2020: JMSDF & PLAN Surface Combatant strength

TerraN_EmpirE · Mar 4, 2013

Bltizo said:
Hyugas are labelled as "DDH" but really they shouldn't count with the other destroyers and surface combatants I think... even if they are equipped with two Mk41 modules.

Also -- 8 Akizukis? Only four are planned, from what I've read, although I remember hearing something about a follow on ASW class to it, possibly based on the same hull(?) but that will take a few years to flesh out the design and they might get a couple of out by 2020.

until the japanese command gets f35b's on that deck its a DDH if they add a wing of vtol fighters to them they become a lightweight CVE. Showers of ballistic missiles are a issue but one has to wonder if japan might not counter via a missile defence program the PRC is not the only missile shooter in that part of asia the issues with north korea are placing a lot of thought back into counter missiles.

Blitzo · Mar 4, 2013

Jeff Head said:
Er, how so?

There is one section in my post on DDG strength and another on FFG stength. The format looks the same but thay are about two different classes of vessels. Is that what you are seeing?

Because I show no edits by modes, or deletes of posts by mods. Mine was #1 and it is unedited, and yours in #2.

Nah, as in accidentally two threads were made:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...sdf-plan-surface-combatant-strength-6357.html

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...sdf-plan-surface-combatant-strength-6358.html

Blitzo · Mar 4, 2013

TerraN_EmpirE said:
until the japanese command gets f35b's on that deck its a DDH if they add a wing of vtol fighters to them they become a lightweight CVE.

Yes, but regardless of if they manage to get F-35s onboard eventually or not, it is still flawed to include hyugas with surface combatants like destroyers and frigates.

Otherwise logic would dictate we should include 071s, liaoning etc on the PLAN side too.

TerraN_EmpirE · Mar 5, 2013

If she had been completed by the russian navy as Varyang she would have been designated as a aircraft carrying cruiser. Liaoning would also fit that still meaning that right now without her fighters she is a chinese cruiser. Hyuga is a lot lighter then the liaoning. she packs the power, weight and systems of a destroyer even its helicopters are the same types as seen on the destroyers around her right now her key function is ASW roles. She carries more choppers then her sisters that means she can employ more sub hunters.

Blitzo · Mar 5, 2013

TerraN_EmpirE said:
If she had been completed by the russian navy as Varyang she would have been designated as a aircraft carrying cruiser. Liaoning would also fit that still meaning that right now without her fighters she is a chinese cruiser. Hyuga is a lot lighter then the liaoning. she packs the power, weight and systems of a destroyer even its helicopters are the same types as seen on the destroyers around her right now her key function is ASW roles. She carries more choppers then her sisters that means she can employ more sub hunters.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue for.

"aircraft carrying cruiser" "helicopter destroyer" are names given for political reasons that shed's very little light onto their capability, and even less onto their roles.

Whatever kind of helicopter the hyugas are equipped with, whether or not they can be equipped with F-35Bs, the fact remain they are not surface combatants like destroyers or frigates, and adding their 20k ton displacement with the likes of the rest of JMSDF's kongo, atago, akizuki, mursasame, takanami etc, is simply inaccurate. The 16 Mk41 tubes it offers does not qualify it to be lumped together with the other destroyers and frigates of the JMSDF, at least not for this comparison.

They are helicopter carriers, period.

Totoro · Mar 5, 2013

Have planned retirements also been taken into account? both navies will lose quite a few ships by 2020, to be replaced by new ones.

As far as capability measurement goes - it is in my opinion easiest to give each vessel a value that is based on tonnage and technology level. technology level may be done in one decade increments. Like, ships from 2010-2020 could get 100 points, ships from 2000s 90 points, from 1990s 80 points etc.

Also, number and tech level of helicopters in the overall fleet can, in certain scenarios (ones far, far away from the shores), be of utmost importance. a numerous and well equipped helo fleet can make a group of ships an order of magnitude more capable, in certain situations. I am not talking just about ASW, surface warfare can tremendously benefit from them. In that regard helicopter carriers may be extremely valuable assets.

asif iqbal · Mar 5, 2013

can someone fix the threads this is getting pretty confusing!

bd popeye · Mar 5, 2013

Bltizo said:
Nah, as in accidentally two threads were made:

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...sdf-plan-surface-combatant-strength-6357.html

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/wor...sdf-plan-surface-combatant-strength-6358.html

Threads merged.

