Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Good to see them getting into the Air. Now comes getting them into use.
I wonder if the JGSDF will now be looking into a new light strike vehicle to partner as a Internally Transportable vehicle with there Osprey's. the known Mitsubishi Type 73 light truck is too wide at 69 inches. same for Kawasaki and Yamaha current Commercial side by sides Honda Makes a model that is just wide enough but needs a Collapsing Roll cage to fit the low overhang.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
If the missile is predicted to splashdown in a non-vital area, and if the Japanese government can quickly determine the intentions behind the launch (i.e. a test rather than a hostile attack), there is no reason to go for an intercept involving million-dollar missiles and the risk of provoking the Kim regime. Of course, if the missile veers off course or breaks up prematurely, that is another story.

That being said, Japan should invest in a few midcourse-capable interceptors in the same league as the GBI and the Chinese Dong Neng series. Its M-V and Epsilon launch vehicles could serve as a basis for a notional Japanese GMD-like system.
Any missile shot, that is coming down on their sovereign soil, or even violating their air space should be shot down by the Japanese.

To not do so, will only embolden the tyrant and make him think he can do more with no consequence.

Therefore, with the various systems in place, they should be used for what they were designed for...and to send a very clear message to the N. Korean leader.

As I say, that is what they were designed for, and they serve as a deterrent only so far as the people who may threaten you know that you have the will to use them in such situations.
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Any missile shot, that is coming down on their sovereign soil, or even violating their air space should be shot down by the Japanese.

To not do so, will only embolden the tyrant and make him think he can do more with no consequence.

Therefore, with the various systems in place, they should be used for what they were designed for...and to send a very clear message to the N. Korean leader.

As I say, that is what they were designed for, and they serve as a deterrent only so far as the people who may threaten you know that you have the will to use them in such situations.

I'm confident that Japan has the capability and resolve to handle North Korean missiles, as I'm confident that the Kim regime fully comprehends the ability of the JSDF to counter his provocations and, if necessary, retaliate.

Nevertheless, Japan may very well not choose to shoot down an overflight (which was beyond the Kármán Line) that it knows is unlikely going to hit Japanese territory, barring any aberrations in its trajectory.
 

Inst

Captain
The real reason the Japanese don't dare test their ABM systems is because it's geopolitically destabilizing. If the Japanese, or for that matter, the Americans or the Russians, manage to shoot down a hostile ICBM, it creates a huge deterrence gap and leads to a massive race towards more advanced delivery vehicles.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Yet i don't have see posted ? it is a Hwasong-12 approx max range 3700 - 6000 km so IRBM
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


So Patriot Pac-3 not able against Hwasong-12
SM-6 capable sure
successfully fired two Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) Dual I missiles against a medium-range ballistic missile target
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Japan have in more Patriot Pac-3, SM-3 Block I/IA on 4 Kongo + 2 Atago not able vs IRBM Hwasong-12 but MRBM yes
SK have right now formers Germans PAC-2 few capable vs SRBM soon systems modernised with in more new Patriot Pac-3.

In my notes i have

Patriot Pac-3/MIM-104F able vs BM range max 1100 km, mach 11
THAAD " " 1800 sure to 3000 ?
SM-3 Block I/IA - RIM-161A/B " " 3000
SM-3 block IIA/RIM-161D " " 5500
SM-6 Dual I/RIM-174B " " 5500
GBI only able vs ICBM
Last S-300 PM family, HQ-9 BM range max 1100 km, mach 11
S-400/ S-300VM/V4 mach 16 BM 2500 km
S-500 mach 18/BM 3500 km to see
Aster 30/SAMP-T block 1 BM max 600 km missile variant used by ships unable.
Aster 30/SAMP-T block 1NT max 1000 km

In more exist Russian nuclear Gazelle, Israelis Arrow etc...

