• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

JS Kaga (DDH-184)

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
427
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
"Japan Launches Latest Helicopter Carrier"
By: Sam LaGrone
August 27, 2015 12:11 PM • Updated: August 27, 2015 1:32 PM

Source:
http://news.usni.org/2015/08/27/japan-launches-second-helicopter-carrier

Japan has launched the second in its new class of helicopter carrier — the largest Japanese ships since World War II — in a Thursday ceremony in Yokohama.

The 24,000-ton Kaga (DDH-184) — built by ship builder Japan Marine United — bears the same name as the World War II Imperial Japanese Navy carrier Kaga that was part of Pearl Harbor attack and was sunk in the Battle Midway.

The ship follows JS Izumo (DDH-183) which entered service in the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force (JMSDF) in March.

The Japanese have said the primary roles of the two ships are anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and humanitarian aid and disaster relief (HADR) operations.

The ships “heightens our ability to deal with Chinese submarines that have become more difficult to detect,” a JMSDF officer told Asahi Shimbum in March.

The ships will field seven Mitsubishi-built SH-60k ASW helicopters and seven AgustaWestland MCM-101 mine countermeasure (MCM) helicopters, U.S. Naval Institute’s Combat Fleets of the World.

There is a potential for the two ships to work with American MV-22s and potentially the short takeoff and vertical landing variant of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). However, the Japanese say they have no plans to operate the JSF from either ship.

When Kaga commissions Japan will have four helicopter carriers. Along with Izumo, Japan has 18,300-ton Hyuga-class helicopter carriers already in commission.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,010
Reaction score
1,061
Can't wait to see their next class. They've been giving the Wasp class the eye so it should be interesting.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
465
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO4shR-jy6s
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
722
Reaction score
234
One could hope it is just a case of some stupid overnationalistic soldier somewhere, but their government had to approve it.
One wonders about the the thinking process --at top level-- which led to naming DDH-184 after one of the carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor.
Such great taste ...
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,955
Reaction score
465
Personally, I'm more offended by Boaty McBoatface.
 

covert_shores

Research + illustration
Joined
Oct 31, 2014
Messages
671
Reaction score
37
Website
www.hisutton.com
Just a traditional naval name. Western navies don't worry about sensitivity of our allies when naming ships. HMS Trafalgar for example.


Disappointed that the new SSBNs are Dreadnought and not Agincort.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,010
Reaction score
1,061
dan_inbox said:
One could hope it is just a case of some stupid overnationalistic soldier somewhere, but their government had to approve it.
One wonders about the the thinking process --at top level-- which led to naming DDH-184 after one of the carriers that attacked Pearl Harbor.
Such great taste ...
You mean like the plethora of USN ships named after places where we killed thousands of Japanese? Hell, we've had TWO Enterprises named after a carrier likely responsible for more Japanese deaths than occurred at Pearl Harbor. Then there's the Enola Gay.
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
722
Reaction score
234
sferrin said:
You mean like the plethora of USN ships named after places where we killed thousands of Japanese?
Maybe some don't see the point, but I do make a difference between the perpetrator of a vicious attack in peacetime like Pearl, and those who respond to it. I must be old school.

I am not offended by the name, just surprised by the poor taste. To me it is a milder version of if Germany named its ships Totenkopfstandarten, Auschwitz or Dachau, for exemple.
I'd want to show better symbols. Specially as inspiration to my troops.
Besides, if I were in government I'd simply question the wisdom of gratuitously squandering the goodwill of allies. Especially when it might be needed soon, given China's actions around several archipelagos like the Senkaku Islands.
Machismo can be fine and dandy, but only when it is not stoopid.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,010
Reaction score
1,061
dan_inbox said:
sferrin said:
You mean like the plethora of USN ships named after places where we killed thousands of Japanese?
Maybe some don't see the point, but I do make a difference between the perpetrator of a vicious attack in peacetime like Pearl, and those who respond to it. I must be old school.

