Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Radar

Re: Abe cites Thatcher reflections on Falklands war

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, Mysterre, the Chinese Navy will not "outmatch Japan" in 2020. In terms overall number of DDGs, the Japanese will still out number, out weigh (in terms of tonnage) and vastly out number the Chinee Navy in terms of VLS cells it can bring to the party. That will not change until later in the decade if trends continue as they are now...and that does not even factor in the US - Japan mutual defense agreements.

Click to expand...

Displacement? Possibly.
VLS number? Hmm.

I know you reference to destroyers only, but we should include VLS equipped frigates too (Japan has destroyer escorts in their navy -- no frigates)

So, here we go:


JMSDF's present, and projected 2020 combatants with VLS capability.
2 Atago -- 96
4 Kongo -- 96
1 (+3) Akizuki -- 32
5 Takanami -- 32
9 Murasame -- 32

So current (and projected) VLS cells are, 1152.

Obviously the JMSDF could develop a new class of ships between now and 2020... but considering the speed to which they build surface combatants, and considering how only akizuki is in the pipeline for now, I think they may be able to get at most 2 or 3 new surface combatants in service by 2020.


PLAN's present, and projected 2020 surface combatants with VLS:
3 (+3) 052C -- 48
3 (+3 at least) 052D -- 60
16 (+4 at least) 054A -- 32

So adding all that together you get 1288

I may be a little biased, but I think that projection for PLAN is quite modest.
Chances are by 2020 there will be more than 20 054As in service, considering how quickly they've been pumping out in the last six years. Chances are there will be more than a handful 054Bs/next generation frigates in service by 2020.

Also, my listing waters down 052D's likely real production rate from now to 2020, and disregards 055 completely.

Over on CDF there's been some good discussion regarding 052D and 055.

from hmmvw:

It seems now the word on the street is that a total of 16 052Ds have been ordered, by the end of 2013 we will see a total of 8 052Ds at various stages of construction. Of which five or six will be at JNCX (3 launched, 2 in assembly hall, 1 in modules) and two will be at DL (1 launched, 1 in modules). Later this year JN will strat 055 construction, only one hull has been ordered, the size of that contract will depend on how well its construction is executed.

So the delivery of DDGs at JN might look like this:

2012: C6, D1, D2 launched
2013: C3, 4, 5 commissioning, D3 launch
2014: C6, D1 commissioning, D4, 5 launch
2015: D2, 3 commissioning, D6, 055 launch
2016: D4, 5 commissioning, D7, 8 launch
2017: 055 commissioning

Click to expand...

So by 2020 I think we can very possibly see 8-10 052Ds in service, and maybe a couple 055s too.

I do not deny the JMSDF currently has a VLS edge over the PLAN, and I do not deny that they will likely have parity or near parity with the PLAN circa 2020 in terms of surface combatants, but imho the PLAN will have a greater total number of VLS cells "in service" by 2020 compared to JMSDF, simply based on PLAN ship production rate compared to Japan.

Re: Abe cites Thatcher reflections on Falklands war

Bltizo said:

So, here we go:


JMSDF's present, and projected 2020 combatants with VLS capability.
2 Atago -- 96
4 Kongo -- 96
1 (+3) Akizuki -- 32
5 Takanami -- 32
9 Murasame -- 32

So current (and projected) VLS cells are, 1152.

Obviously the JMSDF could develop a new class of ships between now and 2020... but considering the speed to which they build surface combatants, and considering how only akizuki is in the pipeline for now, I think they may be able to get at most 2 or 3 new surface combatants in service by 2020.


PLAN's present, and projected 2020 surface combatants with VLS:
3 (+3) 052C -- 48
3 (+3 at least) 052D -- 60
16 (+4 at least) 054A -- 32

So adding all that together you get 1288

Click to expand...

Would China Retire 2 x 051C's by the year 2020?

So, China would have 2 x 48 = 96 more VLS.

Re: Abe cites Thatcher reflections on Falklands war

Jeff Head said:

Now, this does not mean at all that Japan could hands down defeate the PLAN in the China Sea area. For all of the reasons you gavce, that is not determinate right now, and will continue to be so, with the edge slowly moving towards the Chinese over time.

My point in the earlier post was simple...Japan will not willfully try and push or intimidate China into a war at this time or in the future over those islands. Far too much to lose...even if they were victorious at sea. The overall picture would still be a difficult one tactically for the Japanese even if they won a skirmish with the PLAN, and it would end up meaning a severe consequence to Japan's economy, particularly if they were clearly the agressor.

