Japan warships ordered to Somalia by jewelstaitefan

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Japan warships ordered to Somalia

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:23
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 636
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:24 PM

News story. Regarding effect of Asian influence towards future Asian/American ventures in space?
Anybody think this is outside the defensive nature of Japan's post-WWII charter? What if they are ordered into combat in Somali waters, or in conjuction with American or other vessels? Migth their support ships (fueling, provisions) also support other nations?
Is this a good progression of Japanese growth?
Is this bad?

What say you?
What other developments are forseen?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 13, 2009 4:22 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I was unaware that Japan HAD any warships, or none that they could spare to send anywhere that far from home.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

A concern of the GOP is that the people aren't informed enough to understand their policies, while a fear of the Dems is that the people ARE.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 15, 2009 10:18 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I was unaware that Japan HAD any warships, or none that they could spare to send anywhere that far from home.

2 Destroyers.
4,650 ton Sazanami.
4,550 ton Samidare.
Each with 2 patrol helicopters and 2 speedboats, to be used by their commando-style Special Boarding Units.
400 sailors between the 2 ships.

Did not see any word on the support ships, which they have been dispatching for other non-combat roles in other conflicts.
In anticipation of the possible need for lethal force for the first time since WWII, they "may be permitted to reassess their anti-force policies" which was something I was wondering about, the future ramifications.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 1:20 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I was unaware that Japan HAD any warships, or none that they could spare to send anywhere that far from home.

Japan is the sixth biggest defence spender in the world. Behind:
USA
China
France
UK and
Russia

In that order.

Japan has a major Navy, operating 53 major surface warships, and 18 Submarines.

Contrast with the Royal Navy which operates:
26 Surface Warships (Frigates/Destroyers)
3 Aircraft Carriers (though HMS Invincible is partially decommissioned)
4 Ballistic Missile Submarines
9 Fleet Submarines

So Yeah, Japan has a fairly major navy.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 4:51 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Mark my words...Japan NEVER stopped fighting WW2. They just changed tactics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 7:51 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
So Yeah, Japan has a fairly major navy.

I know they've been building up lately in response to China and North Korea.

But I'd hardly call it a major navy. Not when your biggest ships are destroyers. Assuming you disregard the US, Russia, and China, then major navies come from France, Britain, and India, maybe Spain and Argentina.

Everybody else struggles to put a handful of ships and subs to sea and calls it a Navy. Most can barely put their patrol boats to sea.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 8:32 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I know they've been building up lately in response to China and North Korea.

But I'd hardly call it a major navy. Not when your biggest ships are destroyers. Assuming you disregard the US, Russia, and China, then major navies come from France, Britain, and India, maybe Spain and Argentina.

Everybody else struggles to put a handful of ships and subs to sea and calls it a Navy. Most can barely put their patrol boats to sea.

Actually the Japanese have been cutting back their naval strength recently. From a high of 60 surface warships in the late 70's they're looking to cut back to 47 or 48 I think.

The only vessels fielded by any navy larger than Destroyers are Aircraft carriers. Battleship docterine died out in World War 2.

As for who fields major Navies, you're pretty much dead wrong. China's Navy is pathetic, it's brown water only. They have zero power projection capability, and no Aircraft carriers.

In reality, with Russia's ageing soviet era fleet outclassed and mostly in mothballs, they're way below even Japan.

France and Britain probably vie for the Second spot behind the USA. I'd give it too Britain because France has fewer Destroyers, Frigates and attack Submarines, and only a single Aircraft Carrier. That's why I made the comparison between Britain and Japan. Japan fields a pretty big surface fleet by any comparison, but like China without Aircraft carriers they have little power projection capability. It means their "Maritime Defence Force" fits in to their remit of being 'defensive only'. The Japanese couldn't launch a credible naval offensive.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 11:21 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Actually, the battleship is still around - the USS Missouri fired shots in both Gulf Wars, if memory serves. It was the battleship that Japan formally signed the unconditional surrender on, which ended WWII. It served in the Korean War, and Vietnam War, and at least Desert Storm. I know it was mothballed after that, but believe it was pulled out to fire opening volleys and cruise missiles in Gulf War II.

