Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

szbd

Junior Member
I didn't say foreign tech workers are the foundation of the US defence sector.
What I said was, the vast network of non-defence labs, from universities and various commercial entities in which foreign tech workers do play NON-INSIGNIFICANT roles, form one of the foundations of the US military.

Note I've used a mere 'non-insignificant' to describe the contributions of the foreign tech workers to the NON-DEFENCE sector. Pls don't tell me the proper word should be 'non-existant' or 'insignificant'.

Perhaps u may want to argue the non-defence research sectors are not nearly as significant as the top-secret pure defence labs.
I'll say the opposite is true. The USSR had military scientists who were as good as their US counterparts.
One of the main reasons the US won was because of the endless flow of new developments and ideas from the universities and private companies to the defence sector.
These entities enjoyed far more research freedom, & freedom to employ foreign talents, & fundings from government & the market. This was something USSR had no hope of achieving.
In fact, if China, Japan & Europe are to have any hope of overtaking US in the defence area, let alone overall tech, they need to be more accomodating to free flow of foreign human resource like the US.

But one thing need to be noticed is, for non-defence research sectors, everything is published. So other countries can let their researchers to learn from those. However, what matter most to the defence technology are the things not published and those things are based on many other things never published for decades.
 

hkbc

Junior Member
red fox, I'm sorry if I judged you too fast. But we do get too many "OMG, NO WAY YOU BEAT US - WE PWN YOU!!!!!" people coming here (regardless of their nationality). So please keep that in mind when commenting.

Oh joy - yet another newcomer with no real knowledge of military affairs.

And just how is the PLAN going to bypass these destroyers' missile defences? Is ESSM already obsolete?

OK my first post let's see if it passes mustard with all the "experts in military affairs"!

The latest JMSDF destroyers (Atago Class) are large AAW vessels as with all post war JMSDF vessels they are "optimised" for defensive work.

What does this mean for the PLAN

1. The large size of the vessels and sheer numbers of RIM-67 missiles carried will mean that it may take a substantial missile barrage by the PLANAF to incapacitate one with likely heavy losses for the attacking aircraft. The refresh of the H6 to take long range YJ83 may be a counter to these developments as at present the PLAAF/PLANAF is likely to be able to maintain near term air superiority against the JASDF (at least until the USAF and USN weigh in) thus allowing the H6s to safely perform stand-off attacks against the vessels if they stray too far from the Japanese waters.

2. On encountering the surface elements of the PLAN the Atago class' SSM-1B missiles are comparable to the YJ83 missiles carried by most PLAN units, so even the antiquated Type 51 which carries 16 of them can be quite a deadly foe if used in a saturation attack. The type 52C destroyers carrying the CY62 out ranges the SSM-1B so in a simple one on one fight should hold its own.

In real life the JMSDF is unlikely to be operating solo vessels but the lack of offensive punch in all JMSDF ships will always put them at a disadvantage versus the PLAN when the shooting starts! In the real world the JMSDF is unlikely to provoke a fight with the PLAN and with the US as its defence garantor the PLAN won't be out to take out a JMSDF ship either unless it happens to stray into waters the Chinese regard as theirs in which case unless it can run back out to safer waters its a dead duck AEGIS might be the great but the PLANAF and PLAAF simply have too many planes and more tellingly the will to use use them.

All said and done the latest Japanese Destroyers are meant to act as part of a missile shield against the North Koreans, not a knife at the throat of the Chinese or cannon fodder for the PLAN!
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
OK my first post let's see if it passes mustard with all the "experts in military affairs"!

I don't see myself as an expert - hopefully no one on this forum has a big head. It's about acting in the proper manner - this is a serious forum.

The latest JMSDF destroyers (Atago Class) are large AAW vessels as with all post war JMSDF vessels they are "optimised" for defensive work.

The thread wasn't about the Atago-class, but future generations of MSDF ships, even if they are worth talking about.

The refresh of the H6 to take long range YJ83 may be a counter to these developments as at present the PLAAF/PLANAF is likely to be able to maintain near term air superiority against the JASDF (at least until the USAF and USN weigh in) thus allowing the H6s to safely perform stand-off attacks against the vessels if they stray too far from the Japanese waters.

