Subscribe
Notify of
guest
103 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
X

The JMSDF is a great organisation. Japan on the other side of the world island are our natural allies. The RN has a lot to learn from them.

comment image

ToraToraTora

Are the JMSDF any good? They have not fought any battle for some odd 63 years, so they are just as lack of experiences as the PLA Navy, no? So goes the theory by some guy.

But the curry they serve are nice anyway.

Sean

They conduct regular exercises with the USN, so they are probably as experienced as possibly can be outside of actual combat.

Whereas the PLAN have been exercising with the Russians… 🤣😂🤣

captain p wash

Yup, pretty much nailed.

Buckley

The Afghan must be good, they trained both with the British and the American.

Captain P Wash

Yup……If you remember,Afghans kicked Russia’s butt…..

Jonathan

Yes but working with the Russian navy they get lots of experience towing, painting over rust and fixing 1970s technology.

captain p wash

What are you drinking ? Sa(r)ki………………

ToraToraTora

JMSDF have 36 active destroyers in service, eat your heart out.
Each is better armed then the RN.

Last edited 1 month ago by ToraToraTora
captain p wash

” Each Destroyer is better armed than the RN “…… I guess the Saki had kicked in when you typed that and that you didn’t actually mean to state that one destroyer was more powerfull than the Royal Navy as an entity……

Challenger

You’ve got to love the JMSDF! Over 40 seemingly well armed destroyers, over 20 SSK’s, a large mine-hunter fleet (they don’t seem to be hurriedly discarding their vessels as we are) and ‘helicopter destroyers (2 of which are bigger than the Invincible’s and will carry F35B).

What sort of defence budget does Japan have compared to the UK? Why do they seem to get great value for money in comparison? It can’t just be the deterrent that drains the MoD’s resources.

Duker

GDP of Japan is probably 2.5x that of UK, but the UK spend per capita is higher – although the ways they measure defence spending not the same, generally Japan had a political 1% of GDP limit ( until recently) but spent more , while UK with nuclear deterrent and etc wants to be seen as much as possible

eclipse

Not really true. Japans economy is about 1.5x the UK’s and hasn’t increased in size since the 90s due to stagnation caused primarily by an inefficient corporate promotion model (I can explain more about the economy of Japan if you want). The U.K. will overtake Japanese GDP inevitably, though I would predict in about 10-15 years.

Duker

I think a generally accepted view will see it as over 2 x UK.
They are of course a higher population as well.

UK has used immigration as a GDP booster, until Brexit but that will likely return
Inflation has eroded the UK GDP growth advantage

eclipse

You can’t say “generally accepted view” when you have numbers. U.K. is at three and a half trillion, Japan is at five. That’s less than one and a half times more. Japan was at five trillion in the nineties. We were at one. Japan has been stagnating and will continue to do so. Even if the U.K. had abysmal growth (which it will not if you keep up with economic statistics) it would still overtake Japan eventually. I have an economics degree so please spare me the drama of “the U.K. economy will collapse next year”. I can assure you it will not and since you live here it’s better for you too!!

Duker

I dont have any worries about UK economy at all. Just the Brexit thing paused the growth from high immigration- as you would know from your economics, it boosts growth but not per capita. Likely the higher skills migrants will continue to come for the usual reasons.
Japan of course has falling population and aversion to immigration for racist reasons so loses in that metric.