I am not offended by the name, just surprised by the poor taste. To me it is a milder version of if Germany named its ships Totenkopfstandarten, Auschwitz or Dachau, for exemple.
I'd want to show better symbols. Specially as inspiration to my troops.
Besides, if I were in government I'd simply question the wisdom of gratuitously squandering the goodwill of allies. Especially when it might be needed soon, given China's actions around several archipelagos like the Senkaku Islands.
Machismo can be fine and dandy, but only when it is not stoopid.
It's a name. I'd be astonished if anybody in the entire decision chain went, "YEAH! We bombed 'em good in Pearl Harbor. Let's celebrate it by naming another carrier after one that did the deed."
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
981
Reaction score
297
dan_inbox said:
sferrin said:
You mean like the plethora of USN ships named after places where we killed thousands of Japanese?
Maybe some don't see the point, but I do make a difference between the perpetrator of a vicious attack in peacetime like Pearl, and those who respond to it. I must be old school.

I am not offended by the name, just surprised by the poor taste. To me it is a milder version of if Germany named its ships Totenkopfstandarten, Auschwitz or Dachau, for exemple.
I'd want to show better symbols. Specially as inspiration to my troops.
Besides, if I were in government I'd simply question the wisdom of gratuitously squandering the goodwill of allies. Especially when it might be needed soon, given China's actions around several archipelagos like the Senkaku Islands.
Machismo can be fine and dandy, but only when it is not stoopid.
My recollection is that "Kaga" refers to a former province of Japan (apparently translates as "Increased Joy").
Strange how some people can contend to be offended by a name of a Japanese warship while simultaneously making deeply ignorant/ insensitive comments re: the Holocaust.
I'm not looking to make light of the Pearl Harbour attack but a damaging surprise attack on military bases (a war crime) does not in any meaningful way compare with the systematic repression and murder of millions of men, women & children (the worst crime against humanity in human history).
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
446
Reaction score
87
Did you react the same way to the HMS Ark Royal christening in '81? After all it took part in Operation Catapult at Mers-el-Kébir...

I won't comment on your attempts at equivalency with the Holocaust because I'd probably be banned.
 

dan_inbox

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
722
Reaction score
234
I meant in no way a comparison between Pearl and the holocaust. The comparison is about choosing names of war criminals as inspiration for the troops. And yes, Kaga is way lower in that scale ("milder") than Totenkopfstandarten.

Again, it was not about being offended, it was about surprise at the lack of taste and wisdom among leaders who could be expected to have some political acumen and finesse.

In that name choice I see a major blooper and you don't, and we can agree to disagree.
The repeat attempts at personal digs would do nothing to improve the atmosphere of the forum if they succeeded. Just saying that you see no problem with selecting a war crime perpetrator as ship name is enough. I find it inept and you guys don't, that's it.
Let's go back to the topic of the forum.
 

kaiserd

I really should change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2013
Messages
981
Reaction score
297
dan_inbox said:
I meant in no way a comparison between Pearl and the holocaust. The comparison is about choosing names of war criminals as inspiration for the troops. And yes, Kaga is way lower in that scale ("milder") than Totenkopfstandarten.

Again, it was not about being offended, it was about surprise at the lack of taste and wisdom among leaders who could be expected to have some political acumen and finesse.

In that name choice I see a major blooper and you don't, and we can agree to disagree.
The repeat attempts at personal digs would do nothing to improve the atmosphere of the forum if they succeeded. Just saying that you see no problem with selecting a war crime perpetrator as ship name is enough. I find it inept and you guys don't, that's it.
Let's go back to the topic of the forum.
I also don't want to prolong this particular side discussion re: the main topic.
However as factual correction I would again state that the modern Kaga is named after a former province of Japan and is carrying on the tradition of naming Japanese carriers with this name; it is not named after "a war crime perpetrator". The comparisons with British carriers named Ark Royal above is well made.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
2,015
Reaction score
97
I wonder what the attitude would be to HMS CONQUEROR as a name for a Royal Navy ship? ::)
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,593
Reaction score
371
From the start of the 20th century, Japanese battleships were named after old provinces of Japan. After the Washington Treaty, construction of most battleships and battlecruisers was stopped for a while. The battlecruisers Akagi and Amagi (named after Japanese mountains) were to be finished as carriers, but Amagi was destroyed during a fire. As its replacement, the unfinished Kaga was then converted to a carrier.
- battleships - including the two converted to carriers (Kaga, Shinano) - named after provinces
- battlecruisers - including the one converted to a carrier (Akagi) - named after mountains
- purpose-designed carriers - mostly named after mythical animals, with two named after mountains (Katsuragi, Amagi as laid down in 1942)

After WW II, DDH named after provinces and mountains.

