politics

Japan to develop air-to-ship long-range cruise missiles

32 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

32 Comments
Login to comment

Hmmm, I wonder what is happening this week in the land of the rising sun, two front page stories: Japan wants to change its constitution (aka, we are no longer pacifist), and Japan wants to develop its own Air-to-Ground missiles.

If I was a slightly paranoid US congressman, I would think these measures are aimed directly at the USA, ie changing a USA drafted constitution, AND developing missile in competition with USA origin missile such as the JSM which is supplied with the F35 that Japan is already getting. Why spending ¥¥¥¥¥¥¥ developing your own if you can already get ready and off the shelf tech from USA?

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

OK, let me try answering my own question from post above. Has these two measures (missile & constitution) got anything to do with the 'cost plus 50%' security arrangement with USA? Particularly that it's already such an impost on the political situation in Okinawa.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

About time.

Remember folks, if China had never acted so aggressively towards all things Japan the last two decades, things like this would never have happened in the first place.

You can only push someone so far before they are forced to react.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Sh1mon M4sadaToday  07:08 am JST

Hmmm, I wonder what is happening this week in the land of the rising sun, two front page stories: Japan wants to change its constitution (aka, we are no longer pacifist), and Japan wants to develop its own Air-to-Ground missiles.

The Abe administration is trying to change the second paragraph of Article 9, which contradicts the existence of the JSDF. The first paragraph that renounces war as a means to resolve diplomatic disputes is not being discussed for change,

Therefore your comment (aka, we are no longer pacifist) is totally incorrect and very misleading. Japan is very much remaining pacifist.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Therefore your comment (aka, we are no longer pacifist) is totally incorrect and very misleading. Japan is very much remaining pacifist

When was the last time any government make one change to achieve a longterm objective? Ever heard of salami slicing or boiling frog syndrome?

I think you underestimate democracy and what that entails for politicians.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

This is an interesting preposition.

The XASM-3 is at the upper end of payload to be carried by the F-2 and the F-35.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

This new missile would be heavier than the XASM-3, so how does JASDF intend to deliver it? The P-1?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

This is an interesting preposition.

The XASM-3

Interesting indeed...given they've signed up to buy JSMs.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/03/13/japan-inks-deal-with-kongsberg-for-f-35-standoff-missile/

I don't get it, I didn't think the Japanese treasury had a mattress.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Sh1mon M4sada

Interesting indeed...given they've signed up to buy JSMs.

Japan had no choice, since the JSM was the only integrated anti-ship missile to the F-35 and integrating a new missile on the F-35 takes 8 years. Japan needed something to use with the F-35 ASAP, even if the JSM is expected to be largely ineffective against the Chinese and Korean navy's layered defensive systems.

The JSM was designed by Norway to take on Russian surface warships with relatively poor air defense, not to take on the Chinese and Korean warships with advanced multi-layer missile defense systems.

Here is Japan's dilemma. A longer range XASM-3 would weigh much more than the current standard XASM-3 weighting under 1 ton, and requires a new jet able to carry it but Japan doesn't have one, not today and not tomorrow. This is why the demise of the F-3 program is all that more painful to Japan, because China and Korea do have fighters capable of carrying 2 ton payload weapons and are putting 300 km+ range Mach 3~5 supersonic antiship missiles on their fighters to use against JMSDF warships.

The only Japanese military aircraft capable of carrying a 400 km range XASM-3 would be the P-1 patrol aircraft.

Or another way to increase the range while keeping the weight at 1 ton payload limit of the F-2 or the F-35 jet is to slow it down, perhaps to subsonic speed.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@OssanJapan

The Abe administration is trying to change the second paragraph of Article 9, which contradicts the existence of the JSDF. 

The Article 9 doesn't contradict with the existence of the JSDF, which is technically an armed police whose members are civilian public servants.

This is why a JSDF member can just desert at will for any reason and the worst punishment he/she can face is to get fired. If a JSDF member punches another person, he/she is tried in the civilian court, not in the military court. There is no such thing as a military court in Japan.

Hence the existence of JSDF doesn't contradict the Article 9, but Abe san's quest to create a national military with the right to declare war against other states does.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

"In January, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said in the Diet that he believes long-range cruise missiles are not weapons banned under the Constitution."