As to navies, have a look at India sometime. They've been quietly building quite a navy, mostly by NOT building it, but rather buying it. They struck a deal some while back to buy Russia's largest carrier AND a few of their newest submarines. Not sure if the deal ever went through or if they took delivery, though. Heard about 'em making the deal, but then it dropped off the wire.

You're right about China, though - it has a "navy" the way it has a "nuclear arsenal". There's the capacity, and a few weapons, but nothing much to speak of. They decided a long time ago NOT to try to compete with the U.S. in an arms race; they saw where that led the USSR. Instead, China decided they'd compete with us economically, and build up their nation's economy while undermining our own. Thus far, they seem to have succeeded rather admirably, because we didn't realize the game they were playing, and we played right into their hands.

Of course, at this point, their economy is tied quite tightly to our own, so if we go down, we could very well take them down with us. Mutual Assured Destruction written in a new language, is how I see it...

Mike

The "On Fire" Economy -
The Dow closed at 10,587.60 on January 20, 2001, the day GW Bush took office. Eight years later, it closed below 8000 on the day he left office - a net loss of 25%. That's what conservatives call an economic "success".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 11:51 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Actually, the battleship is still around - the USS Missouri fired shots in both Gulf Wars, if memory serves. It was the battleship that Japan formally signed the unconditional surrender on, which ended WWII. It served in the Korean War, and Vietnam War, and at least Desert Storm. I know it was mothballed after that, but believe it was pulled out to fire opening volleys and cruise missiles in Gulf War II.

The battleship is as dead as the line in Naval conflict. The US may well have used an old WW2 Battlship in a limited bombardment role, but the only nation that has built any surface combat vessel larger than Destroyers and Frigates since the second world war was the Russians with the Kirov class, and that was a limited Battlecruiser class that really wasn't worth the effort. World War 2 showed that Aircraft were vastly superior to Battleships, so that since WW2 navies have been structured around the aircraft carrier, and there is simply no place for the Battleship.

The Battleships fielded by the US were leftovers, and were abandoned because they weren't worth their operating costs. Frankly, because the US had more money to most, the US DoD came to that common sense decision a lot later than most

.

However, what I said is still essentially correct, the Iowa class Battleships were the last of the US navy, and were all hang overs from the second world war, and were all decommissioned by the early 90's. So all modern navies do not field a surface combat vessel larger than a Destroyer.

Quote:
As to navies, have a look at India sometime. They've been quietly building quite a navy, mostly by NOT building it, but rather buying it. They struck a deal some while back to buy Russia's largest carrier AND a few of their newest submarines. Not sure if the deal ever went through or if they took delivery, though. Heard about 'em making the deal, but then it dropped off the wire.

Which means they're the top of tier 2. India has a navy like Argentina had a navy in the early 80's, ask them, and the crew of the Belgrano, how having a large obsolete navy works when you come to war with a tier 1 power.

If you're not building you're own weaponry, you're unlikely to be a credible threat to anyone who is. It's just the way it goes, I'll add that India is still lagging the Chinese for similar reasons.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 12:34 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

However, what I said is still essentially correct, the Iowa class Battleships were the last of the US navy, and were all hang overs from the second world war, and were all decommissioned by the early 90's. So all modern navies do not field a surface combat vessel larger than a Destroyer.

Right you are, and agreed. I thought you were saying that no navy HAD used battleships since WWII.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 16, 2009 12:41 PM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Right you are, and agreed. I thought you were saying that no navy HAD used battleships since WWII.

Depends how pedantic you want to get about it. No navy has used Battleships in a Battleship role since WW2

.

The Missouri was acting in a Missile Destroyer Role in Iraq. A battleship role is anti-capitol ship combat, at the outside port bombardment. Those roles have been superseded by aircraft launched from aircraft carriers, and fleet attack submarines.

Point is, any use of Battleships since world war 2 is an anachronism.

Another way of putting it, is this:
The HMS Victory is a wooden tall ship and is still in service with the Royal Navy. Doesn't make Tall ships any less obsolete

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:16 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Actually the Japanese have been cutting back their naval strength recently. From a high of 60 surface warships in the late 70's they're looking to cut back to 47 or 48 I think.

They're phasing out outdated British and American cast offs in favor of more modern American cast offs and some very nice home grown ships.

Quote:

The only vessels fielded by any navy larger than Destroyers are Aircraft carriers. Battleship docterine died out in World War 2.

