Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Bhurki

Junior Member
Registered Member
Japan ship acquisition cost is for th ship itself and does not include acquisition for weaponry like SM-3, SM-6, etc.
Those are aggregated into a separate budget.
The same with USN acquisition process.
Sm3, Sm6 are programs of record on their own.
The cost i quoted was for the ships only, propulsion, sensors obvio included.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
So what is the cost breakdown for the purchase of a Maya?
The acquisition cost of the ship itself.
It also does not include the licensing cost and FMS surcharge on items directly purchased from the US like An/spy-1, spq-9, mk41, etc. which will be allocated as a different budget as acquisition of a certain system not related to the construction cost of the ship itself.
Simply put acquisition cost of a certain ship would be the hardware cost of the ship itself.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
The acquisition cost of the ship itself.
It also does not include the licensing cost and FMS surcharge on items directly purchased from the US like An/spy-1, spq-9, mk41, etc. which will be allocated as a different budget as acquisition of a certain system not related to the construction cost of the ship itself.
Simply put acquisition cost of a certain ship would be the hardware cost of the ship itself.
Do you have the numbers?
 

Pmichael

Junior Member
Pardon my bluntness , but that argument is childish. The Chinese military is built and train with the purpose of withstanding US military forces in mind. The US will field several times more F-35s (of all three kinds) than all other F-35 buyers countries combined. If the PLA is preparing for potential war against US forces that fields F-35s by the thousands, why would they care if those much weaker countries like Singapore, Australia, South Korea and Japan get a measly one or two hundreds of them?

Do you really think that your pathetic little taunting argument actually can dissuade PLA into abandoning their carrier programs? LOL. You are welcome to dream on.

Sweetheart, the Chinese military is aim towards defending against US forces. China and the USA are the only players in this chess game. Other countries, especially the like of Singapore, Australia, South Korea and Japan, are not even players. They are only chess pieces who actually think that they are players.
I don't think you really shouldn't go there. Step back for a moment and maybe don't use military forces to make your ego feel better.
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think you really shouldn't go there. Step back for a moment and maybe don't use military forces to make your ego feel better.
What on earth are you talking about? I am just a commoner, I don't command a military. I am just point out that obvious flawed logic. I have seen enough of these taunting bravado, subtle threatening. How is what Janiz taunted not idiotic? Suggesting that China should NOT have developed aircraft carriers, just because decision makers in countries like Japan or Australia will have the excuse to get "toys" that are made by the Americans (which the Americans will deploy by the thousands anyways)?
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think you really shouldn't go there. Step back for a moment and maybe don't use military forces to make your ego feel better.
What's more important, is that China's military did not go through its current aggressive expansion and upgrades to face countries like Japan and Australia. Australia has a tiny population and hardly an industry. Japan is a pacifist country. When these Japanese boast about having a couple of small little STOVL carriers, trying to milk the last drop of intimidation factors out of a couple dozen F-35B's; it is rather pathetic and disconcerting.

When did these countries all of sudden has a gigantic ego (and the idiocy) to think that they need to treated as a more noteworthy adversary by China, and demands more attention from China? How on earth does that benefit their national interest, when they are already protested by the US military? What was the point of getting protected by the US military, if that country draws and attracts the aggression of a much bigger potential foe like China?
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think you really shouldn't go there. Step back for a moment and maybe don't use military forces to make your ego feel better.
Any normal country that has the privilege of getting US military protection, will try their best to shift as much defense responsibility to the US as they can. With the guarantee of US military protection, these countries will enjoy a much lower defense spending and thus can afford be seen as less belligerent (or even pacifist), by those peer and near peer competitors of the USA. Therefore as a whole, the US and their allies will form a well balanced "stick and carrot" collective that compel those competitors and adversaries of the USA to act more in line with a US led world order. The effectiveness of this collective depends upon how much the US military can intimidate and contain their adversaries, as well as how much those US allies could gain good will of these adversaries (making it very costly in international relations and reputations for these adversaries to be belligerent to these "pacifist" US allies/protectorate).

If this trend reverses, (as in the US is taking less and less defense responsibility for these countries, thus becoming less effective in deterring the adversaries in taking up belligerent actions or attitudes against US allies that is covered under US military protection), what ends up happening is the collapse of the US-led world order, caused by the decrease of effectiveness of the aforementioned collective which enforces the order. This will unleash those powerful peer and near peer adversaries of the USA to act in a more roguish manner.
 

Pmichael

Junior Member
I must say I have no idea how to reply to your rant.

But yes, better equipped nations in Eastern Asia can easily be turned into a netloss for China's geopolitical ambitions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Top