Don't have such a simplistic view of military conflict. Where is the fighting going to take place, why, what are the objectives of both sides going to be, etc? Who says the PLAAF is going to have the range to effectively cover the combat area? If you take the official line of both sides that neither is going to fight except defensively, then technically it's impossible for either side to fight at all. Thus something would have to give for an engagement to be possible.

On encountering the surface elements of the PLAN the Atago class' SSM-1B missiles are comparable to the YJ83 missiles carried by most PLAN units, so even the antiquated Type 51 which carries 16 of them can be quite a deadly foe if used in a saturation attack. The type 52C destroyers carrying the CY62 out ranges the SSM-1B so in a simple one on one fight should hold its own.

Again, you seem to imagine the PLAN and MSDF are going to go to a large body of water and start slugging it out. This isn't the Battle of Jutland where ships line up to duke it out. These days naval engagements happen for a reason - you can't just say "X has a longer range than Y" given the distance between ships/taskforces may necessarily be much shorter. Equally we don't actually know what the effective ranges of any of these AShMs are - you need to take into account lots of factors, such as the systems on board the ships firing them.

but the lack of offensive punch in all JMSDF ships will always put them at a disadvantage versus the PLAN when the shooting starts!

Do they lack an offensive punch? I would say Harpoon and the SSM-1B provides quite a heavy punch, especially when combined with their AAW systems.

unless it happens to stray into waters the Chinese regard as theirs in which case unless it can run back out to safer waters its a dead duck AEGIS might be the great but the PLANAF and PLAAF simply have too many planes and more tellingly the will to use use them

Under what circumstances is the JMSDF going to come within 13 miles of the Chinese coast?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

hkbc

Junior Member
I don't see myself as an expert - hopefully no one on this forum has a big head. It's about acting in the proper manner - this is a serious forum.

I don't doubt this is suppose to be a serious forum,

The thread wasn't about the Atago-class, but future generations of MSDF ships, even if they are worth talking about.

Unless, the Japanese constitution changes the Japanese Self Defense Force will continue to be constrained not by technology but politics, conversely, the PRC is constrained by technology rather than political will. Technology can be invented or reverse engineered, bought and stolen from 3rd parties, political will can't. The Atago and the forthcoming 13,500t DDH class destroyer (mini carrier in all but name) are case in point its not that Japan can't build or afford to build aircraft carriers or advanced crusier sized destroyers but they choose to restrict their capabilities to be defensively oriented, so if Japan were to build a CVNX it would end up flying 50 S70 seahawks from it! In any shooting war it helps if you are allowed to shoot at the enemy instead of defend them to death!

Don't have such a simplistic view of military conflict. Where is the fighting going to take place, why, what are the objectives of both sides going to be, etc? Who says the PLAAF is going to have the range to effectively cover the combat area? If you take the official line of both sides that neither is going to fight except defensively, then technically it's impossible for either side to fight at all. Thus something would have to give for an engagement to be possible.

Far from it I don't foresee the two navies meeting in the open ocean, as the JMSDF destroyers are primarily anti-air or anti-sub the most likely places they'd operate in a conflict is where there's enemy aircraft or submarines in event of conflict one might surmise that as an island nation the Japanese would want to pen in the PLAN and they aren't going to do that from the middle of the Pacific, the yellow sea and the east china sea are the most likely places for engagement. JMSDF AAW destroyers will be stationed in the Sea of Japan to protect Honshu from air/missile attack but PLAN surface units are unlikely to venture into the sea of Japan unless it has air superiority. Of course we can play fantasy war where they fight over the indonesian oil fields but hey this is a serious forum!

Again, you seem to imagine the PLAN and MSDF are going to go to a large body of water and start slugging it out. This isn't the Battle of Jutland where ships line up to duke it out. These days naval engagements happen for a reason - you can't just say "X has a longer range than Y" given the distance between ships/taskforces may necessarily be much shorter. Equally we don't actually know what the effective ranges of any of these AShMs are - you need to take into account lots of factors, such as the systems on board the ships firing them.

