Is Japans New Helicopter Destroyer an

Aircraft Carrier?
The war of words between China and Japan over a new boat tells us
a lot about the shifting balance of power in the Pacific.

BY JAMES HOLMES-APRIL 7, 2015

Size matters. But rhetoric matters even more. Is the Izumo, the ship Japan calls a
helicopter destroyer, really an aircraft carrier in disguise, as Chinese
commentators allege? The vessel was commissioned into the Japan Maritime SelfDefense Force (JMSDF) in late March: Judging from the number of
stories repeating the phrase aircraft carrier in disguise since then, many foreign
commentators seem to think so. This suggests that Beijing, not Tokyo, is telling the
more compelling story about Japans purposes in putting aviation-capable ships to sea.
This comes as little shock. For all its virtues, democratic Japan isnt forceful about or

adept at telling its story when it comes to military matters. Butseizing control of
language comes as second nature to Chinas ruling Communist Party descended
from founding chairman Mao Zedong, whotaught that peacetime politics is merely war
without bloodshed and that there can never be too much deception in war. Beijing isnt
citing Japans bloody past just to fire up patriotic Chinese. Calibrating language to
foreign audiences is standard practice for Chinese officialdom. In this case, the
message is that Japans imperial itch is back; the island nation is rearming to terrorize
Asia once again; Asians should worry and Washington should abandon its longstanding ally lest it be complicit in aggression.
Depicting the Izumo as an aircraft carrier in disguise makes for good spin. Chinese
commentators can draw false implications from a mostly true yarn about sea power,
casting a harmless Japanese undertaking as a precursor to aggression. The core of the
Chinese tale: that the JMSDF is constructing a fleet of front-line aircraft carriers
resembling those that flew the banner of imperial Japan, and is doing so under the
guise of augmenting its fleet of destroyers. Is the Izumo an aircraft carrier? Yes, its
the latest in a series of JMSDF light aircraft carriers, all designated helicopter
destroyers.
But Tokyo forgoes the label aircraft carrier to avoid dredging up memories of its
imperial, militarist past. China cries foul, accusing it of building a new carrier force
while dissembling about its purposes. Beijing appears to have the upper hand in the
battle of narratives about carrier aviation.
The Chinese do a great job drawing sinister implications from a superficially accurate
comparison between contemporary and World War II-era carriers. But its absurd to
depict the Izumo as CNN did as a warship as large as the storied Yamato-class
battleships which fought U.S. naval forces in the Pacific theater of World War II. Yes,
the two warships are both a bit over 800 feet long, but the resemblance stops there.
The Yamato was an armored behemoth boasting triple the tonnage of the Izumo,
a 24,000-ton light aircraft carrier. These ships also had/have dramatically different
purposes. Battleships blasted away at enemy battleships with their massive guns, while
carriers use embarked aircraft to duel enemy fleets and pummel shore targets.
Chinese commentators know better than to compare the Izumo to the Yamato or its
sister ship, Musashi, historys largest battleships. Indeed, mentioning Imperial
Japanese Navy (IJN) battleships rattles few these days. It has been 23 years since the
worlds last battleship was retired, and more than 70 years since carriers replaced
battleships as the fleets heavy hitters. And its worth remembering that carrier-based
aircraft sent the Musashi to the bottom.

With that history, battleships dont resonate viscerally the way aircraft carriers do. To
alarm foreign audiences about Japans ambitions, evoking IJN carriers is the way to
go. Likening the Izumo to, say, the Soryu a flattop that struck at Pearl Harbor,
among other exploits conjures up more lurid images than a battleship that suffered
an ignominious fate. Those images remind Asians of IJN task forces that once
rampaged across the Pacific and Indian oceans, and Americans of Pearl Harbor and
the Battle of Midway. Plus, the Izumos dimensions tonnage, length, speed really
are similarto those of IJN carriers. That resemblance lends credence to Chinese claims
that the Izumo constitutes the second coming of the Imperial Japanese Navy and
thus proof that Japan is reverting to militarism.
But raw measures such as length and tonnage mislead. IJN flattops ranked among the
preeminent warships of their day. And they were capacious for their time, carrying
scores of propeller-driven warplanes, then the state-of-the-art for naval aviation.
Combat aircraft, though, have morphed almost beyond recognition since 1945. Theyre
jet-propelled, bigger, and vastly more sophisticated; they guzzle more fuel and demand
more repair shops and other support infrastructure.
In short, they take up more space meaning that present-day ships of World War II
dimensions have room for only a small fraction of the number of aircraft their
counterparts used to carry. The Izumo will sport only 23 helicopters, whereas IJN
flattops disgorged dozens of fighters and attack planes. While Japanese defense
officials disclaim any plans to operate jets from the Izumos deck, the vessel could
conceivably undergo modification tooperate up to 17 F-35 Lightning II stealth
fighter/attack jets. (Its helicopters would have to stay behind to make room for a
fighter squadron that large.) Ergo, it could have some offensive potential following a
refit of significant proportions.
But even an F-35 squadron would only constitute a modest-sized modern air wing,
the term for a flattops complement of fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft. It would be
smaller than the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaonings 36-plane air wing and only about
one-quarter the complement carried onboard a U.S. Navy nuclear-powered carrier.
So, yes, Chinese observers and others are correct to call the Izumo an aircraft carrier.
And, yes, its proportions are comparable to those of IJN flattops. But Chinese analysts
are wrong to imply that Japan has vaulted into the front rank of carrier navies or has
done something baleful by putting the ship to sea.
During World War II, a 24,000-ton ship stood at the forefront of air combat at sea.
Today, its remote from being a front-line aircraft carrier. Beijing may be right to raise
the alarm should the JMSDF start building carriers comparable in size and capability
to 100,000-ton U.S. Navy nuclear-powered carriers or even the 70,000-ton Liaoning.

But thats far-fetched for a country that informally caps defense spending at 1 percent
of GDP a token sum.
Furthermore, there would be plenty of advance warning before the JMSDF attempted
such a leap in capability. In all likelihood, a big-deck carrier project would bust the
defense budget. The political uproar surrounding such a decision would loudly
telegraph Japans intentions. Such a breakout is extremely doubtful: Japanese naval
aviation promises to remain a humble affair.
So the Izumo is an aircraft carrier of sorts. But is it in disguise, as Chinese
commentators allege? Is Tokyo disingenuous for branding it as a type of destroyer?
Maybe. But if so, the JMSDF is far from unusual in employing soothing terminology to
brand its warships. Like many nations throughout history, its aiming to mollify
foreign or domestic audiences. Hence the name game.
The battleship USS Maine constitutes one precedent. The Maine, whose 1898 sinking
helped precipitate the Spanish-American War, was built as an armored cruiser
before being reclassified as a second-class battleship. The Navy leadership
designated some of the Maines successors as coastal-defense battleships, lest
Americans wary of European entanglements think Washington was constructing a
navy on the sly to fight far from home. The name assuaged such worries, conveying
defensive purpose. Only after the Spanish-American War did Americans grow
accustomed to the idea of foreign naval wars, letting the Navy jettison this unwieldy
terminology. Battleships were forthrightly dubbed battleships from then on.
Fast-forward a few decades. To get around the post-World War I naval arms accords,
Germany built Panzerschiffe armored ships so formidable that British naval
officers took to calling them pocket battleships. Berlin reclassified them as heavy
cruisers after the outbreak of World War II. The pocket battleship Graf Spee was a
terror of the seas before a British task force overwhelmed it. Such linguistic
misdirection was commonplace at one time.
Nor is misleading language purely an artifact from long ago. The Soviet navy, for
example, dubbed its premier aircraft carriers aircraft-carrying cruisers even though
their dimensions were comparable to early American supercarriers.
Rather than indulging in linguistic trickery, however, Soviet naval officials had solid
technical grounds for making such a distinction. As the name implies, aircraft-carrying
cruisers merged characteristics from cruisers and aircraft carriers. They were
festooned with guns and missiles, like heavy surface warships. Yet they also operated
middling-sized air wings from their flight decks. They were indeed both cruisers and

carriers. Indeed, it took thoroughgoing refits to convert the aircraft-carrying cruisers

Admiral Gorshkov and Varyag for service as traditional aircraft carriers (in
todaysIndian and Chinesenavies, respectively). Navies dont always pick oddball terms
for political reasons.
Does eliding inconvenient realities to calm fears amount to concealing malign intent?
Not necessarily. There are three yardsticks for evaluating the JMSDFs carrier
aspirations: The U.S. Navy entered the age of steam soft-pedaling its battle capacity in
order to placate domestic sentiment. Interwar Germany pulled a sleight of hand to get
around its treaty commitments. The Soviet navy labeled its carriers cruisers for sound
technical reasons.
Which pattern fits the Izumo best? The fin de sicle U.S. Navy. Japans peace
constitution is loosely analogous to 19th-century Americas tradition of nonentanglement in foreign diplomacy and war. Except Japans pacifism is far more
stringent: Tokyo has to ameliorate not only widespread anti-war sentiment at home
but suspicions of martial behavior among Asians especially in countries that once
fell under Japans yoke. Pacifism is a cultural force no Japanese government flouts
lightly.
Calling a light aircraft carrier a destroyer, then, signals that Tokyo rejects rearmament
that would defy democratic Japans anti-war traditions. The Izumo is an impressive
warship that could be outfitted for offensive missions. And Japan can experiment with
the ship, learning lessons that would advance its capacity to build and operate frontline carriers. But predicting that it will indeed pursue a carrier fleet is premature in the
extreme. Beijing excels at pedantry and at interpreting Japanese policies in the most
conspiratorial light possible. In branding terms, the Izumo is the JMSDFs answer to a
coastal-defense battleship a vessel whose designation expresses the leaderships
defensive outlook.
How much does it matter whether Beijing defines the terms of maritime debate? Not
much. Its doubtful Beijing will loosen the U.S.-Japan alliance or convince anyone else
that Tokyo is again on the march. But China may come to rue harping incessantly on
Japanese misconduct during World War II and the echoes of history today. Doing so
prompts observers to ask whos acting like a militarist. And it raises the question while
handing them a measuring stick to answer it. Thou doth protest too much.
Think about it. Liberal Japan has maintained an inoffensive profile for decades while
spending a trifling sum on its military. China, by contrast, boosts its defense budget
by double digits nearly every year, spending part of that figure on aircraft carriers that
arent in disguise. It preys on its neighbors maritime territory. It wants to carve out

a zone of exceptionalismin East Asia where the Chinese Communist Party makes the
rules. Itproclaims that might makes right within that zone.
Remind you of anyone?
Posted by Thavam