eclipse

Hi Challenger,

Let’s begin with a banal defence budget comparison. Japan is spending between 50 and 60 billion dollars each year but is looking to increase that. We’re spending between 70 and 80. So about a third more, at least. However, the Japanese spend far more on their navy, proportionally.
Although I’d say Japanese defence procurement is perhaps marginally better than ours, their seemingly greater numbers do have other reasons. The systems aboard their warships are not tailor made as for us and not only utilise American weapons, but copy their weapons systems and integration. That makes their missiles, guns, combat suites etc. much more affordable. It does come at the cost of having virtually no sovereign capability in that area. Although they build the ship, the rest – equipment, digital architecture, integration – is all US designed and made. This makes their ships significantly cheaper.
Then there’s the matter of SSKs. Their SSKs are much smaller than our Astutes and the total cost of the latter is likely higher than the former.
I can’t really address the MCMV situation other than saying that they have a dire necessity for it seeing that China is being belligerent right next to them and may opt to mine the seas. They also have Russia to the north. Though I know the operating cost for the Hunts and Sandowns is elevated relative to their small size, it constitutes a small proportion of total naval spending and I am disheartened that we are discarding this capability before the autonomous vessels become fully operational.
The 40 destroyer number is according to Japanese classification; the new Maya class frigates will see some destroyers go out of service and be named more in line with Western naval terminology. Even when we have 18 frigates and 6 destroyers though, they will operate double the surface combatants than we do. This is down to reduced costs and greater funding for that part of the fleet.
So, all in all. We have a much larger defence budget; Japan has much higher destroyer numbers due a larger percentage of defence spending going on the navy, a larger proportion of that naval spending going on that part of the fleet, cheaper costs that come from commonality with colossal US numbers, and also perhaps some of those destroyers being frigates.

Jon

A quarter of our budget goes on nuclear.

eclipse

On nuclear…? Nuclear what? Just the nukes? The nuclear weapons programme including the SSBNs? Or the nuclear submarine fleet including Trident?

Jon

On the nuclear submarine fleet including the Trident missiles and the warheads and the upgrades and infrastructure, etc, etc. The point being Japan doesn’t have a nuclear deterrent and we do. Comparisons of military spend need to take that into account.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
BSKS

The other factor to consider is the much higher lethality of many of JMSDF vessels cf the equivalent RN. For example the Maya class Destroyer has 96 VLS while the Type 45 only 48. Armament is also a great contributor to cost and should also be considered in any comparison.

eclipse

Firstly terribly sorry when I was talking about the frigates I meant Mogami class not Maya. Please note that the Maya class destroyer is little more than a copy of the Arleigh Burke, and goes along with my argument that commonality with the US is the greatest cost reducer. A Maya class destroyer costs around a billion dollars. Our Type 45s, adjusted for inflation and using the relevant exchange rate, are near the ABs at almost two and a half.

Sunmack

You mention one factor as being that Japan spends more proportionally on its navy. How does that square with them having far more fighters and maritime patrol aircraft than the RAF and far more tanks than the Army?

I think that the real factor is the other one you mentioned; that they spend their money sensibly on their defence needs rather than on job creation programmes.

I doubt they’d spent £250m on a national ship, £3.2bn on 20 scout vehicles that don’t work, £3.4bn on trying to turn 50 year old airframes into new maritime patrol aircraft or £630m on offshore patrol vessels which serve next to no useful purpose

Jonathan

Japan is a very focused green water navy. You get a lot of bang for your money when focusing this way. But can only meaningfully deploy significant power projection regionally. The Japanese defence force is designed and focused on fighting the PLAN in a very local war. The RN is designed to fight a war half a world away, that’s far more costly in support resources and enablers that allow ships that can stay on station for a long time.

if you just take the submarine fleets, Electric boats are a lot cheaper to build and run that nuclear boats and you can run a lot more of them. But SSKs are essentially nothing more than Regional area denial platforms (the enemy has to come to them), SSNs are strategically highly mobile powerful strike units ( the most mobile navel strike units ever) that can stay on station for a very long time ( an SSN can effectively put any regional navy at risk at any time anywhere on the planet).

So the Japanese defence force has a powerful regional frigate navy for its money, we have a powerful globally deployable navy ( so if for some reason japan and the U.K. had a conflict, the only place the Japanese navel forces could protect more power would be in its own region, where as the RN would be able to project across the whole globe).

Captain P Wash

In the picture of the Kashima’s classroom, you will see a picture of the original Kashima, a pre Dreadnought Battleship which was built in Britain………

Grant

I like the dark grey of their ships. Is there a reason for that.