* in average BM Specifications
ICBM 5500 km + mach 25
IRBM 3500/5500 km mach 15 - 20
MRBM 1000/3500 km mach 9 - 15
SRBM 300/1000 km mach 3 - 10

If some have better o_O
 
Last edited:

schenkus

Junior Member
Registered Member
So Patriot Pac-3 not able against Hwasong-12
SM-6 capable sure

The way I understand BMD, the distance between the target and your interceptor battery makes a very big difference.

If the interceptor battery itself is the target, the missile is coming "straight" at it. If you shoot an interceptor at the missile you will only need relatively small course corrections even if your initial target acquisition was not very precise. As the missile is coming at you your interceptor doesn't need to be very fast to hit it and the timing is not that critical even if the incoming missile is extremely fast (unless it's doing some terminal manoeuvering).

If the target is hundreds of kilometers from the interceptor and the missile is not flying in the direction of the interceptor battery it gets really complicated and you need a very fast interceptor just so you can reach the missile even if the timing of the intercept is exactly right and you have very precise targetting information.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
The way I understand BMD, the distance between the target and your interceptor battery makes a very big difference.

If the interceptor battery itself is the target, the missile is coming "straight" at it. If you shoot an interceptor at the missile you will only need relatively small course corrections even if your initial target acquisition was not very precise. As the missile is coming at you your interceptor doesn't need to be very fast to hit it and the timing is not that critical even if the incoming missile is extremely fast (unless it's doing some terminal manoeuvering).

If the target is hundreds of kilometers from the interceptor and the missile is not flying in the direction of the interceptor battery it gets really complicated and you need a very fast interceptor just so you can reach the missile even if the timing of the intercept is exactly right and you have very precise targetting information.
Very difficult with trajectory/altitude, speed in general a ABM can intercepted only a category of missiles and for have data more precise...
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Those Atagos sitting in the Sea of Japan are in perfect position to track and knock down incoming missiles

They carry SM-3 for a reason

Apparently lately just for show and "excercises"
 
now noticed
"The Washington Times reported that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is even considering selling Tomahawk cruise missiles to Japan, something it has previously been hesitant to do."
etc.: US Eyes More Arms Sales to Tokyo, Seoul
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The U.S. government is considering the expansion of advanced weapon system sales to Japan and South Korea in the face of heightened nuclear and missile threats from North Korea, sources at the U.S. State Department said.

The Washington Times reported that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is even considering selling Tomahawk cruise missiles to Japan, something it has previously been hesitant to do.

A senior State Department official acknowledged to The Yomiuri Shimbun that the United States is considering expanding arms sales to Japan and South Korea. The official said the department had been instructed by the president to work with Japan and South Korea on drawing up optimal aid policies so Japan and South Korea can meet their legitimate defense needs.

The Japanese government has decided to adopt Aegis Ashore, a cutting-edge missile defense system that is a ground-based version of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.Some Liberal Democratic Party members have said Japan should acquire Tomahawk missiles, which can execute pinpoint attacks on sites such as North Korean missile bases.

Washington is also considering selling weapons to Seoul that include bunker buster bombs, which are capable of destroying underground facilities.

Government welcomes news

The Japanese government welcomed the move that the United States is considering expanding sales of advanced weapon systems.The government has already asked the United States for cooperation in introducing Aegis Ashore. "Purchases from the United States are expected to proceed smoothly," a source close to the Defense Ministry said.

For the time being, the government is prioritizing Aegis Ashore and has decided not to introduce Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). However, some strongly support acquiring the system. "THAAD is necessary for the defense of Japan," a senior official at the Self-Defense Forces said.

There is a gap between the defense capabilities of the Aegis and Aegis Ashore systems, which can intercept missiles outside the atmosphere, and the defense capabilities of
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which can strike missiles within about a dozen kilometers of the ground.

THAAD is able to intercept missiles in areas not covered by these systems -- outside the atmosphere and in its upper layers. Introducing THAAD would create a three-stage layered intercept system.

The government is also considering adopting the cutting-edge SPY-6 radar system, which the U.S. military is expected to deploy soon. SPY-6 is more advanced than the radar system currently on Aegis-equipped vessels, and is expected to greatly increase missile capture and air defense capacities.
 
Top