DDH-16 class "destroyer" Asagumo
What do you tin-can types think? Destroyer or not?
| Submit your comments on this article | ||
| China-Japan-Koreas | ||
| Japan should debate going nuclear: ruling party MP | ||
| 2006-10-16 | ||
TOKYO - Japan needs to discuss whether it should possess nuclear weapons in response to North KoreaÂ’s claimed nuclear test, the ruling partyÂ’s policy chief said on Sunday.
Nakagawa also said that the constitution does not prohibit the possession of nuclear arms, adding that having such weapons may reduce or remove the risk of being attacked. While some analysts have pointed out the possibility of Japan — the only nation to suffer an atomic bombing — seeking nuclear weapons in response to North Korea’s announced test, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has flatly rejected the idea.
Japan has stuck to its self-imposed “three principles” that ban the possession, production and import of nuclear arms, and politicians who even questioned the ban in the past have faced fierce criticism. But faced with the threat of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programmes, the nuclear taboo is easing among the public and more lawmakers now challenge the ban without receiving the disapproval they would have in the past. | ||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #27 First, they really tick Me off with some of these names. "Interrupted Continuous Wave." It's either one or the other, n'est ce pas? That's what I thought, Jackal. Everything else posted is common knowledge for me. Stay in good health, amigo! |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-16 23:53 |
| #26 Zenster: As I've said, I know very little in this area, but I'm willing to give it a try. First, they really tick Me off with some of these names. "Interrupted Continuous Wave." It's either one or the other, n'est ce pas? OK. What I think this does is that it doesn't pulse on any target. So, if you have two targets, you emit one CW signal and switch between the two bearings. The missiles see the reflection from the targets and go after it. By not pulsing, you get more energy on the target (in case of a glancing shot), and more frequent error updates. Now, I know it can't be that simple because a simple CW emission is way too easy to trick with ECM. So, the "interrupted" actually has to be on each target to make a known (to us) pattern, so that the enemy can't spoof it. Unless, perhaps, they are "interrupting" by switching targets. That might work, though you will have to either have to put a lot of smarts and a big pre-launch message to the missile, or will have to send uplink data from the ship to the missile during flight. Oh, and by the way, you don't need ICWI to go after multiple targets with a single radar system. All you need is a beam that can be steered quickly (such as an ESA), very good time sync between the missiles and the host, and lots of computing power. Well, as I said, this is not My field, so don't bet big money that I'm right. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-10-16 21:12 |
| #25 On second thought, look up the LHD-1 Wasp class of ships. And then compare them to this DDH class of the Japanese. The Japanese ship looks like the two-door no-frills version of the LHD-1 {the one with no AC and a manual transmission}, while the LHD-1 looks like the top of line 4- door sedan with power everything. Interesting comparison, if you go to "www.fas.com". |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-10-16 17:55 |
| #24 Japan will not build an F-35 carrier, nor will it build nukes, IMHO. But this debate does lay the ground work for a substantial increase in the proportion of Japanese GDP directed to defence. We'll see systems that are not me too knock-offs and not power projection oriented but are oriented to preventing China from utilizing power projection forces. Carriers, even if called destroyers, for UCAVs comes to mind. These relatively specialized forces will allow more general purpose U. S. forces to range more widely knowing the Chrysanthemum has the Dragon under control. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-16 17:11 |
| #23 Put a ski jump on its front end, and you have a Harrier carrier. Right now, that "destroyer" looks a lot like what we Americans call an LPH. The US Marines are particularly fond of them, they have the Iwo Jima class. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2006-10-16 15:19 |
#22 Atomic Conspiracy (or anyone else), the article you linked about the Japanese ICWI (Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination) is a technology that enables a missile control system to guide several missiles simultaneously to various threats, greatly enhancing a ship's defence capabilities. Any background on this? I'm familiar with APAR (Active Phased Array Radar), and how delay timing can be used to steer detection emissions originating from a static source. Are there any other connotations involved with the interrupted continuous wave effect that go beyond this (that can be disclosed without compromising military security)? Finally, I note that this method is used to provide fire control for the ESSM (Evolved SeaSparrow Missile) system being developed by the Tri-lateral Frigate Cooperation (Canada, Netherlands & Germany). Isn't this the system that the Europeans are itching to sell communist China? And if so, isn't this military suicide? I would think that 360° APAR represents the pinnacle of operational fire control. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-16 14:45 |
| #21 Unfortunate placement of elevators. A dozen F-35Bs would spruce up the old gal. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-10-16 14:24 |