Keeping a paid for asset to undertake training….. how wise. Meanwhile in Britain we scrap everything well before its useably deck

Captain P Wash

Navies around the World tend to use their own shade. HMS Bristol was used until recently but only in port and RFA Sir Tristram is still used for certain training and due for upgrades.

Supportive Bloke

Bristol was an accommodation vessel and not really a training vessel for many years?

Previously she did have a role as a training vessel, at Dartmouth, before her massive running costs and deteriorating equipment, GT blew(?), made that unsustainable.

captain p wash

It was my answer to the original post…….. they were the only two ships that I could think about as Training Ships however their actual use.

Grant

Sir Tristram is moored permanently in Portland harbour and used for helicopter training…. It’s not quite the same!!

captain p wash

I know, that’s why I said “Certain Training”……… SBS and others mostly.

4thwatch

We could have kept the batch 3 type 22’s. As others point out everything is sold or scrapped with indecent haste by MOD. Shocking waste of taxpayers money in many cases.
Meanwhile alongside is HMS Belfast (1939), in good nick, properly armed and doing a great job educating future generations in Naval matters, while gracing the Pool of London with her presence.

captain p wash

HMS Belfast is a great day out…. I would loved to have seen HMS Warspite moored alongside too…… We have very little to show for such a glorious seafaring history.

Stu

Think we all would have loved HMS Warspite morred alongside. Such a shame the appetite wasn’t there at the time.

captain p wash

So true Stu……. Hermes was another lost chance too, as was Daring and about 10 thousand other ships of note, still, It’s great to have Victory, Warrior and a handfull of others………. Victory is the stand out Ship in all the World to my mind though…… and the Icing on the cake is that Horatio is still alive and well and posting on this site !!!!

Stu

You’re not wrong. As Jonathan says, it’s a lack of public love for them. Think the history curriculum is partially to blame as if people only knew the contribution all our armed forces made (especially the RN) in shaping the world & making it a better place, perhaps there would be more love.
Sadly we have a pervasive notion in the UK that to be proud of such things means you must be racist or you’re evil & dreaming of rebuilding the Empire. Strange.

X

A big destroyer like Daring would have been fantastic. Visiting HMAS Vampire is the only reason I can think anybody would want to visit Australia……….;)

Jonathan

Agree the U.K. does not seem to have the same love of museum ships as say the US. Which is so sad considering our entire nation and infact the whole modern world was built on the UKs navel and maritime prowess.

Captain P Wash

HMS Warrior is a fantastic example of Maritime prowess if you haven’t visited, it’s well worth a look…… Obviously there are the Victory, Mary Rose and lots of other stuff too.

Jonathan

Hi captain, yes great places, the only two I’ve not got to yet is HMS Caroline and Trincomalee as I’ve not visited those parts, being a soft southern. It’s just a shame we never keep anything post war, it would have been nice to have had couple of Cold War warriors/falklands veterans as museum ships.

X

I adore Warrior. I visit her every time I am down that way. I remember at the 2005 Festival Sea she was often nearly empty. Where the queues to visit Victory (understandably I suppose) snaked around and around the famous ship. Shame the berth the other side of that jetty couldn’t have been given to the late HMS Plymouth…….

captain p wash

There’s still time to lobby for a T23….. Iron Duke next to Warrior…. How does that sound ?

Last edited 1 month ago by captain p wash
X

I like T23’s. I think we should have continued on with an updated version of their propulsion system for T45………

Duker

At Chatham Dockyard museum theres
HMS Gannet a sloop from the 1880s
HMS Cavalier a 1940s destroyer
HMS Ocelot a 1960s submarine

chdt-hms-gannet-01[1].jpg
captain p wash

But in the big scheme of things we don’t have much to show……… just one Battleship would have been nice, Warspite tried her best to avoid the Scrapyard, I think she was trying to get to Devonport for safety !!!

