JSDF Issues

[Twain]

I am curious what direction people think the JSDF and particularly the JMSDF will take in the coming years. There has been quite a bit of discussion about the SCS but not much concerning Japanese security issues.

One new issue I haven't seen discussed are the development of a naval version of the DH-10/ As the article points out it is not a silver bullet but it definitely adds a new capability for the PLAN and complicates Japanese defence planning.

Then there is this issue over Okinawa and some claims in China that Okinawa should be included in the Senkaku dispute.
Financial Times: China Eyeing Okinawa in the Long-term? To the best of my knowledge, this is in no way part of the Chinese government claims to Senkaku, it is definitely disturbing to the Japanese.

So here are some of my questions, What direction and what capabilities should the JSDF and particularly the JMSDF and JASDF be investing in? Is at least limited fixed wing capability becoming more necessary for the JMSDF or should they be emphasizing subs more? Does the ATD-X change from being a government spending program to an actual development and procurement program? With the changes to weapons export laws in Japan, will they be looking for partners to develop the ATD-X or possibly a new class of subs or some new capability? I realize that Japan doesn't make changes like these rapidly, so what will be their first moves?

 

[swerve]

Yes, insane Chinese nationalists are worrying. Statements like this -

“When I was in Japan, I didn’t even know that the Ryukyus were once ours,” says Mr Tang, now a Japan specialist at a commerce ministry think-tank.

illustrate the problem. Mr Tang shows a dangerous misunderstanding of history. Ryukyu was never 'theirs' in any sense. There were never Chinese troops or officials there. Mr Wallace describes it well:

Underpinning such sentiments would seem to be an increasing misunderstanding (purposeful or otherwise) of China’s own history. We can see this in Tang Chungfeng’s statement below about how the Ryukyus were “ours.” It was certainly the case that the Ryukyus paid tribute to the Ming and then Qing courts. However the payment of tribute was never intended to be a specific concession of sovereignty, and there was deliberate cognitive dissonance on both sides in regards to the symbolic meaning of tributary relations. For nations paying tribute this was more about gaining profitable access to commercial trade with China that would not otherwise be granted (as well as tribute goodies often exceeding what they themselves had given to the Chinese emperor), than recognition of cultural and/or political superiority.

Almost all territories surrounding China had such arrangements at some time or other, including Thailand.

However, I digress. However flimsy the basis of such ultra-nationalist lunacy, it should be taken into account. The extent of such beliefs among those in power should be ascertained, as fas as possible, & if they have a significant influence on the leadership, precautionary actions should be taken. Defences should be strengthened.

NB. Depending on your viewpoint, Ryukyuan is a language closely related to Japanese (the majority view IIRC), or an obscure & difficult to understand dialect of Japanese.

 

[montgomery]

Hi Twain

I think that for historical reasons Tokyo has been reluctant to get overly involved in this region in a military sense, and Beijing has capitalised on this to its advantage. I will be interested to hear posters' views on this issue of Japan's role in the region, because it is going to be much more salient than up to now, in my view, as the Chinese continue to expand irrespective of international concerns.

 

[Twain]

Yes, insane Chinese nationalists are worrying. Statements like this -


illustrate the problem. Mr Tang shows a dangerous misunderstanding of history. Ryukyu was never 'theirs' in any sense. There were never Chinese troops or officials there. Mr Wallace describes it well:



Almost all territories surrounding China had such arrangements at some time or other, including Thailand.

However, I digress. However flimsy the basis of such ultra-nationalist lunacy, it should be taken into account. The extent of such beliefs among those in power should be ascertained, as fas as possible, & if they have a significant influence on the leadership, precautionary actions should be taken. Defences should be strengthened.

NB. Depending on your viewpoint, Ryukyuan is a language closely related to Japanese (the majority view IIRC), or an obscure & difficult to understand dialect of Japanese.

The nationalism issue in China is rather disturbing particularly since it appears to be at least a semi-official policy to encourage it. It is also troubling that the PLA seems to be actively seeking more influence in regard to domestic and foreign policy.

Party Bristles at Military’s Push for More Sway in China

I am not going to go into that too deeply as it gets into political issues but I do think it does increase the chances of hostilities in the SCS and ECS. There is an attitude among some in China of "why are we spending so much on the military if we aren't going to use it?"

Getting back on topic, I just started reading through the 2012 Japanese MOD white paper. One issue has been mentioned here already, is that according to the current interpretation of the Japanese constitution can't have "attack aircraft carriers". This seems to me to lead to the question, Are defensive aircraft carriers allowed? Makes you wonder what the long terms plans are for the 22DDH class and any follow on classes?


