2020: JMSDF & PLAN Surface Combatant strength

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
The most important element in a war is resources, which is what Japan lacks and desperately seeks. It would not be a problem if it fights a small country, but fighting someone like China would be a different story.
And they knew this going into World War II. They wanted to try and get terms with the US after they delivered a huge blow at Pearle Harbor, thinking they would have time to fortify and make it to expensive for the US to retake all of their possessions.

They thought wrong.

Once the US got involved and made it clear that there was nothing but unconditional surrender that would do, their fate was set. It was a long bloody war, because they fought very hard, and were very brutal. But they US and the resources it could command simply overwhelmed Japan. That, along with the US tactics of pulling their best pilots and soldiers out of the fighting after so long, and then using them to train new personnel, also made a marked difference. The Japanese had their best people fight to the death. So the quality of the overall US force kept rising, while the quality of the overall Japanese force kept falling.

In this case, that part has probably changed.

As to resources, Japan of itself would not last. It would be the same story. However, Japan supported by the US and others is a completely different matter.
 

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Yes two reasons really, one was because the Japanese fought till thier death and second the no surrender issue

Both codes of the Sumurai Bushido which really forced Japan to compromise its entire war planning

US Marines are taught to be flexible and adapt, Japanese soldiers were rigid, inflexible and usually didn't break formation or rank even when they knew it would lead to thier demise

During Mariana Turkey shoot Japanese bombers just kept flying in same formation even although they new it was a terrible and costly mistake, but they were simply too disciplined, no outflanking simple straight charges usually suicidal

Anyhow this was 70 years ago now it's different story
 

vesicles

Colonel
And they knew this going into World War II. They wanted to try and get terms with the US after they delivered a huge blow at Pearle Harbor, thinking they would have time to fortify and make it to expensive for the US to retake all of their possessions.

They thought wrong.

Once the US got involved and made it clear that there was nothing but unconditional surrender that would do, their fate was set. It was a long bloody war, because they fought very hard, and were very brutal. But they US and the resources it could command simply overwhelmed Japan. That, along with the US tactics of pulling their best pilots and soldiers out of the fighting after so long, and then using them to train new personnel, also made a marked difference. The Japanese had their best people fight to the death. So the quality of the overall US force kept rising, while the quality of the overall Japanese force kept falling.

In this case, that part has probably changed.

As to resources, Japan of itself would not last. It would be the same story. However, Japan supported by the US and others is a completely different matter.

Agreed! However, I would like to stress one important element in the WWII. That is China. Japan was trapped in central China for close to 3 years and could not move an inch before the US entered the war. The bloody fight in the central China sucked Japan dry to the bone. And they became so desperate that they moved to southeastern Asia, thinking that they might get some more resources that they craved so much. The most defended islands that the US fought was defended by mere 30,000-50,000 Japanese troops (if I remember correctly). This was because most of the elite Japanese troops had been sent to China and trapped in China. Japan lost nearly half a million troops just in that 3-year period in the central China (battle of Changsha and battle of wuhan). Just imagine what it would be like if those soldiers stayed at home and defended those islands...

About Japan getting help on The resources if allied with the US. The key weakness in that scenario is the transport. Although the US has huge amount of resources that can be provided to Japan, these resources cannot get to Japan with a blink of an eye. The huge span of Pacific Ocean makes the transport so vulnerable to attacks. Either Japan or the US would have to divert valuable resources to escort the transport. That makes fighting at the front so much hader. Even with that, I am sure China will make the Pacifics a priority in terms of targets. all the possibke routes will be targeted by missiles, subs and figter jets, mines, among other types of weapons China can think of. Just imagine how much resources the US and Japan would have to pour in just to ensure a save passage. and exactly how much material can actually reach Japan? 3:1? 5:1? 10:1? how long can the US sustain this economically before the American public forces the US to pull out of this mess?

Another thing is simply time. I don't know how long it would take to cross the Pacifics by ships now, but it won't be short. Can Japan wait? And would China allow Japan to wait?

