Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

IDonT said:

1.) I would argue that the JMSDF has greater endurance than PLAN due mainly to its greater logistical capabilites and the fact that it routinely operates far from home waters with the USN.

2.) Aegis is a combat information system and not a purely defensive system. By intergrating sensors, weapons suites, and command, it provides superior ability to prosecute threats. It was designed to counter the Soviet Union's saturation attacks. The Kongo, basically and Arleigh Burke class destroyer, will have no problem intercepting 12 anti-ship missiles. AAW defense its is strong point.

3.) JMSDF is technologically more advance than the PLAN. Aegis, F-15, E-3, regardless of their origin counts as part of their order of battle. IF push comes to shove, Japan has the electronics infrastructure to build or recreate its own avionics, radar, etc. The point is moot, the US, as an ally will always sell to them.

Don't be fooled by Japan's pacifist constitution. Its weapon system's are ARTIFICIALLY defanged and not by a whole lot of margin. The Kongo class ships do not specifically carry the TLAM, yet it carries the Mk 41 VLS launcher. It takes half a day to load the TLAM into them from US stocks.

Click to expand...

1. the PLAN has more logistal resupply ships (oilers) than the Japanese navy and bigger total tonage as well.
2. I hate to do this ( compare platfrom VS platform) but here it goes: Aegis is a great area defense system, maybe the best there is. But Aegis can not do its work unless there are aircover, we have to remember that Aegis was designed to be part of the U.S navy CV taskforce, the CV provide longrange aircover and AWACS, in time of war, the F18 will pick out most the enemy fighters, so what is left over enemy fighters ( hopefully none) from the airwar got to do the job of fireing antiship missiles at the CV group. Thus, the Aegis is the second ring in the total defense of the CV group. Now the Japan has got no CV, so a Kongo's defense is as long as it's AD missiles range, in this case about 150km for the SM2 ( am I right? from memory, did not check). So let say, PLAN have got a flight of 4 JH7A's each armed with a center drop tank, 2 PL5 AAM and 4 YJ83. These 4 JH7A is coming toward the Kongo. How they do it? they will fly Hi-low-low to get there, that say, one of these JH7A developes some malfunction and have to turn back ( very likely thing to happen), now the PLAN have got 12 YJ83 on three JH7. We know that the radar of JH7A can pick out a Kongo sized ship well before 200km, let just say that one of the JH7A pop up from sea level to take a radar look, that pop up will get Kongo's radar noticed, so the Kongo konw now they have got company, at about 200km range, but still too far for the SM2, but that pop up by the JH7A also got the Kongo locked on by the JH7A radar, so between 200km to 150km distance, all these three JH7A pop up ( they may have to re-lock on the Kongo) to 500 feet and fire all 12 YJ83, and before the JH7s got into SM2's firing range, they would have turned back. Now the Kongo knows there are SSM's coming at it, at 150km distance, the Kongo have got about 7-9 mins to deal with the SSMs. I know the Kongo has got over 96 SM2s, and a very good CIWS and great electronic counter measures. But the Kongo is on the defensive side of the game, one YJ83 pass through the net, you are done. This is how I look at the picture, The SM2 have never really faced with a truely great SSM, and we all know YJ83 is a great improvement over the older YJ82. Now we know this, the two CIWS on Kongo can deal with total of 4-6 targets at the same time at hight subsonic speeds, If the SM2 shot down 6 of the 12 YJ83, I think we all agree the SM2 has done its job, then it will be left for the CIWS and counter measures to deal with the 6 YJ83 left over. It does not look good to my eyes for the crew of Kongo. As I said before, I do not like one on one comparisions, because you get nothing but arguments, but let just say this, the Japanese Navy have 5 Kongo ( modified one) and China has got over 60 JH7 and JH7A in the PLANAF, plus 30 Su30mkk ( notice I did not count the H6M and H6H in the PLANAF service), you get the picture.
3. In a modern war, you use what you have already got to fight the war, not what EQPs that will coming later, because there will be no later, the enemy would not give you the time to design, develop, and test you new toys, this is not WWI or WWII. It will be all said and done over with in 3 month. If the U.S is directly in the war between China and Japan, and on Japan's side, then forget what I said.

Though AEGIS was primarily designed as to defend CBGs, it's not bound to them.
There are occassions when Ticos, Burkes and OHPs form surface action groups not involving a CVN. And of course the defence has to work it those situations as well. And it does. AEGIS combines the info from all available sensors. And a SPY-1D is a pretty powerfull sensor. Another job of AEGIS is then to coordinate the defence.
That is all true for the Kongo as well.
The problem here is that the YJ-82 are sea-skimmers, meaning they would be detected rather close to the vessel, decreasing reaction time. But once detected, and assuming all missiles would lock on a ship, AEGIS can full well decide to assign two SM-2 or ESSM to every incoming AShM, knocking out a rather big amount of them. If the time allows it, AEGIS will do BDA and launch a second barrage (within seconds). Out of the few missiles left, and I doubt it would even be six, these have to face capable CIWS. And since even a Kongo will not operate alone, those AShM will be engaged by several CIWS from different ships. Even if all AShM are aimed at the Kongo.
And the argument AEGIS/SM-2 never faced a capable AShM is nonsense. The USN itself posesses the Harpoon and Tomahawk AShM, and these are among the most capable in the world. It's quiet moot to assume they would never have tested AEGIS/SM-2 against them or other drones simulating modern russian AShM.