Abe isn't the constitution. His belief is void.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Sh1mon M4sadaToday  07:49 am JST

Therefore your comment (aka, we are no longer pacifist) is totally incorrect and very misleading. Japan is very much remaining pacifist

When was the last time any government make one change to achieve a longterm objective? Ever heard of salami slicing or boiling frog syndrome?

I think you underestimate democracy and what that entails for politicians.

It's one change to correct a contradiction in the existing constitution. Amendments to the constitution are common. In the U.S. since 1789 thirty-three amendments have been approved by the United States Congress. Twenty-seven of those have been approved by the states and are now part of the Constitution. Your "long term objective" is your own personal speculation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Here is Japan's dilemma. A longer range XASM-3 would weigh much more than the current standard XASM-3 weighting under 1 ton, and requires a new jet able to carry it but Japan doesn't have one, not today and not tomorrow.

Nope. The P-1 can carry and shoot them without any problem.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I think Abe realizes that Japan can no longer rely on the USA for all its defense. Not only is there the issue of the US and Japan not agreeing on something, there's the other possibility of a multi-pronged attack by China and NK at the same time, which would put a lot of pressure on the US to respond alone. Think Taiwan and SK at the same time. Better to have the capability and never use it. Peace through superior firepower.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Samit BasuToday  09:23 am JST

@OssanJapan

The Abe administration is trying to change the second paragraph of Article 9, which contradicts the existence of the JSDF. 

The Article 9 doesn't contradict with the existence of the JSDF, which is technically an armed police whose members are civilian public servants.

Wrong. The predecessor to the JSDF was originally formed as an extension of the National Police Agency in 1950 as the National Police Reserve. But since 1954 the JSDF has existed under the control of the Defense Agency, then later to the Ministry of Defense. While JSDF members are public servants, they have no law enforcement authority in Japan. The second paragraph of Article 9 is a contradiction because the JSDF " ranked as the world's fifth most-powerful military in conventional capabilities in a Credit Suisse report in 2015 and it has the world's eighth-largest military budget." while the first sentence reads " In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. ".

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Triring

The P-1 can carry and shoot them without any problem.

The problem with the P-1 is that it is a relatively slow aircraft with a large RCS, meaning it can be detected from far away, and will most likely not survive the Chinese and Korean interceptors. A heavy fighter or an attack jet is far more suitable for the delivery of anti-ship missiles, but Japan doesn't have one, not today and not tomorrow.

Think of the Mitsubishi G4M bomber, and why it couldn't get past the US Navy's wall of interceptors.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The problem with the P-1 is that it is a relatively slow aircraft with a large RCS, meaning it can be detected from far away, and will most likely not survive the Chinese and Korean interceptors. 

That should not be a problem since this to be developed weapon is going to be able to as reported "shoot outside the range of an enemy's weapons"

Basically if it has a range of 400Km, then no missile nor aircraft will be able to touch the deliver plane.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Tiring

That should not be a problem since this to be developed weapon is going to be able to as reported "shoot outside the range of an enemy's weapons"

They are referring to the Chinese and Korean warship's SAM missiles, not fighter jets scrambling at Mach 2 to intercept the P-1.

At Mach 2, a fighter jet can cover 100 km in 2.5 minutes.

The P-1 cannot escape from the AMRAAMs and PL-15s heading toward it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The missile -as stated in the article- will be a air delivery cruise missile, which are generally launched from bombers. I reckon it is meant to be fired from standoff distances in friendly airspace, and with a fighter escort.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Would love to know where those planes come from.

Basically they need to take off and fly to the site in scramble mode especially Korea since they have no aircraft carriers. They need another 5 minutes to do that and no plane has radar that reaches 400Km so once again no problem.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Does Japan need US approval or is Japan going to be treated like North Korea? According to the US, no nation on earth is allowed to develop arms without US approval. Is the US going to place sanctions on Japan for developing a defence system?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

A longer range XASM-3 would weigh much more than the current standard XASM-3 weighting under 1 ton, and requires a new jet able to carry it but Japan doesn't have one, not today and not tomorrow.

Xasm 3 would weigh about the same as the JSM and both can be carried by either the f35 or F2. The f3 program is still under development .

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Why does Japan need middles that fly more than 400kms unless for aggressive intent?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

even if the JSM is expected to be largely ineffective against the Chinese and Korean navy's layered defensive systems

I don't think you can dismissed the JSM's capability so casually, when used with 'current' capabilities, ie Network Centric Warfare, Force multiplication, Stealth and specific to the JSM, two ways datalink (ie targeting information updated inflight).

Growlers and stealth already achieve advantage against China (& NK) in terms of first island chain air defence system. Stealth of delivery system, together with longer range and two ways datalink makes for a very hard to detect attack. Similarly, unless China can takeout forward US bases first, its first layer of defense (the first islands chain) would be the first target.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@BearDeliveryGuy

I reckon it is meant to be fired from standoff distances in friendly airspace, and with a fighter escort.

There is no safety space in the East China Sea, unless you are talking about the P-1 flying east from Naha, then turn back and launch the missile to secure that 400 km distance.

@Triring

Would love to know where those planes come from.

For Korea, the fighters would scramble from the Ulleung Island's airfield, which is 90 km away from the Liancourt Rocks. https://centreforaviation.com/data/profiles/newairports/ulleungdo-island-airport

For China, they would have fighters on patrol above their warships in wartime. They have the number advantage. 

@alwaysspeakingwisdom

Xasm 3 would weigh about the same as the JSM and both can be carried by either the f35 or F2.

Not this 400 km range version would would weigh twice as the standard 150 km version.

The f3 program is still under development.

I repeat. The F-3 program is DEAD, TERMINATED, NOT HAPPENING. Japan can't afford it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's one change to correct a contradiction in the existing constitution. Amendments to the constitution are common. In the U.S. since 1789 thirty-three amendments have been approved by the United States Congress. Twenty-seven of those have been approved by the states and are now part of the Constitution. Your "long term objective" is your own personal speculation.

I think you're speculating that the amendment is to correct a contradiction, and it's a speculation that would be annulled by the then PM Shidehara's draft contribution to Article 9.

By your own admission 33 amendments has been made, I don't have to speculate do I?

Now add missile development in competition with the JSM, can you see a pattern already?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Xasm 3 would weigh about the same as the JSM and both can be carried by either the f35 or F2. The f3 program is still under development .

Do you have a source? IIRC, the JSM is in the order of 3-4 times lighter than the XASM 3 (because it is designed that way).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Clearly they want to be able to go on the offensive and not be held liable for their actions if an all out war broke out. People with half a brain knew how reluctant they were to surrender the first time when they were in the wrong.

Their current self defense constitution they have now is enough for them to defend themselves if something were to happen. but if they changed their word what they said 70 years ago of being a country model of peace, then,...that pretty much sums up their current motives obviously.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Was that a bit late of their so called "Deterrance"?  The Chinese navy has 540km YJ18 air lanched anti ship missile since 2015! A more potent one YJ100 with 800kms range is coing! See for yourself in wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YJ-18

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Won't stop a nuke, will it? And more nukes are being pointed at Japan as Abe ramps up his belligerence and desire to change Article 9 of the Constitution and bring back the "Beautiful Japan" his grandfather envisioned until Japan was destroyed in WWII. The people don't want this, especially in an age where we are being told daily taxes must be increased to deal with the ageing populating problem, and we don't have enough money to do so. Stop spending on a military, which is illegal, and worse still stop trying to legalise it so you can spend more and send the country back into further chaos. Use the money on social services and the people who need it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

smithinjapan

You haven't stopped to think about the current dangerous situation in the region. You don't realize that article 9 is becoming very obsolete.

Japan is investing in an illegal army because it really needs it. And because the US demands it too.

This is the reality that no one likes to admit. But people begin to recognize it very bitterly.

Taking a look at Twitter I saw that most of the people involved agreed with the measure of having long-range missiles. Admitting also that it is a necessary unconstitutional weapon. It's better to have it than not to have it. That's what they say on Twitter.

Cordial greetings.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

A smart move as a defensive deterrent to anyone with hostile intentions against Japan. But more is needed.

1 ( +1 / -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