Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
I agree. Handsome is an excellent word to describe the design. It's also jam-packed with great equipment like the Type 17 ("indigenous ship-launched 400km AShM, sir?" "why, yes, thank you").
Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force Thread
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
Both the DDG and FFG (in Japanese terms) are both good looking capabilities and if acquired together could be a formidable combination for a small navy. Wonder what the sail away costs for each are?
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
In the first two minutes some video footages of the launch of the second 30FFM ship.
And yes....she is a beauty.
And yes....she is a beauty.
Remarkable? That long, cylindrical things that move around in dark, wet places aren't anthropomorphised as girls?
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
LDP lawmakers back Aegis ships as alternative to land-based system
The government has been seeking three offshore alternative options after its decision earlier this year to scrap its plan to deploy the U.S.-developed Aegis Ashore system.
www.japantimes.co.jp
I think I'd be a bit too cynical if I thought that the Japanese government cancelled Aegis-ashore to justify building another two large destroyers. That said I'm sure the Japanese navy wouldn't mind being gifted what you might call two "Super Maya-class" DDs (no specifications yet, but reported as being even bigger than Maya and Haguro).
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
Two new destroyers is also the most logical and cost effective solution. Offshore oil rigs installations are vulnerable and also installing the AEGIS on civillian vessels doesnt make sense. Both need to be designed from scratch and both need to get an escortfleet.LDP lawmakers back Aegis ships as alternative to land-based system
The government has been seeking three offshore alternative options after its decision earlier this year to scrap its plan to deploy the U.S.-developed Aegis Ashore system.
I think I'd be a bit too cynical if I thought that the Japanese government cancelled Aegis-ashore to justify building another two large destroyers. That said I'm sure the Japanese navy wouldn't mind being gifted what you might call two "Super Maya-class" DDs (no specifications yet, but reported as being even bigger than Maya and Haguro).
Ananda
The Bunker Group
I think after reading some Japanese Media articles on AEGIS on shore project, it's possible the Japanese lawmakers want to avoid domestic Political costs. Many communities protesting building AEGIS on shore facilities close to their area. Perhaps now those law makers think it's better rather than risking potential back lash on domestic elections, to just build more AEGIS Destroyers.
Personally I do think it's better for Islands nation like Japan with long coastal line, to have more AEGIS equip vessels rather than AEGIS on shore. More AEGIS Destroyers will give them more flexibility on coverage potential.
Personally I do think it's better for Islands nation like Japan with long coastal line, to have more AEGIS equip vessels rather than AEGIS on shore. More AEGIS Destroyers will give them more flexibility on coverage potential.
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
The Japan Times article said the costs of two new DDs is estimated to be higher than the onshore solution. But, yes, it does give Japan two extra large destroyers to use for other things if it wants.
That's a factor as well.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Two more modern destroyers, mobile versus fixed platform, eliminates civilian political opposition and extra jobs for the shipbuilding industry would seem to be a fair exchange for the extra cost. Wish our pollies could reach similar conclusions for some of our defence issues.
Sandhi Yudha
Well-Known Member
There are two things i do not understand.
1. The radar on those Aegis destroyers will be not the SPY-1 (which is employed by the JMSDF) or the SPY-6 (which is progressively being fielded by the US Navy, aboard the DDG 51 Flight III), the Japanese government only want the SPY-7 radar system originally purchased for Aegis Ashore.
Why the obsession for the SPY-7? Is the SPY-7 so much superior compared to the SPY-6, does it can do things the other versions can not do? Or are the SPY-7 radars already purchased and built?
2. If the JMSDF has a lack of manpower, is it not possible to retire older non-AEGIS vessels to save manpower?
www.navalnews.com
1. The radar on those Aegis destroyers will be not the SPY-1 (which is employed by the JMSDF) or the SPY-6 (which is progressively being fielded by the US Navy, aboard the DDG 51 Flight III), the Japanese government only want the SPY-7 radar system originally purchased for Aegis Ashore.
