Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[EmoBirb]

and allow Japan to completely disrupt the regional nuclear balance.

The regional nuclear balance has been disrupted since the North Korean missile program. This in turn led to Japan and yes even South Korea hedging their nuclear bets, "just in case". If one looks at South Korean ballistic missiles and thinks they're not a dual use asset is simply blind.

Well, in actuality East Asia was strategically destabilized since the PRC got access to nuclear devices, but that's another matter.

Either way, just how the PRC and DPRK developed their stockpile out of a sense of being in danger from Washington (or the USSR), if the threat level becomes too overt and the US is deemed to unreliable, Japan and the ROK will pursue similar developments, albeit more advanced. The DPRK couldn't be stopped, it's rather amusing to see people think the ROK or Japan could be stopped if they ever felt the urgent need to establish a nuclear deterrent.

 

[Nevermore]

The regional nuclear balance has been disrupted since the North Korean missile program. This in turn led to Japan and yes even South Korea hedging their nuclear bets, "just in case". If one looks at South Korean ballistic missiles and thinks they're not a dual use asset is simply blind.

Well, in actuality East Asia was strategically destabilized since the PRC got access to nuclear devices, but that's another matter.

Either way, just how the PRC and DPRK developed their stockpile out of a sense of being in danger from Washington (or the USSR), if the threat level becomes too overt and the US is deemed to unreliable, Japan and the ROK will pursue similar developments, albeit more advanced. The DPRK couldn't be stopped, it's rather amusing to see people think the ROK or Japan could be stopped if they ever felt the urgent need to establish a nuclear deterrent.

China's nuclear weapons and conventional military expansion objectives are designed to counter the island chain encirclement by the United States, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Guam, and U.S. military bases in Southeast Asia. One cannot accuse China of disrupting regional equilibrium first when the U.S. imposes multiple island chain blockades against China. If the U.S. seeks to demand China's disarmament or North Korea's denuclearization, it must first lift its island chain blockade against China and cease its intimidating military exercises targeting North Korea.
As for your subsequent claim about Japan and South Korea's desire to acquire nuclear weapons, that is their own choice and has nothing to do with China. However, China and the international community possess sufficiently powerful means to prevent such actions or impose severe consequences. You are mistaken in believing that China cannot exert any external pressure on South Korea and Japan.

 

[manqiangrexue]

The regional nuclear balance has been disrupted since the North Korean missile program. This in turn led to Japan and yes even South Korea hedging their nuclear bets, "just in case". If one looks at South Korean ballistic missiles and thinks they're not a dual use asset is simply blind.

The world nuclear balance was disrupted when the US developed nuclear weapons. How could any country that stands against American imperialism not want nuclear weapons to balance the American/Western threat?

Well, in actuality East Asia was strategically destabilized since the PRC got access to nuclear devices, but that's another matter.

No, it became closer to stabilized in the sense that the historically dominant power started to return to its rightful position. When small powers sit "equal" to great powers, that is unsustainable and that is instability.

Either way, just how the PRC and DPRK developed their stockpile out of a sense of being in danger from Washington (or the USSR), if the threat level becomes too overt and the US is deemed to unreliable, Japan and the ROK will pursue similar developments, albeit more advanced. The DPRK couldn't be stopped, it's rather amusing to see people think the ROK or Japan could be stopped if they ever felt the urgent need to establish a nuclear deterrent.

DPRK couldn't be stopped because China and the Soviets backed them in the Korean war. They are regional giants that America and the West could not defeat from far away. America backs Japan and South Korea; with the decline of American power, they are in no position to say no the new regional hegemon. The more correct way to look at it is that even with America in its prime in power dynamic, China at its weakest and the Soviet Union collapsed, the US/West still could not impose its will on Asia; now that America is in heavy decline with Russia war-hardened and China surpassing the West in many critical technologies and still on an unstoppable meteoric ascent technologically, economically and militarily, what chance does America/pro-American forces have in Asia now? In the long run, it is always a stupid bet to favor a power far away and antagonize a giant neighbor just because one is currently in a sliver of history when that neighbor is weaker than the distant superpower. You are only coiling up a giant mousetrap spring that will break your spine once the balance of power shifts.

 

[SunlitZelkova]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

An MOD panel examining ways to strengthen Japan's defense capabilities has suggested building nuclear-powered submarines with long-range land attack capability.

Such a project would face much bigger challenges than say, converting the Izumos into aircraft carriers, because whereas a gray zone in the constitution is what made that possible, Japan has a law specifically making it illegal to use nuclear energy for military purposes.

The JMSDF would face a manpower issue due to the specialized nature of operating nuclear reactors, but apparently wants to utilize AI and other new technologies to lessen the workload and keep the personnel requirement down. Such a philosophy is already being applied to new combatants like the Mogami-class frigates.

Something I find interesting about the article is it quotes an unnamed JSDF member as saying that "an aircraft carrier cannot defeat an aircraft carrier." The rank of the person is not mentioned, but in any case, it makes me wonder if there is/was some internal opposition in the MOD to converting the Izumos and buying F-35Bs.

I also wonder if this proposal is being floated in response to the impending rapid increase of China's SSN fleet in the coming decades.