Click to expand...

Exactly! which is why I think it is premature or even immature if I may to speculate on the strengths and weakness of each country's military assets in a war scenario not to mention we're not even going into the operational and tactical advantages each country has over the other so it is basically pointless to argue who may win or lose.

The fact is BOTH countries will lose in the bigger picture even if one wins on 'technical' points in a hypothetical war. We're talking the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world possibly going at each other. Both countries have very capable militaries and while some may argue each may a slight advantage over the other in terms of military assets/capabilities etc, it's all moot because the fact remains both have enough firepower to make each other bleed real bad no matter who end up winning or losing. That I think everyone here can agree on.

Re: Abe cites Thatcher reflections on Falklands war

A.Man said:

Would China Retire 2 x 051C's by the year 2020?

So, China would have 2 x 48 = 96 more VLS.

Click to expand...

Ah, I forget about 051C... although as potent as their missiles are, they only have half hemisphere coverage with their single PAR. But yes, that would be another 96 more VLS added to the count

Re: Abe cites Thatcher reflections on Falklands war

Jeff Head said:

Well...what's a few years?

Certainly not in the next ten years. In that time Japan will have produced quite a few Akizuki class (6,800 ton VLS) AEGIS-like BMD escorts that are themselves very capable multi-role DDGs (they have already launched four of them and are about to commission the second) and will still have their six large AEGIS vessels (9-10,000 tons), the five Takanamis (6,400 tons VLS), the nine Murasamis (6,200 tons VLS), as well as the two Hyugas and two new, larger, 22DDH and 24DDH vessels probably capable of fixed-wing air aviation themselves. In the following years after that (another 6-8) they will probably have wings of F-35 aircraft operating off of those carriers.

So, though the odds in that same time period will have evened up significantly, to say that the JMSDF will have "zero" cance is too much a stretch IMHO over the next 15+ years. Particularly if the mutual defense treaty between Japan and the US continues to hold strong.

25-30 years? Now that may be a different matter altogether.

Click to expand...

In terms of naval combatants, China's 052C and 052D are no push over. With the current rate of production, they will negate the numerical advantages of Japan in number of AEGIS vessels by 2020. The Laioning will also achieve IOC by that time, and as a full blown aircraft carrier outclasses the two Hyugas. I am not going to count any ship that is merely a plan at the moment, on both China's and Japan's sides.

However, what will give China the upper hand will be its air force. The J-20 are going to enter into service around 2018, while Y-20s will free up existing IL-76s for China to produce new AWACS. The Y-20s themselves will enable China to build a fleet of tankers. China will be able to achieve air dominance, not just air superiority. Talk of naval superiority is meaningless for Japan if that country can't achieve air superiority.

Jeff Head said:

Having said all of that...IMHO, the Japanese would be crazy to push for war themselves now, or in the future. Responding to abject agression, yes...but to push a dispute like those Islands willfully to war with a nation like China, would be absolutely crazy. It is not likely that China is going to commit "abject agresssion," against Japan. So, even if Japan happend to be victorious at sea (which is no sure thing), they certainly would not "defeat," China and would only foster a simmering hot/cold war in the Western Pacific for years and years to come which would hurt them badly economically. They could not afford such a victory.

Click to expand...

That's the hope. However, history has proven time and again that people are stupid.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

And 052D has 64 VLS, not 60.

Do you count HQ-10 ? or should we ?

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

There are so many analysis regarding whether Japan+US would go to war based on their economic shape / ties with China. I just want to call these analysis back to the sober history of human warfare. Let me ask:

When is the last time that a country goes to war because it has no debt and is in good economic shape and has no domestic troubles?

The history rather shows: If there is any correlation between a country's economy and its agressiveness, it is negative correlation. That is, the more trouble a country's economy has, the more likely it is going to war. Thus, to say U.S./Japan would not war with China because they have government debt and is in economic stagnation is to fly in the face of history and reality! These are the VERY reasons that those countries would wish to pursue an agressive foreign policy.

Ok, to see why would a war benefit Japan/U.S., first you need to get a realistic picture of the economy of the three countries. This could take pages to fully clarify, so I would just target two worst misconceptions.

