Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Re: JMSDF Akizuki Class DDG (19DD AEGIS-like)

Jeff Head said:

I did, hehehe, on both counts. You just did not like the way I did so. So, you gave a non-response. And that's fine. It's an open forum.

But for me as regards your arguments and continued statements regarding the Akisuki Class, it's simple.

No props...no chops.

But then, you already knew that, eh?

Click to expand...

Jeff, I wish there was something substantive in your post I could've replied to. But all you did was tell us Japanese naval designers are competent (which I don't doubt), give us your credential and question my credential. That is a textbook case of The Ad Hominem fallacy.
unlike your response, thunderchief did reply which a logical counter to my argument. which I'll reply seriously after some research.

Re: JMSDF Akizuki Class DDG (19DD AEGIS-like)

shen said:

Jeff, I wish there was something substantive in your post I could've replied to. But all you did was tell us Japanese naval designers are competent (which I don't doubt), give us your credential and question my credential. That is a textbook case of The Ad Hominem fallacy.
unlike your response, thunderchief did reply which a logical counter to my argument. which I'll reply seriously after some research.

Click to expand...

No, I simply asked you a straight up, direct and genuine question about your basis for your assessment of their design as, "piss poor". That is neither a fallacy, or ad hominem. It is an honest question. And you simply do not want to answer it. Fine...say so.

I have responded on numerous occasions to these statements of yours, and the reasons you claim to make them...and the result has been endless circular argument...so I asked you to give us more reason. But you either can't or won't, and that's fine.

But, again, simply say that rather than try and couch it in some textbook, pseudo-intellectual statement which has nothing to do with what I requested. Your labeling does not change the nature of the request or the reasons for it. It just blows a big smoke cloud around it.

Finally, shen, if you believe the Japanese to be competent as you just stated, well unless you think you are more competent (and if you do, I simply ask you to give us a reason to believe it), otherwise if they are competent (and they are) and you are not as competent, then you have no reason to call it "piss poor."

But we clearly do not seem to be able to make any more progress in this regard. Fine. However, I will continue to call you out should you continue to label this Japanese designs as "piss poor." Is it perfect? No, no human invention is. Is it invincible? No, of course not. But is it a very credible design that puts together a very effective vessel and systems that address what the Japanese intend for it? Absolutely.

Adieu.

MiG-29 said:

It is not a fictional book but a magazine about the F-3, it has a DVD and the videos are taken from the DVD is not a official video, just a Magazine`s video and view

Click to expand...

Okay...so then, is it a hypothetical assessment by this magazine about what the F-3 may evolve into?

Re: JMSDF Akizuki Class DDG (19DD AEGIS-like)

This ship is underarmed with only 32 VLS cells for its size no matter how you cut it, but one of its primary roles is to guard JMSDF's aegis ships anyway. In that mould, if you quad pack all 32 cells with ESSM, you effectively have a very large frigate with great endurance and ability to engage multiple sea skimming targets with its beamforming aesas for illumination.

It isn't a very "well balanced" design, but ships like Nansen are underarmed as well. They simply accentuate other capabilities rather than raw firepower

Using the FB22 as a partial road map for the Anti ship version and F22 as a road map for the Air to Air variant. it's logical but the most Ambitious part has to be a Full CATBAR carrier variant of the 22DDH type loaded up with F35C's. I mean we have been looking at it from a STOVL perspective demanding only modification in the form of thermal treatments to allow takeoff and landings. this magazine it taking it well beyond that.

Re: JMSDF Akizuki Class DDG (19DD AEGIS-like)

thunderchief said:

While your calculations are true , in real war scenario things would be much different . Side which would attempt to detect salvo of enemy ASMs with radars mounted on ship's masts would definitely lose badly . There is simply to little time between detecting , identifying and giving order to open fire on target (unless you want to open fire on anything that may resemble anti-ship missile ) .
Therefore , in real war , initial detection will be achieved with aerial assets . Even smaller navies employ helicopters equipped with radars and land-based patrol aircraft . They would be the eyes of the navy and their role would be among other things to spot incoming missiles .
When so warned , role of the ship's radars would be to acquire already detected target when it gets in their range , and then to guide ship's weapons on it . When you consider such scenario , height of the antenna on Akizuki is not that important - they would at least use their Seahawks with HPS-104 search radars to detect potential targets .

Click to expand...

Thanks, thunderchief!

My impression is that the 19DD "is not expected to fight alone", but in the group consisting of the Kongo (AEGIS) and Hyuga (several helicopters) class destroyers (and some other vessels), so an incoming missile should be noticed before late.

Re: JMSDF Akizuki Class DDG (19DD AEGIS-like)

Bltizo said:

This ship is underarmed with only 32 VLS cells for its size no matter how you cut it, but one of its primary roles is to guard JMSDF's aegis ships anyway. In that mould, if you quad pack all 32 cells with ESSM, you effectively have a very large frigate with great endurance and ability to engage multiple sea skimming targets with its beamforming aesas for illumination.

It isn't a very "well balanced" design, but ships like Nansen are underarmed as well. They simply accentuate other capabilities rather than raw firepower

Click to expand...

Sorry Bltizo, when you understand the design, and its purposes, it is in fact very well armed.

It will carry 24 Quad Packed ESSM (or maybe 16) for a total of 96 (or 64) very strong short to mid range AAW missiles and then back that up with two Phalanx 20mm CIWS. It will carry 8 (or 16) VL ASROC missiles, along with 6 tube launched 324mm torpedoes and a SH-60J ASW helo...so an extremely strong ASW load out, particularly with its ASW sensor suite. It carries a 127mm main gun and eight of the Japanese SSMs, which themselves are also very credible.

All of that is a very good balance of ASuW, ASW, and AAW warfare, particular in its escort role, and particularly when considered with the excellent sensor and electronics suite they carry. These vessels were never meant for land attack so any consideration to that is moot. For what they were designed for, they are very credible and very balanced and will perform extremely well.

How anyone can say that 96 (64) x AAW missiles, 2 x 20mm CIWS, 8 (16) x VL ASROC, 6 x 324mm Torpedoes, 1 x SH-60J Helicopter, 1 x 127mm DP gun, and 8 x SSMs is under armed...particularly when you couple the effectiveness of its sensor suite for those particular weapons, is beyond me.

I would stack them up against any of the designs referenced on this page thus far which folks try and counter it with, FFG or DDG, by comparison.

The JMSDF has four of these vessels in the water:

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Using the FB22 as a partial road map for the Anti ship version and F22 as a road map for the Air to Air variant. it's logical but the most Ambitious part has to be a Full CATBAR carrier variant of the 22DDH type loaded up with F35C's. I mean we have been looking at it from a STOVL perspective demanding only modification in the form of thermal treatments to allow takeoff and landings. this magazine it taking it well beyond that.

Click to expand...

The Japanese Technology Institute itself has not proposed anything nearly that ambitious. They have proposed an "air defense centric" version of the 22DDH called the 26DDH which would be specifically designed for the F-35B.

In either case, the Japanese have to procure the F-35B or the F-35C, and to date, there has been no request for such an appropriation.

When that starts happening, we will know for a certainty that one or the other is coming. Until that happens, they have no fixed wing aircraft to operate off of it. The F-3A they should is still a ways out, the F-3E, much, much further.

Jeff Head said:

Okay...so then, is it a hypothetical assessment by this magazine about what the F-3 may evolve into?

Click to expand...

It is just a Magazine, they run a issue of F-3, you can buy it all over Japan

see

MiG-29 said:

It is just a Magazine, they run a issue of F-3, you can buy it all over Japan

see

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Okay then, I will take that as a "yes" in answer to my question. Thanks.

The magazine has written an article that puts forward their hypothetical idea of what the F-3 will become.