Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force Thread

[1805]

The situation we are living right now reminds me a lot of the naval build up period between WWI and WWII. IMHO, the question is not wether there will be a war in Asia, but when it will start.

And it will start in the South China sea, near the Spratlys and the Paracel reefs.

I can't see any comparision with the interwar period. China spends quite a low percentage of GDP on defence (ok huge growing GDP). Its massive wealth is largely dependent on exports. How would a war help that?

If there is a comparsion and I don't think there is, one could view like the period between the Crimean & WW1. A long peace, ending in a arms race built up on mutual fear and then thne collective suicide of the European Powers, over the most minor issues.

 

[Strangelove]

Presumably whatever the JMSDF does in the next decade is a direct challenge/response to what China is doing with its own expanding blue water capability.

New Helicopter Carrier for Japanese Navy
By Keith Henderson at October 11, 2011 07:35
Filed Under: Research & Development

Details of the propulsion system for the new Helicopter Carrier of the Japanese Navy / Maritime Self-Defence Force (JMSDF) have been announced. To be built by IHI of Tokyo, the LOA 814 ft (248 m) and beam of 124 ft (38 m) vessel will have a fully loaded displacement of around 27,500 tons. The official Japanese 22DDH designation of the ship is of a “destroyer” but in reality it is a helicopter carrier. The reason for the diplomatic designation lies in the post World War 2 constitution which prohibits Japan to own aircraft carriers.

Japan already has two smaller Hyuga Class helicopter carriers of 18,000 tons full displacement and the new ship will become the largest vessels in the Japanese Navy.

The propulsion system comprises four GE LM2500 gas turbines of 33,600 hp (25 MW) each giving a total power of around 135,000 hp (100 MW) in a COGAG arrangement giving a speed of 30 kt. The ships will also be using GE’s smaller turbine, the LM500 with an output of approximately 6,000 hp (4.5MW) in a turbo-electric configuration for on board power generation.

The turbines will be built by GE licensee IHI with a delivery date of late 2012 for the LM500s and early 2013 for the LM2500 engines.

The LM2500 and LM500 gas turbines have been in service on a number of other ships of the JMSDF. LM2500s presently power the Hyuga helicopter carrier class, the destroyer classes Atago , Takanami, Murasame and Kongou: LM500 are in service on the Hayabusa class patrol boats and Sparviero fast attack class hydrofoils.

 

[Belesari]

I can't see any comparision with the interwar period. China spends quite a low percentage of GDP on defence (ok huge growing GDP). Its massive wealth is largely dependent on exports. How would a war help that?

If there is a comparsion and I don't think there is, one could view like the period between the Crimean & WW1. A long peace, ending in a arms race built up on mutual fear and then thne collective suicide of the European Powers, over the most minor issues.

You can never really trust the budget numbers completely. Plus ships, planes and weapons take longer to build than training the men to use them now in most cases.

Also I think the idea isnt so much to fight a war as look so terrible that people will simply bend the knee as it were and obey. Add to that a very large industrial and population base and you have alot of power to threaten those who thwart your will.

 

[Belesari]

I duobt anyone of the players are searching or wanting a war. Noone would winn anything from that. Im thinking it will continue like a new Cold war with defencebudgets growing larger and larger and the naval units will be more in numbers, greater in decplacement and more advanced.
China probobly will have carrier battlegrups in 5-10 years and Japan and other countries will follow suit.

I believe they are already building them based off their carrier atm. They could squeeze out quite a few very fast and the chinese are willing to push men into the grinder to get the best as fast as possible. So in 10 years we may have a china with 5-6 carriers and the escorts to go with them. Who knows.

 

[1805]

You can never really trust the budget numbers completely. Plus ships, planes and weapons take longer to build than training the men to use them now in most cases.

Also I think the idea isnt so much to fight a war as look so terrible that people will simply bend the knee as it were and obey. Add to that a very large industrial and population base and you have alot of power to threaten those who thwart your will.

Probably a greater issue is that China can get so much more out of its spend than say the USA, not just from cheap labour/production costs but also they are much more relaxed about buying in cheap technology and focusing on lower standards.

That said I can't help feel a PLAN carrier battlegroup would be just target practice for a USN SSN. However I see little in it for China to pick a fight with its customers/debtors.

 

[t68]

Probably a greater issue is that China can get so much more out of its spend than say the USA, not just from cheap labour/production costs but also they are much more relaxed about buying in cheap technology and focusing on lower standards.

That said I can't help feel a PLAN carrier battlegroup would be just target practice for a USN SSN. However I see little in it for China to pick a fight with its customers/debtors.

That's what most people thought about Japan pre-1938( oil embargo), only diffence is that the US no longer has the upper hand economicly against China.

 

[swerve]

Which is why you don't push someone to the edge of a cliff unless you're ready for them to fight to stop themselves falling over it.

I don't see anyone proposing to try to defeat China militarily by bringing its economy to its knees, so the 1930s Japanese analogy doesn't hold.

 

[SteelTiger 177]

I would like to see Japan aqcuire some ospreys for it's force not just for troop transport but also antisub/antisurface warfare missions but also an awac variant to work with any carrier based fighters tha Japan should consider buying.