TerraN_EmpirE · Mar 5, 2013

Bltizo said:
I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue for.

"aircraft carrying cruiser" "helicopter destroyer" are names given for political reasons that shed's very little light onto their capability, and even less onto their roles.

Whatever kind of helicopter the hyugas are equipped with, whether or not they can be equipped with F-35Bs, the fact remain they are not surface combatants like destroyers or frigates, and adding their 20k ton displacement with the likes of the rest of JMSDF's kongo, atago, akizuki, mursasame, takanami etc, is simply inaccurate. The 16 Mk41 tubes it offers does not qualify it to be lumped together with the other destroyers and frigates of the JMSDF, at least not for this comparison.

They are helicopter carriers, period.

I am arguing that Both Jeff and you are right, in a way.
The Liaoning would not sit on Jeff's list as he was counting Destroyers not Cruisers, Hyoga would because she is counted as a Destroyer.
The designations are not purely political designations When you compare the Arms built into there hulls too say the Kitty-hawk class a True carrier. You find that both the Japanese and Chinese/Russian carriers make concessions too there air complement by placing the priority on internal armament. The Russians were very honest in there Designation for the Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser, They have on two occasions begun or designed a true carrier Project 1153 Oryo and Ulyanovsk Although the Ulyanovsk would have been still more armed then a American carrier. the Varyag as intended even included ballistic missiles mounted in the middle of the fore deck( missiles that would have meant securing any aircraft near that location in event of firing and took up space in the hanger deck preventing use of that location for storage or maintenance). Now she might have been a Inferior Cruiser too say the Kirov battlecruisers but still better armed then there American counterparts That actually well out weighted her. The Hyoga in design is still an evolution of the Japanese model of DDH still armed as a Destroyer just packing more aviation assets.

Blitzo · Mar 5, 2013

TerraN_EmpirE said:
I am arguing that Both Jeff and you are right, in a way.
The Liaoning would not sit on Jeff's list as he was counting Destroyers not Cruisers, Hyoga would because she is counted as a Destroyer.

For the sake of argument, let's say we're including all "surface combatants" which include frigates, up to destroyers, and cruisers.

Hyuga and liaoning would still not be included for either the JMSDF or PLAN respevctively.

The designations are not purely political designations When you compare the Arms built into there hulls too say the Kitty-hawk class a True carrier. You find that both the Japanese and Chinese/Russian carriers make concessions too there air complement by placing the priority on internal armament. The Russians were very honest in there Designation for the Heavy Aircraft Carrying Cruiser, They have on two occasions begun or designed a true carrier Project 1153 Oryo and Ulyanovsk Although the Ulyanovsk would have been still more armed then a American carrier. the Varyag as intended even included ballistic missiles mounted in the middle of the fore deck( missiles that would have meant securing any aircraft near that location in event of firing and took up space in the hanger deck preventing use of that location for storage or maintenance). Now she might have been a Inferior Cruiser too say the Kirov battlecruisers but still better armed then there American counterparts That actually well out weighted her.

The Hyoga in design is still an evolution of the Japanese model of DDH still armed as a Destroyer just packing more aviation assets.

Click to expand...

How is hyuga an evolution of Japanese DDHs?
And I'm sorry, but hyuga is "just a destroyer with more aviation assets". It's a helicopter carrier with some good self defence capability. That's it.

I understand that the armaments of a ship and previosu design philosophy leading up to a ship may influence what we call it.

You could say Kuznetsov is an "aircraft carrying cruiser" or the kiev class as well. But in a comparison with other navies, they would not be included as "cruisers" but rather "aircraft carriers" or "helicopter/VTOL carriers" for kiev.
In the same way, hyuga, despite its 16 Mk 41 tubes, and whatever DDH ancestry it may have, would not be included as a "destroyer" with the likes of atago, kongo, akizuki, or 052D, 052C.
Its primary purpose is as an aviation carrier, and should thus be compared with other similar vessels of the PLAN.

My bottom line, is, for the purposes of Jeff's comparison of VLS capable destroyers and frigates, Hyuga shouldn't be included

2020: JMSDF & PLAN Surface Combatant strength

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Totoro

Major

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

Blitzo

Lieutenant General