Next generation Japanese destroyers, what it means for PLAN

beijingcar said:

Also I would think the U.S military and Japanese military think the PLA has that capability. If you are the military chief from the Japanese military and thinking about a war situation with PLA, and if you are not worried about your spy and communication Sats being knocked by the PLA, you are putting your head in the sand, and we all know the result of putting your head in the sand is get you A** kicked.

Click to expand...

Actually, the worst thing you could do is overexaggerate the other side's capabilities. The most prudent thing is to make objective analysis. That doesn't mean there is no need to make the assessment, only that it is not objective to state China can shoot down any country's spy satellites.

JMSDF is also a full generation ahead in terms of submarine technology. Though, it is prevented in having "offensive" platfroms such as an SSN, the JMSDF SSK particularly the 11 ship Oyashio Class is superior in all aspects to PLAN subs, except for endurance of the Han class SSN.

The Oyashio Class employs flank sonar arrange, similar to the Virginia Class SSN. Previously the sonar was mounted only in the bow, but this new model, which designates the entire hull as the sensor, is equipped with a conformal sonar arranged on the hull side to provide greater detection efficiency.

In addition, the Oyashio employs hull quieting systems such as acoustic tiles and other noise reduction system. It is much much quieter than the Kilo. It's only downside is the lack of AIP systems. Though work has been done to test the feasability of AIP on future JMSDF subs.

Now, take this sub and match it against the weak ASW environment of the PLAN fleet and it will wreck havoc. The PLAN has not shown any competency in ASW against a first class opponent. A PLAN fleet will be hurt bad by one of this ships, if coordinated via "wolf pack" tactics, even worst. The PLAN is still using ships are woefully ill equipped against undersea threats.

FuManChu said:

Actually, the worst thing you could do is overexaggerate the other side's capabilities.

Click to expand...

Actually, the worst thing you could do is underestimate the other side's capability. When that happens, a can of whoopass usually ensues.

FuManChu said:

The most prudent thing is to make objective analysis.

Click to expand...

The most prudent thing to do is to make conservative estimates that slightly exaggerates your opponent's capabilities.

It is true that Japanese subs are better at ASW than even the best PLAN subs, plus Japanese navy surface fleet's ASW capabilities are at least one ( maybe 2)generation ahead of PLAN's. These are Japanese Navy strong areas. But my question to all of you is this: if the Japanese AF can not achieve supremacy in the air and Japanese military has no independent C4I of their own, how they going to fight a war? Look at German WWII U boat example, that was wolf pack allright, but with no effective and meaningfull air cover, German naval surface ships can not go out to sea to protect the U boats, the result is that even the old U.S Coast Guard Cutters have sunk a lot U boats. We all knew the end result for U boats and Germany. So again, my point is that please do not compare one single type of platform of one country against another in a fantasy war, when you look at a likely out come of wars, you have to look at system VS system, tactics VS tactics, intel VS intel, crew training VS crew training, then and only then, you can compare system EQP Vs system EQP.

beijingcar said:

It is true that Japanese subs are better at ASW than even the best PLAN subs, plus Japanese navy surface fleet's ASW capabilities are at least one ( maybe 2)generation ahead of PLAN's. These are Japanese Navy strong areas. But my question to all of you is this: if the Japanese AF can not achieve supremacy in the air and Japanese military has no independent C4I of their own, how they going to fight a war? Look at German WWII U boat example, that was wolf pack allright, but with no effective and meaningfull air cover, German naval surface ships can not go out to sea to protect the U boats, the result is that even the old U.S Coast Guard Cutters have sunk a lot U boats. We all knew the end result for U boats and Germany. So again, my point is that please do not compare one single type of platform of one country against another in a fantasy war, when you look at a likely out come of wars, you have to look at system VS system, tactics VS tactics, intel VS intel, crew training VS crew training, then and only then, you can compare system EQP Vs system EQP.

Click to expand...

If that is the case, then considering that the JMSDF:
1.) uses limited power projection tactics with superior sea denial capability
2.) uses network centric warfare with datalinks, sensors, weapons, and command and control that is integrated within the Aegis system
3.) practices and trains constantly with itself and the USN
4.) shown capability to sustain and support long duration employment (JMSDF in the Indian Ocean for months at the time with unrep)
6.) has access to US intelligence infrastructure as well as its own intelligence network
7.) longer naval tradition
8.) Superior technology

The PLAN is not only outmatch but is out classed.

IDonT said:

If that is the case, then considering that the JMSDF:
1.) uses limited power projection tactics with superior sea denial capability
2.) uses network centric warfare with datalinks, sensors, weapons, and command and control that is integrated within the Aegis system
3.) practices and trains constantly with itself and the USN
4.) shown capability to sustain and support long duration employment (JMSDF in the Indian Ocean for months at the time with unrep)
6.) has access to US intelligence infrastructure as well as its own intelligence network
7.) longer naval tradition
8.) Superior technology

The PLAN is not only outmatch but is out classed.

Click to expand...

I would not say Japan has a longer naval tradition. In any case, China's navy modernization is still in its infancy, and it will take several decades for it to pose a challenge to American supremacy given favorable economic situations.

IDonT said:

If that is the case, then considering that the JMSDF:
1.) uses limited power projection tactics with superior sea denial capability
2.) uses network centric warfare with datalinks, sensors, weapons, and command and control that is integrated within the Aegis system
3.) practices and trains constantly with itself and the USN
4.) shown capability to sustain and support long duration employment (JMSDF in the Indian Ocean for months at the time with unrep)
6.) has access to US intelligence infrastructure as well as its own intelligence network
7.) longer naval tradition
8.) Superior technology

The PLAN is not only outmatch but is out classed.

Click to expand...

You are right, Japanese Navy has limited power projection capability, in fact no better than PLAN without aircover.
2. Aegis syetem is mainly defensive system, I tell you this, you have one Kongo class ship, and I have 12 YJ83 fires at your ship at the same time, Your ship will be done, game over.
#3. you are right the Japanese Navy train with the best navy in the world, China is behind on training, but I think this picture is changing fast, PLAN just sent 2 ships to PAK for joint war games, the Chief of PLAN is in the U.S for visits.
4. Long deployment in the Mid-esat do not show they will make it 300 miles off Japanese shores in wartime, again, they do not have mastery of the air.
5. Shared Intel with the U.S is what is meant, shared. They ( Japanese ) has very weak and slow intel network of their own.
6. you are right, the Japanese has longer modern naval tradition than China. But they are a Islands nation, they have got to.
7. better tech? I am not sure, from a military tech point of view, Japan can buy anything on the open market if they wish and wants to, so they have got American Aegis, F15j, F4j, AIP, fast attack SSM boat from Europe, E767, P3c, the list goes on and on, but which on of these critical systems are designed in Japan? None. China, of course, is in no better position, but I dear say, China has got a more complete military ( defense) industrial capabilities.
One last note for all of those think Japanese navy can fight and defeat PLAN in a easy battle, think of this fact. The development case of Japan F2 fighter. U.S knew that the real battle for any war is in the air, once the air is cleared of enemy aircraft, the war is mostly won. So when Japan wants U.S to transfre jet engine tech, U.S said No, so Japan wants to use the F16 design, but to make it better ( longer range, better radar), the U.S said only if you and I design this jet together, so after untold Billions of $ spend. what Japan has got? a jet just good enough to replace the old F1, that is all ( it has got problems with the wing, and it is too heavy, lack power to act as a true fighter). One wants to ask why U.S stabed Japan in the back for this F2 project? they are the best of friends after all? The answer is simple, if the F2 were designed and built to Japanese military's satisfaction, then it would be a great offensive weapon. U.S can let Japan have the Aegis tech because Aegis is a defensive weapon and will be form part of the entire U.S missile defense network, it sort act like modern day sentry for all other ships in its group. But U.S would not let Japan have the weapon where they can truely counts, that is the ability to control the air and an indepenent Intel ( C4I ). Japanese naval ships are better than PLAN's class VS class, but war is not fought one on one. Take the system VS system point of view, Japan has got no chance without U.S got directly involved, but would the U.S fight China over Japan? that is a 1000 Billion $ question. The truth is that the U.S will do anything in her power to stop the fight between China and Japan if the fight break out. So, from where I see it, China and Japan would not have a war in the near future.

That is why I say, to discuss China vs Japan, one is actually better to do China vs US. Not realistic at all to think Japan will go alone against China.

IDonT said:

Lets assume a "traditional" naval engagement (Ships only).

In naval surface warfare, the key is to detect the enemy while avoiding detection. Much time and effort is spent to deny the enemy the chance to detect your forces.

As a result, emmision control is vital. There are three states, A, B and C. A is no emissions, B is limited emissions (no unique emissions), and C is unrestricted. EMCON is not a blanket condition across the fleet. The surface units can be at A while a sufficiently distant AEW aircraft can be at C.

Then there is Electronic SUpport Measures (ESM)

ESM is the passive detection of enemy electromagnetic (EM) emissions. The radiated energy of an emitter (e.g. radar) can be detected far beyond the range at which it returns a usable result to its user. Modern ESM can identify the actual class of the emitter, which helps identify the unit on which it is used. Passive cross-fixing between a number of units can locate a source to a reasonably small area and give some hint to direction and speed. ESM fixes are placed in three classes: Detected, Tracking and Targeted, depending on the accuracy of the fix and whether a unit's course and speed has been derived. Of course for ESM to work the enemy must 'co-operate' by using their emitters.

The fact that a missile launched on a passive fix from over-the-horizon is usually deadly, creates a central problem for a naval force -- when, and even if, units should radiate, and if not how to detect the enemy? This is detectability vs. survivability. The need to obtain a targeting solution has to be balanced against the enemy's ability to do the same. Although once a commander feels that his fleet's position is known to the enemy a move to active emissions may be vital to prevent destruction, or else the only warning of incoming missiles will be when they turn on their terminal guidance systems.

A JMSDF fleet (typical of 8 ships with 8 helo) will send out Helicopters on radar picket duty at ENCOM state C, the rest of the fleet can remain at A relying on data link information from the helo.

The PLAN is at a dis-advantage here. Though it has heliborne AEW, it does not have the same level of network infrastructure as the JMSDF. Most likely, its ships will have to radiate in order for its commander to see a clearer picture.

The Harpoon missile is a very good missile. It can be launch on an off axis bearing, using its auto pilot to attack the target ship from a bearing that does not betray the location of your forces. This lessens the threat of a snap shot, a blind firing of an AShM towards the bearing of the incoming missile.

Lastly, PLAN anti-missile capability is still at its infancy. It will have a hard time shooting a Harpoon missile.

Click to expand...

Thanks. But I suppose when Japanese helo detects the Chinese fleet, the helo is also detected by Chinese ships? And the same for Chinese helos. So the helos still can not perform the guidance for the AShW missiles, right? Can any AShW missile hit a target 100 km away with out any third party guidance?