{"id":21599,"date":"2013-08-12T10:32:37","date_gmt":"2013-08-12T15:32:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=21599"},"modified":"2013-08-12T10:32:37","modified_gmt":"2013-08-12T15:32:37","slug":"the-controversy-over-japans-latest-destroyer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2013\/08\/12\/the-controversy-over-japans-latest-destroyer\/","title":{"rendered":"The controversy over Japan’s latest “destroyer”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apparently our eyes can deceive us. For most people looking at this image — at least if they know much about naval vessels — the description that comes to mind is “aircraft carrier”:<\/p>\n

\"JS<\/a>

JS Izumo<\/em> DDH-183<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n

However, for constitutional reasons she is officially classified as a “destroyer”. In the South China Morning Post<\/em>, Stefan Soesanto<\/a> explains why this classification matters:<\/p>\n

The Izumo<\/em>‘s distinctive features certainly do not resemble anything one would typically classify as a destroyer. Indeed the warship currently under construction in Yokohama harbour is an aircraft carrier in anything but in name. Its size, tonnage and speed are closer to the US Essex<\/em> aircraft carrier class, than to any of the two previous helicopter destroyers Japan has built so far.<\/p>\n

At a cost of US$1.14 billion, the Izumo<\/em> is officially conceptualised to host up to 14 helicopters whose missions would range from anti-submarine warfare and maritime border surveillance to humanitarian relief operations. In this regard, the Izumo<\/em>‘s objectives are identical to the two Hyuga<\/em>-class helicopter destroyers that were put into service in 2009 and 2011.<\/p>\n

The current discussion among analysts and military brass as to whether Japan’s helicopter destroyers are considered aircraft carriers is not new. According to The Japan Times<\/em>, Maritime Self-Defence Force chief of staff Admiral Keiji Akahoshi stated in 2009 that the Hyuga<\/em>-class falls outside the conventional definition of an aircraft carrier because it lacks a fair degree of offensive functions. This argumentation has been notably employed by the Japanese government to circumvent Article 9 of the peace constitution to portray its helicopter destroyers as purely defensive military assets.<\/p>\n

While Beijing’s criticism towards the Hyuga<\/em>-class has been largely used as a means to support its own aircraft carrier expansion plans, the unveiling of the much larger Izumo<\/em> has prompted widespread fears in China. Major Chinese media outlets went to great lengths to link Japan’s militaristic past to plans by the Japanese government towards constitutional revision. Indeed, the Chinese defence ministry even put out a statement saying that it is “concerned over Japan’s constant expansion of its military equipment”.<\/p>\n

Reflecting on its own aircraft carrier plans, however, Chinese experts such as Li Daguang, professor at the National Defence University of the People’s Liberation Army, seem to make a simple leap of faith by suggesting that “the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning<\/em> was mainly built for training purposes while the Izumo<\/em> was built for real war”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Of course, this isn’t a new thing, as a quick glance at the JS Hy\u016bga<\/em> also shouts “aircraft carrier” rather than “destroyer”:<\/p>\n

\"JS<\/a>

JS Hy\u016bga<\/em><\/p><\/div><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Apparently our eyes can deceive us. For most people looking at this image — at least if they know much about naval vessels — the description that comes to mind is “aircraft carrier”: However, for constitutional reasons she is officially classified as a “destroyer”. In the South China Morning Post, Stefan Soesanto explains why this […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,24,5],"tags":[617,565,30],"class_list":["post-21599","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-china","category-japan","category-military","tag-carriers","tag-helicopters","tag-navy"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-5Cn","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21599","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=21599"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21599\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":37893,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/21599\/revisions\/37893"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=21599"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=21599"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=21599"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}