The Kurama is NOT a helicopter carrier.  It carries a total of three helicopters.  From Wikipedia:

 

Aircraft carried:

3 × SH-60J(K)... anti-submarine helicopters

 

If that constitutes a helicopter carrier, then half the destroyers in the US Navy count as helo carriers.  This is a picture of the Shirane class:

 

 

I'll refer you to the 22DDH graphics and pictures you provided.  See the difference? 

 

Here's the total complement of the Hyuga class, also from Wikipedia:

 

 

Here's the total complement of the USN's upcoming America-class:

 

The typical aircraft complement for the America class is expected to be twelve MV-22B Ospreys, eight AH-1Z Vipers, ten F-35Bs, four CH-53Ks and four Navy MH-60S "Knighthawks". The exact makeup of the ship's aircraft complement will vary according to its mission.

I understand you're an idiot in claiming that three helicopters constitutes a helicopter carrier.

 

I also understand that you're apparently blind in that you can't see the difference between a hull-length flight deck--which is, you know, why they call them carriers--and a fantail helicopter pad and hangar.  Most destroyers have those nowadays, but no one in those navies call them carriers. 

 

You yourself stated, correctly, that calling the 22DDHs destroyers was a constitutional dodge by the Japanese, because they are, indeed, carriers.  Now you're agreeing that they're just "helicopter destroyers."  As much as you despise the Japanese, that has got to hurt.

 

@ gf0012-aust > >  why do you think that I don't even bother responding to his veiled racist nonsense about anything to do with the japanese

slowman > Because you can't.

LOL, sure thing.  thats why everything you say at a technical level has also bee challenged by others.

@ gf0012-aust >> he's go no technical knowledge

slowman > Yours seem to be pretty limited too, supposedly a submarine noise reduction engineer talking about fighters.

 a number of people in here know where I work - its irrelevant to me what you think you know of me.

slowman > Why would they be briefing KFX to Australian defense officials?

they haven't.  they've been commenting in defence industry journals over the last 3 weeks about their intent - but you obviously knew that didn't you?  not.

@ gf0012-aust > but no, KF-X is the new super dooper RKAF 5th gen solution

slowman > Not at all, KFX is their solution to survival in East Asian skies full of J-14s and F-3s from 2020 and onward.

Not according to a number of RKAF and Govt insiders - but then again, you read all the def journals and already knew that.  The F-16 assessment leader (an RKAF General no doubt, said that the F-16 sized platform is questionable when the timelines are considered.

@ gf0012-aust > with other manufacturers dying to line up

slowman > Who wouldn't? There arew very few opportunities for a minimum production run volume of 250 fighters outside of US defense market.

sigh,  its about timelines and platform relevance against other tech sets.  but again you haven't read your own peoples comments in the defence media have you?

@ gf0012-aust >  pity that the COS of the eval team says that it might get canned altogether because the timeline makes no sense wrt to even their own UCAV vission.







slowman > Their UCAV is actually a study for indigenous stealth technology at the moment, to test out RCS reduction techniques to be incorporated into KFX.

@ gf0012-aust   > thats why everything you say at a technical level has also bee challenged by others

slowman > And I am challenging you.

ROFLMAO - to what? an internet duel?  

@ gf0012-aust   > a number of people in here know where I work

slowman >  I don't and I would like to know where you work and what your title is.

they know for a reason, I have no desire to include you in that group.

gf0012-aust > Not according to a number of RKAF and Govt insiders

slowman > Whose quotes you have read from industry journals.

DN and Electronic Defence - and the ROKAF General who headed up the F-15SK assessment

gf0012-aust > The F-16 assessment leader (an RKAF General no doubt, said that the F-16 sized platform is questionable when the timelines are considered.)

slowman > The supposed F-16 sized platform is really sized like a Typhoon. Of course many would argue that F-16 Block 60 and Typhoon are of similar size and class, and that's the topic of another discussion.

so your own air force misunderstand their own statements.  of course.  why didn't I know that

gf0012-aust > whether the KF-X is relevant on timeline and cost and capability.

slowman > Of course it is relevant. East Asia is just entering a Cold-War style arms race between regional powers fueled by newly found wealth and profound hatred for each other; this is no Europe fed up with world wars. Unmanned drones cannot replace the air defense capability provided manned fighters for another 30 years.

/sarcasm off

Traffic control faulted in ship crash

Compiled from Kyodo, Staff report

The collision between a Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer and a South Korean containership Tuesday in the Kammon Strait may have been caused by wrong guidance given by a radar traffic controller minutes before the clash, the Japan Coast Guard said Wednesday.

Damage assessment: A Japan Coast Guard inspection team examines the bow of the destroyer Kurama at Moji port in Kitakyushu on Wednesday. KYODO PHOTO

In the difficult narrow strait separating Kyushu and Honshu, vessels are required to keep to the right as per international navigation rules. But the traffic controller at the JCG's Kammon Strait Maritime Traffic Center in Kitakyushu guided the freighter to the left in order to pass another ship, the JCG said.

According to the Seoul-based operator of the containership, the captain said he had originally planned to pass the right but his ship was guided to the left by the controller.

The destroyer Kurama struck the freighter's starboard bow at around 8 p.m. Tuesday, sparking a fire on the warship's smashed bow and injuring six MSDF sailors.

The crew members of the 5,200-ton Kurama sustained minor burns and light injuries, while no one on the freighter was hurt.

Firefighters from the Moji district of Kitakyushu doused the destroyer's bow with water to contain the blaze early Wednesday.

"The direction from the traffic controller may have been the cause of the accident," a JCG official said.

In an apparent effort to dodge responsibility, however, the JCG said the instructions given to vessels by its traffic control centers aren't binding. They are simply "traffic information" for ships to make their own decisions, it said.

In Tokyo, Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa said the destroyer tried to stop before the crash.

"The (MSDF) vessel was in reverse thrust, but it was too late" to avert the collision, the minister said, citing information provided by the Kurama's captain.