Japan

[Michaelangelica]

Funny no mention of the Japanese confrontation in the Antarctic re whaling.

 

But this is reported:-

Aussie book on Crown Princess draws official wrath

 

By REIJI YOSHIDA

Staff writer

 

The Foreign Ministry came to the defense of the Imperial family on Tuesday, saying it had lodged formal protests with the author and publisher of a new book about Crown Princess Masako that it called "contemptuous" and "insulting."

 

The book, "Princess Masako: Prisoner of the Chrysanthemum Throne," contains "unfounded and highly contemptuous descriptions of the appearances, activities and speeches" of the Emperor and Imperial family, a Foreign Ministry statement says.

 

Ambassador to Australia Hidenao Ueda gave a letter of protest Monday to author Ben Hills and the book's publisher, Random House Australia, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mitsuo Sakaba told a news conference in Tokyo.

 

"The book insults both Japanese people and Imperial family members," Sakaba said. He gave two examples: He said on page 186 of the book the kimono is described as a symbol of "the old-fashioned subservience of women," and on page 200 Japan's political system is called a "a stunned parody" of Western-style democracy. Hills was not immediately available for comment.

 

The Crown Princess, diagnosed in July 2004 with an adjustment disorder, has been out of the public eye since December 2003 except for a few rare occasions. The media have reported she is struggling under pressure to give birth to a male successor to the throne

Aussie book on Crown Princess draws official wrath | The Japan Times Online

[Michaelangelica]

:)

A change in Government first since the war!

 

Still arming Defence Forces?

Have you seen their high tech navy ships?

 

Still stock-piling resources, like coal from Australia?

[Theory5]

Why would they get upset over calling the japanese government system a stunning parody? I thought the Japanese and Chinese governments structured their political systems after "the west" for some reason I forget atm :-)

They just changed it a bit to allow the governments to still control their people.

 

Still arming Defence Forces?

Have you seen their high tech navy ships?

Is there anybody who is watching the Japanese to make sure they are honoring the treaty signed after WWII?

I agree they seem to be making a lot more than just defense forces.

I look at china and japan as single entities (respectively of course). Their governments have fingers in everything going on within their borders, and then some.

[GAHD]

Is there anybody who is watching the Japanese to make sure they are honoring the treaty signed after WWII?

Fairly certain in 2008 they changed their national constitution to now allow them to have a standing military.

 

ASIMO + grenade launchers + children trained in the art of FPS = all the army they'll ever need...

[CraigD]

Is there anybody who is watching the Japanese to make sure they are honoring the treaty signed after WWII?

Technically, what Japan signed 2 September 1945 ending WWII, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, was a simple unconditional surrender of the Japan’s military to the Allied Powers.

 

Japan’s formal “renunciation of war” is contained in Article 9 of its 1947 Constitution, which reads (in English translation):

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized

Fairly certain in 2008 they [the Diet of Japan, its national legislature] changed their national constitution to now allow them to have a standing military.

I’m fairly certain they didn’t.

 

Specifically, such a change would involve the repeal or substantial rewriting of Article 9. According to its Article 96, the Constitution can only be amended by a 2/3 vote in both houses of the Diet, followed by a simple popular majority in a national referendum vote.

 

What I suspect you’re recalling, GAHD, was a legislative act of April 2007 which established a procedure for holding a national referendum vote, which will take effect in 2010, if itself approved by a majority popular vote. This will put in place the procedural details for amending Article 9, or any other part of the Constitution, for the first time since the constitution was drafted (largely by US military lawyers) and adopted in 1947.

 

Although the motivation for the 2007 legislation is openly to allow amendment of Article 9 – specifically, the replacement of paragraph (2) to allow for the maintenance of “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential”, it’s far from likely that such an amendment could garner the necessary votes in the Diet and the voting public, as most polls show a slight majority (55%) of the public opposed to changes to their Constitutional required pacifism.

 

Ironically, given its role in drafting the Japanese Constitution, the US appears to me to be one of the strongest foreign advocates of the changing of Article 9, in order to enjoy direct Japanese support in the US-led military expeditions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly future expeditions in the greater Mid-East and North Africa – what’s popularly termed “the war or terror”.

 

Given current Japanese political and popular opinion, I suspect the only way this could occur would be if such military expeditionism could be justified as pre-emptive self-defense – as former US President George W Bush put it, “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them at home”. Personally, I believe this is a foolish policy and doctrine, and hope the Japanese people and government don’t adopt it. I fear, however, that a massive terrorist attack on the Japanese people by foreigners – a “Japanese 9/11” – might sway their collective opinion enough for them to change Article 9.