Your forgetting Cruisers. The US fields some very nice cruisers, so does Russia.

Quote:

As for who fields major Navies, you're pretty much dead wrong. China's Navy is pathetic, it's brown water only. They have zero power projection capability, and no Aircraft carriers.

China posses one Aircraft Carrier and may be in the process of building at least one more.

The carrier they purchased is the non-functional former Soviet carrier Varyag. Their plan was to examine it and possibly put it into service or use it as a template for their own version. As of 2008 work continues and it appears they intend to make the ship operational within the next two years.

It should also be noted that China purchased the HMAS Melbourne, as well as the Minsk and Kiev, although none are expected to enter service.

China also has one Ballistic missile sub with two more ready soon if not already. They also have a small number of advanced nuclear attack subs.

China's navy is not designed to project power...its primary mission is sea denial. In the shallow waters off their coastline (around Taiwan for example) diesel subs would be very effective while our own nuclear subs would be hampered. Coupled with their close proximity to shore based aviation China's ability to control areas like the South China Sea is a real concern...perhaps the most serious threat to American naval superiority, even if limited to a single geographic location.

Quote:

In reality, with Russia's ageing soviet era fleet outclassed and mostly in mothballs, they're way below even Japan.

Unsupported the Japanese fleet would be decimated by even a fraction of the Soviet fleet...since Russia can field a fraction of the Soviet fleet, that's pretty much a done deal. They would need a handfull of attack subs supported by a full surface action group built around one of those big cruisers they used to like or maybe an aircraft carrier. This does not even consider Russia considerable air force and land based naval air power.

Or they could just use one ballistic missile sub to wipe out the Japanese fleet the old fashioned way.

Quote:

France and Britain probably vie for the Second spot behind the USA. I'd give it too Britain because France has fewer Destroyers, Frigates and attack Submarines, and only a single Aircraft Carrier.

Ship quality is a big issue. Britain has more and better. France has a real carrier, Britain went with those pansy carriers.

France has some nice stuff, but not a lot. The British navy has nice stuff and the ability to make the most of it due to their history and commitment to naval excellence.

Plus the French piss themselves and try to surrender every time they have to fight.

Quote:

That's why I made the comparison between Britain and Japan. Japan fields a pretty big surface fleet by any comparison, but like China without Aircraft carriers they have little power projection capability. It means their "Maritime Defence Force" fits in to their remit of being 'defensive only'. The Japanese couldn't launch a credible naval offensive.

Few could launch a credible naval war. Britain could, China could locally, same with Russia, France, and India. Russia can project a bit.

China has the resources and ambition to make a much more powerful fleet.

Japan's navy is not designed to fight off a naval war. Its purpose is to hold out long enough for American support to arrive. In that role they would be very effective.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:25 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Right you are, and agreed. I thought you were saying that no navy HAD used battleships since WWII.

Our battleships have been taken out of service.

New Jersey and Missouri are both memorials. Only Iowa remains in mothballs, but is awaiting donation to a museum. Iowa is the only Battleship in mothballs.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 3:57 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Your forgetting Cruisers. The US fields some very nice cruisers, so does Russia.

US Cruisers aren't really bigger than Destroyers. It's a role rather than size issue. Destroyers are the largest surface combat vessels in general use.

The up coming Zumwalt Class Destroyers are slated at a displacement of 14,564tons, the Ticonderoga class Cruisers displace at 9,600tons.

Quote:
China posses one Aircraft Carrier and may be in the process of building at least one more.

China bought a decaying hulk from Russia which is not sea worthy, and has little to no work done on it to make it so. Neither does there seem to be any plans to do so. A chunk of useless aircraft carrier shaped metal really doesn't count.

