Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Skywatcher

Captain
Japan is the top creditor country on the planet. Debt ratio to GDP was on downturn but breifly paused for covid relief. Debt buildup was partly flab for a country that didn't have such security concerns before. Defense expenditure is still a plus to Japanese econony. Japan has international backing thus far for its changes to its security posture so they won't over pressure Japan's economy. Multiple factors will get Japan's public support for greater defense expenditure such as the 2% standard in NATO, growing ties with Taiwan, and even ROK making plans for a carrier larger than Izumo. It surely won't reach 2% in 5 years, maybe in 10 years, or maybe it'll never get to 2% but that depends on the security enrionment. Maybe the PRC will stop at 8 Type 55s rather then going to 16. The 9th still has not been spotted. Maybe the Type 52Ds will stop at 25 without a new design for that weight class anytime soon. No new destroyer has been spotted yet. Maybe the 4th PRC carrier won't be in service until as late as 2035 instead of something like 2027. 2 to 3 years ago, there was clamour of 4 to 6 PLAN carriers by 2030 or something like that. But still working on the 3rd. WS-20 is taking long.. WS-15 is taking long.. The naval build up in the years 2010 to 2018 has been very fast. But maybe that fast trajectory won't continue. Still only 3 or 4 dozon J-20s rather than a 100. Japan may push to 2%. If not, then Japan may settle for 1.5% in the end due to less necessity than incapability. Some of the unprofessional posts ought to be reciprocated but these forums need to provide them space to riot like rioters needed space in Washington D.C. to riot.
What on Earth on you babbling about?!

The Japanese GDP to debt ratio has only shifted about 2% from 2016-2019 (and it rose, which makes your "debt ratio to GDP was on the downturn" to not just be wrong, but wrong on the level of "China and Italy used satellites to hack the 2020 election to win Georgia for Joe Biden" wrong). And it's forecasted to stay well north of 250+% for the next five years.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Skywatcher

Captain
I liked your post because of the degree of babbling you took to misrepresent the whole post all for a very slight correction. The nature permitted on the forums for feel-good ranting as means to vent frusturation of the reality if the colossal China containment that's going on now.

Oops, I just got suckered into reciprocating, even if just slightly, to trap me into moderator discipline. Last tine it was for sayibg Japan would cone to defend Taiwan and sore loser cry babies saying was off topic. Well it only took a few months.

Keep babbling losers.
What China containment are you talking about?

That is not a slight correction. Your claim rests on Japan's debt level going down to a sustainable level. Which it is clearly not (and you admit it).

So you concede that you're wrong about Japan's long term ability to bring down its debt, and thus your argument "Japan is the top creditor country on the planet. Debt ratio to GDP was on downturn but breifly paused for covid relief. Debt buildup was partly flab for a country that didn't have such security concerns before. Defense expenditure is still a plus to Japanese econony. Japan has international backing thus far for its changes to its security posture so they won't over pressure Japan's economy. Multiple factors will get Japan's public support for greater defense expenditure such as the 2% standard in NATO, growing ties with Taiwan, and even ROK making plans for a carrier larger than Izumo. It surely won't reach 2% in 5 years, maybe in 10 years, or maybe it'll never get to 2% but that depends on the security enrionment" is wrong because its underlying logic is wrong (and you have admitted so on the record).

Concession accepted. You would do everyone on this forum (and the rest of the Internet) a great favor, not to mention common courtesy, if you could be bothered to check your facts (a simple Google of "Japan debt to GDP ratio history" would suffice) before you hit post.

And also run a spellcheck, please.

PS: You could also at least read the rest of the forum for updates on things like the WS-20 and J-20 production.
 

PUFF_DRAGON

New Member
Registered Member
Standard number for the SDF is 259,000 personnel if I recall correct but with actual number in service at around 230,000. But compared to manpower number since 1990s, Japan's has decreased less in ratio than most other major countries. So manpower issue arguments are exaggerated.
That doesn't actually address the issue. Unlike the other countries you mentioned*, those countries are shrinking the amount of equipment and force structure. Japan is trying to add more big personnel sink items like destroyers and submarines etc whilst its manpower pool shrinks.

*Germany is a great example, sold like 95% of its tanks and never replaced them.

So again, what is the point of hitting 2% defense spending and having all these toys but there are no men and women in the JSDF left to use them?

Is Japan going to bring back the draft? Unlikely.

So the point remains that Japan probably can't reach 2% without some serious re-think in how it structures its manpower pool: cannibalize the army to get sailors? Draft? Massively raise JSDF wages?

All of these have pretty massive social, political, and/or economic costs that the LDP is extremely unlikely to bear
 

ougoah

Colonel
Registered Member
Actually on topic, China spends less than 2% GDP on defence. How that is accounted is the question. Procurements, maintenance, pay, and all those factors but does it include SOE and development cost?

If you think China's militarising, you ain't see nothing yet. If China actually spent 7% GDP on military, it would eclipse the US in a matter of years.

The US spends roughly 4% GDP but everything it buys and maintains is 2 to 100 times more expensive for the equivalent.

The US also was running several wars concurrently and maintaining hundreds of major overseas bases.

That all costs money. Their 4% is still enough to create the largest military force despite the leftover from all that being a real fraction. China's 1.7% or so measures up. China doesn't run several wars, doesn't spend many millions per year just to make sure the coffee machines are working in overseas bases and so on. If China spent 7% GDP, we'd see 100 Type 055s in no time and 10 more shipyards. China would have 1000 ICBMs and 5 or 6 plants churning out J-20s at 100 units per year.
 