[Michaelangelica]

 

Given current Japanese political and popular opinion, I suspect the only way this could occur would be if such military expeditionism could be justified as pre-emptive self-defense – as former US President George W Bush put it, “fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them at home”. Personally, I believe this is a foolish policy and doctrine, and hope the Japanese people and government don’t adopt it. I fear, however, that a massive terrorist attack on the Japanese people by foreigners – a “Japanese 9/11” – might sway their collective opinion enough for them to change Article 9.

Yes that might do it

One for the CIA to organise? (pardon the cynicism)

This might help?

In 2008, China was, for the first time, the world's second highest military spender with a total expenditure of $84.9 billion

http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/jul/13/slide-show-1-top-military-spenders.htm

China's Military Budget Spurs Debate Over the Taiwan Strait

 

By Russell Hsiao

Taiwan's Ministry of Defense announced on March 11 that China's real defense budget is most likely to be two to three times more than the reported amount from the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (China Times, March 11). Last week China announced that its 2008 military spending would jump 17.6 percent over the 2007 figure to $59 billion. Taiwan's Ministry of Defense estimates that the true figure actually ranges from $110 billion to $170 billion. The ministry claims that such items like research in technology, arms sales and purchases, outsourcing done by the defense industry and the budget for the military police were not included in the national defense budget.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/69-31248.aspx

A few more N. Koren missiles landding close might also help?

 

Still trying to get info on their billion $ ships

and what they are buying/ordering from the US (50-80 billion?)

Japan is the seventh highest military spender with a total military expenditure of $46.3 billion.

http://news.rediff.com/slide-show/2009/jul/13/slide-show-1-top-military-spenders.htm

 

TV3508 Kashima at the Trafalgar 200 Fleet Review, June 2005.

 

Japanese Navy - ASUKA class experimental ship

 

Japanese Navy - ASASHIO class training submarine

This site has some photos but still looking for capabilities of the ships.

Japanese Navy - ASASHIO class training submarine - Military Photos Images Pictures Discussion

Euphemisms like 'experimental' and "training" might get the military expenditure around the letter of the law?

 

Japanese Aircraft Carriers Back In Business

March 20, 2009: Japan recently commissioned its first aircraft carrier since World War II. Sort of. The new, "helicopter-carrying destroyer", the Hyuga, is a 610 foot long, 18,000 ton warship that operates up to 11 (mostly SH-60) helicopters from a full length flight deck. Although called a destroyer, it very much looks like an aircraft carrier.

While its primary function is anti-submarine warfare, the Hyuga will also give Japan its first real power projection capability since 1945.

The Hyuga is the largest warship built in Japan since World War II.

The Japanese constitution forbids it to have aircraft carriers, which is the main reason it is called a destroyer.

That, and the desire to not make the neighbors anxious. East Asian nations still have bad memories about the last time Japan had lots of aircraft carriers.

 

The Hyuga also has 16 Mk41 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells for anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles.

There are also two 20mm Phalanx anti-missile cannon and two triple 12.75-inch torpedo mounts. There is a crew of 350 and a top speed of about 60 kilometers.

Vertical takeoff jets like the Harrier and F-35B could also operate from the Hyuga.

A second Hyuga is under construction and a third is planned.

Naval Air: Japanese Aircraft Carriers Back In Business

 

Look at me! I is a DESTROYER! 3/20/2009

Some good info on the "air-destroyer" here too

Japan Launches Aircraft Carrier - World Naval Ships Forums

eg

The Hyuga, the largest warship constructed in Japan since World War II, is considered by some observers to be the first step toward the development of a large aircraft carrier.

Japan’s constitution, imposed by the United States after World War II, permits Japanese to have only “self-defense” forces.

Many Japanese, recalling the effectiveness of Japanese aircraft carriers in China in the 1930s and against U.S. forces in the Pacific in the early stages of World War II, consider carriers to be offensive weapons.

Why have one big one when you can have three smaller, faster, more maneuverable ones?

 

Intersting list, even if figures are rubbery

1) Mainstream US armed forces $490bn-odd

 

2) UK armed forces $60bn

 

3) Chinese armed forces $58bn

 

4) French armed forces $54bn

 

5) "Black" US forces $50bn+

 

6) Japanese Self-Defence forces $44bn

However you slice it, America's secret services alone are a fairly high-ranking world power in their own right - and nobody except them (and perhaps a few politicians in Washington) has a good handle on what they're doing.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/30-105454.aspx

Another reason for the CIA to stage a Japanese 9/11? No that is unthinkable. Isn't it?

