story which explained that the Maritime Self Defense Force (MSDF) "stressed that the destroyer complies with the country's post-war pacifist constitution."
 * The Straits Times news story included a AFP photo.
 * China Daily published a smiliar Xinhua photo

D. iStockAnalyst.com (link) posted a Kyodo News report mentioning "concerns about its resemblance to a light aircraft carrier":
 * "Despite the Hyuga's look and feel of a light aircraft carrier, the MSDF says it is anything but."
 * "'An aircraft carrier, I believe, has a fair degree of offensive functions. Based on that definition, this Hyuga falls a little bit outside of the frame,' MSDF Chief of Staff Adm. Keiji Akahoshi told a news conference on Tuesday."
 * "The acquisition of a destroyer that could project the force far from Japan's coast, however, raises concerns in Asia. It may even spur rivalry with countries like China, which is rumored to build an aircraft carrier of its own."
 * "Japan denies itself offensive capabilities under its war-renouncing Constitution. But the government interprets the supreme law to mean that it can possess the minimum level of armed force necessary for its self-defense."
 * The Japan Times news story included a Kyodo photo.

This timely information would seem to be worth incorporating into the article. --Tenmei (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Capabilities and Limitations
Does the size of a ship or shape of it really matter when it comes down to the classification? In days of old, the names of ships would be enough to identify the class of ship. In this day and age our naming convention doesn't stand up to the test. I would submit that the size, shape and tonnage shouldn’t dictate the classification of a ship. Those that are avid naval ship buffs should agree that size and shape does not equate to capability.

How many remember those quick Patrol Hydrofoils the US Navy had? The MK-92 Fire Control System, 8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and one 76mm gun. Classification – PHM. Perry Class FFG, original version, MK-92 Fire Control System, 76mm, SM-1, Harpoons, and Torpedoes. But ton for ton the PHM out gunned the FFG. The US built destroyers that were the size of cruisers. Compare the Spruance Class to a Leahy class cruiser. How about a Ticonderoga class cruiser and a Spruance Class destroyer, same hull, different classification.

Anyone remember the Iwo Jima class? Amphibious Assault ships built specifically to carry helicopters. Why didn’t we classify these as destroyers? Primarily because they couldn’t fill the role of a destroyer. When you hear destroyer what do you think of? I think of an ASW capable platform. Torpedoes, sonar, helicopters and limited AAW capabilities. When you say guided missile destroyer I add the AAW capabilities on to the ASW capabilities.

JS HYUGA can be confusing if you trust your sense of sight. Close your eyes and listen to the capabilities. 30 plus knots, bow mounted sonar, fire control and air search radars, vertical launching system, evolved sea sparrow, ASROC, CIWS, torpedo tubes, machine guns and SH60 helicopters.

This is definitely not the forum to get into nitty gritty details about capabilities and limitations, but even though she may look like a helicopter carrier, she definitely falls short in her capabilities to fill that role. Could she be an amphibious assault ship? Nope, she falls short in the realm too. Guided missile destroyer? Again, nope, not without some additions. Destroyer, yes when it comes down to armament, she’s armed similarly to our decommissioned Spruance Class destroyers minus the Strike capability. But with the added punch of carrying more than two helicopters.

I would submit that it’s more than just how something looks. It’s about the capabilities a platform brings to the fight that matters. And based on those capabilities is how ships should be classified. --USS BOZEMAN (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "but even though she may look like a helicopter carrier, she definitely falls short in her capabilities to fill that role. ".


 * Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to apply narrow US-centric views here, and not even accurate in this context. Please tell my why the ship falls short in capabilities in this regard. The ship is equipped to carry and operate a large number of helicopters, has a full-length flight deck, operates several lifts and a large enclosed hangar beneath the flight deck to store, maintain and equip said helicopters. Although the JMSDF says they currently carry only so many helicopters, its the capability, that matters, not the operational context. Otherwise most european LPDs would be nothing more than disaster relief ships. This ship therefore is a rather "pure" helicopter carrier, something a great many other ships operating in that role may be by operational mode, but not by definition based on capabilities.


 * You are basically saying "its not this, because it cant do that, its not that because it cant do this", but eventually your conclusion is "even though it cannot do this (strike), its certainly this." This seems very contradictory to me. Using this logic, I can assume that the Seawolf class is a destroyer...it lacks the capability to operate helicopters and has no air-defense, but the "added punch" of delivering strike capability, while being submerged. Para-OZ (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This thread addresses legitimate issues, but they need to be framed differently.


 * Both USS BOZEMAN and Para-OZ are grappling with the heart of the matter; and indeed the salutary goals of this article are served by focused attention on accurately conveying a clear impression of this vessel. This encompasses carefully drafted prose which helps readers appreciate its characteristics and its capabilities.  These are undisputed and necessary objectives for our article; and the exchange of views above do serve a valid function in refining how the text of this article can be or should be improved.