Why the obsession for the SPY-7? Is the SPY-7 so much superior compared to the SPY-6, does it can do things the other versions can not do? Or are the SPY-7 radars already purchased and built?
2. If the JMSDF has a lack of manpower, is it not possible to retire older non-AEGIS vessels to save manpower?
Japan's MoD May Build Additional Aegis Destroyers as Aegis Ashore Alternative - Naval News
The Japanese government is considering to build additional Aegis destroyers as an alternative solution to Aegis Ashore...
www.navalnews.com
Last edited:
Ananda
The Bunker Group
I think if we see the article, they go with SPY-7 due to it's already been contracted. They move from Aegis on shore to Aegis destroyers more to local politics of objections from communities around area that they're preparing for Aegis on shore.
However the next part also talk about arguments on using SPY-6 on this next 2 destroyers. My suspect, if they still can change from SPY-7 contract to SPY-6 with the contractor, they will do it. If not, they have to use SPY-7 cause it's that being procured already.
As for man power, that's why they go with new design like 30DDX that use less man power. That's why for export variance, MHI call it 30 FFM and not 30DDX. 30DDX is JMSDF variance that use more automation and heavily depend on Japanese system.
Personally, I don't understand why Japan want to build Aegis on shore in first place. Aegis on shore more suited with countries in Europe that do not have large territorial water. Japan is archipelago nation, more AEGIS Destroyers that's Mobile should be more beneficial.
Last edited:
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Because it was billed as adding to missile defences for core Japanese population centres against North Korean attacks, not lightly populated and more distant areas that might still have strategic value.
If we're objective about this, having two new "super Maya" class destroyers would be a reduction in anti-BM capability compared to two Aegis Ashore facilities because eventually they'll have to go in for refit, whereas the land based option doesn't need to be serviced in that way (nor does it have to be so public).
It's a very good trade for the MSDF. The 30FFM is replacing the more labour-intensive but fewer in number Asagiris and Abukumas, which means that they'll get an extra 8 hulls but require around 500 less personnel across the ships. So that's almost what you need for two more large destroyers.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
IIRC, the SPY-7 still requires some adapting for marine use. Spain and Canada will likely be contributing to this whereas Japan assisted in the SPY-7 development itself which is why 2 units will likely be used. As for additional SPY-7 systems for Japan, I would think the cost to performance ratio will be important assuming any significant performance between SPY-6 and SPY-7.
And those North Korean attacks can only come from a limited range of axes until the North Koreans get a functioning ballistic missile submarine that isn't an easy target for the JMSDF. That's ideal for fixed land-based systems.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Google algorithm shown me this video. It's the design of LPD from Mitsui. However got me thinking, who's it's going to be aim for ?
As amphibious assets, it's seems smaller than Osumi Class LPD/LST (whatever JMSDF call it). It's also multipurpose with replenishment capabilities, and ability to operate CH-47. However do JMSDF want this ? The way JMSDF work always in progressing evolve, thus for Osumi replacement it should be something larger.
Either this's an indication that JMSDF will build smaller Amphibious assets to supplement Osumi or it's successor, or it's for Export market.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Australia may be interested, there is a requirement for 2 JSS type vessels starting mid decade.
NZ is also looking at Enhanced Sealift Vessels in the mid to late 20s as well. This definitely would tick a few boxes.
Two of these would have been more useful in the fleet than Canterbury and Aotearoa.
Did we really need a dedicated tanker?
Last edited:
I think that the tanker has significant importance as it not only as a fleet tanker supporting shorter ranged ships such as frigates, (and fleet tankers are surprisingly rare in the southern hemisphere navies) and support operations in the Antarctic both by delivering fuel and supporting southern ocean patrols when the SOPV arrives but due too our Polly's reluctance to spend money on defence, particularly "combat weapons " it allows them to say we are doing our part.
I think you you will find that Aotearoa and the SOPV will become increasingly important politically on the international stage as interest in the Antarctic ramps up as world resources diminish with over exploitation due in part to continued population growth.