PUFF_DRAGON

New Member
Registered Member
Actually on topic, China spends less than 2% GDP on defence. How that is accounted is the question. Procurements, maintenance, pay, and all those factors but does it include SOE and development cost?

If you think China's militarising, you ain't see nothing yet. If China actually spent 7% GDP on military, it would eclipse the US in a matter of years.

The US spends roughly 4% GDP but everything it buys and maintains is 2 to 100 times more expensive for the equivalent.

The US also was running several wars concurrently and maintaining hundreds of major overseas bases.

No one knows how the PLA does its accounting because they don't release details. Most militaries in the world pull accounting tricks to hide their spending, including the US military. It should not be a surprise that the JSDF and PLA do this too to some extent.

Off the top of my head, on the US side since that is what I am familiar with. The US military splits off things like veteran health care and the GI bill into the Department of Veterans affairs. The war in Afghanistan and other Global War on Terror ops are rolled into something called the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund which is not reflected in DoD books. Actual US military spending if you just add Veterans affairs and OCOF is like 6% of GDP or something.

Last I checked the PLA budget only has line items for personnel, procurement, and maintenance with no line item breakdown. I suspect the PLA doesn't include R&D in its budgets for that reason.

That all costs money. Their 4% is still enough to create the largest military force despite the leftover from all that being a real fraction. China's 1.7% or so measures up. China doesn't run several wars, doesn't spend many millions per year just to make sure the coffee machines are working in overseas bases and so on. If China spent 7% GDP, we'd see 100 Type 055s in no time and 10 more shipyards. China would have 1000 ICBMs and 5 or 6 plants churning out J-20s at 100 units per year.
Defense output doesn't scale linearly with money inputs. As the Soviets and NATO discovered, modern military equipment production and usage has severe bottlenecks in personnel and high tech components.

My general understanding is that the US and Japan are bottlenecked by lack of willing soldiers. The PRC is bottlenecked by certain high technology components which require skilled labor.
 

PUFF_DRAGON

New Member
Registered Member
No idea why Germany keeps getting mentioned.

Well if looking at the warships individual, some of the old classes have around 250 personnel. The new stealth ones have about just 90. On mention of tanks well as Type 10s and Type 16s are made, Type 74s have been getting withdrawn.
That's not actually true AFAICT. The new Maya class destroyers have exactly the same 300 man crew size as the older Kongo and Atago destroyers. The new Taigei submarines have 5 more crew members than the Soryus.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"All of this means that Japan’s relatively small forces are now even smaller. The armed services have hit on average only 70 percent of their recruitment goals, with the MSDF hitting a dismal 60 percent."

I again reiterate that the JMSDF cannot get the sailors it needs to keep the fleet the same size, let alone expand it.

Germany is mentioned here because it is an example of a country that has shrunk its military in both equipment and manpower.
 
Last edited:

PUFF_DRAGON

New Member
Registered Member
True that the Kongo has 300 petsonnel and are old. The smaller and older Asagiri-class has 220. Those shouldn't last much longer as the new Mogami class comes in.
The Kongo is literally twice the displacement of the Asagiri and Mogami class destroyers. These are not comparable.

I also am highly skeptical of the Mogami class. The US navy tried the same extensive automation with the LCS and Zumwalts and the results were awful. Resulting in the cancellation of further builds. You cannot run a 5500 ton multi-mission warship with 90 sailors. That the JMSDF did not pay attention to the lessons learned by the US navy speaks poorly IMO of their procurement strategy.
 

PUFF_DRAGON

New Member
Registered Member
We were talking about crew size. Not displacement so that's irrelent to the manpower duscussion.

Well, Mogami may not be produced so much in the end but a new similar class with similar low crew size would likely come out if Mogami production run is short.
????

That makes no sense. A 10,000 ton destroyer with an AEGIS radar (Kongo-Atago-Maya) and a 5,000 ton destroyer with no AEGIS (Mogami) are completely different vessels in terms of combat capability and staffing requirements.

I suppose they can make a 90 person warship but it'd likely be a sub 2k ton corvette. If war does come I don't think the Mogamis will cover themselves in glory. The USN has already concluded that understaffed major surface warships are not worth building and from what I can gather the Russians and Chinese also agree.

No one called me a slur but SamuraiBlue was personally attacked in a generalized way which means not specifically just him (her).

So why not report them to the mods instead of repeatedly calling everyone a Chicom dog? Do you have autism or some other social disorder? Serious question not an insult.
 

hijiki

Junior Member
Registered Member
????

That makes no sense. A 10,000 ton destroyer with an AEGIS radar (Kongo-Atago-Maya) and a 5,000 ton destroyer with no AEGIS (Mogami) are completely different vessels in terms of combat capability and staffing requirements.

I suppose they can make a 90 person warship but it'd likely be a sub 2k ton corvette. If war does come I don't think the Mogamis will cover themselves in glory. The USN has already concluded that understaffed major surface warships are not worth building and from what I can gather the Russians and Chinese also agree.



So why not report them to the mods instead of repeatedly calling everyone a Chicom dog? Do you have autism or some other social disorder? Serious question not an insult.
Well Mogami has about 90 personnel. It is what it is.

Maybe the mods are trustworthy enough this time around. I'll consider it next time.
 

Top