| #20 Thanks for the Navy perspective. I'm only familiar with the Army's analysis. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-16 14:20 |
| #19 Not a tin can type, but I know a flattop when I see one; reminds me of our WWII 'Jeep' or escort carriers; and don't discount the abilities of rotary winged aircraft; they can put a hurt on a sub. Real useful IRT NKor's vast diesel subs. Re: BRAC; A lot of infrastructure duplication that can be efficiently pared down, but so far all I have seen is a reduction in operational readiness (despite what the heavies say) and an extensive renaming effort. Active duty Navy guys on shore duty are being sent TAD to some underway activity, and then 3 years later, getting sea duty orders. And a lot of shore billets are getting outsourced ( GS civilian or contractor), so when it is time for rotation back to shore duty, there is nowhere to go. This hasn't reached critical mass yet, but I predict in another 5 yrs or so it will. Any active duty types out there, please chime in and update / correct as necessary. |
| Posted by: USN, ret. 2006-10-16 14:14 |
| #18 Only question I have about Japan's "through-deck" destroyer is, does it have torpedo tubes? The Japanese have always had a mastery on torpedos. If it's got torpedo tubes, it's a HEAVY destroyer (I.E., da$$$$ effective). |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-10-16 14:13 |
| #17 One last point, before this soapbox I'm on gets put away. ;-) The Counterterrorism Blog has an apropos quote from a US Army analysis of insurgency. Read the whole excerpt at CTB, or download the whole paper from the Army link. But here is what the Army has to say: (S)ome strategic thinkers contend that the United States is now facing the first insurgency of a global scale ¯ created by the interlinkage of multiple national insurgencies ¯ led by a network motivated by radical Islam. The Global War on Terrorism has all of the characteristics of an insurgency: protracted, asymmetric violence, ambiguity, dispersal, the use of complex terrain, psychological warfare, and political mobilization designed to protect the insurgents and eventually alter the balance of power in their favor; avoidance by insurgents of battlespaces where they are weak and a focus on those where they can compete, particularly the psychological and the political. The insurgents are fighting a total war with limited resources; the counterinsurgents are self-restrained by ethics and a desire to control costs. This belief suggests that the appropriate American response is to build a grand strategy modeled on counterinsurgency which reflects the differences between national and liberation insurgencies. . . . FWIW |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-16 13:32 |
| #16 Heh,Heh, Heh. If a bear is peacefully hibernating and you sneak up on him and gouge him with a cattle prod, you can expect a very angry bear when he rears up on his haunches. The dumbass Chicoms, feeling their oats for the first time in 50 years, thought they could keep kicking their humbled neighbors without a response. F**ked up again. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2006-10-16 11:47 |
| #15 AC: I think RC hit it straight on: it looks a lot like the Invincible class. Oh, and glad to see you're back. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-10-16 11:03 |
| #14 Since I was being deliberately oracular, I can't blame you for missing my point. On the Beach is a novel that decribes the results of a world with _massive_ nuclear proliferation. If you have lots and lots of small nations with what are essentially tactical nuclear warheads, then you are going to need heavily armored forces if you are going to fight them and win without using our own strategic arsenal. The reason we kept all of those bases open (against all economic sense) during the cold war was for survivability. As nuclear weapons proliferate, survivability once again trumps economics when it comes to basing. For example, putting multiple carrier strike groups in one port is a major mistake. Finally, effects based thinking is hubristic like the doctrine of "information dominance." It assumes that you are so smart and so good that you can always find the tipping point that will allow you to apply the minimum force to achieve maximum effect. I think that we need to spend more time studying Clauswitzian concepts like "friction" and "fog" and much less time on EBO. Maybe EBO is possible when you have air supremacy and are bombing electrical substations. It is silly when conducting operations against a determined, ground-based foe. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-10-16 10:50 |
| #13 Am I the only one wondering why we are consolidating our military facilities and downsizing our heavy armored forces? 11A5S, just a couple thoughts which may or may not be on target. I'm not sure the Chinese threat is best answered with heavy armor, if by that you mean land forces, although we shouldn't allow those to age away. Tanks worked well in Baghdad, to the surprise of many. And, keeping the navy and air force up to date for major force-on-force makes sense to me. Maybe we need to rethink BRAC and the whole effects-based thing Talking with some of the analysts who drafted the Army's proposal on BRAC, it appeared that most of the facilities they consoldated/closed were older and less useful. One of the considerations was having enough room for significant tank training, complex urban ops training etc. There may have been some desireable sites that got closed too -- I didn't go over the list in detail. But the analysts who worked that were pretty cognizant of long term threats we might have to train and equip for. BRAC gives the Pentagon cover for closing unneeded / outdated bases in the face of political pressure to keep the jobs local. Re: "effects based thing", my