Jon

It’s a museum ship, so why is it so expensive to visit? What allows the Imperial War Museum (as an example) to be free entry, but classifies HMS Belfast as something else that’ll set you back £25 a head?

Captain P Wash

I have absolutely no Idea whatsoever.

rec

You have to admire them, they spend a similar amount in cash terms but s have greater number of better armed ships.

eclipse

Please read my reply to Challenger above.

rec

Thanks, a detailed explanation, does beg the question though. Mind you not having a capability to manufacture your own sensors and weapon system is not an insignificant risk

X

True. But we can’t afford to do it now. And so by taking that route we undermine ourselves. Sea Viper is fantastic. But are where we really better off than not going with Aegis which is used by all our allies?

It’s like how many here go on about land attack missiles. To target those missiles we rely on the US and a commercial company owned by the French government. for satellite imagery. Yet even Turkey has recce birds. (Consider we are also one of the world’s leading states for building satellites.)

Across the board our capabilities are to salami sliced and too dependent on others. We make poor decisions. For example take 40mm CTA. Are we fielding that in any numbers though we helped to fund the design? No. The French are building Jaguars that carry it in numbers. We preserve the capability, don’t use it, and somebody else gains a lot from it. And it happens time after time. We could have bought 40mm Bofors and saved a tonne of money.

rec

I get the point, we need economy of scale and if we aren’t prepared to do that then our unit cost are too high. Wildcat is an obvious example and I do wonder if Seahawk/ Blackhawk built under licence would have been better. We need to decide on core capabilities that we want to design and manufacture and build the rest under licence or import. SSKs would be another example. A key element of politically maintaining defence has been UK jobs and manufacturing Just think how much more defence spending would have fallen if there were no UK defence manufacturers at risk

X

So we do as the Japanese do.

Stu

And Fighters. And AEW. And ASW aircraft. And tanks. And soldiers. And MLRS. And SPG’s. And….

X

And MPA’s.

K1 would have been a better fit for us. But Boeing needs orders.

comment image

captain p wash

A few years back I was championing this very Aircraft as the best option…… I still believe it is.

Supportive Bloke

The systems in the P-8 are developed and updated from the MRA-4 and this was well in advance of K1 which uses a previous generation of bits……

captain p wash

Which is why the UK bought them and not the P1 but the Kawasaki had lots to offer,Capability, speed, range, payload and endurance plus 4 engines and the name Kawasaki !!!

Duker

Different timeline. MRA4 was progressed before the others were even announced and had long delays of course. If it had only half the delays then all ( 12 ?) would have been in service and probably missed the axe

Captain P Wash

Quite possibly but they did get the chop and both P8 and P1 were looked at….. with the P8 eventually being chosen to “Plug the gap”.

Duker

P-8 is a new airframe with mostly systems carried over from the P-3, of which there was ongoing upgrades over the decades
Same approach was used for MRA4

The K-1 used 4 flat plate surface search radar scanners to give 360 deg coverage. The P-8 still used the ( updated) nose radar from the P-3. Also the K-1 still has its tail MAD stinger , which is no longer the case for ( most) P-8

f07fece7-1[1].jpg
Captain P Wash

The P8 is mainly operated at high level whilst the P1 can operate in both the high and low it also has the ability to shut down two engines which make it very similar to the MRA4 in a couple of ways.

Duker

Isnt it the other way round.
The smaller wing on the P-8 ( based on its span which is sized for the smallest airport terminal gates ) limits its altitude to 25,000 ft + range . While the bigger wing on the K-1 allows it to get to 45,000 ft range
More fuel efficient and other reasons for operating at higher altitudes, better runway performance at high weights too.

captain p wash

From what I’ve read, no it’s not, the P* is mosty flown at higher altitudes whereas the P1(K1) has been designed specifically for both. Something to do with Wing Sweep V’s Straight Wing and angle of attack.

Branaboy

The Kawasaki P1 is definitely a better and more modern platform than the 1960s based Boeing 737 airliner in its NG iteration which is now superceded by the MAX variant.