 

[4Tran]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

An MOD panel examining ways to strengthen Japan's defense capabilities has suggested building nuclear-powered submarines with long-range land attack capability.

Such a project would face much bigger challenges than say, converting the Izumos into aircraft carriers, because whereas a gray zone in the constitution is what made that possible, Japan has a law specifically making it illegal to use nuclear energy for military purposes.

The JMSDF would face a manpower issue due to the specialized nature of operating nuclear reactors, but apparently wants to utilize AI and other new technologies to lessen the workload and keep the personnel requirement down. Such a philosophy is already being applied to new combatants like the Mogami-class frigates.

Something I find interesting about the article is it quotes an unnamed JSDF member as saying that "an aircraft carrier cannot defeat an aircraft carrier." The rank of the person is not mentioned, but in any case, it makes me wonder if there is/was some internal opposition in the MOD to converting the Izumos and buying F-35Bs.

I also wonder if this proposal is being floated in response to the impending rapid increase of China's SSN fleet in the coming decades.

I imagine that there's opposition to turning the Izumos into carriers because light carriers suck in general, and the Izumos are going to suck in particular. At most, they are unlikely to operate more than 6 F-35s, and that's not even enough to run a constant CAP of 2 fighters. What's the value of a carrier that can't even protect itself?

The propsal to build SSN sounds like the JMSDF is running out of good solutions so they're starting to reach for bad ones. The reality is that it's just not in a good position to fight a war against China, and that all of the trends are just making the Japanese position worse and worse. Any real solutions to their problems can only be addressed by diplomacy, but that's not an option for the JMSDF.

 

[qwerty3173]

I imagine that there's opposition to turning the Izumos into carriers because light carriers suck in general, and the Izumos are going to suck in particular. At most, they are unlikely to operate more than 6 F-35s, and that's not even enough to run a constant CAP of 2 fighters. What's the value of a carrier that can't even protect itself?

The propsal to build SSN sounds like the JMSDF is running out of good solutions so they're starting to reach for bad ones. The reality is that it's just not in a good position to fight a war against China, and that all of the trends are just making the Japanese position worse and worse. Any real solutions to their problems can only be addressed by diplomacy, but that's not an option for the JMSDF.

I'd think with the tonnage of the ship operating around 12 F35B is entirely possible. The main problem is that with the ridiculously small amount of deck length available even stovl will be a challenge. QE carrier only managed about 16 sorties per day and is much larger, compared to the 90 sorties per day maximum for 001 and 002.

 

[4Tran]

I'd think with the tonnage of the ship operating around 12 F35B is entirely possible. The main problem is that with the ridiculously small amount of deck length available even stovl will be a challenge. QE carrier only managed about 16 sorties per day and is much larger, compared to the 90 sorties per day maximum for 001 and 002.

Cavour (27000 tons) has 15 F-35Bs and Juan Carlos I (26000 tons) has 10-12 Harriers. The Izumos are even smaller and has to be converted for fighter use so would likely be less space-efficient. If they do stuff 12 F-35s in one, they'll probably have to forgo most of their helicopter complement. It's possible the JMSDF will most in this direction, but it's a pretty big sacrfice to make.

And yeah, sortie rates are going to suck, payloads are going to suck, and the range is going to be terrible. Also, a JMSDF fleet operating any distance from a airbase on the land will have to do so without AWACS coverage, and that spells potential disaster.

 

[gelgoog]

An MOD panel examining ways to strengthen Japan's defense capabilities has suggested building nuclear-powered submarines with long-range land attack capability.

Retarded idea. The possible opponents for Japan are Russia and China. They are all close by. A battery electric submarine would have enough range. Be more silent than a nuclear sub and a lot cheaper. So you can have more of them.

But yes adding long range attack to the submarines is a good idea.

Such a project would face much bigger challenges than say, converting the Izumos into aircraft carriers, because whereas a gray zone in the constitution is what made that possible, Japan has a law specifically making it illegal to use nuclear energy for military purposes.

They will just reeinterpret the law like they did for aviation carriers. Nuclear power is not nuclear weapons as simple as that.

The JMSDF would face a manpower issue due to the specialized nature of operating nuclear reactors, but apparently wants to utilize AI and other new technologies to lessen the workload and keep the personnel requirement down. Such a philosophy is already being applied to new combatants like the Mogami-class frigates.

Japanese diesel subs use like twice the crew of German or Russian diesel subs. So yes they better fix that.

 

[Maikeru]

Retarded idea. The possible opponents for Japan are Russia and China. They are all close by. A battery electric submarine would have enough range. Be more silent than a nuclear sub and a lot cheaper. So you can have more of them.

But yes adding long range attack to the submarines is a good idea.


They will just reeinterpret the law like they did for aviation carriers. Nuclear power is not nuclear weapons as simple as that.


Japanese diesel subs use like twice the crew of German or Russian diesel subs. So yes they better fix that.

And North Korea. And maybe South Korea. No love lost there.

 

[qwerty3173]

For new diesel-electric subs a trend for future designs is to get rid of the AIP generator and instead rely on enormous sized Li-ion battery banks. After all, without oxygen from the air, fuel burning is a very inefficient way of power generation. With quickly improving battery technology, a submarine loaded up with batteries may have underwater ranges close to an AIP sub while being fully rechargeable on the surface and even quieter underwater.