own take is that this is a doctrine that can be applied well or poorly. It can easily be just a buzzword that spilled over from (appropriate) use in USAF to the other services. Or, it can be a doctrine that draws on our historical strengths vs. other countries' militaries. Effects based operations says is that in choosing the means of attack you consider all of your objectives and choose means that best allow you to reach them all, according to a priority list. In conflicts like Iraq those objectives go well beyond the seize territory/attrit enemy of major force on force wars, to include keeping the economy as intact as possible (and hence not bombing the hell out of infrastructure, for example). EBO generally results in giving unit commanders the objectives to be reached and letting them adjust the means as necessary to meet all of the objectives as prioritized by higher. The result is, or should be, a more flexible response to conditions on the ground than if tactics are planned up at higher HQ. Full disclosure: A couple years ago I had a role in the EBO tracking system for Afghanistan, which got upgraded and is used across CENTCOM now. My biggest concern at the time was that the staffers using it weren't trained in EBO and didn't necessarily understand the impact and intent of the doctrine. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-10-16 08:15 |
| #12 How many Marines does it carry? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-10-16 08:14 |
| #11 What do you tin-can types think? Destroyer or not? Not a tin-can type or even a veteran, but it looks like a sub hunter. Too small to carry fixed-wing aircraft, but capable of carrying many more helicopters than a traditional destroyer. Considering where they are, who their opponents are likely to be, and their dependence on shipping, makes a hell of a lot of sense. As for labeling it "destroyer", well, that's like the Brits and their "through-deck cruiser". |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-10-16 07:51 |
| #10 Looks like a tongue suppresser. Is it some kind of taffy ? |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-10-16 07:49 |
| #9 Lol, AC. If we "loosen" up the definition to mean "that which destroys", then I think we can call it that, lol. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-10-16 01:55 |
| #8
DDH-16 class "destroyer" Asagumo What do you tin-can types think? Destroyer or not? |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2006-10-16 01:39 |
| #7 Behind the scenes, Japan has been building up its military forces for quite a few years. The standard media meme is still that it is practically an unarmed country. Many students, for example, have taken it for granted that Japan has no armed forces at all. The Japanese are circumspect about all this, to be sure. Their Aegis cruisers and the new light aircraft carrier are officially classed as "destroyers." Our Navy contingent would be amazed to see a 13,500 ton ship with a flat deck, a starboard island superstructure, and 20+ aircraft called a "destroyer," but that is the official designation. The nuclear weapons idea has been floating around for many years, the west's focus on the noisy Japanese anti-nuclear community notwithstanding. Until fairly recently, nuclear weapons advocacy was confined to the extreme right and the neo-militarists, but this is by no means a small influence. That is probably why it has burst into the mainstream so suddenly, the idea has been there for a long time and many Japanese are familiar with it but it was one of those things they tend to conceal from the gaze of the west. No more. The Japanese death penalty is another such hidden reality. |
| Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy 2006-10-16 01:35 |
| #6 I liked how KRAUTHAMMER said it [paraphrased] > " Nuclear/ABomb Politics + Proliferation is like GUN CONTROL - 'GUN CONTROL' is useless = idiotic when only the Bad Guys are allowed to have and use a gun, but the Good Guys are NOT", or words to that effect!? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-10-16 00:58 |
| #5 I think that I'll just hang out... On the Beach. The Vacation from History™ is over. Am I the only one wondering why we are consolidating our military facilities and downsizing our heavy armored forces? Maybe we need to rethink BRAC and the whole effects-based thing. I'm just saying. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-10-16 00:56 |
| #4 This is the message that China needs to be hearing. No more of this concilliatory crap. If the Mandarins want to play such a "deep" game with their little Rottweiler Kim, they'd better be ready to pay the piper. I wonder which came out first, Japan's mention of nuclear weapons or China's revelations about coup attempts in North Korea? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-10-16 00:50 |
| #3 I commented the other day that consensus in Japan can change much more quickly than the professional punditry realize. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-10-16 00:40 |
| #2 It only took a very short time for this subject to actually be broached in Japan. It's much sooner than I expected. China has very poor history of success when dealing with Japan and the NORK's bomb had China writ all over it. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-10-16 00:31 |
| #1 When I was a little babe in the mid 50s... my babysitter was a Nakagawa by marriage. (Taiwan national married to a Japanese Diplomat stationed in Nazi Berlin and disappeared on a train in the middle of the USSR when Stalin delcared war on Japan.) Her sister was married to a good friend (one time steel magnate under Japan rule and then antique dealer with his foundry assets abscounded with by Chaing's buddies.) |
| Posted by: 3dc 2006-10-16 00:15 |