Talk:Ōsumi-class tank landing ship

Politics

Strange that a "defensive and mine countermeasures" ship should be deemed politically unacceptable, while an amphibious assault ship for carrying helicopters or landing tanks is alright. Am I missing something? LordAmeth 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okinawa, Hokkaidō, heck even Kyūshū... To defend them you might have to reinforce by sea with the ports already held/destroyed/disabled by hostile forces. Megapixie (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese post-war constitution forbids Japan from possessing aircraft carriers. There is no such provision on amphibious assault ships. It's not a question of semantics or agressive-sounding language, but rather a constitutional issue. Thus the ship can't be officially named as an aircraft carrier, even if "small mine warefare and amphibious assault carrier" is a more accurate description of the ships role. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.174.12 (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Along with other things I've updated the article with a bit of info on the Maritime Operational Transport, which was supposed to alleviate the need for a amphibious doctrine and associated ships/equipment. 83.70.250.174 (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Original research

The whole section about tank landing ships and landing ship docks reeks of original research. I propose removing those sentences and everything quoted to globalsecurity.org (a wholly unreliable source) if no one can find a source that backs up those assertions. Llammakey (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)