politics

Japan to upgrade Aegis ships with Tomahawk missiles by FY 2027

25 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

Got to keep up those protection payments.

-18 ( +1 / -19 )

The mere existence of a functional counterstrike capability acts as a deterent to prevent agggresor nations from launching a strike. Whether any weapon system is "premptive" or"counter" is not a function of the weapon but when and how it is deployed. The first paragraph of Article 9 of the J-Constitution prohibits, in addiition to starting wars, the use of military force to settle territorial disputes. If the J-Constitution were in fact "bogus" then Japan would have taken the 4 Southern Kurile islands back from Russia, The Liancourt Rocks from South Korea and would have sent their JSDF to the PG instead of simply financing the Iraqi War.

Japan has spent the last 78 years living in peace protected entirely by the U.S. Japan has resisted upgrading their military despite continuous US pressure to do so since the 1980s. Where the US failed, China has suceeded by continuing to threaten Taiwan, and Russia by actually invading another country. Japan, like all other nations around the world have reassessed their security needs in the face of a global polycrisis.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

When you are surrounded by unfriendly aggressive nations such as N Korea, Russia and China, all with Nuclear powers, you have to have a strong defense capability and alliances. It's irresponsible otherwise.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Why continue buying us weapons when Japan can manufacture them?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The further JSDF and USFJ are integrated, the further JSDF will take the brunt of enemy fires., . 

The lumpsum purchase of Tomahawk missiles seems to be in this line.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Japan has spent the last 78 years living in peace protected entirely by the U.S.

Sweden has spent the last 209 years in peace protected by noone!

And let's quote the Washington Post:

"Nearly a quarter of Americans have never experienced the U.S. in a time of peace"

So, no, Japan does not need weapons from US to maintain peace.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

FredrikToday  01:26 pm JST

Japan has spent the last 78 years living in peace protected entirely by the U.S.

Sweden has spent the last 209 years in peace protected by noone!

Wow...Sweden....sandwiched between Norway and Finland has enjoyed peace without the U.S.

Japan...cornered by China, North Korea and Russia.

Is this suppose to be some kind of argument?

>

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Let's all agree that best way to PREVENT war is promote:

1) Safety in numbers/strategic alliances

2) Serious military deterrence, especially TECH based

3) Stable leadership, values and vision

4) Communications with adversaries

5) Compromise for the greater good!

6) Open markets and capital flows

7) Not pursuing dangerous transactional behavior

8) Building durable goodwill based on PERFORMANCE

9) Social stability

10) Finding areas of MUTUAL cooperation e.g. climate

Those are my off the cuff while eating lunch ideas!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

FYI:

Read a commentary by Yujin Fuse run on Modern Business magazine dated March 23, 2023.

He asserts that should a contingency ever occur, JSDF would fight according as USFJ plans and dictates. Then, only the JSDF troops would be subjected to a greater risk while USFJ troops would be fence-sitting at safe places such as on Guam or in Hawaii.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The missiles are worthless without the US GPS,these missiles are weapon ,you lock and load,these missiles have to be programmed,before a strike

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"Nearly a quarter of Americans have never experienced the U.S. in a time of peace"

It's also been 200 years since the US experienced military invasion and at least 40 years since the draft has been utilized.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Let's all agree that best way to PREVENT war is promote:

These only work if your adversary isn't attempting to use every single point of contact to gain technology, intelligence, or one-sided concessions. It's safer just to have as minimal contact as is reasonable and start out with the assumption that interactions are in bad faith.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The missiles are worthless without the US GPS,these missiles are weapon ,you lock and load,these missiles have to be programmed,before a strike

Tomahawks were used in combat with great accuracy before GPS was available. Desert Storm with all those Tomahawk strikes was fought before GPS was available. They use inertial nav and terrain comparison to navigate their route to the target. While newer versions of Tomahawk have a GPS capability lack of GPS will not prevent a Tomahawk from finding its intended target.

In any event Japan would have access to the US military GPS signal.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Sweden has spent the last 209 years in peace protected by noone!

