politics

LDP proposes Japan strengthen SDF, coast guard capabilities

36 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

36 Comments
Login to comment

Might be time to build a Coast Guard station on either Yonaguni or Ishigaki. I could see a combined air station and port facility for a couple of patrol ships on the little harbor north of the airfield on Yonaguni.

15 ( +19 / -4 )

This is where adapting the helicopter carriers to take jets will be of benefit, providing effectively a mobile airfield to back up the surface units.

14 ( +18 / -4 )

A prudent measure to keep pace with the increased and sustained activity of China in Japan controlled territory. Japan must seek to maintain balance with rivals and peace in her territories as is proper and wise.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

Wise decision. Japan absolutely needs to spend much more of her budget on her military, as well as a recruitment drive for many more recruits. The awful Communist bully to the west is not going away, so Japan needs to ensure she has the weapons and personnel to go toe-to-toe when something starts, backed up of course by the QUAD forces in the region.

This is where adapting the helicopter carriers to take jets will be of benefit, providing effectively a mobile airfield to back up the surface units.

At least 2 aircraft carriers should be commissioned within the next 5 years - or as you say adaptations from Helicopter carriers. More long-range bombers capable of reaching deep into China are also a necessity.

11 ( +18 / -7 )

It would also be useful if the Japanese Coast Guard had a series of large patrol ships capable of carrying three to five helicopters each, sort of like the original Japanese DDHs but with lighter armaments.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

About time.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

I’d say that’s a good investment for any possible Future you expect to have

10 ( +12 / -2 )

This is where adapting the helicopter carriers to take jets will be of benefit, providing effectively a mobile airfield to back up the surface units.

It would be interesting to be involved in the deployment of HMS Queen Elizabeth to Japan later this year. My impression of her is she is under armed for the threat, underpowered for her displacement and won't have the legs to run with the US and Japanese ships, and this was the case when the Royal Navy returned to the Pacific Theater in WWII. But Japan will likely learn a lot about how to operate F-35Bs from a flight deck at sea, the ballet of the flight deck, how to coordinate launches and recoveries, spot aircraft smoothly, move planes between flight and hanger decks and maybe inform a better design for a similar sized Japanese VSTOL carrier.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

"At least 2 aircraft carriers should be commissioned within the next 5 years - or as you say adaptations from Helicopter carriers. More long-range bombers capable of reaching deep into China are also a necessity."

That will not be enough. Japan needs more of everything, but most importantly dump article 9.

8 ( +17 / -9 )

You don’t need draft proposals. You need real, physical deployments. And this first time I agree and support @HimariYamada’s viewpoint. Only showing strength with display of an outnumbering defense palette can still stop them, and double it up for the northern territories as well.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Japan needs more of everything, but most importantly dump article 9.

I agree with your opinion.

It would be interesting to be involved in the deployment of HMS Queen Elizabeth to Japan later this year. My impression of her is she is under armed for the threat, underpowered for her displacement and won't have the legs to run with the US and Japanese ships,

Remember, the QUAD allies will be conducting activities jointly. HMS Queen Elizabeth may be underarmed and not as advanced as Japanese and US Naval vessels, and the British Navy no longer as powerful as those forces, but good luck Communist China trying to get at her. Just try.

5 ( +15 / -10 )

HMS Queen Elizabeth may be underarmed and not as advanced as Japanese and US Naval vessels,

I would dispute that assumption. The British navy while much smaller than it has been in the past still utilises the most up to date technology on its vessels and unit for unit are a match for anyone. A good ally to have at your shoulder.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

HMS Queen Elizabeth is still a formidable adversary and not to be taken lightly!

4 ( +5 / -1 )

China will win no matter what. 5000yrs and going strong. We should join the strongest side.

A longish history and at times in China's past it has had an edge in some technologies like gunpowder over the world. At other times it has been closed and overtaken technologically and has had colonial powers ruling parts of China for many years. It is not the strongest nation as both the US and Russia have so many more nuclear warheads that China can not compete realistically. They could launch their few hundred and do much damage to the world but the pounding they could get from either Russia or the US would make China unlivable for ten thousand years. So for now join the US or Russia for the strongest side. China is building an impressive conventional military, but in the end nobody is willing to try to deafeat any Nuclear power for fear of the end result. Armageddon.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

China will win no matter what. 5000yrs and going strong. We should join the strongest side.

Not necessarily. The last time the Royal Navy clashed with the Chinese fleet the Chinese were defeated in about five minutes of intense combat. China has never won a significant naval war of any kind and their current navy is untested. I have seen the PLAN up close, as well as the JMSDF and the Chinese lack of experience is evident in their ships. When you see roll around office chairs in a combat center you know they haven't spent a lot of time at sea in a big north Pacific swell. On US and Japanese ships they are bolted to the deck. Their DDG didn't have evaporators to make fresh water so the crew had to drink bottled water from a supply ship that accompanied them and goodness knows what they showered in. Where non structural interior partitions, non-water tight doors, storage lockers and shelves in US ships are steel or aluminum on the Chinese DDG they were plywood. Huge fire hazard. There isn't even decorative wood anywhere on US or Japanese ships (RN ships have paneling in places and fancy wooden cabinets in their dining areas, stuff the US Navy doesn't permit). The bridge looked nice with its fancy office like false ceiling tiles but if there is a fire all those tiles have to be chopped away with an axe to put out fires. Below decks false ceilings hide burning wires and leaking pipes. In any kind of damage scenario those false ceilings contribute to the fires and flooding. You never see these on Japanese or US Navy ships. The Chinese are not ten feet tall and invincible. Far from it actually.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Then what???.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

FYI: Australian budget is $42,200,000,000 for US and allied weapons. US$1665 per year per person.

A miss statement. The largest single component of the Australian defense budget is the wages for military and civilian personnel. Many weapons are made in Australia for Australian use. Bushmaster PMV 1,195 built, Anzac Frigates 10 built (2 for NZ), Hobart class Destroyers 3 built, Patrol boats 14 plus exports, Hawkei 1,100 on order, Collins class Subs 6 built and the list of equipment goes on. Yes we also purchase from the US and Europe and we export to the US, NZ and other nations as well.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Will Japan be able to take over China in arms race?

You have enough of a military to make the price in blood and treasure to take a chunk of land too costly to be worth fighting over. That was how Sweden approached it during the Cold War. They had the fourth largest air force in the world back then, all designed and built in Sweden so their logistics were independent of other nations, amazing artillery (Bandkanon 1, a fully automatic 155mm howitzer firing 14 rounds in 45 seconds and this was the early 1960s), home grown tanks, and were prepared to make the Soviets bleed if they ever thought about invading. The Swedes held off Hitler the same way. It is also how Switzerland has kept invaders at bay. Talk is cheap and the Chinese have no respect for perceived weakness. When they sense weakness, such as the Philippines, they will take what they want with no regard for what anyone else thinks about it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"China will win no matter what. 5000yrs and going strong. We should join the strongest side."

I am pretty sure we have heard all that before.

Ah, yes.

It was the Beyang Fleet.

It didn't end up well at all for the Chinese, did it?

We heard exactly the same in 1905 from the Russians.

We also know how that one finished.

Every single China JT military "expert" seem not to know there is an extensive body of water between China and Japan, and that China's 2 million man army will be powerless when the two trade blows,!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Ah. The Yanqui version of onward Christian soldiers, urging the acquisition of soon-to-be outdated weapons system against an imagined enemy and a fabulist narrative as a descript of military actions against China. Mostly by foreigners who display very little insight into foreign policy and its dictates.

A baffling analysis of China, from gunpowder to hydrogen bombs and joining the winning team with some odd reference to Armageddon. China does not need to compete, they are the future and the middle Kingdom will extend its rule over the earth, as the waters rise & the fires burn and famine arises throughout the land. China has no need to 'conquer' the world militarily - it is economics & finance that pulldown 'the Great Satan' aka the USA. That Japan remains a client-state of the USA and the aging and elderly politicians are mired in the 17th century does not speak well to the future. The ridiculous de-evolution of state policy to increase in any manner the 'military might' in order to stave off China is an absurdist dream, as if suffering the vapors. The future lies in diplomacy, alliances and cutting ties with the USA. The LDP is a senile organization headed by fools.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

HMS Queen Elizabeth is still a formidable adversary and not to be taken lightly!

She has the potential to carry a formidable air wing. Her defensive armaments however are almost non-existent (US carriers have ESSM, RAM and CIWS systems) and the Royal Navy does not have enough DDGs with long range air defense missiles and ASW equipment to protect her against an enemy like the Chinese. In blue water well away from shore she would probably acquit herself well and the Russians have nothing that could defeat her but trying to operate anywhere inside the first island chain she would be less able to defend herself than a US carrier strike group. There is also the matter of speed. She is slow. Mobility and speed matter in high end naval warfare and a US carrier strike group is going to be able to maintain at least a ten knot advantage over the RN carrier strike group. Many who have never sailed with one might not know that a US carrier and her escorts can pretty much disappear if they need to (combine EMCON and a weather system to hid from satellites along with silencing equipment on the ships such as Prairie and Masker and nobody can track them), and speed lets them show up places they are not expected.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Chinese ships are made in China-nuff said...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@voiceofokinawa

Will Japan be able to take over China in arms race?

No need for Japan to do that. All that Japan needs are warships and planes enough to defend Senkaku.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

An “eye for an eye” approach won‘t solve the Senkaku / Diaoyudao issue at all. 

Since when is defending your home an "eye for an eys:? What kind of thinking is this? Defending a nation's sovereign territory is one of the most fundamental duties. You are supremely naive to think China won't take every bit of Japanese land it thinks it can take if the cost is not too high, including Okinawa. Or perhaps you prefer surrender and subjugation to standing up to bullies? I have a low regard for cowardice in the face of an open threat like China's claims on Japanese territory. You should try living in China for a while and see what it is like. Get a VPN before you go because you won't be able to enjoy internet discussions like these from China without one.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Suppose there appear two claimants to a find, each claiming the find is his own without showing any evidence. Should the solution be a peremptory one-shot game? I'm proposing a public hearing (a forum) be held before that to hear what each side says about the islands' sovereignty.

Do that and the next thing the Chinese will start demanding is Okinawa. They are on record numerous times claiming it was historically a Chinese protectorate. The US handed the entirety of the Ryukyus including the Senkaku Islands back to Japan in 1971. They are thus Japan's sovereign territory now, end of discussion. Mao did nothing to fight the Japanese and often gave the Japanese information on Chiang Kai-shek's formations so the Japanese could attack them, thinking the Soviets would come in later and clear the Japanese out, in the meantime let the Japanese kill off some Nationalist fighters he would have to fight later. The US fought and bled for those islands during WWII. They were America's to do with afterwards as they wished. China has no legitimate claim to any of them. They can go to hades as far as I'm concerned and would be very angry with the US if they don't defend Japan on this matter. If it wasn't for Mao's treachery in WWII the Nationalist would have prevailed and the world would not face the current menace from Beijing.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

WHITEWASHED: I hope that international companies will help the people of Myanmar instead of just trying to profit from them only. I hope.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Desert Tortoise,

 Defending a nation's sovereign territory is one of the most fundamental duties.

There's truth in it. The catch is that both sides think the islands in question are their own sovereign territories.

Suppose there appear two claimants to a find, each claiming the find is his own without showing any evidence. Should the solution be a peremptory one-shot game? I'm proposing a public hearing (a forum) be held before that to hear what each side says about the islands' sovereignty.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So, you prefer a one-shot game or a duel, no matter what, to fact finding dialog? That's an out-of-date, barbarian way of solving a problem.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Desert Tortoise,

*Do that and the next thing the Chinese will start demanding is Okinawa. They are on record numerous times claiming it was historically a Chinese protectorate.*

If you are talking about the tributary system, not only Ryukyu (Okinawa) but also Koreas, Vietnam and even ancient Japan were all part of it. 

Equivalent to this system is today’s U.S. dominion of East Asia. In a way, the international situation today is a contest between the U.S. and China for the seat of hegemony, an innovative modern  tributary system.

Thus, your comment is like a pot calling a kettle black.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Total waste of money.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

FYI: Australian budget is $42,200,000,000 for US and allied weapons. US$1665 per year per person.

we got off lightly.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Of all you talking tough, which is willing to join the SDF? So many tough words from people prepared to risk other’s lives over a few uninhabited islands far from your own coastline. Bring on the downvotes you cowards.

-9 ( +10 / -19 )

This is how China wins - by forcing Japan, already deeply in debt, to allocate more resources to fighting a threat that may well exist only in theory.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

An “eye for an eye” approach won‘t solve the Senkaku / Diaoyudao issue at all. Will Japan be able to take over China in arms race? Arms confrontation will only escalate endlessly until the situation will run amok beyond anyone's control. 

Why shouldn't the two sides come to a discussion table (not for negotiation) to demonstrate the world whose claim to the islands is more convincing and legitimate.

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

Why shouldn't the two sides come to a discussion table (not for negotiation) to demonstrate the world whose claim to the islands is more convincing and legitimate.

Stop talking sense voiceofokinawa!

There seems to be a lot of calls for Japan to engage in military action against China. This is only going to end badly for Japan. I don't want China attacking my homeland.

-13 ( +3 / -16 )

China will win no matter what. 5000yrs and going strong. We should join the strongest side.

-14 ( +3 / -17 )

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