JMSDF 16DDH

JDS Ise off Indonesia for Ex Komodo 2016

[ATTACH=CONFIG]245326[/ATTACH]

http://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/formal/special/kaga/index.html

8 March 2016 to 8 April 2016:
JMSDF is looking for public applications to design a new logo mark for JDS Kaga.
Winner(s) will be contacted in late May 2016.

Bottom of this page has logo marks for JDS Izumo, JDS Ise, JDS Hyuuga, JDS Murasame, and JDS Hatakaze.

http://store.shopping.yahoo.co.jp/marusan-hobby/04162.html

The 1/700 model kit of the JDS Ise by Aoshima, includes AV-8s and F-35s. 8(

http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2009-12/24/content_12697889.htm
to
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2009-12/24/content_12697889_3.htm

January 2010:
JMSDF 2010 calendar, but can’t see too many heloes, planes, or ships though (the JDS Hyuuga is in there, somewhere). Grumble.

For comparison:

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20091215-00000051-mai-soci
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20091215-00000016-maip-soci

15 December 2009:
As the JMOD probably will order a new sub in ’10, Kawasaki and Mitsubishi may compete for it. Based on the defense plan conceived in ’76, the JMSDF would have 16 subs.
From ’77 to ’08, each year the JMOD retired the oldest boat, ordered one new boat, and alternated between the two companies. In ’09, no old boat retired, and no new boat ordered.
From contract to delivery, takes about four years. A dock takes at least one year to complete a new boat.
The JMOD ’10 budget requests 54.4 bil Yen for a new boat.

I was reading this Heisei 22 (FY 2010) JMOD budget request.
http://www.mod.go.jp/j/library/archives/yosan/2010/yosan_gaiyou_point.pdf
From page 9 are the amounts of hardware received in Heisei 21, and the amounts and costs of hardware requested for Heisei 22.
The one 22DDH that JMSDF requests, costs 1,181 oku Yen, or 118.1 bil Yen.

Personally, other requests that interest me are on page 11.
Third from bottom is an air-defense high-power laser weapon research, for 1.8 bil Yen.
Bottommost is an advanced technology proof of concept aircraft (high-mobility stealth aircraft) research, for 23.2 bil Yen.

] Any 3 view?? or pre-desing??

http://www.gamez.com.tw/thread-500385-1-1.html

fan art of 22ddh “ddh-183”.

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200911230073.html

“New helicopter destroyer to widen MSDF range”

2009/11/23
BY TAKATERU DOI
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

The Maritime Self-Defense Force plans to build a helicopter destroyer–the largest ship in the fleet–to counter China’s naval buildup and improve responses for contingencies.

Any 3 view?? or pre-desing??

1Saludo

http://www.asahi.com/english/Herald-asahi/TKY200911230073.html

“New helicopter destroyer to widen MSDF range”

2009/11/23
BY TAKATERU DOI
THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

The Maritime Self-Defense Force plans to build a helicopter destroyer–the largest ship in the fleet–to counter China’s naval buildup and improve responses for contingencies.

] The master of that SK vessel might be finding himself in hot water soon if the Japanese choose to press the issue.

They will. Which reminds me: when Belenko landed at Hakodate AP, the SDF initially stayed out of it. JASDF F-4s flew over the airport to confirm the landing, then returned to base.
He was arrested by the Hokkaidou prefectural police for illegal entry to the country, illegal landing at the airport, disrupting air traffic, illegal possession and firing a pistol, &c; and his MiG-25 was detained as evidence for the investigation.

] The rules on this one are quite clear

Accidents just happen. For comparison, some months ago, the Aegis destroyer JDS Atago and a fishing boat collided, and the two crew (father and adult son, IIRC) of the fishing boat became MIA/BNR (bodies not recovered).
The JDS Atago detected the convoy of fishing boats astern, followed the maritime guidelines, and turned to one side (I forgot port or starboard); but the fishing boat didn’t turn to the direction according to the guidelines, and got into a collision course instead.
It was late night, and the JDS Atago captain and first officer were asleep in their rooms. IIRC, she was returning from another anti-missile test in Hawaii, and was hours from her home port.