Then there is this passage

5. The Right of Belligerency
Article 9, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution prescribes that “the right of belligerency of the state will not be
recognized”. However, the “right of belligerency” does not mean the right to engage in battle; rather, it is
a general term for various rights that a belligerent nation has under international law, including the
authority to inflict casualties and damage upon the enemy’s military force and to occupy enemy territory.
On the other hand, Japan may of course use the minimum level of force necessary to defend itself. For
example, if Japan inflicts casualties and damage upon the enemy’s military force in exercising its right of
self-defense, this is conceptually distinguished from the exercise of the right of belligerency, even though
those actions do not appear to be different. Occupation of enemy territory, however, would exceed the
minimum necessary level of self-defense and is not permissible.

Does this open up the option to attack enemy territory as long as the JSDF does not occupy any foreign territory? It seems to me that it does and if that is the case, it opens up the JSDF to a whole new range of capabilities they have regarded as offensive weapons systems in the past.

Japan needs to transform their navy from the old fleet of 8 ships with 8 helicopters designed for ASW and escort duty. That was fine for the cold war but it would be insufficient to ensure free transit from the straits of malacca to Japan. They have started that transformation, I am just very curious where this will take them. One obvious possibility has also been mentioned here, cooperation with Australia on submarine development. Another that comes to mind is a joint venture with South Korea on the ATD-X and the KF-X, that is if Japan and SK can ever put WWII behind them.

None of this will happen quickly but it will be interesting to watch Japan over the next few years.

 

[StobieWan]

I'll wait for Swerve to wade in with his usual response on Japanese carriers As far as I understand, there's nothing to stop Japan legally operating carriers of any sort at all - it's more a case of what they might choose to do with them.

 

[Ananda]

T

Getting back on topic, I just started reading through the 2012 Japanese MOD white paper. One issue has been mentioned here already, is that according to the current interpretation of the Japanese constitution can't have "attack aircraft carriers". This seems to me to lead to the question, Are defensive aircraft carriers allowed? Makes you wonder what the long terms plans are for the 22DDH class and any follow on classes?

Japan needs to transform their navy from the old fleet of 8 ships with 8 helicopters designed for ASW and escort duty. That was fine for the cold war but it would be insufficient to ensure free transit from the straits of malacca to Japan. They have started that transformation, I am just very curious where this will take them. One obvious possibility has also been mentioned here, cooperation with Australia on submarine development. Another that comes to mind is a joint venture with South Korea on the ATD-X and the KF-X, that is if Japan and SK can ever put WWII behind them.

Details of New Japanese ‘Helicopter Destroyer’ | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk

The new 22DDH will be 248 meters long and 39 meters in beam, and displace more than 24,000 tons. This makes her almost 50 percent larger than the Hyuga class and places an unbearable semantic strain on the use of the term “destroyer” to describe these ships.

I do believe you already have access for the 22DDH and the specs, because it's already in public domain for some time. Swerve can show more insight on what Japan will do politically for the carriers, but in my book an Essex Class size carrier, plus recent Japan interest for F-35, will not make too much trouble for Japan to convert this for Carrier equipped with 1 sq or 2 of F-35B. I know Japan has not talk about the B version, but if they already equipped with A version, it will not be much trouble for them, to add B to the stable.

Perhaps the questions is whether F-35B is going to be operational or not
Anyway, except for SSN and SSBN, what JMSDF has still and I believe for foreseeable future still outmatch (in term of Quality) of what PLAN has.

 

[Twain]

I'll wait for Swerve to wade in with his usual response on Japanese carriers As far as I understand, there's nothing to stop Japan legally operating carriers of any sort at all - it's more a case of what they might choose to do with them.

Yeah, that's the thing, what's the difference between an "attack aircraft carrier" and a defensive aircraft carrier? It looks like the government of Japan is laying the groundwork for expanding the fixed wing capabilities for the JMSDF with this white paper.

 

[montgomery]

Japan's concerns about Chinese expansion in the region are no secret, so no one should be surprised if they extend their offensive capability in response. We might use this example to test the efficacy of two prominent theories of state strategy: offensive and defensive realism. If states expand until they have maximum security, as the defensives contend, then China has it already, thanks to the increase in its A2/AD technology, even as far as the US forces in the region are concerned, so it should stop expanding about now. My opinion is that China will continue to expand its military's capability beyond its regional security concerns in a bid to become as powerful as possible and a global peer competitor against the US, and thereby prove the offensives are right in arguing that a state will expand until it has maximum power.

It looks to me like Japan knows its neighbour and recognizes this implicitly and we can predict serious upgrading in Japanese military capability and an increase in joint military exercises in the region between US, Japan and other allies - and ironically an increase in exercises involving China.

