New Kaga launched

New Japanese helicopter carrier.

I probably would have picked a different name

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

 

Didn't seem to hurt the USS Yorktown(CV-10), USS Hornet(CV-12), USS Lexington(CV-16), or USS Wasp(CV-18).

 

I didn't mean because the one was sunk. I meant because it participated in Pearl Harbor attack.

 

And...

They currently have,
Soryu (SS-501)
Abukuma(DE-229)
Tone (DE-234)
Chikuma (DE-233)
Kirishima (DDG-174)
all of which carry the names of IJN warships that participated in the Pearl Harbor attack.

There were a few more, but those ships have been decommissioned.

 

That was my first thought as well. 24,000 tons for a helo carrier is good sized. I still keep thinking of the now long obsolete Exocet missiles during the Falklands War and wonder how ships like Kaga , well any surface ships for that matter would defend themselves. . The modern 20mm rotary Phalanx system is impressive but how many attacks can they stand off. Of course people have being looking at offense-defence struggles for ever. Just look at 2015 tanks and anti-tank match ups.


Takao, I had no idea ! That seems downright strange.

On a WW2 note, I just found a copy of "The Battle History of The Imperial Japanese Navy" and was going to send it to one of you guys as I cannot read the print but I looked on Amazon and they go for 5 bucks all day. Oh well, thought I had a gift for someone.

Gaines

 

IRC, they are also equipped with two SeaRAM 11 cell missile launchers, but they are short-ranged(about 5.5 miles), as well as SRBOC decoy launchers and internal ECM jammers. As with all modern warships, they will rely on their escorts for air defense(likely their six Aegis DDGs of the Kongo and Atago classes...and two more Improved Atagos, that will not commission until the early 2020s). Further, her helicopters could deploy floating radar reflector decoys, if not acting as decoys themselves.

 

I think I remember Prince Andrew flying a Helo decoy in the Falklands ! The Argentine Air Force seemed better trained than their Army and their WW2 cruiser no match for a modern sub.

That is a pretty impressive list of defense capability. I use to read several current weapons forums, I need to catch up.

 

What does "Kaga" mean in Japanese?

 

Its the name of one of the "Old Provinces" of Japan. Kaga Province was on the coast of the Sea of Japan, almost due west of modern-day Tokyo.

 

I had no idea of the significance. Obviously it has some special meaning to them. Thanks for the enlightenment.

 

the US has been in many Naval combat ops since the Falklands...a lot of these have been amphibious-helo ops.....they went against Iraq which had significant air assets for attacking ....so the US first hit the radar system, then the air assets to downgrade the threats....they train and arm themselves against many threats..they won't be able to stop everything, but as the history shows, the other side has usually not been able to put up signifcant anti-naval threats....
you always expect some losses, but not enough to stop the attack....as seen in other wars, intelligence plays a key role to determine what threats are likely, then the tip of the spear -the carriers, Spec Ops, Air Force---is expected to downgrade any threats to the amphib/vulnerable forces..
when the Stark was hit, the US was not ''at war''....I beleive the aircraft was spotted many miles away....but from what I've read, the Stark did not really activate it's defense systems...and if they thought there were air threats, they should've had air cover

 

Bronk7, thanks dfor the informative answer. I am aware that any military operation will produce casualties, always has, but was curious about a multiple missile attack against a relatively slow and large target. Your answer was most helpful. in my understanding..

Gaines

 

The USS Stark had what "air cover" she needed...an AWACS aircraft was on station, which was providing USS Stark with accurate radar data until the USS Stark was able to detect the Mirage with her own radars.

The AWACS detected the aircraft at 1955 hrs, notified all US warships, and began passing along it's radars information via the data link. The Iraqi aircraft was assigned Track Number (TN) 2202, and was designated "friendly strike/support aircraft"(note that all Iraqi aircraft were assigned friendly designations, while all Iranian aircraft were designated as "unknown presumed hostile". The USS Stark would detect the Mirage with her own sps-49 radar around 2055, and would continue to track the Mirage until the moment of the first missile impact.

The USS Stark did not take any defensive measures. None. The ship did not even maneuver to unmask her Mark 92 STIR, and the decision to lock-on to the Mirage with the Mark 92 CAS was only made after the Mirage had already launched both missiles. The CWIS was never turned on to it's automatic setting, etc.

The Stark did not need air cover, the Stark needed a well-trained crew, which she did not have. For example, those in charge of the CWIS mount did not turn it to "automatic" mode, because they were worried that they would accidentally shoot down what was a presumed friendly aircraft(note that the CWIS has a range of about 1,500 yards, and the Mirage was at a good 10 nautical miles). The crew was also not familiar with the capabilities of the systems that they were in charge of. Nor was the crew taking their duty with the seriousness the job demanded, and this flowed from the commanding officer down the chain of command.

You can read the JAG report here:
http://www.jag.navy.mil/library/investigations/uss%20stark%20basic.pdf
Or find a copy of "Missile Inbound: The Attack on the Stark in the Persian Gulf" by Jeffrey L. Levinson and Randy L. Edwards.
A good book, but it is well on the analytical side(deconstructing the attack) and not on the personal level(crew interviews and in-depth details on the post-attack fight to save the Stark).

 

IIRC, the "modern" sub, HMS Conqueror, sank the General Belgrano(ex-USS Pheonix(CL-46)) with what was essentially an "old" World War II torpedo, the Mark 8 Mod 4.

 

Takao, seems I remember reading, long ago, that Conqueror used a wire guided torpedo with a conventual warhead. My memory could be wrong. I also vaguely remember the germans experimenting with wire guided munitions of sorts. Could this be true.?

 

All the accounts I have seen, do mention that Tigerfish torpedoes were carried aboard, but they were considered to be very unreliable, so the decision was made to use the old, but trusted, straight-runners. A decision helped along by an almost, if not total, lack of ASW being conducted by the Argentinians.

Yes, the Germans were experimenting with two wire-guided torpedoes "Lerche"(based on the G7es torpedo) and "Spinne"(based on the G7e torpedo).

 

Which survived an attack from the Kaga, so the thread has come full circle. Time for a beer

 

thanks Takao, that's what I thought on the Stark..very interesting--so much that I will get that book on it since I need a different subject..great recommendation..just the right, different subject I need....ty..I would think in combat conditions/wartime, carrier fighters would, more than not, be in position to deny enemy fighters from getting a ''clean'' shot at forward based ships??
good point on taking the job ''seriously''...I think this is a major problem in a lot of incidents--IMO...many people are not at all security aware...it almost has to be second nature......many servicemen think about having a good time off duty, not even thinking that tomorrow they could be in the middle of combat with rounds being fired at them...like the servicemen at Pearl thinking the Japanese were US planes, or the engineers were blasting on a Sunday, when it was really the bombing....

 

gtblackwell, I can't send a message to you....?

 

I imagine my box is full again. I will empty it.....Gaines

WOW, had 124 messages, 24 over the limit, down to 50 now, will get the rest tomorrow.