They were not so neutral during WWII. They allowed British intelligence to conduct operations in Norway from bases in Sweden. They also provided assistance in the several British attempts to sink the big German battleship Tirpitz at her anchorage in a Norwegian fjord. But if you study post war Sweden, they had conscription and the fourth largest air force in the world. They and the Finns were both spending a lot more of their GDP on defense than most western nations. Even today Finland spends a greater proportion of their gdp on defense than any NATO member except maybe the US.

Standing alone against nations like China and the USSR is a very expensive proposition. Those who criticize these alliances fail to understand the benefits to their economy that come from sharing the defense burden among many nations instead of trying to shoulder it all alone.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Nobody seems to be denying what Yujin Fuse says. Fuse says JSDF will function only as a contingent of the U.S. forces in a future conflict involving Japan, taking the brunt of enemy fires all by themselves.

If Fuse was right, what's the use of Japan providing so many swathes of land for U.S. bases, plus an exorbitant amount of money for their maintenance? What's the use of building Futenma's replacement in Henoko, Okinawa, destroying pristine natural environment there?

Stupidity goes unpunished here.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Nobody seems to be denying what Yujin Fuse says. Fuse says JSDF will function only as a contingent of the U.S. forces in a future conflict involving Japan, taking the brunt of enemy fires all by themselves.

No, not true. I've exercised with Japanese forces. They would generally be attached as part of a larger US force and treated no differently than equivalent US units or equipment. Their ships slot right into a US naval force and augment it considerably. That's how we trained.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

During a U.S. Senate public hearing yesterday (March 28), Gen. Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, intimated that he thought the U.S.'s close ally Japan would come to aid Taiwan and U.S. forces in case of an emergency. 

That testimony by Milley indicates that Washington thinks Japan's war-renouncing constitution is virtually non-existent or else is pressing Tokyo to repeal it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Currently, Japan has eight Aegis ships deployed, two each at Sasebo, Kanagawa Prefecture and Maizuru, Kyoto Prefecture, and four at Sasebo, Nagasaki Prefecture.

If Tomahawks were to intercept Chinese or North Korean missiles targeting population centers like Tokyo and Osaka, would their number be enough for the job? But if one were to think they were for the defense of big U.S. and SDF bases, their number might be enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way, are the Tomahawk missiles designed to intercept enemy missiles? Aren't they fired to destroy enemy bastions as we saw in the Iraq War?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way, are the Tomahawk missiles designed to intercept enemy missiles? Aren't they fired to destroy enemy bastions as we saw in the Iraq War?

Tomahawk is for use against surface targets. One new version is intended to find and attack moving targets at sea, but most are only designed to hit fixed targets on land.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Tomahawks were to intercept Chinese or North Korean missiles targeting population centers like Tokyo and Osaka, would their number be enough for the job? But if one were to think they were for the defense of big U.S. and SDF bases, their number might be enough.

Tomahawks have no ability to hit aerial targets. They are strictly surface attack weapons. For defense against enemy ballistic missiles JMSDF DDGs would use SM-3 Block 1 or Block 2, the latter a joint program between the US and Japan. For defense against cruise missiles those same ships would use SM-2 and SM-6. SM-2 and SM-6 also have a secondary use as high speed anti-ship missiles. An early version of SM-2 was used successfully against Iranian ships during Operation Praying Mantis and SM-2s have successfully intercepted Iranian made copies of Chinese anti ship cruise missiles fired at US Navy destroyers by the Houthis.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, what does it mean that all eight Aegis ships deployed to three naval bases will be installed with Tomahawks in apparent violation of Article 9 of the Constitution?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What is the ratio of total missiles on a carrier and its entourage to all the missiles on the coast of China, 1:100? 1:500? 1:1000?

No matter how many you have, China will have more. Isn't it futile?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why continue buying us weapons when Japan can manufacture them?

I'm not sure if the US would allow that or to put it nicely, Japan wants to keep good relations with the US.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites