fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #181
I don't think the Japanese constitution will allow those Helicopter Destroyers to carry F-35Bs. They have enough trouble with the Hyuga-class and had to call it a "destroyer".
Japan F-18 Super Super Hornet?
- Thread starter fretburner
- Start date
This has already been addressed, several times.
The Japanese constitution says nothing about aircraft carriers. It forbids "war potential". This is interpreted as barring Japan from having anything intended for waging aggressive warfare, but permitting self defence. Weapons deemed acceptable to date include long-range aircraft with anti-ship missiles (for defending sea lanes, essential to Japan), for example. The official MoD web page on the interpretation of the constitution (linked to from this site, several times) clearly says that "aggressive aircraft carriers" are considered unacceptable. Note that none of those words will have been included accidentally.
Carriers with F-35B armed with AAMs & anti-ship missiles could be justified as defensive, within terms already used.
The Japanese constitution says nothing about aircraft carriers. It forbids "war potential". This is interpreted as barring Japan from having anything intended for waging aggressive warfare, but permitting self defence. Weapons deemed acceptable to date include long-range aircraft with anti-ship missiles (for defending sea lanes, essential to Japan), for example. The official MoD web page on the interpretation of the constitution (linked to from this site, several times) clearly says that "aggressive aircraft carriers" are considered unacceptable. Note that none of those words will have been included accidentally.
Carriers with F-35B armed with AAMs & anti-ship missiles could be justified as defensive, within terms already used.
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #183
^ So only Anti-ship missiles and no land-attack capabilities ala SLAM-ERs and JSOW-ERs? I just thought F-35s means projection of power more than defense, hence, them being inherently "aggressive".
AGM-154 JSOW-C1 has maritime strike capability and it fits inside the F-35A's internal bays...
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #185
^ Yes, but that's why you don't want to arm your Japanese F-35s with those because they have a land-attack capability right? They're not purely anti-ship, therefore, making them "aggressive" weapons.
Exactly. They're land-attack missiles with a secondary anti-ship capability.
If Japan buys F-35B, it'll probably want to integrate its own anti-ship missiles. The ones now in service have IIR seekers giving them a theoretical coastal attack capability (definitely not mentioned in the PR), but they're primarily anti-ship - which is very important indeed for the public image.
They were doing test flights on F-2s of a new anti-ship missile a few years ago: rocket/ramjet, supersonic, 200km range, dual-mode IIR/active radar, low RCS (shaping & materials).
Got JDAM, but that's officially for bombing invaders.
If Japan buys F-35B, it'll probably want to integrate its own anti-ship missiles. The ones now in service have IIR seekers giving them a theoretical coastal attack capability (definitely not mentioned in the PR), but they're primarily anti-ship - which is very important indeed for the public image.
They were doing test flights on F-2s of a new anti-ship missile a few years ago: rocket/ramjet, supersonic, 200km range, dual-mode IIR/active radar, low RCS (shaping & materials).
Got JDAM, but that's officially for bombing invaders.
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #187
I've been trying to google Japan's stand off weapons. I can't seem to find a good source outside globalsecurity.
Does Japan have any other stand-off weapon apart from those they developed themselves (ASM1 and ASM2)?
Does Japan have any other stand-off weapon apart from those they developed themselves (ASM1 and ASM2)?
Twinblade
Member
Eurofighter out of the F-X competition
Some reports are claiming the EF is out of Japan's F-X competition, is there any other source for that ?
Some reports are claiming the EF is out of Japan's F-X competition, is there any other source for that ?
no surprise on that one.
a few of us were predicting that they wouldn't make the final cut some 9 months ago....
Some frigates including Kongo-class still carry Harpoons. I believe the sub-Harpoons JMSDF uses are block 2 and have limited land attack capability. Also, ASM-2D/L version has dual IR/GPS seeker and capable of land attacking.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
None that I'm aware of. It's pretty much the Nikkei going out on a limb.
Of course given there are viable competing planes if the Eurofighter doesn't win everyone can say "I told you so".
Haavarla
Active Member
The F-35A will hopfully get these suckers integrated. At least the NoRAF will have em, so if Japan want such a capability, its their call..
KONGSBERG signs contract on continued development of JSM - Kongsberg Gruppen
Joint Strike Missile - Kongsberg Gruppen
fretburner
Banned Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #193
So Japan already Land-Attack standoff weapons. I guess having F-35s with Cruise Missiles won't make to big of a deal in their Parliament.
Isn't this something still being debated... or more appropriately negotiated? They obviously want the JSM to be integrated to the JSF, but so far LM (or the USG) hasn't committed to it yet.
I'm not sure if the Canadian's SatCom issue is similar.
----
On a different note, Boeing released another tidbit on the SH "International".
2 CFTs and stealthy (?) enclosed weapons pods (EWP). It's very interesting that this SH can carry 12 AMRAAMs + 2 AIM-9s. Can the current SH carry as much now?
Also, does anyone know how powerful the APG-79 versus APG-81 is? Like detection range, tracking, etc.
Yep, saw that awhile back. SH upgraded with F-35 tech in alot of area's would be Mean.
Something like the AGM-154C1 JSOW "might" be politically acceptable. It's a medium ranged glide weapon with moving maritime targetting capability and it also has obvious land attack and hardened target penetration capability.
Being medium ranged and glide capable only, as well as a maritime attack weapon, could definitely work in it's favour if Japan was seeking to acquire such a capability. I can see it politically as not being described as "overly" offensive, given it's glide nature, medium range (130k's only) and limited overall warhead effect (500lbs only with added BROACH warhead, designed to penetrate targets moreso than destroy land forces etc).