 

[the road runner]

I would like to see Japan aqcuire some ospreys for it's force not just for troop transport but also antisub/antisurface warfare missions but also an awac variant to work with any carrier based fighters tha Japan should consider buying.

I would argue that Japan already operates the SH-60K version of the Sea hawk with close to 50 Units for its anti sub warfare.Add to that 100 odd units of the SH-60 J version,i would think Japan's Navy would be the envy of most Navy's around the world ,with the number of Naval helicopters it operates.

Japan also operates E-2C (13 units)aircraft for its navy ,why would Japan spend ton's of money to develop a Osprey AWAC's,when the US navy dose not even operate that version? Japan would be the sole operator of this version.Not a good idea

 

[AegisFC]

Japan is considering two more Aegis equipped DDG's for BMD duty, interesting news.

Japan eyes two new Aegis destroyers to counter N. Korea missile threat | The Japan Times

 

[colay]

I would argue that Japan already operates the SH-60K version of the Sea hawk with close to 50 Units for its anti sub warfare.Add to that 100 odd units of the SH-60 J version,i would think Japan's Navy would be the envy of most Navy's around the world ,with the number of Naval helicopters it operates.

Japan also operates E-2C (13 units)aircraft for its navy ,why would Japan spend ton's of money to develop a Osprey AWAC's,when the US navy dose not even operate that version? Japan would be the sole operator of this version.Not a good idea

Not to forget it's fleet of advanced E-767 AWACS. Perhaps one day Japan may decide to fly F-35Bs off it's aviation ships and engage in expeditionary campaigns then an Osprey AEWC variant could be justified.

 

[swerve]

Japan is considering two more Aegis equipped DDG's for BMD duty, interesting news.

Japan eyes two new Aegis destroyers to counter N. Korea missile threat | The Japan Times

Replacements for the two Hatakaze class, commissioned 25 & 27 years ago. Will keep the number of DDGs constant, albeit larger & more capable than their predecessors.

 

[Trackmaster]

This is the most interesting "destroyer" I have seen in a long time.

The flat deck confuses me.

Japan launches largest warship since World War II

 

[StingrayOZ]

This is the most interesting "destroyer" I have seen in a long time.

The flat deck confuses me.

Japan launches largest warship since World War II

30kt is a pretty fast helo platform. 4x lm2500?

Also they are 15m longer and 6m wider than the JC1 of the spanish and Australian navies. They seem to have prioritised deck space. 50m longer than the proceeding Hyūga-class.

Nice big flat front too.

 

[swerve]

30kt is a pretty fast helo platform. 4x lm2500?

Also they are 15m longer and 6m wider than the JC1 of the spanish and Australian navies. They seem to have prioritised deck space. 50m longer than the proceeding Hyūga-class.

Nice big flat front too.

Same speed as the 'through deck cruiser' design the RN bought for ASW helicopters & later adapted for Harriers, & the two Hyūga class ASW helicopter carriers & flotilla leaders Japan already has. The speed is appropriate. They're not amphibious transports.

Yes, 4 x LM2500 (Japanese-built). Same as Cavour, which is almost exactly the same size.

 

[drjn]

27,000 tons just to carry 14 helos?

 

[ASSAIL]

27,000 tons just to carry 14 helos?

Izumo's current tasking is stated thus but her capacity would be many more depending on the mix of aircraft

 

[John Newman]

27,000 tons just to carry 14 helos?

In an Anti-Submarine role, 14 helicopters (say a mix of 12 a/s and 2 search and rescue) is probably more than sufficient to do that particular task.

As Assail said, it comes down to the task the ship is employed to do.

The real question is probably more about, what is the physical capacity of the ship, especially the size of the hangar space? And not having seen any specs on how big the hangar space is, that's an open question.

But assuming she has a hanger space similar to Cavour and INS Viraat, both ships of similar dimensions, the capacity could be around 30.

From what I've read Cavour 'normally' operates with 8 Harriers and 12 helos and the max load is quoted as 30.

Viraat is quoted as having a capacity of 30 aircraft of various types too.

If the ship was ever to be used in an LPH role, say something similar to the smaller and now retired USS Iwo Jima Class, those ships could operate with around 25 helicopters in that particular role.

 

[AegisFC]

27,000 tons just to carry 14 helos?

Steel is cheap and air is free. If a navy is given a fairly free hand to build a ship to its desired spec at the budget the government is willign to pay why not design it as large as possible?
A large amount of "extra" space and weight built into this design means Japan has a lot of options in the future for UAV's or anything else they wish to equip on the ship.

The very large hangar will enable the Izumo class to perform maintenance tasks on the task forces helo's that are not possible in a hanger of a frigate or destroyer. It may "only" carry 14 or so helo's but it should be able to provide support for many more.

 

[StobieWan]

Yup, and being bigger, it'll be a more stable platform, it'll roll less, there's more room to work, your serviceability rates climb because it's easier and quicker to get hold of cabs and move them around, the benefits of a bit bigger hull are widely known.

I won't be at all surprised if we don't see an F35B or two cross decking from a USMC ship at some point. Just to y'know, say hi...