1:China holds economic leverage against U.S./Japan:

Deadly wrong, It is entirely the other way around. In terms of trade, China is a net exporter against U.S. and Japan, in other words, China sell more to them than buy from them. All trade are mutally beneficial, but China's trade with U.S, Japan is more beneficial to China than to those two countries. So, China is the net loser in a trade severance scenario. This is solely based on values. If you take a look on what kind of product is flowing in and out the situation is much more dire for China. China is upstream in the economic chain, the products it exports are low-tech, low-added value and labor-intensive. It's easy in principle to replace those products with another source. If Nike move all the snicker operation from China to, say, India. Those snickers might sell at 55$ instead of 50$, tough for poorer americans but what is the economic consequence for China? if China sever its trade relation with Japan and US. it means tens of million of workers out of job instantly, not just peasents, but college-grad and CEOs as well. Imagine just what that might do to CCP regime?

But...but...don't China holds trillions of US debt? Surely they can be used against U.S, right? China has dollars and US government securities. The worst they can do is to sell them at very low price to create a price blockade, thus, lowering the value of Dollar. What would that do? not much. First, US government can buy those with its gold reserve thus mitigate if not neutralize the effect. Suppose US government do nothing and let Dollar drop, the first thing american would notice is their price-tag for gas had taken a hike, so is for Honda and Toyota. The cheap made-in-China everyday supplies are no longer cheap. Again, tough luck for poor americans. But at same time, it makes US products way easier to sell overseas, re-ignite the american industry, creating jobs for College Grad, bonuses for CEOs and dividend for stock holder. Overall, not a bad situation, as surely measured by american policy maker.

This naturally leads me to my 2nd point: we need to stop looking at each country as a singluar economic body. We had lived in globalized captalist market for how long now? There is no such thing as "american interest" or "Japanese interest" There is a real interest(readrofit) for Lockhead Martin or Mitsubishi or american high-tech sector. Those interests are not aligned along the borderlines. A war with China would benefit American high-tech and Defense sector immensely, so is the manufactures. Entertainment industry wouldn't like it and MacDonlord's would be crushed. Same situation is with Japan, the common people's lives would likely get tougher if war broke out, electronics and automakers lost a market but it would benefit the Defense, it would benefit the Energy, it would benefit the shipyards. So, there is not a uniform effect on all Americans or all Japanese if either country decide to pursue a war. So giant hand-waving like "this war would damage Japan economy" means nothing whatsoever. You need to look at who gains and who loses in much greater detail and ask who matters? Wars are expansive parties that everybody pays but only a few enjoy the end result. So if we are to sum up everyone's interest and draw an conclusion, then there shouldn't be any wars ever on earth.

If you understand the above two points, it is not hard to see why would US or Japan actively seeking a war with China. US foreign policy in recent years had been primarily driven by its concern for energy "security". Japan's right wing politicians had alway had their back in Japanese Heavy-industry conglomrates like Mitsubishi. So if you want to ask if US or Japan would want to have a war with China, why bother go to their congress? You need only to ask, if a war with China would give US more control over energy AND if Mitsubishi would like more orders for its warships and F-2? This is not to mention US had always sought to unseat CCP, a regime that demostrated its willingness to chanllege US. So, Take a guess.

Re: Abe cites Thatcher reflections on Falklands war

kwaigonegin said:

The fact is BOTH countries will lose in the bigger picture even if one wins on 'technical' points in a hypothetical war. We're talking the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world possibly going at each other.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Even a limited confrontation wouldn't be good for either country, regardless of who "won".

Engineer said:

The Laioning will also achieve IOC by that time, and as a full blown aircraft carrier outclasses the two Hyugas. I am not going to count any ship that is merely a plan at the moment, on both China's and Japan's sides.

Click to expand...

You forgot the Japanese 22DDH class, which is in production.

The J-20 are going to enter into service around 2018... China will be able to achieve air dominance, not just air superiority.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, do you have access to secret PLAAF data? Because so far we can't say how good the J-20 is actually going to be. And a handful of J-20s, even if they were comparable to the F-22, wouldn't tip the balance.

Besides, do you really want the issue of these islands to fester for another decade? If that happens there's a good chance of a conflict way before then.

Re: Abe cites Thatcher reflections on Falklands war

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, Mysterre, the Chinese Navy will not "outmatch Japan" in 2020. In terms overall number of DDGs, the Japanese will still out number, out weigh (in terms of tonnage) and vastly out number the Chinee Navy in terms of VLS cells it can bring to the party. That will not change until later in the decade if trends continue as they are now...and that does not even factor in the US - Japan mutual defense agreements.