While the Japanese P1 is a fly by light (fibre optic) the P8 is controlled by a pulley and cable system with a minimal computer system running an x286 Intel processor of 1990s vintage.

If I had a say at the British MoD I would end acquisition of Boeing 737NG platforms for the MPA and AWACs (E7) roles and arrange for a large buy of the Kawasaki P1 platform to be fitted with the requisite equipment going into the Boeing platform.

Might cost a it more but I think that would secure Japan’s full participation in the Tempest FCAS program.

Duker

Unless the US is doing that it isn’t going happen. The perfect is the enemy of the good enough
There’s quite a few USAF missions that the K-1 airframe kitted out with US sytems would be ideal. I can’t see that happening either as there’s so much on off thinking about what platform they are buying

Grant

I would of liked to have seen the 24 Hercs we had converted into MPAs, I am sure we could have converted them and brought A400Ms to replace them (or half hercs half a400ms) for the price of the £2bn for 9 P8s and that would have included some actual Uk jobs into the bargain.

That said now we have the P8s, let’s double down on the 737s. 6 more and bringing the wedgetail order back up to 5 would be a fleet of 20…

Captain P Wash

A large buy of anything would be good.

X

It is. I sometime think this idea that is put out of a new MPA concept is more about making amends for P8’s low level performance than real. And as often happens it is swallowed by a large numbers and anybody who says different is a heretic.

Netking

Any specific reason why you came to that conclusion?

Captain P Wash

Take a look at Battle Machines where you can find a comparison of both the P8 and P1…. the conclusion might be of interest.

X

It is a good review.

X

Better envelope. More engines give more flexibility. If the UK wanted American sensors we could have put them in. MPA role is unique. Better that we have kit built for it.

Last edited 1 month ago by X
Stu

Don’t know enough about the P8 vs k1 argument to contribute much. I can see an argument for the P8 as it’s based on a civillian airframe so known quantity, take advange of civvy funded engine development, training likely cheaper (could use existing sims & commercial training programmes).
As for sensor fit etc… no idea but (as a novice) can we not just bolt on the bits we want and/or develop?
Is there a price consideration? I do wonder how Japan are getting 60 x K1 & we’re only getting 9 x P8….

Captain P Wash

Not enough space at Lossiemouth !!!!

Cameron

Luckily Kinloss is Right next door.

captain p wash

It was a joke…………

X

I am not always persuaded by COTS being a procurement panacea.

We needed enough MPA to patrol the UK EZZ and for some to follow the carrier.

Stu

Oh I agree – COTS is not the panacea. It can be an answer to some things though. Whether it is for P8, I do not know sir (I’m only a spirited amateur).

As for numbers, quite right. We need enough & I doubt we can make any argument to say we “need” 60, especially given our location & the fact we’re surrounded by allies (unlike Japan) that can help in the task. Is 9 sufficient? I don’t know but I haven’t read much compaining about it so I suspect it is. Quite like the idea of augmenting them with drones though (something like the SeaGuardian), especially if we can get them to fly off the QE’s too.

Was popping the number (60) in there to reinforce the original part of this thread – Japan gets a lot more stuff for their money – and to query how much per unit + running costs etc. is the K1.

captain p wash

There was talk of 100 P1’s ( am I missing something about the K1 that everyone here keeps mentioning ? ) But I guess Japan has the same problem with desired airframe numbers as the UK….

Stu

No you’re right, it’s the Kawasaki P-1 . Somehow we all slipped into calling it “K1”.
Maybe they wanted 100 but as a replacement for the P-3, they had 70 of those.

captain p wash

As a Biker, I know the K1 as a rather fugly BMW 1000 of the 80’s….. but having owned many Kawasaki’s over the years, I’ve yet to see a P anything….. most of mine have been Z somethings…… Kawasaki do make some pretty impressive machines though.