PS

This is interesting too:-

Changes in Space law allowing more military uses

Japan approves new military space policy

 

May 21, 2008 at 7:23 am · Filed under Other

 

The Japanese parliament has approved legislation that would allow the country to make enhanced military use of space. The upper house of the Diet overwhelmingly approved the bill Tuesday; the lower house previously passed the bill. The bill is described as “lifting a 1969 ban on military use of outer space”, although that [...]

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/05/21/japan-approves-new-military-space-policy/

So how much of the Space budget is military?

[JMJones0424]

Why have one big one when you can have three smaller, faster, more maneuverable ones?

 

 

Well the obvious answer is because the three smaller ones can not in any way shape or form replace the bigger one.

 

There is a very important distinction to be made between a "helicopter carrier" and a true aircraft carrier. Comparing the two by size alone is misleading and leads to incorrect assumptions. A true aircraft carrier with arresting wires and a launch catapult is very much a mobile air force base, which can project immensely large amounts of force for many hundreds of miles. The US version of a helicopter carrier is specifically used to get Marines to where they are needed rapidly. The force projection of a US helicopter carrier is centered around what the helicopters themselves carry - fighting infantry units.

 

The Japanese version appears to be a modified destroyer, as the con tower is all wrong aesthetically, and is likely a reflection of the fact that they didn't want to waste time designing a new class of ship, but rather slapped a deck and an elevator onto an existing destroyer frame. It appears to be completely inline with its stated ASW mission, and would be ill-suited for anything else other than perhaps rapid deployment of infantry personnel.

 

Faster is also a misnomer, as nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are by far the fastest vessel in the American fleet, except perhaps newer class ships where the majority of the hull rides above the water similar to a catamaran. But I'm no squid, and I never had any occasion to look into the newer ship designs. The aussies actually pioneered this type of ship.

 

I can not presume to speak for all Japanese, however I can tell you from association with quite a few that many of them are quite horrified with the actions their government took in the late 19th century and first half of the twentieth century, and are more than happy allowing the US to provide for their defense, as long as they stay mostly in Okinawa. The Okinawans, of course, aren't entirely happy with this arrangement.

 

ETA: After re-reading my post, I think I may have been a little too flippant. Note that the source you quote says the airframes carried consist of 11 helicopters, mostly SH-60's (naval version of the blackhawk). This is an extremely small complement of aircraft. Also, it does not even appear to contain a well deck. And 610 feet in length is small. The ship appears to me to be exactly what it claims to be, a large ASW ship.

 

Wikipedia's info on the Hyuga class: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy%C5%ABga_class_helicopter_destroyer

 

Compare to the American LHD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_class_amphibious_assault_ship and the British LPH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Ocean_%28L12%29

[Michaelangelica]

Well the obvious answer is because the three smaller ones can not in any way shape or form replace the bigger one.

Yes, no doubt, but they do come close ( all from Wiki).

 

The Enterprise length = 342M

Hyuga class =197M (x3=?)

 

Speed =same/similar but the Enterprise would be far less maneuverable

 

Enterprise draught =12 m.

Hyuga= 7m (allowing it to be deployed closer to shore)

 

The Enterprise designed c.1957, launched 1960 (Is she showing her age?)

Hyuga built designed? now?

 

Armament Enterprise

* 2 × NATO Sea Sparrow launchers

* 2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS mounts

* 2 RAM launchers

Armament Hyuga (x3=?)

* 16 cells Mk 41 VLS

o 16 ESSM

o 12 ASROC

* 2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS

* 2 × triple 324 mm torpedo tubes

* 12.7mm MG

 

Aircraft carried

Hyuga 11?-helicopters or Harriers -(x3=?)

Enterprise 70-90

 

 

I can not presume to speak for all Japanese, however I can tell you from association with quite a few that many of them are quite horrified with the actions their government took in the late 19th century and first half of the twentieth century, and are more than happy allowing the US to provide for their defense, as long as they stay mostly in Okinawa. The Okinawans, of course, aren't entirely happy with this arrangement.

I think the people of Asia and the Pacific who suffered the Japanese rape, pillage, robbery,cruelty, racism and brutality between 1930-and 1945 would be far more comfortable if the younger Japanese were taught what happened during those years . Rather than the silence, denial, cover-up and white-wash we have now. The generation that does remember will soon be gone.

[JMJones0424]

Yes, no doubt, but they do come close ( all from Wiki).

.....

Speed =same/similar but the Enterprise would be far less maneuverable

 

I haven't seen any mention of speed, perhaps I missed it, but I would be surprised if the Hyuga class could even do 60% of a CVN. (When an article gives 30+ knots as speed for a CVN, the emphasis is on the plus) Maneuverability? Which has better maneuverability, a greyhound bus or an 18 wheeler? It is a moot point.

 

Enterprise draught =12 m.

Hyuga= 7m (allowing it to be deployed closer to shore)

 

Absolutely irrelevant in an "aircraft carrier". If anything, this is just an example of how small the Hyuga is. She is FAR smaller than even a "REAL" helicopter carrier, this is why she doesn't even rate the LH- rating, but rather DDH (DD designates Destroyer, H added on the end denotes added rotary wing capability. Destroyers are typically equipped with a small compliment of helicopters, but do not typically have hangar decks and elevators)

 

Armament Enterprise

* 2 × NATO Sea Sparrow launchers

* 2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS mounts

* 2 RAM launchers

Armament Hyuga (x3=?)

* 16 cells Mk 41 VLS

o 16 ESSM

o 12 ASROC

* 2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS

* 2 × triple 324 mm torpedo tubes

* 12.7mm MG

 

Proof of intended use

 

Aircraft carried

Hyuga 11?-helicopters or Harriers -(x3=?)

Enterprise 70-90

 

It is noteworthy that you left off the type and number of airframes for the Enterprise. I could not find a reference of which wing is attached to CVN-65 since her refit, but here is a generic reference to composition from wikipedia

 

 

* One Strike Fighter (VFA) squadron with 12-14 F/A-18E Super Hornets;

* One Strike Fighter (VFA) squadron with 12-14 F/A-18F Super Hornets;

* Two Strike Fighter Squadrons (VFA) of 10-12 F/A-18C Hornets, with one of these often provided by the U.S. Marine Corps (VMFA);

* One Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) of 4-6 EA-6B Prowlers;

* One Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron (VAW) of 4-6 E-2C Hawkeyes;

* A detachment from a Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) of C-2 Greyhounds;

* One Helicopter Antisubmarine Squadron (HS) of 6-8 SH-60F & HH-60H Seahawks.

 

Keep in mind that SH-60s carried by the Hyuga class are anti-sub, or equivalently at most can carry 11 men (without gear, realistically only 8) and a 50cal door-gunner. Harriers are over-hyped fuel hogs that have a nasty habit of killing their pilots outside of combat situations. They are used because there is no other option on such a short deck. The deck of a typical helicopter carrier, which is considerably larger than the deck of the Hyuga class, could not ever hope to be sufficient to recover standard fixed-wing aircraft.

 

The Hyuga does not appear to have the other primary capability of all other helicopter carriers - the well deck. The Hyuga can not deploy more than a platoon at any one time if the ASW helos were replaced with troop transport, making it a horribly inefficient method of troop deployment. It is too small to carry a large contingent of troops. It is too small to carry both the vehicles that go with an infantry unit and even if it could, it can not deploy them. Its complement of aircraft is woe-fully undersized when compared to other true helicopter carriers, and laughable when compared to actual aircraft carriers.

 

It is interesting that the Japanese are taking a greater interest in their defense. I submit that it might have something to do with the fact that the Americans have been somewhat distracted these last eight years, and may not be quite as reliable a deterrent as we have been previously. Also, as CraigD pointed out, the Americans generally do not see an armed Japan as a threat, and would prefer they were to spend their own money to provide for their defense. (We just don't want to give up the bases for strategic reasons) Japan does have a legitimate need to enforce their rights to their territorial waters. North Korea is famous for provocation in the area. The case could be made for desiring a reasonable amount of protection from other regional powers (China), but I don't believe that the ruling regime of China has any intentions of endangering the goose that laid their golden egg. Regardless of their motives, it is horribly inaccurate to describe this class of ship as anything other than a highly capable ASW platform. As anything else, it isn't worth leaving port. Claiming it is a stepping stone to true aircraft carriers, or is in anyway comparable to them, is just silly.

 

Aircraft carriers are floating air force bases. Helo-carriers are floating bus stations. This ship doesn't even rate bus station status. Just because it may look like a small version of an aircraft carrier, doesn't mean the association is correct. The only thing they have in common is a flat deck.

[Michaelangelica]

Yes, the type of plane certainly does make a difference. I didn't 'leave out' that information. I didn't know it. How many planes in a squadron?

 

The speed of both ships is practically identical.

 

It is interesting that the Japanese are taking a greater interest in their defense.

Agreed.

Who is getting the $s?

[JMJones0424]

How many planes in a squadron?

 

In the itemized list above, each category is a squadron. So depending on the mission of the squadron, generally between 4 and 12 aircraft.

 

Who is getting the $s?

 

Both of the finished Hyuga class ships were built at IHI Marine United shipyards, and the SH-60K is built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The MCH-101 is produced by Agusta Westland in either England or Italy (I think).

 

The REPORTED speed of both ships are practically identical ;)