 

[Volkodav]

Details of New Japanese ‘Helicopter Destroyer’ | Navy & Maritime Security News at DefenceTalk



I do believe you already have access for the 22DDH and the specs, because it's already in public domain for some time. Swerve can show more insight on what Japan will do politically for the carriers, but in my book an Essex Class size carrier, plus recent Japan interest for F-35, will not make too much trouble for Japan to convert this for Carrier equipped with 1 sq or 2 of F-35B. I know Japan has not talk about the B version, but if they already equipped with A version, it will not be much trouble for them, to add B to the stable.

Perhaps the questions is whether F-35B is going to be operational or not
Anyway, except for SSN and SSBN, what JMSDF has still and I believe for foreseeable future still outmatch (in term of Quality) of what PLAN has.

I doubt Japan will convert existing ships however I would not be at all suprised if a new or modified design is developed specifically if seen to be necessary with the Hyugas and 22DDHs serving as asw and command escourts for any future carrier.

 

[SpartanSG]

This is an interesting and complex topic. And I think there are a few aspects to look at it from.

1. Strategic requirements. Japan needs to protect its own waters and territorial claims (especially the disputed ones) as well as its Sea Lines of Communications (SLOCs) that its economy relies on (for import of raw materials & energy, export of manufactured goods, etc). These are essentially the same reasons for PLA Navy's expansion. Thus, the JMSDF have the strategic arguments for expansion. And the US will welcome such expansion so that the JMSDF can take a larger load off the USN.

However, there are several factors that complicate any expansion of the JMSDF, including distrust by other countries that suffered under Japanese aggression in WWII, the political will of the Japanese government (what with multiple changes of administration in the last decade) and the ability of Japan to finance such at an expansion.

2. Financial situation. Japan has a huge public debt and a stagnant economy with an ageing population. Its ability to finance a significant expansion of its military (in particular the JMSDF) will depend on its financial situation, which is not particularly bright. Without financing it through debt, it means that spending must be diverted from other areas to fund their military. And that requires a strong administration with the political will to do it.

3. Political will. This is probably the most complex aspect in all of this, due to the constant change in the administrations in Japan. This does not bode well for any significant expansion of their military, unless they are jolted out of their comfortable position (such as the North Korean missiles that flew over their air space in the 90s).

IMO, the Japanese military industrial complex will probably try to reap economies of scale by exporting some of the hardware (more likely components, rather than complete military hardware) to other countries. They may also try a collaborative approach when developing new systems so as to share costs.

 

[swerve]

I'll wait for Swerve to wade in with his usual response on Japanese carriers As far as I understand, there's nothing to stop Japan legally operating carriers of any sort at all - it's more a case of what they might choose to do with them.

No real need for me to butt in. You've covered it.

IMO, the Japanese military industrial complex will probably try to reap economies of scale by exporting some of the hardware (more likely components, rather than complete military hardware) to other countries. They may also try a collaborative approach when developing new systems so as to share costs.

I believe this is pretty much what Japanese defence firms have been saying in public.

 

[SpartanSG]

I believe this is pretty much what Japanese defence firms have been saying in public.

Yep.

The difficulty however is who will be willing to collaborate with the Japanese on development of military systems? There is the issue of historical animosity due to Japanese aggression/atrocities during WWII, which makes it difficult/tricky for most Asian states to collaborate with Japan militarily. The countries that choose to collaborate with Japan may also risk their ties with China.

Hence, I'm of the opinion that Japan is more likely to find collaboration partners beyond Asia. Perhaps Turkey, states in the Middle East & South America, Israel and South Africa.

India is possibly the only Asian country that will have no historical baggage in collaborating with the Japanese. However, their weapons systems development record leaves much to be desired.

 

[CheeZe]

Then there is this passage

5. The Right of Belligerency
Article 9, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution prescribes that “the right of belligerency of the state will not be
recognized”. However, the “right of belligerency” does not mean the right to engage in battle; rather, it is
a general term for various rights that a belligerent nation has under international law, including the
authority to inflict casualties and damage upon the enemy’s military force and to occupy enemy territory.
On the other hand, Japan may of course use the minimum level of force necessary to defend itself. For
example, if Japan inflicts casualties and damage upon the enemy’s military force in exercising its right of
self-defense, this is conceptually distinguished from the exercise of the right of belligerency, even though
those actions do not appear to be different. Occupation of enemy territory, however, would exceed the
minimum necessary level of self-defense and is not permissible.