Then there is the Canberra–Viraat comparison… Viraat is a 50-year-old STOVL carrier designed for ASW/attack with no amphibious capabilities, and Canberra is a new amphibious assault ship with a well dock for landing craft and troop transport helo capability… and only secondary STOVL capacity with no ASW capability. The Australians also have no current plans to buy any STOVL aircraft so they couldn’t use them to “project air power outside the range of land-based aircraft” anyway.

Again, the only thing in common is the full-length flight deck and their size.

“Originally laid down as a Centaur class ship, but completed to an extensively altered, and much more capable, design. Like the others, converted to the assault role when she could no longer operate first-line combat jets. … Converted to a commando carrier at Devenport Dockyard 1 March 1971 to 18 Aug 1973. Converted to ASW carrier 10 May 1976 to 10 Dec 1976”

“Former Centaur class light fleet carriers converted to assault ships when they were rendered obsolete as aircraft carriers. These were some of the earliest and largest dedicated assault ships. They were known as “commando carriers“. The conversion of Centaur was cancelled due to cost.

Design/Conversion: Catapults, arresting gear, etc. removed; berthing spaces altered as needed, space for vehicle and equipment storage added. Retained ability to act as interim ASW carriers. (Aircraft: 16 helicopters)
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/uk_helo.htm#herm

So, no docking well but “The vessel [INS Viraat] retains commando transport capability, for around 750 troops and carries four LCVP landing craft aft.”
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Ships/Active/183-INS-Viraat.html

as compared to:

Juan Carlos I (L61) “strategic projection vessel” (Buque de Proyección Estratégica (BPE) with docking well:
Boats and landing craft carried: Four LCM
Capacity: 902 soldiers + up to 46 Leopard 2 tanks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buque_de_Proyecci%C3%B3n_Estrat%C3%A9gica

Australia would purchase and build two ships of the same design (to become the Canberra-class Landing Helicopter Docks).
Boats and landing craft carried: 4 x LCM
Capacity: 830 lane metres (3290 m2) Heavy vehicle deck: 1410 m2
Light vehicle deck: 1889 m2
Helo hangar capacity: 990 m2
Troops: 978 (+ 146 additional)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class_Landing_Helicopter_Dock

The Australian government has also taken the bold decision to reacquire aircraft carriers and has placed orders for two Canberra-class ships. If hostilities develop in the Strait of Malacca and ships are rerouted into waters near northern Australia, protecting Australian waters will be imperative. Australia will need air power more than 500 miles from its coastline, and shore-based aircraft could not handle the task.

The Canberra-class ships, which are similar to India’s INS Viraat, are expected to be in service from 2014. They will be capable of operating 18 MRH-90 helicopters during hostilities. The navy’s biggest problem will be its ability to retain trained manpower. There are also reports of navy discussions on making Christmas Island an unsinkable aircraft carrier.

We are getting aircraft carriers?

The Canberra class require more manpower then the ships they replace?

And what the hell does Christmas Island have to do with anything (sure it has a big runway, but as far as I am aware it has no RAAF based there unless P3’s occasionally forward deploy there.

A Canberra class LHD is similar to INS Viraat? Because it has a through deck?

Dokdo is the amphibious assault helicopter ship with only RAM for air-defense (and no phased-array radar of any type).

And Goalkeeper CIWS.

But of course you’re right that it’s a very different ship from Hyuga, with a completely different role, & the article is complete nonsense. I hope for the sake of Indias National Defense Academy, the College of Defense Management, the College of Naval Warfare, and the War College in St. Petersburg that Captain Sethi is not typical of their graduates, & for the sake of the Indian navy that he’s not typical of its officers. As you say, he’s got just about everything wrong.