That said, I don't even really think China could obtain air-supremacy in the area (on short notice). Air superiority at times and places, allowing to attack JMSDF vessels from the air. But not totally denying the air to the japanese AF. Therefore, fighter support and AWACS guidance from further back to track low flying threats will be present.

beijingcar said:

But Aegis can not do its work unless there are aircover

Click to expand...

So I take it your scenario operates on the assumption that whilst this Chinese air attack is happening the JASDF is, what, on holiday? All taking part in air-shows? Stuck in traffic on the way to their airbases?

beijingcar said:

But Aegis can not do its work unless there are aircover, we have to remember that Aegis was designed to be part of the U.S navy CV taskforce, the CV provide longrange aircover and AWACS, in time of war, the F18 will pick out most the enemy fighters, so what is left over enemy fighters ( hopefully none) from the airwar got to do the job of fireing antiship missiles at the CV group. Thus, the Aegis is the second ring in the total defense of the CV group. Now the Japan has got no CV, so a Kongo's defense is as long as it's AD missiles range, in this case about 150km for the SM2 ( am I right? from memory, did not check).

Click to expand...

You misunderstand the Aegis system. It was designed to protect US warships as they attacked the homeports of the Soviet fleet. It was designed to allow warships to push within easy striking distance of land. It is an offensive combat system that is portrayed as a defensive umbrella. Japan has American-derived AEWC aircraft. They can park some JMSDF Aegis destroyers close to china's coast backed up with AEWC planes and shoot down chinese aircraft as they attempt to leave chinese airspace.

To FuManChu: please tell me how Japanese AF with what the planes that they have got, attain air superiority against the PLANAF and PLAAF? at this point in time, the best the Japanese AF can achieve is to be able to contest the air so the PLANAF and PLAF do not have total control of the air, when Japan got the F35 and F22 things may change.
To Scratch: read my prior posts. I am talking about YJ83 not YJ82, also IDonT and I was talking about one Kongo VS 12 YJ83, one one one. Bytheway. Harpoon and Tomahawk are great SSMs, I am sure the SM2 has a few runs against them and do well. But YJ83 is not one of these two. This is the reason I do not think one platform Vs another comparo is a meaningfull thing to do. In wars, it is the system VS system. Again please read my prior posts.

beijingcar said:

please tell me how Japanese AF with what the planes that they have got, attain air superiority against the PLANAF and PLANF? at this point in time, the best the Japanese AF can achieve is to be able to contest the air so the PLANAF and PLAF do not have total control of the air, when Japan got the F35 and F22 things may change.

Click to expand...

You didn't say "air superiority", you said "air cover" - don't backtrack.

Besides, I would also dispute most strongly that the JASDF would have to control the skies to keep the MSDF operational. The whole point of having those AEGIS ships is that they can defend themselves, as SinoForce pointed out.

EDIT: Beijing, I think I'm going to stop repeating myself.

FuManChu said:

You didn't say "air superiority", you said "air cover" - don't backtrack.

Besides, I would also dispute most strongly that the JASDF would have to control the skies to keep the MSDF operational. The whole point of having those AEGIS ships is that they can defend themselves, as SinoForce pointed out.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, you are right, these two words are not interchangeable. And fully loaded, JH7A can not really do dog fight. Ok let the J11 take care of the aircover duty and Japanese F15J do the CAP duty for their side, then all the AWACS from both sides have to join the fight, then what you have got, system VS system, as I said before, in a all out war between Japan and China over East China and Yellow seas, Japan have not got a pryer without needing the U.S to joint the fight.

Is there really this need for "my is bigger than yours" debate? No need to turn this into PLA vs JSDF. Just comment on the Atago class.

tphuang said:

Is there really this need for "my is bigger than yours" debate? No need to turn this into PLA vs JSDF. Just comment on the Atago class.

Click to expand...

I am sorry TPHUANG: just after more than 20 years of studying the PLA, and almost joined the AF, I finally see the light of day, the day that we Chinese can be proud of our military. In the last 5-6 years, we have see great leaps forward in terms of PLA's capabilities, and 6 years ago, I would ( could) not say what I said in these two days. Now back to what the PLAN would do in light of the coming new Atago class. My answer is do nothing in direct response of the Atago. Look guys, the PLAN for the passed 5 years have got a lot new EQP's, Yuan, 051C, 022, 052B, 052C, 071, 093, new minesweeper, 054, 054A, Sov, Su30MKK, JH7A, Y8 AWACS, and that is what we see, there are a lot more going on that we do not see, all these new toys need trained crew, new way of thinking how to fight ( new tactics ), new supply chain, as the result, if the PLAN can use these new toys and max their fighting capabilties in a short time, there will be nothing to be afraid of the new Atago. Because war is fought system VS system.

szbd said:

"Even if surface clutter is considered, the AshM has things working out for it."
Could you tell me how?

Click to expand...

Mainly because the sea does not have that many metallic objects compared to say land. Ground clutter is way more difficult, and even today, targeting a ground object using active radar means is by no means reliable, hence the use of other targeting systems like optical.

From what we have discussed, it seems a good UAV with powerful data link can be very crusial for BVR AShW. The UAV can detect enemy fleet and guide the missles to attach at the same time from different directions.

Click to expand...

Which is most true. Which is what I think UAVs are the future of surveillance, may even replace AWACS some day. UAVs may not just act as spotters, they can also act as routers to a robust, highly redudant network. They would be much harder to spot and kill, and always more replaceable. Compared to using AWACS it allows for decentralization and coverage over a wider area by their numbers.