You're misunderstanding the point of this clarification. It is saying that, despite the constraints of Article 9, Japan is allowed to make counter-offensive operations IF attacked. Japan would need to be the country attacked. Japan cannot be the belligerent aggressor. That part is clearly covered in Article 9 of the Constitution. Even with casus belli, the Japanese government and public would hardly be looking to come across as a nation capable of projecting military power.

They know they're an economic powerhouse and soft-power is the key to East Asia and SE Asia. Look at ASEAN and Myanmar. Or the increasing amount of US debt held by China. There is more than one way to trump the West and the Asian Tigers have found it through economic dominance. Recall the anti-Japanese sentiment in the US during the '80s when cheap, reliable Japanese cars flooded the market and displaced the more expensive American-made brands in sales. See [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Chin[/ame] for an example.

If the Japanese need hard power, such as aircraft carriers, all they need to do is phone up the US and get them to apply the pressure. Japan doesn't need to be an offensive military because that's why it puts up with the US bases all over Japan. All the JSDF needs to worry about is protecting the Japanese borders and interests. Power projection is left to the Americans. Spending huge amounts of money to get the same kind of capability as the US would be a waste of resources and a huge risk to the overall Japanese economic situation.

 

[Twain]

Originally Posted by StobieWan
I'll wait for Swerve to wade in with his usual response on Japanese carriers As far as I understand, there's nothing to stop Japan legally operating carriers of any sort at all - it's more a case of what they might choose to do with them.

No real need for me to butt in. You've covered it.


I believe this is pretty much what Japanese defence firms have been saying in public.

That was indirectly one of my points. Depending on which administration is in power and the situation around them, there have been different viewpoints on what is considered acceptable and what is not considered acceptable. If I remember correctly, The JMSDF had plans/hoped to build something similar to the 16DDH class back in the 70's but political considerations prevented it.

When you read the 2012 white paper, it appears to me to be a looser interpretation of article 9 than we have seen in the past. I think this says two things, 1. Japan is realizing that the threats around them are increasing and because of this 2. They have at least long term plans to expand their capabilities.

Domestic laws are much like international laws, they are enforced as long as there is a consensus among the powers that be to enforce them. The interpretations of them can change over time according to who is in power and political will to either enforce them, change them or interpret them differently.

 

[Twain]

You're misunderstanding the point of this clarification. It is saying that, despite the constraints of Article 9, Japan is allowed to make counter-offensive operations IF attacked. Japan would need to be the country attacked. Japan cannot be the belligerent aggressor. That part is clearly covered in Article 9 of the Constitution. Even with casus belli, the Japanese government and public would hardly be looking to come across as a nation capable of projecting military power.

I didn't mean to imply a first strike by Japan, though I wouldn't rule that out in the case of North Korea and strikes against ballistic missiles. I don't think that is likely at all but not out of the realm of possibility.

If the Japanese need hard power, such as aircraft carriers, all they need to do is phone up the US and get them to apply the pressure. Japan doesn't need to be an offensive military because that's why it puts up with the US bases all over Japan. All the JSDF needs to worry about is protecting the Japanese borders and interests. Power projection is left to the Americans. Spending huge amounts of money to get the same kind of capability as the US would be a waste of resources and a huge risk to the overall Japanese economic situation.

That was very true at one time. The japanese definitely regarded the JMSDF as defensive and American carriers as their offensive strike capability but I think that is changing. The US has been pushing Japan to expand it's military capability for quite a while now. This seems to be true for all the US allies in the Pacific rim. The Philippines are a prime example, They need a number of things to bolster their presence in the nearby waters but the US has only stepped up in relatively small ways to help them. (notice that none of the OHP's are promised to the Philippines) There is a pretty strong opinion that these pacific rim countries need to be responsible for their own defense needs first rather than relying on the US, In effect that they need to contribute their share.

On top of that, the US has said it won't get involved militarily in territorial disputes. That sends a distinct message to these countries, in effect that they need to defend/resolve these claims themselves. The dynamics in the Pacific rim are changing, I don't think it's quite as simple anymore as phoning the US and requesting carrier support.

 

[swerve]

Yep.

The difficulty however is who will be willing to collaborate with the Japanese on development of military systems? There is the issue of historical animosity due to Japanese aggression/atrocities during WWII, which makes it difficult/tricky for most Asian states to collaborate with Japan militarily. The countries that choose to collaborate with Japan may also risk their ties with China.

Hence, I'm of the opinion that Japan is more likely to find collaboration partners beyond Asia. Perhaps Turkey, states in the Middle East & South America, Israel and South Africa.

India is possibly the only Asian country that will have no historical baggage in collaborating with the Japanese. However, their weapons systems development record leaves much to be desired.

From the public statements by the government, both sales of weapons & collaborative developments will be restricted to a fairly short list of friendly countries, mostly NATO members, but also including Australia & perhaps Singapore. I don't believe Israel, India or South Africa is on the list.

 

[SpartanSG]

If the Japanese need hard power, such as aircraft carriers, all they need to do is phone up the US and get them to apply the pressure. Japan doesn't need to be an offensive military because that's why it puts up with the US bases all over Japan. All the JSDF needs to worry about is protecting the Japanese borders and interests. Power projection is left to the Americans. Spending huge amounts of money to get the same kind of capability as the US would be a waste of resources and a huge risk to the overall Japanese economic situation.

That was true in the past.

However, I doubt the US is going to get involved in Japan's territorial disputes with its neighbours. As it is, Japan has territorial disputes with PRC, ROK & Russia. To be able to resolve these disputes from an equal position, the JSDF will need to sufficient capability, particularly against the rapidly modernising PLA.

There is also the issue of defending the sea lanes that Japan's economy rely on. While the USN is in this business, they are under fiscal pressure too. Hence, the need for more countries to contribute assets to safeguard international sea lanes in far flung places like the Gulf of Aden. And potentially, the Gulf of Hormuz (what with Iran's threat to close it).

That was very true at one time. The japanese definitely regarded the JMSDF as defensive and American carriers as their offensive strike capability but I think that is changing. The US has been pushing Japan to expand it's military capability for quite a while now. This seems to be true for all the US allies in the Pacific rim. The Philippines are a prime example, They need a number of things to bolster their presence in the nearby waters but the US has only stepped up in relatively small ways to help them. (notice that none of the OHP's are promised to the Philippines) There is a pretty strong opinion that these pacific rim countries need to be responsible for their own defense needs first rather than relying on the US, In effect that they need to contribute their share.

On top of that, the US has said it won't get involved militarily in territorial disputes. That sends a distinct message to these countries, in effect that they need to defend/resolve these claims themselves. The dynamics in the Pacific rim are changing, I don't think it's quite as simple anymore as phoning the US and requesting carrier support.

Well said.

The USN is under fiscal constrains as it is. And they will need their partners to step up their game to pick up some of the load.

From the public statements by the government, both sales of weapons & collaborative developments will be restricted to a fairly short list of friendly countries, mostly NATO members, but also including Australia & perhaps Singapore. I don't believe Israel, India or South Africa is on the list.

True.

But since Japan's military industrial complex is taking its initial steps in this direction, I do expect them to make adjustments as they go along. They will need time to determine who is willing and able to work with them. And this needs to be based on real world experiences, and not what they think will work.

 

[Chino]

Even without the US involvement, I would imagine Japan can hold its own against the PLA in a limited and localized conflict.

What do you guys think?

 

[Twain]

Even without the US involvement, I would imagine Japan can hold its own against the PLA in a limited and localized conflict.

What do you guys think?

Under current circumstances, most likely. The thing about the Senakaku islands is that all Japan wants to do at the present time is maintain the status quo. They can operate almost on a purely defensive basis in this theoretical conflict, in effect, fight to not lose and not escalate the situation.

On paper China far overmatches Japan in sheer numbers but they can't bring the entire weight of their navy and air force to bear on the Senkaku islands and leave the rest of their borders and the SCS with nothing. If this conflict were to happen in the near future, the numbers on both sides would be far closer to matching than a lot of people would suspect.

The concern for Japan is a few yrs from now, if China keeps building ships and aircraft at it's current pace, the balance of power in the region could shift dramatically.

 

[Chino]

The thing about the Senakaku islands is that all Japan wants to do at the present time is maintain the status quo. They can operate almost on a purely defensive basis in this theoretical conflict, in effect, fight to not lose and not escalate the situation.

That will be a tough sell to PRC because one step the JPN goernment took to "maintain" the status quo was to purchase the Diaoyu islands from certain "private owners".

The President of PRC has declared the China "will not yield an inch" of Diaoyu Islands sovereignty. They have sent two maritime survey.patrol boats to the area. These are lightly armed, semi military type vessels IIRC.

If things were to proceed negatively, the next step up I imagine would be both sides sending real combat ships to a stand off, with more aggressive diplomatic verbal threats issued.

For me it is hard to gauge the US reaction. How about Taiwan? It is a US ally and the Diaoyu Islands are at their doorstep. But TWN is clearly anti-JPN in this issue. If the PRC and JPN start shooting each other at its doorstep, what would TWN do?

...

Even as I write, the rumour mill in China (where I live and work) is already spreading the "news" that shooting has started with a JPN opening fire first and the PRC returning fire.