 * However, it bears repeating that the "threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth – that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source,  not whether we think it is true.


 * In a context established by this restatement of WP:V, two aspects of what USS BOZEMAN has written exemplify a tendency to wander a bit in the wrong direction:
 * A. "In this day and age our naming convention doesn't stand up to the test."
 * I construe the phrase "our naming convention" to mean Wikipedia's naming convention. If so, the remainder of USS BOZEMAN's analysis and the responsive comment by Para-OZ may be veering off in an unhelpful way.  As I see it, Wikipedia's naming convention in this context has nothing to do with the "truth" of anything.  The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) identifies this ship in an explicit manner, and that's the end of it as far as Wikipedia's naming conventions are concerned.  There might be some wiggle-room if it were not for the fact that other "gold standard" reliable sources validate, confirm and repeat that JMSDF identification.  In my view, this stifles further discussion of the title of this article; but in no way does it diminish the need for further review and refinement of the body of the article.


 * This is a fine point, but an inescapable one. If I have not made myself adequately clear, I'm prepared to try again to re-state this concept in different words.  In the context of WP:V policy, the several news articles which appeared when JS Hyūga was commissioned are relevant.


 * B. "JS Hyūga can be confusing if you trust your sense of sight. Close your eyes and listen ...."
 * I construe the subtext here to imply that confusion is a function of some flaw in the way this article has been named or written. If so, I disagree.  The "confusion" (for lack of a better word) was inherent ab initio – from the earliest design inception.  The subject of this article is unique in the cohort of articles about ships of the JMSDF fleet.  It that incorporates the following "see also" links:
 * Constitution of Japan, 1947
 * Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, 1947
 * Second London Naval Treaty, 1936
 * London Naval Treaty, 1930
 * Washington Naval Treaty, 1922


 * While it is undisputed that this ship is an object which can be classified and categorized in the same way as any other military hardware, the discordant fact remains that these ships are also something else -- see Military taxonomy. A unique, supplemental, non-standard taxonomic overlay affects JS Hyūga and JS Ise.


 * Looking backwards, the JMSDF expressly defines itself in terms of a disjunctive break from the Imperial Japanese Navy. Is it necessary to write more in order to explain that the two Hyūga class helicopter destroyers explicitly do not stand outside the arc of classifying and categorizing controversies in Japanese naval history since 1922? since 1930? since 1936? since 1947?


 * Looking forwards, is it necessary to note that this is still an evolving subject. The Democratic Party of Japan landslide victory in the recent election will have unforeseen consequences. While the new Japanese government of Yukio Hatoyama may have been voted into power because of domestic issues, the non-Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) approach to military and foreign policy issues is plausibly expected to be different. --Tenmei (talk) 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Military operations other than warfare
The WikiProject templates at the top of this page do automatically cause this page to be categorized in the following:
 * Start-Class maritime warfare articles ?
 * Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists
 * Maritime warfare task force articles ?
 * Category:Start-Class Japanese military history articles
 * Category:Japanese military history task force articles
 * Category:Start-Class military history articles
 * Category:Start-Class Ships articles
 * Category:Stub-Class Japan-related articles
 * Category:Unknown-importance Japan-related articles
 * Category:Start-Class Anti-war articles
 * Category:Mid-importance Anti-war articles

This article is about a class of ships in the JMSDF fleet which are only used in "military operations other than war" (MOOTW). The ships are prohibited from participating in warfare by Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution; and this begs the question whether this article should be considered or categorized amongst Maritime warfare task force articles?

Expressed in different words, I understand how MOOTW is a sub-category of military history; however, I wonder whether maritime warfare encompass "military operations other than warfare?" If so, why? --Tenmei (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All military vessels are in the scope of the maritime warfare TF at MILHIST and since this class is in the JMSDF fleet it qualifies as military. If you've got a specific question, why don't you bring it up at that task force where more eyes would see and be able to answer the question? -MBK004 23:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Harrier?
Am I right that Japan does not have any Harriers? Would this be worth mentioning? --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Japan currently has no VTOL fighters at all.  Though they may purchase some F-35(not sure wether its the VTOL version that is on the table though).   USA demanding a done deal before full disclosure of capabilities seems somewhat likely to crash that deal however.
 * So yes, even if the ships were officially reclassified as fleet carriers today, Japan does not have and for several years at minimum wont have anything except helicopters to fly from its deck anyway.

DW75 (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're correct that Japan has no Harriers. Nor, unless they've been developing their own and doing a really good job of keeping it secret, do they have any other VTOL or STOVL aircraft. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 06:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)