If accepted, the -ER variant could be added down the track if Japan is comfortable with a JSOW type capability in-service, to improve standoff range and terminal attack capability.
I can definitely see JSOW C1 being more politically acceptable than something like SLAM-ER, JASSM, Storm Shadow etc.
If you want to load up the Super Hornet as a missile barge, it can carry this sort of load. See the attached photograph. It's not a configuration you would normally expect to see. A more usual OCA load out might be something like:
4x AMRAAM, 2x AIM-9X and a pair of 500-1000lbs JDAM's/Paveway II's plus ATFLIR and 1-2x fuel tanks.
APG-81 v APG-79? APG-81 has a larger radar aperture, is 10 years newer in design, has greater processing power, greater ECCM capability, is an LPI (low probability of intercept) radar capability design and the APG-79 isn't...
APG-79 was offered by Raytheon with Boeing's X-32 JSF entrant. APG-81 was offered with L-M's X-35 entrant...
APG-79 is state of the art today. APG-81 is still being developed...
I see quite a few around the place who argue APG-79 is more capable. I don't see many in RAAF or USN, (the only two operational users of the APG-79) arguing that it is though...
It would be a matter of improving capability, not acquiring it. As stated Japanese anti-ship missiles have some land attack usefulness already. I expect JSOW has better hard target penetration capability, but I doubt it could be justified for maritime attack, considering Japan's own weapons.
It comes integrated on the Shornet and the F-35 (Block III) anyway and it offers internal carriage on the F-35A/C, something no other maritime strike weapon can offer at this point, including Japan's indigenous designs.
There's no doubt it is first and foremost a land attack weapon. I expect the Japanese media might raise a bt of hoopla about acquiring such "cruise missiles" too, but it's non-powered medium ranged nature and usefulness as a maritime strike weapon could see a justifiable argument for it's acquisition even by a self-defence force.
Not saying it will, but for these reasons I consider the acquisition of JSOW by Japan more likely than any other foreign standoff strike weapon.
Cheers,
AD
But apart from internal carriage in F-35, if Japan buys F-35, why would Japan buy any foreign stand-off weapon? Why not carry on with their own weapons? Their capabilities are far less well known, & they therefore offer far less scope for controversy. Protest against indigenous developments attracts far less support than protests against imported weapons.
IIRC Japan has JDAM, & I wouldn't be surprised if it buys SDB - because it has the image of being just a bomb, for use against invading forces. JSOW has a different image, encapsulated in its name. Also, I don't see where it would be used. What targets, where, would Japan want to hit with a BROACH warhead launched from 100 km away?
IIRC Japan has JDAM, & I wouldn't be surprised if it buys SDB - because it has the image of being just a bomb, for use against invading forces. JSOW has a different image, encapsulated in its name. Also, I don't see where it would be used. What targets, where, would Japan want to hit with a BROACH warhead launched from 100 km away?
I think it seriously depends on which aircraft they choose and the urgency with which they choose it. Integrating complex standoff weapons is not a trivial or cheap exercise, it takes years and hundreds of millions to do so. Not saying Japan would be unwilling to pay and do this, but time is still a factor on a weapons integration no matter the willingness to do it.
Neither the ASM-2/3 are going to fit internally on the JSF in their current configuration and even on Super Hornet or Typhoon (if it remains in the race, which is a bit unclear) they'd be the first 'foreign weapon' integrated on the platform. It would take plenty of time and money, not to mention actual radar, avionics and data-link modifications to the aircraft and possibly the weapons themselves.
Getting an off the shelf weapon with dual capabilities such as the JSOW as an initial entry to service capability is a relatively normal and sensible thing. Even Brazil requested this despite it's firm intention to integrate indigenous weapons on the aircraft it chose under F-X2.
If Japan saw a need for greater land attack capability, then this would neatly kill two birds with one stone, assuming Shornet or JSF were chosen.
As to target sets, I don't honestly believe that Japan would undertake no self-defence actions if it's territories were being invaded, until it's main islands were under threat do you?
JSOW would have tremendous utility if (for example) the Ryukyus were occupied or a certain nearby Country continued to fire Taepodong missiles over it's airspace...
Japan has already responded defensively with SM-3 and PAC-3. The next step in the "tit for tat" game would have to be a standoff attack capability. With JSOW C1's ability to provide a maritime strike capability as well, filling this role until the indigenous capability (or preferred as the case may be) is ready is another feather in it's cap.
A role it's performing for RAAF at present, until the Hornet / JASSM capability is ready.
There were reports a few years ago too, that Japan was modifying some of it's ASM-2 missiles, with anti-radiation homing seeker packages. If true, then Japan has demonstrated in interest in standoff strike capability behind the anti-ship role already and against which surface to air missile systems does it envisage using these?
I think you've missed my point. I asked what utility JSOW, specifically, would have. You've not answered that.
Your first example assumes that Japan is in an all-out war with China, & has already lost the first stage, including the loss of air superiority over Ryukyu & control of the sea around the islands. At this point, they'd be completely focused on the air-sea battle, both the prevent further Chinese gains & because the islands could not be regained without command of the air & sea.
That command of the air & sea would require defeat of the PLAF & PLAN. I don't see much use for JSOW in that battle. They'd want something longer range than JSOW for attacking Chinese air bases & SAM sites, unless the PLAF has been beaten in the air - & if so, how did the islands fall?
Your second example assumes Japan launching attacks in response to N. Korean missiles being fired over Japan. That won't happen. Japan would only bomb North Korea in response to a direct attack.
Japan already has a better maritime strike capability than JSOW can provide, integrated on current aircraft which will remain in service for long after the next type is operational.