Another thing is what to do next once the materials get to Japan. The huge amount of materials cannot be distributed quickly once they get to Japan. That means it has to be stored somewhere. These storage facilities will have to be huge and easy targets for the Chinese. And it would be easy to find these places as well. One can simply track the ships, which travel slowly in the Pacifics for a long time. So Japan has to once again divert its so valuable fighting resources to guard these places. As a matter of fact, China doesn't even need to actually attack these facilities. They can simply show signs that they want to attack. Japan will have to pull its fighting resource off the front line to protect these facilities. With China and Japan closely matched in the near future, any shift in the balance on the front will also shift the favor of winning significantly.
 
Last edited:

asif iqbal

Lieutenant General
Another good point!

Japan made same mistake as Germany did, Nazis went to Soviet Union for resources and got trapped which lead to thier defeat, Japan went into China and made same mistake, two different theatres of war two very similar agendas and mistakes
 

SinoSoldier

Colonel
Another good point!

Japan made same mistake as Germany did, Nazis went to Soviet Union for resources and got trapped which lead to thier defeat, Japan went into China and made same mistake, two different theatres of war two very similar agendas and mistakes

The biggest problem was that Japan, which had severe shipbuilding and metal production hindrances, went to war with a country that could put two carriers in the water in three months.
 

Surgeon

New Member
Registered Member
In a recent thread there was a disucssion regarding 2020 and what the relative surface combatatnt strength (particularly with DDGs becase that was what the intial disccsuin was about) would be for the JMSDF and PLAN. In response to some statements made that by 2020 the PLAN would completely outclass the JMSDF and be able to defeat them out of hand, I responded that I did not believe that would not be the case at all.

So, I thought I would document where I feel the two respective navies would be in that time frame with respect to major surface combatants with this thread. This is not meant to be a nationalistic, "our navy is going to beat your navy," disccussion. Any such posts will be referred to the mods for deletion. Rather, a discussion about the types and numbers of vessels each nation may field in that time frame and what their relative strengths and weaknesses may be in terms of showing, in my estimation why a major conflict between the two sides, particularly over the currently disputed islands is so unlikely.

In terms of looking forward to 2020, then, I take what the JMSDF will have terms of DDGs (because that was what the discussion had been about), and what they plan in terms of continued production (either of the Akizaki class or a new design).

The JMSDF DDGs in 2020:

Murisami x 9 x 32 VLS x 6,200 tons
Takanami x 5 x 32 VLS x 6,400 tons
Akizuki x 8 x 32 VLS x 6,800 tons
Kongo x 4 x 96 VLS x 9,600 tons
Atago x 2 x 96 VLS x 10,000 tons
Hyuga x 2 x 16 x 20,000 tons
22DDH x 2 x 42 x 27,000 tons
30 vessels with 1,396 VLS Cells and 294,200 tons

The PLAN DDGs in 2020:

Sovs x 4 x 0 VLS x 8,000 tons
Type 051C x 2 x 48 VLS x 7,200 tons
Type 052B x 2 x 0 VLS x 6,500 tons
Type 052C x 6 x 48 VLS
Type 052D x 10 x 640 VLS 7,500 tons
24 vessels with 1,024 VLS Cells and 176,400 tons

That leads to the following DDG comparison:

JMSDF/PLAN DDG Forces in 2020:

JMSDF: 32 DDGS with 1,396 VLS Cells and 294,200 tons
PLAN: 24 DDGs with 1,024 VLS Cells and 176,400 tons

Now, there have (understandably) been calls for including the "FFG" platforms in this equation. When we do that, the balance begins to shift to the PLAN overall by 2020 purely in terms of these numbers...but not taking into account the quality of the sensors, the types of wapons the VLS will operate, and the experience of the overall naval forces...which right now, and through 2020 IMHO will all favor the JMSDF. But the pure numbers of the FFG comparison add the following:

The JMSDF FFGs in 2020:

Asagari x 6 x (16 x.5) VLS x 3,500 tons
Hatasukie x 8 x (16 x .5) x 3,,000 tons
Abukuma x 6 x (16 x .5) x, 2,500 tons
20 vessels with 160 VLS and 60,000 tons

The PLAN FFGs in 2020:

Type 054 x 2 x 0 VLS x 4,000 tons
Type 054/A/B x 20 x 32 VLS x 4,500 tons
22 vessels with 640 VLS and 98,000 tons

This leads to the following FFG comparison:

JMSDF/PLAN FFG Forces in 2020:

JMSDF: 20 FFGs with 160 VLS and 60,000
PLAN: 22 FFGs with 640 VLS and 98,000 tons

All said, in response to any comments indicate that by 2020 the PLAN will completely out class the JMSDF and be able to defeat them out of hand, these figures show such a conclusion is simply not so.