As to the 22DDH, it will have a 27,000 ton full load displacement, and there will be two of them. Between them they will be able to support wings of F-35s if they choose to do so. My guess is each vessel with their much larger hanger spaces, their deck edge elvator and larger and clear flight deck will be able to support at least a dozen F-35s. Whether they will actually do that or not is not clear yet, and certainly, as I stated in my earlier post, it will not be until after ten years hence that the aircraft would be available to Japan anyway. So in 2020, those two carriers will not be a naval aviation factor, only later.

Which is precisely why I said it would be more like 25 years out before China is in a position to truly completely outclass Japan's Navy...and this is if trends continue as they are now. Economically and in every other way, none of us know what 25 years will bring.

I do know however that in ten years the PLAN will not have reached that point unless Japan has a drastioc economic collapse and cannot afford what they have now...but right now, they are building vessels fairly quickly.

Now, this does not mean at all that Japan could hands down defeate the PLAN in the China Sea area. For all of the reasons you gavce, that is not determinate right now, and will continue to be so, with the edge slowly moving towards the Chinese over time.

My point in the earlier post was simple...Japan will not willfully try and push or intimidate China into a war at this time or in the future over those islands. Far too much to lose...even if they were victorious at sea. The overall picture would still be a difficult one tactically for the Japanese even if they won a skirmish with the PLAN, and it would end up meaning a severe consequence to Japan's economy, particularly if they were clearly the agressor.

Click to expand...

Well Jeff, decent analysis that I mostly agree with, however, it seems you are somewhat missing the actual point.

The question at hand is not whether the PLAN is comprehensively better than the JMSDF, but rather what their chances are of defeating each other in a war over the Diaoyu Islands.

Japan might have more top end surface ships at present than China, but in an actual war, ships won't be the only assets employed. The far more important determining factors are air and strike power.

In terms of air power, the Japanese are now rapidly approaching, if not already past the hopelessly outmatched point. They only have 30 upgraded F15Js that can operate over the Diaoyu islands without needing tanker support. Those 30 F15s are only at around the tech and capability level of late blk J11As, so they will have no technological advantage against the latest PLAAF fighters and be comically outnumbered.

Japan's F2 fleet all have much more up to date radars and avionics, but they lack the legs to play much of a role with Japan's small tanker fleet. They were also designed mainly as strikers and I hold reservations about their air to air capabilities. But even if you assume that they can all somehow magically get into the fight, they will still be hugely outnumbered even if we are massively generous and assume the F2 to be a match for the J10.

If we consider support assets like AWACS and even ground based radars, the advantage is tipped further towards China.

In terms of strike power, there is absolutely no contest. Between China's vast JH7 fleet, its MKK/MK2 fleet, its modern H6 fleet and its 022 fleet, with control of the skies, the PLAAF and PLANAF and just the 022s can out out more AShMs than the entire Japanese fleet has SAMs. That's not even bothering to count the PLAN major surface combatants or subs.

So while the Japanese still have the more impressive surface fleet, in any shooting war, the Chinese will almost certainly win air superiority, and use that air superiority to wipe the Japanese surface fleet out from a safe distance without even needing to involve its own surface fleet.

That is also the main reason I seriously doubt Japan is really trying to push for war. You only do that when you are likely to win and have more to gain from such a war than what you might loose.

The Japanese simply do not have anything like the military power to win a war on China's doorstep, they have everything to loose if they start the war and get spanked, and even if by some minor miracle they win, it would be a Pyrrhic victory that would still cost the Japanese massively with very little possible benefit.

I know we can't rule out stupidity and pigheadedness as possible causes for war, as they have started their fair share of wars in the past, but I try not to assume the leaders of other countries to be quit so stupid and deluded as to think it is a good idea to start a war with China.

Abe is an elected politician, and like all elected politicians, his words can never be taken at face value. If he makes a policy speech as Japan's leader, I would pay attention, but when he makes a stump speech to play to his ultranationalist fanboys, it would be silly to read too much into his bluster and posturing.

There are generally two main reasons for people to behave unusually aggressively. The first is if they want to threaten you, and the second is if they are threatened by you.

As I have established, Japan simply does not have anything like the military or economic power to threaten China, and I think all this huffing and puffing just betrays how insecure the Japanese leadership are feeling precisely because they are painfully aware of the realities of the new military and economic power balance between the two countries.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

Because of the conflict over the Dokdo islands it is clearly in the interest of South Korea in case of war between Japan and China to support China actively and if necessary to abrogate the SOFA agreement with the US. It will also be in South Korea's interest to declare Japan the aggressor. That is something that China as well as the US will be aware of. These are very good arguments for the US to prevent Japanese aggression.