Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Lethe

Captain
Any news as to what the near-term plans are for the Asagiri and Abukuma-class ships? On the one hand I see that JMSDF has a required (or desired) force level of 54 destroyers, which I take it means 50 surface combatants (destroyers + frigates) plus the four DDHs. I also see that JMSDF today has only 44 surface combatants in service, including the two Mogami frigates commissioned so far this year. So is this batch of Mogami frigates going to roll out without the Asagiri and/or Abukuma-class ships retiring in order to boost fleet numbers to the desired level, or will JMSDF continue to fall short of its requirement? Could we see the Asagiri's remain in service while all six Abukuma's are retired and replaced by this batch of eight Mogamis for a net gain of two ships?
 
Last edited:

Lethe

Captain
Any news as to what the near-term plans are for the Asagiri and Abukuma-class ships? On the one hand I see that JMSDF has a required (or desired) force level of 54 destroyers, which I take it means 50 surface combatants (destroyers + frigates) plus the four DDHs. I also see that JMSDF today has only 44 surface combatants in service, including the two Mogami frigates commissioned so far this year. So is this batch of Mogami frigates going to roll out without the Asagiri and/or Abukuma-class ships retiring in order to boost fleet numbers to the desired level, or will JMSDF continue to fall short of its requirement? Could we see the Asagiri's remain in service while all six Abukuma's are retired and replaced by this batch of eight Mogamis for a net gain of two ships?

In the absence of more data I've assumed that all eight Mogami-class ships in the current batch will enter service by end 2025, while three ships from each of the Abukuma and Asagiri-class ships will retire over the same period. Which delivers...

JMSDF Surface Combatants by Tonnage, 1970-2025.png

Note that this chart includes the Haruna- and Shirane-class DDHs but not their flat-top Hyuga or Izumo replacements. The post-2008 decline in displacement is therefore arguably somewhat misleading. Not sure how else to handle it.
 

Janiz

Senior Member
Note that this chart includes the Haruna- and Shirane-class DDHs but not their flat-top Hyuga or Izumo replacements.
Hyuga class as ASW specialized DD can be included in the graph but not Izumo :).

As for replacements - we still don't know the schedule yet and to tell the truth the 54 "destroyers" plan should be implemented by the 2028-30. And those numbers will fluctuate around this number (once there will be 56, other times 53 ships) all the time.
 

Lethe

Captain
Hyuga class as ASW specialized DD can be included in the graph but not Izumo :).

There does seem to be a case for this. Tellingly, Hyuga-class ships have ESSM, ASROC and torpedo tubes (all characteristics of surface combatants) while Izumo has none of these.

I'm just hesitant about the precedent and what it means for classification of the various Harrier-equipped "light aircraft carrier" ships currently and previously operated by European nations, and then the ability to draw a clear distinction between those types and "fleet carriers" like CdG and the QE-class ships.
 

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
Japan and the Philippines have finalized the sale of Japanese military radars to the Philippines on August 14th. The radars include three large static radars and one mobile radar for about 100 million USD.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

philippinesradar.jpg

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


[snip]

A PR reel of radar systems from Mitsubishi Electric, likely put out to coincide with the soon-to-be-delivered J/FPS-3E bound for the Philippines -


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... Which is significant as far as Japan is concerned, as this is the first major defence export deal for the Japanese.


The vid also provides some interesting glimpses of the mechanics and intricacies of JP AESA tech, which are not often publicised -

J-FPS-3 02.jpgJ-FPS-3 03.jpgJ-FPS-3 04.jpgJ-FPS-3 05.jpgJ-FPS-3 07.jpgJ-FPS-3 08.jpg
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
Japan has pretty advanced radar technology.

The F-2 was the first combat fighter with GaA AESA radar. And they have destroyers like Asahi-class with GaN AESA radar.

Hopefully this will be the first of more weapons exports. Had they been smart about it I think they could have sold Type 10s to Thailand and other countries in Southeast Asia and perhaps the diesel electric submarines to Australia. Rail and road infrastructure in Southeast Asia is often poor or non existant. Western tanks are too heavy in general for use in Southeast Asia. That is why Malaysia ended up buying the PT-91.

The P-1 and C-2 could also be sold to Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia or Indonesia.

But at least the Thailand and Australian deals are now off the realm of possibility.

Their main issue is the high cost of their weapons systems. Now I do not know the cost of similar competitive radar systems but $100 million for three radars doesn't seem expensive to me.
 
Last edited:

Helius

Senior Member
Registered Member
Japan has pretty advanced radar technology.

The F-2 was the first combat fighter with GaA AESA radar. And they have destroyers like Asahi-class with GaN AESA radar.

Hopefully this will be the first of more weapons exports. Had they been smart about it I think they could have sold Type 10s to Thailand and other countries in Southeast Asia and perhaps the diesel electric submarines to Australia. Rail and road infrastructure in Southeast Asia is often poor or non existant. Western tanks are too heavy in general for use in Southeast Asia. That is why Malaysia ended up buying the PT-91.

The P-1 and C-2 could also be sold to Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia or Indonesia.

But at least the Thailand and Australian deals are now off the realm of possibility.

Their main issue is the high cost of their weapons systems. Now I do not know the cost of similar competitive radar systems but $100 million for three radars doesn't seem expensive to me.
Another problem is the often disadvantageous positions the Japanese have put themselves in by pitting against the NATO MICs for the same customer pool.

Costs wouldn't have been much of an issue to the countries who could afford it as they would still opt for the American or European options instead, as exemplified by the P-1 and the Soryus like you mentioned.

At the end when all was said and done, they either went with the P-8, or even continued to maintaining their existing P-3s with the prospects of upgrading to the P-8 down the road.

Then there's of course the Aussies with their absolute sh*tshow of a submarine acquisition programme, which in hindsight the Japanese might have been glad they'd dodged that bullet... Then again, there's the $800million of free 'sorry money' for cancelling the contract, though I seriously doubt the Japanese would have as much clout, never mind the inclination, let alone the balls to throw such a massive fit as the French did and wrangle the Aussies into paying that kind of sum.

Had Australia picked the Soryus, once AUKUS happened, unlike Macron with his whole song and dance, Suga would've been like: "Shouganai ne... ("Can't be helped, y'know...")", and that would be that. And like a good sport, business with the West would continue as usual.
 
Last edited:
Top