The JMSDF, by 2020 will have 52 modern surface combatants with well over 1,550 VLS tubes and a total of well over 300,000 tons. The PLAN will have 46 modern surface combatants with over 1,600 VLS tubes and over 275,000 tons. If those two forces clashed, it would make for a very closely matched naval combat (one which I am sure we all pray never happens), where neither side completely outclasses the other or where on side would be dispatched out of hand.

... and this is before we include the likely response the US Navy would have in such a conflict, which would be very telling becqause of the current mutal defense treaties Japan and the United States share.

In addition, the match up in the air is also similarly closely matched (I will not go into details here, perhaps someone can do a seperate thread on those aircraft and their numbers) with the JSDF F-15s, F-16s and indegenous Japanese aircraft vs. the PLAAFs J-10s, J-11Bs, SU-27s, SU-30s and J-15 aircraft...and particularly when factoring in what US Air Force and Navy would bring to the table.

For all of these reasons I feel that any conflict over dispute the islands involving these two nations is very remote, short of some terrible over-reach or miscalculation by one side or the other.

Jeff, 2 points of interest in relation to your analysis; the first is the possibility of the PLAN deploying a number of 055's by 2020, and also the possibility of JMSDF extending the service lives of it's SSKs, which at present are scrapped after a very short service life (17 Years)?As these confer a significant capability to the JMSDF; thoughts?
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Jeff, 2 points of interest in relation to your analysis; the first is the possibility of the PLAN deploying a number of 055's by 2020, and also the possibility of JMSDF extending the service lives of it's SSKs, which at present are scrapped, regardless of launch after a very short service life (17 Years)?As these confer a significant capability to the JMSDF; thoughts?
Well, I am working on a much more thorough analysis of surface combatants which will include comparisons of all missiles and missile types, regardless of launcher, and will include guns, guns size, helos, ASW, etc, and then develop a formula to compare those by ship, and by total count for each force. I will post it here when complete.

In the mean time, the JMSDF has recently been involved with the US Navy in cross decking exercises which I believe will probably lead to the Opsrey (and later perhaps the JSF) being purchased and operated off of JMSDF carriers.

Here's a new video of that with a U.S. Marine MV-22 Osprey landing on two JMSDF ships, one of their
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Shimokita, L-4002, and one of their
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the Hyuga DDH-181.


[video=youtube;ZWhp4n8V0w0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWhp4n8V0w0[/video]

Great stuff and a great example how cross decking can add significant capabilities. Notice the Chinook also on the Hyuga.

I look foreward to the day we see the same type of cross decking operations with the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
aboard the newer, larger
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the JMSDF is currently building.
 

FORBIN

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
i have read it :

As of March 5th 2013, it was being reported that the Japanese government were considering the transfer of four small destroyers [frigates] (later confirmed to be of the Hatsuyuki class) from the MSDF to the Japan Coast Guard, in light of the extreme strains on the latter's resources due to current events. Of the four, one has already been decommissioned (in March 2013), with the other three to decommission over the course of FY2013. If the transfer goes ahead, the four vessels will likely be modified to JCG requirements (e.g. removal of the Harpoon launchers) and redesignated as PLHs.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I think if Harpoon are removed, Sea Sparrow and Asroc launchers are removed also but for the guns ?
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
i have read it :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I think if Harpoon are removed, Sea Sparrow and Asroc launchers are removed also but for the guns ?
Depending on what they assess as the threat level.

Currently these vessels contain the following armaments:

1 × Otobreda 76 mm gun
2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS
2 × quad Harpoon SSM launchers
1 x Octuple Mark 29 RIM-7 Sea Sparrow launcher
1 x Octuple ASROC missile launcher
2 × HOS-301 triple 324 mm (12.8 in) torpedo tubes

Full load, they displace 4,000 tons. They will be large Coast Guard cutters.

I would expect the Harpoon, the AROCs, the Torpedoes and probably the Sea Sparrows would all come off. The main gun and the CIWS will probably stay, and then other MGs. They will also of course retain the helo capability.


image014.jpg

 
Last edited:
Top