Duker

The P-1 is the same as the K-1. Japan had expressed desire to replace its 70 strong P-3 fleet one for one and along with modified versions could get to 80 or more. And they often commit to a number and stick with it and as the declared defence budget is rising should be fine

captain p wash

OK Thanks, I kept searching for the K1 but could only find reference to the P1 which is what i’ve always known it as.

X

9 will give us about 2-ish available.

18 perhaps?

I understand the arguments for using a commercial air frame. But on balance I can better understand arguments for 4 engines, low level performance, big windows……..

Duker

As a commercial airframe it should be available for much more like 90% of the time. Military flying hours are much less than airlines too, who would use a 737 for around 10 hrs per day over a year.

X

Find me some figures then…….

Stu

Sorry, I’ve no idea bud. Not aware of any assessment thingies to say what we need or how often available etc.

I can see Dukers point & do know every minute a commercial airliner is not in the air is lost revenue, so they fly a lot. Hence multiple crews etc.

No idea if the RAF are running multiple crews or how much extra maintenance is needed for all the sensors and electrical gubbins the P8’s will have so… my wild guess is higher availability than a fast jet, a bit lower than EasyJet. If anyone reads this and does know, please let me know. It would be interesting.

X

It was Duker I was asking TBH.

Nimrod would have two crews. And I believe that the plane’s captain wasn’t always the senior pilot.

They can’t possibly be turn and turn about so that means three at least. And then I know that some maintenance happens after certain number of flight hours so that would take us to about 4 for 1. An aircraft full of electronic equipment and ordnance is a different beast to one full of passengers.

Duker

For a 737 it’s A check after 500 hours, which is 10 hours per week flights . Most airlines would do that in a day , long haul is more as they have less time on ground. Then there’s B checks every 6 months and C checks every 4 to 6000 hours, for an airline that’s 2 to 3 years. For RAF more like 6-10 years. In practice there’s phases within those letter checks to reduce the time out of service when doing a check.
Boeing says it’s P-8 are good for 25,000 hrs over 25 years .which is roughly 20 hours per week. An airline short haul might fly 40 hrs per month. No reason RAF pilots cant do the same.

It’s intrinsic to airline operations that maintenance is far less than military types. As for electronics they may have faults but aren’t like mechanical sutems like engines and airframe

X

Boeing says it’s P-8 are good for 25,000 hrs over 25 years .which is roughly 20 hours per week. An airline short haul might fly 40 hrs per month. No reason RAF pilots cant do the same.

20 flight hours per week then?

When you said pilots did you mean planes?

Cameron

Japan has USA..
And all they have to bear… Lots of US bases in Japan too..

Stu

Good point. You think we need more than 9?

Billy no mates

Why is the band playing Thunderbirds ?

Cameron

The Japanes copied the best to form their modern navy. The Royal Navy, even still hav similar uniforms.

Atsushi

Shimakaze means the “wind (kaze in Japanese) blowing from an island (shima)”. JS Shimakaze is the 3rd ship which bears the same name. The name of JS Kashima is from the famous shrine (the Kashima Shrine) located in Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan. She is also the 3rd ship which bears the same name. It was relieving to know the crew of both ships arrived safely to UK. It is a pretty nice to see ships bearing the Japanese Ensign (Kyokujituki) and the White Ensign cruising together!

JJ Smallpiece

IJNS Kongo, the first of the 4 ship Kongo class battleships was built by Vickers in Barrow in Furness in 1911; The other 3 ships of the class were built in Japan.

Timothy F. Watson

If you are in Yokoska, Mikhasa, built by Vickers is well worth a look. It was rather good at destroying the Russian fleet of the time.

Tim

simon

are we warming the public up to possible trouble off china

X

No. The Japanese were here a few years back.

DaSaint

The JMSDF is an excellent force, particularly their SSKs. They have excellent guided missile destroyers and frigates and arm almost all their surface combatants with anti-ship missiles. Such a novel concept, that both the USN and RN should learn from.

cplbao

Note that JS Shimakaze is now Training Vessel Shimakaze as seen by its new pennant number TV-3521.