Wiki has an entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_ship-naming_conventions
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,010
Reaction score
1,061
dan_inbox said:
I meant in no way a comparison between Pearl and the holocaust. The comparison is about choosing names of war criminals as inspiration for the troops. And yes, Kaga is way lower in that scale ("milder") than Totenkopfstandarten.
It was no doubt named after the same place the first Kaga was named for, not for the ship that bombed Pearl Harbor. We have a USS Missouri SSN. It was named after the state not the battleship.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,593
Reaction score
371
'Tradition', in my opinion, is not the best of reasons to justify decisions. The tradition of naming major warships after defunct Japanese provinces is a little over a century old. There was another tradition to name carriers after mythical animals, slightly younger. The Japanese government's decision to name its first 'DDH' that really looks like a carrier is an interesting one, whether you assume it as the product of a lack of historical awareness, or, in contrast, as the product of acute historical awareness. I do not like either possibility.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,748
Reaction score
639
There's no doubt the current Japanese government is taking a more aggressive stance and the ship names aren't entirely coincidental to that. I'm not sure when they started reusing IJN ship names -- I recall that there was a small flap over the Kongo class, which have WW2 battleship or cruiser names.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,010
Reaction score
1,061
TomS said:
There's no doubt the current Japanese government is taking a more aggressive stance and the ship names aren't entirely coincidental to that. I'm not sure when they started reusing IJN ship names -- I recall that there was a small flap over the Kongo class, which have WW2 battleship or cruiser names.
I agree they're taking a more aggressive stance (as they should) but I don't get the impression Japan harbors any ill will towards the US in the least.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,723
Reaction score
427
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Arjen said:
'Tradition', in my opinion, is not the best of reasons to justify decisions. The tradition of naming major warships after defunct Japanese provinces is a little over a century old. There was another tradition to name carriers after mythical animals, slightly younger. The Japanese government's decision to name its first 'DDH' that really looks like a carrier is an interesting one, whether you assume it as the product of a lack of historical awareness, or, in contrast, as the product of acute historical awareness. I do not like either possibility.
Indeed, why continue the tradition of naming warships for provinces abolished during the Meiji Restoration and not name them for present-day prefectures? Why name DDH-184 for the defunct Kaga Province (abolished in 1871) and not name it for the present-day Ishikawa Prefecture (established 1872)? DDH-183 is named for the defunct Izumo Province and not named for the present-day Shimane Prefecture. DDH-182 is named for the defunct Ise Province and not named for the present day Mie Prefecture. DDH-181 is named for the defunct Hyuga Province and not named for the present-day Miyazaki Prefecture. Why invite associations to World War II-era dreadnoughts and aircraft carrier conversions and provoke memories of Japan's imperial past and conduct during World War II? Did the Japanese government ever pause to consider what the reaction would be by nations who suffered under Japanese occupation?

TomS said:
There's no doubt the current Japanese government is taking a more aggressive stance and the ship names aren't entirely coincidental to that. I'm not sure when they started reusing IJN ship names -- I recall that there was a small flap over the Kongo class, which have WW2 battleship or cruiser names.
"More aggressive stance" seems like a very odd phrase choice to characterize the Japanese government's moves from Article 9 pacifism to a policy of collective self-defense.

Although there may have been a flap over the name of DDG-173, Kongo is named for Mount Kongo in Osaka Prefecture. The names of the sister ships of her class and her successor class ships are also named for mountains in Japan. The names are in present-day use rather than the use of obsolete names for the DDHs.
 
Top