Nope not Jutland more like hunt the Bismark using numbers to defeat a superior foe, and every naval engagement in history happened for a reason its not a recent phenomenon. No one expects vessels to duke it out firing broadsides at each other like they did at trafalgar and they're not going to be colliding with each other like they did in the icelandic cod wars either, so unless they're in gunnery range they'll be using AShMs otherwise they might as well just shout insults at each other over the comm channels or send put downs across the WWW and call it a day. We don't know which is the superior AShM which is why I said "a Type 52C will hold its own" didn't say it would cream every Jap ship that came any where near it, its not clear cut and I don't think anyone said it was. The PLAN would be doing fantastically well if it managed to take the JMSDF ship for ship.

Do they lack an offensive punch? I would say Harpoon and the SSM-1B provides quite a heavy punch, especially when combined with their AAW systems.

I am no expert but surely AAW is a defensive function although RIM-67s do have a secondary Anti Surface capability. The vessels have a 96 cell VLS system but they don't carry any TASM trading 8 RIM-67 for 8 TASM doubles its offensive punch and extends the range which the enemy can be engaged without unduly reducing the AAW capabilities, its a 10,000ton ship that's not punching its weight. OK everything is relative the new Type 45 destroyers of the RN aren't even fitted with AShMs due to cost cutting, so if that's the baseline for comparison then yes it packs a punch. (To be fair on the Type 45 it is meant as escorts to a pair of carriers so that's where the real punch is suppose to come from)

Under what circumstances is the JMSDF going to come within 13 miles of the Chinese coast?

My comment said "waters the Chinese regard as theirs" coming within 13 miles of the mainland coast is your interpretation, as its the 25th anniversary of the Falklands conflict that provides an ample example of ships sailing into disputed waters hundreds (thousands!) of miles from the shoreline of the protagonists and getting sunk by aircraft armed with ASMs. My examples, which aren't so extreme, would be around disputed gas fields like Tianwaitian or the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands both well beyond 12nm of the mainland but well within the loiter range of the PLANF/PLAAF strike aircraft. As you say engagements happen for a reason disputed mineral rights and territories are probably in the top 10.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
In any shooting war it helps if you are allowed to shoot at the enemy instead of defend them to death!

Just because they don't have aircraft carriers and cruise missiles doesn't mean they cannot "shoot at the enemy". It's only that they cannot easily strike the first blow.

I am no expert but surely AAW is a defensive function although RIM-67s do have a secondary Anti Surface capability.

Shield and sword - you cover yourself with the former and strike with the latter. It's all very well having a great weapon, but if your defence capabilities are limited you're dead.

My examples, which aren't so extreme, would be around disputed gas fields like Tianwaitian or the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands both well beyond 12nm of the mainland but well within the loiter range of the PLANF/PLAAF strike aircraft.

Such a region is also within range of JASDF aircraft, such as those based in Okinawa.

Also China frequently complains that the Senkakus are not islands, so the area around them can't be considered Chinese waters.
 

Violet Oboe

Junior Member
@hkbc:
Although your assessment about China's capability to control her exclusive economic zone (coastal waters up to 200 miles) is certainly correct, your assumptions of Japan's intentions and capabilities in comparison with China's seem to be too simplistic. At least of two important factors you have been somewhat oblivious:

1. Japan is not generally technologically superior over China especially regarding military technology. Some examples:
a. Japan cannot currently produce SSN and SSBN as China with her quite modern type 093 and type 094 indeed demonstrates, of course Japan would be able to produce similar subs in the next decade if a proper political decision would be taken timely but these subs would be not as advanced as the SSN/SSBN's PLAN will be able to field (type 095/096) during that timeframe. (as long as a highly unlikely substantial US tech transfer does not occur! :) )
b. Although Japan is able to produce nuclear weapons on short notice it is safe to assume that the new japanese warheads will not be as reliable (no ´real´ testing!), as miniaturized and specialized than their chinese counterparts. Especially the development of an enhanced radiation warhead (neutron weapon) would constitute a real challenge for japanese scientists but China mastered that certainly not trivial technology already back in the 80's (1988).
c. China currently deploys, produces and develops a plethora of dozens of modern ballistic and cruise missile types. Japan would have to go a long ´extra mile´for coming even close to that level and additionally the severe obstacles of acquiring that kind of tech (re: non proliferation regimes like MTCR) on the market are severely complicating such an attempt.
d. A wide range of chinese conventional heavy weapons is already superior to their respective japanese types; just compare ZTZ 99 to Type 90 MBT's or the new PLZ05 SPA to japanese M 109 derivatives. :p