China has no naval carrier capacity:

Quote:
During the first stage, China proceeded to buy several scrapped carriers from overseas in order to study the parts. China had previously pursued similar policies both in defense and other industries. Between 1985 and 2002, Chinese firms purchased a number of vessels, for ostensibly for a variety of purposes. These included for amusement parks, hotels, scrap metal, as well as likely analysis of design and other developmental purposes. China has a long history of aquiring technology for reverse engineering purposes. Of the vessels, the Varyag, an ex-Soviet carrier, contruction of which was never completed, and sold by Ukraine to what appeared to be a Chinese front company in 1998, has been the source of the greatest speculation. After arriving in Dalian, the hull was placed in drydock for a few months and painted in PLAN colors. Subsequently the hull was moored at a cargo warf. Minor work was reported to have been conducted on the hull, delivered without engines or any other equipment, between 2005 and 2008. However, as of August 2008, there was no visible work being done to make the hull seaworthy. Several years of highly visible construction activity, to include the installation of a propulsion plant, would be required to make this hull seaworthy.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/cv.htm

Quote:
China's navy is not designed to project power...its primary mission is sea denial. In the shallow waters off their coastline (around Taiwan for example) diesel subs would be very effective while our own nuclear subs would be hampered.

Which is exactly what I said, China's is a brown water navy. They have no credible Blue Water navy, so they can't be called a major naval power, they can't project power and they can't launch a major naval offensive.

Quote:
Unsupported the Japanese fleet would be decimated by even a fraction of the Soviet fleet...since Russia can field a fraction of the Soviet fleet, that's pretty much a done deal. They would need a handfull of attack subs supported by a full surface action group built around one of those big cruisers they used to like or maybe an aircraft carrier.

I doubt it, even under the Soviets the Russian Navy was mostly tasked with anti-Carrier operations. Add to that the fact that the Russians are using kit mostly nearing at least 20 years old, that was outdated compared to NATO at the time, and I don't see them as credible a Force as you seem too. Japan's Maritime Defence Force is actually larger than the Russian Pacific fleet. I'd add that although the Russian Navy is overall much larger on paper, it's also mostly ancient with restricted operational potential. Plus there's big problems with staffing and competency amongst Russia's sailors.

Japan's Navy is only a defensive force. It's not major by that standard, but it is large and would represent a credible threat to any invader.

Quote:
Ship quality is a big issue. Britain has more and better. France has a real carrier, Britain went with those pansy carriers.

Larger carriers weren't needed because of the Sea Harriers VTOL capability, having more made the British fleet more flexible for the same cost.

The Royal Navy is looking to replace Illustrious with a full sized Carrier though.

Quote:
Few could launch a credible naval war. ... China could locally,

China could defend itself, but there's little use for a navy in an offensive role that can't operate away from your coast.

Quote:
China has the resources and ambition to make a much more powerful fleet.

Building a Navy takes time, and they don't have much of anything now.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:25 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
China could defend itself, but there's little use for a navy in an offensive role that can't operate away from your coast.

Unless your target is a breakaway island nation located right off your coast. China could invade Taiwan and the Chinese navy's role would be to interdict the local sea lanes to prevent US intervention before the Chinese could take the island.

They would only need to hold the US at bay for a few days or a week or so at most to allow for the landing of sufficient strength by land and sea to take the whole island. Then its proximaty to the mainland would allow Chinese air forces to prevent anything more serious then US submarine based interdiction...easily outlasted by air supply. US Carrier operations would be severely hampered by the nature of the geography in the region. Without shore based air support (for which there is no local basing within range) they would be unable to interdict the Chinese occupation by air.

Oh, and recent reports have the Chinese preparing their carrier as a training platform...possibly because they plan to buy a real carrier from the Brits or the Russians.

And the Soviet Naval Air Forces were primarily tasked to hunt US Carrier groups. The Soviet Navy was built to interdict the sea lanes by submarine warfare.

Edited to add: Soviet surface naval units were designed to prevent the penetration of certain areas by NATO submarines (NATO surface ships could be handled by land based bombers). The idea was to create 'safe zones' for Soviet ballistic missile subs.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 17, 2009 10:23 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Unless your target is a breakaway island nation located right off your coast. China could invade Taiwan and the Chinese navy's role would be to interdict the local sea lanes to prevent US intervention before the Chinese could take the island.

China has less nuclear attack Submarines than Japan, and only marginally more Frigates and Destroyers. I doubt it has the practical capabilities you claim, given that in a full blown assault on Taiwan it is likely that Japan, with a Navy more advanced and only slightly smaller, and the US, with a Navy much more advanced and many times the size, would be involved.

Quote:
Oh, and recent reports have the Chinese preparing their carrier as a training platform...possibly because they plan to buy a real carrier from the Brits or the Russians.

Yet they haven't got one, and if they buy one it'll be generations behind technically.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE