Japan adds 2 ships to its fleet of Aegis-equipped destroyers

A ‘mock ballistic missile’ is a computerized simulation-not the real thing!

A ‘mock ballistic missile’ is a computerized simulation-not the real thing!

I was thinking the same thing. The article needs editing to state it was a live fire of a test missile and not a "mock" one.

Future wars wont need any of this , it is becoming obsolete, it's all about Drones from now on. Watch this PBS NOVA special.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL4WjhSy5Kc

Future wars wont need any of this , it is becoming obsolete, it's all about Drones from now on. Watch this PBS NOVA special.

You are still going to need ships to launch and recover the drones.

Good! Build more ships!

seems like they're expecting it to happen rather than avoiding it..

brace yourself. we all need escape route

Island nations will always need ships.

A ‘mock ballistic missile’ is a computerized simulation-not the real thing!

By mock the authors mean the targets were ballistic missile targets, not live ballistic missiles with warheads. The ships fired live "war shot" SM-3s and the incoming targets were for all intents and purposes ballistic missiles without a warhead.

The title of the article is misleading. The ships have been Aegis equipped since they were built. By completing these tests the ships were qualified for ballistic missile defense, adding to the ships in the JMSDF that are so qualified.

Future wars wont need any of this , it is becoming obsolete, it's all about Drones from now on. Watch this PBS NOVA special.

Drones have a place in warfare but they do not replace ballistic missiles or cruise missiles for many target sets. Drones can, however, enable various missiles by providing ISR to the missiles or missile shooters and/or conduct electronic warfare on the defending enemy making it harder for them to engage your ballistic or cruise missiles with their own defensive missile systems.

A ‘mock ballistic missile’ is a computerized simulation-not the real thing!

Here are your "computerized simulation", lol. From the home page select "Ballistic Missile Targets" on the lower left to read about the several choices of hardware available for missiles like SM-3 Block 2 to test against.

https://www.rocket.com/defense/targets-decoys

Drones can not cover all events like rescuing people at sea and demining. Guarding merchant seas through unsafe water. Limited armor capacities.

Wil

Wallace

Having said that , they would be perfectly suited for demining (not to mention mining).

I served on a minesweeper/hunter. Can not see how a drone could demine those under the sea level or even laid them. You need mechanical devices. How would that work? How would a drone even locate a mine?

Will the ship commander ever have the authority to launch an anti-missile missile? OR would they have to wait for an order from Kasumigaseki? Decisions have to be made quickly.

L-SAM, the third and the final layer of Korea's triple-layer KAMD integrated national missile defense system, has successfully intercepted a ballistic missile and an aerial target. Both were live fire tests, not computer simulations.

By early 2030, Korea is expected to shift away from Aegis + SM-3 combo to Korean own radar + Naval LSAM combo.

https://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20221122000150

S. Korea succeeds in L-SAM missile intercepting test: military

South Korea has conducted a successful missile interception test of its L-SAM system under development, a key element of the country's envisioned layered missile defense shield called the Korea Air and Missile Defense designed to counter advancing threats from North Korea, according to military officials here Tuesday.

The L-SAM, or Long-range Surface-to-Air Missile, is aimed at shooting down ballistic missiles at the altitude of 50-60 kilometers, similar to the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense of the United States.

Sam,once a missile from NK, China, Russia are in boost phase,it only a few minutes until Tokyo is impacted

Wil

They are already in use in Ukraine today for example, and being further developed, so it seems like the concept is not completely unfeasable.

I was only thinking about drones that fly like the ones being used by the Russians to attack Ukrainian targets.

They are undersea drones operated from a ship/boat and without the ship/boat part they cannot do it. The ship is also autonomous. They are defenseless from an attack from an enemy.

There are also experiments with autonomous battleships. Like the US Navy Seahunters.

The Ukrainians have an undersea autonomous drone.

Island Nations and those with extensive coastlines will need ships to protect them.

Ineffective, extremely expensive system that passes on all our sensitive sovereign data to the USA or any regional power that has advanced hacking.

Easy done when there is only one, mock missile, and you know the flight pass of it in advance. There is no way Japan, a small island, can defend itself against a nuclear attack. Just like the Abe mask, you might feel safer, but it is just too small...

These Aegis destroyers can be very useful in a combat situation, and the best time to prepare for war is before the fighting starts.

@TokyoOldMan

How about the next time N.K. fires a missile over Japan, we actually shoot it down ?

Japan is incapable of doing so.

@samit, L-SAM is a much shorter ranged system than SM-3. It has a bit less range and about the same intercept altitude to THAAD which it would likely replace. SM-3 has a range an order of magnitude greater than L-SAM. SM-3 Block II can defeat ICBMs. THAAD and presumably L-SAM are not able to do this.

@Desert Tortoise

L-SAM and THAAD are terminal-stage interceptors.

SM-3 is a mid-course interceptor.

If the SM-3 misses the incoming missile, then there is no way to stop it for Japan.

In case of L-SAM, it's also backed by KM-SAM and PAC-3 attempting interception at 40 km and 20 km altitude if the L-SAM fails the interception at 60 km altitude, hence a triple layer missile defense. Three interception attempts on each incoming ballistic missile.

Desert Tortoise knows what he's talking about.

Not so sure about the others.

If the SM-3 misses the incoming missile, then there is no way to stop it for Japan.

The publicly available range for SM-3 Block I is 900 km and that for Block 2 is over 1200 km. The figures being made public probably understate the real values for their range. The public figures for their intercept ceilings are 900-1050 km. Outer space, if defined as the altitude at which an aircraft would have to fly faster than the orbital velocity to create enough lift to fly, is 100 km. SM-3 intercepts would occur well into outer space. THAAD and L-SAM have published ranges of 200 km and 150 km respectively, nearly an order of magnitude less than that of SM-3 Block II. Both share a published flight ceiling of 150 km. SM-3 would be the first line of ballistic missile defense for Japan. What ever gets past SM-3 would be engaged by THAAD. Whatever is left is engaged by PAC-3. At sea SM-6 would engage any stragglers left over by SM-3. Just a guess but since ESSM Block II has a seeker much like that of SM-6 I expect it will be qualified for short range ballistic missile defense.

And btw, PAC-3 MSE is supposedly integrated into the F-35, meaning F-35s can be used for ballistic missile defense.