2. Japan is undoubtedly constrained by her pacifist constitution but the limits imposed by the precarious fiscal situation of the japanese state are much more tangible. Japan is currently indebted by 170% of her GDP (and every year the deficit is growing!) and the demographic pressure of her greying population is mounting up creating additional social and medical care costs. :confused:

After all the talk of Koizumi and Abe about expanding the military budget the facts are simply sobering: the new JSDF budget of FY 2007/08 is the fifth consecutive (albeit small) reduction! Compare that with an increase of around 50% (to 30 bn$ in'89) during the 80's and you are learning that Nakasone Yasuhiro was a man of deeds and not of words (but he certainly had also a humming economy at hand providing him with the necessary ample funds). Correspondingly all announcements of the current japanese leadership of Abe Shinzo regarding grandiose rearmament plans have to be taken with a grain of salt.:p
 
Last edited:

Gollevainen

Colonel
VIP Professional
Registered Member
well but then there is the fact that Japan has build, almoust continutially world class warships since 1910's, where as China has done that in 2000's foward....
every sinlge Japanese escort and destroyer class has been comaparable to any USN vessel of same generation, and not for nothing it has been called as 3rd largest navy in the world. Where PLAN is hardly sufficient to product simple coastal defence of Chinese main land and despite it fields five pederastian Nuclear attack boat and odd ballistic missile boat doesent couse much to celebrate when the AAW element to the fleet was just added to PLAN in late 90's. Alone JMSDF submarine force, (wich is one of the most underated naval arm of any time) can propaply sink Chinese fleet to its basins as PLAN lacks almoust completely modern ASW capacity and has therefore no change to protect its own shipping from any submarine opponent. PLAN has been a FLEET for only from mid eighties and only now that fact has begun to be true out side of paper-level.

just compare ZTZ 99 to Type 90 MBT's or the new PLZ05 SPA to japanese M 109 derivatives.


In reality we should....and perhaps by guys that ACTUALLY knows about those....But not in this forum...But that I can say that the artillery comprasion is almoust outraging insult! Chinese modern artillery is even worse state than PLAN so If I would be you, I would check some facts before thorw anything as silly as that....
 

Kilo636

Banned Idiot
well but then there is the fact that Japan has build, almoust continutially world class warships since 1910's, where as China has done that in 2000's foward....
every sinlge Japanese escort and destroyer class has been comaparable to any USN vessel of same generation, and not for nothing it has been called as 3rd largest navy in the world. Where PLAN is hardly sufficient to product simple coastal defence of Chinese main land and despite it fields five pederastian Nuclear attack boat and odd ballistic missile boat doesent couse much to celebrate when the AAW element to the fleet was just added to PLAN in late 90's. Alone JMSDF submarine force, (wich is one of the most underated naval arm of any time) can propaply sink Chinese fleet to its basins as PLAN lacks almoust completely modern ASW capacity and has therefore no change to protect its own shipping from any submarine opponent. PLAN has been a FLEET for only from mid eighties and only now that fact has begun to be true out side of paper-level.




In reality we should....and perhaps by guys that ACTUALLY knows about those....But not in this forum...But that I can say that the artillery comprasion is almoust outraging insult! Chinese modern artillery is even worse state than PLAN so If I would be you, I would check some facts before thorw anything as silly as that....

LOL.. Goll ,you are talking like PLAN has no submarine to threaten Japan navy? And you are assuming detecting submarine is as simple as ABC.. Even the most modern ASW has problem tracking an normal electric sub. PLAN has the largest fleet of Submarine in North East sea. More than half are new and modern sub..Even those obsolete sub can be handy comes to mining and act as bait to lure enenmy sub to disclose their position.

Sinking the entire PLAN in its basin? Hahaha... Are you day dreaming? What kind of massive offensive weapon Japan navy has that can sink the entire PLAN in its basin? JMSDF is still basically a self defense navy... PLAN including its air wing is quite lethal. And those yr so call comparable latest Japan destroyer is all build with the help of Uncle Sam. So that is yr so call comparable?
 
Top