BTW, you forgot this bit –

The new Vikrant class aircraft carriers are the Indian Navy’s first to be fully designed and built in India

Fully designed in India, except of course for a few tens of millions of dollars worth of design work by Fincantieri & Avio (the latter for the propulsion – it also supplies the machinery) in Italy.

Dokdo is the amphibious assault helicopter ship with only RAM for air-defense (and no phased-array radar of any type).

No phased array radar of any type?

Ummm well what is the Thales SMART-L doing on the back of her?

I think you will find that is very much a phased array…:p

UPI Asia.com

Nov 2, 2009

…..

Japan is building Hyuga-class helicopter destroyers, which are essentially 18,000-ton amphibious warfare ships that carry only helicopters. Japanese shipyards are more than capable of achieving the task, given their capability of operating aircraft carriers in the past.

Japan’s new government has recently stated that it will reexamine its past agreements with the U.S. military. The Japanese navy will have to scramble for additional units if the new dispensation is a “go it alone” strategy and the government asks the U.S. Navy to withdraw from its base in Okinawa.

The Australian government has also taken the bold decision to reacquire aircraft carriers and has placed orders for two Canberra-class ships. If hostilities develop in the Strait of Malacca and ships are rerouted into waters near northern Australia, protecting Australian waters will be imperative. Australia will need air power more than 500 miles from its coastline, and shore-based aircraft could not handle the task.

The Canberra-class ships, which are similar to India’s INS Viraat, are expected to be in service from 2014. They will be capable of operating 18 MRH-90 helicopters during hostilities. The navy’s biggest problem will be its ability to retain trained manpower. There are also reports of navy discussions on making Christmas Island an unsinkable aircraft carrier.

In 2007 South Korea commissioned an 18,600-ton “air warfare destroyer” equipped with the AEGIS system imported from the United States. This has amphibious capability and presently operates only helicopters. The South Korean Navy will reportedly acquire four of these Dokdo-class ships in the near future, primarily aimed at the North Korean navy.

Recently, this “interim aircraft carrier” has evoked a fair amount of interest from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. South Korea has very competent shipyards, and it is possible that after gaining valuable operating experience at sea, a larger variant may emerge in the decade beyond 2020.

…..

—

(Captain Devindra Sethi is an alumnus of India’s National Defense Academy, the College of Defense Management, the College of Naval Warfare, and the War College in St. Petersburg, Russia. He is a successful entrepreneur in the maritime industry and fluent in English, Russian and Hindi. ©Copyright Devindra Sethi.)

There is sooo much wrong with this section!

Start with switching the JMSDF Hyuga‘s description with the South Korean Dokdo… Hyuga is the ASW destroyer with a phased-array radar system (not AEGIS) and ESSM missiles (and no amphibious capabilities), Dokdo is the amphibious assault helicopter ship with only RAM for air-defense (and no phased-array radar of any type).

The only thing in common is the full-length flight deck and their size.

Then there is the Canberra–Viraat comparison… Viraat is a 50-year-old STOVL carrier designed for ASW/attack with no amphibious capabilities, and Canberra is a new amphibious assault ship with a well dock for landing craft and troop transport helo capability… and only secondary STOVL capacity with no ASW capability. The Australians also have no current plans to buy any STOVL aircraft so they couldn’t use them to “project air power outside the range of land-based aircraft” anyway.

Again, the only thing in common is the full-length flight deck and their size.

Captain Devindra Sethi seriously needs to to some actual research before he writes a story… I am just a former USMC Sgt with a hobbyist’s interest in world-wide Naval matters, and I know more than he seems to!

And a freighter disobeying traffic control and turning into the path of the JMSDF ship, effectively ramming the Japanese warship is the fault of the Japanese warship’s manning level how?

Concur absolutely. If someone goes across your bows as happened here there is little chance of any other outcome.

The rules on this one are quite clear – if you detect a vessel on an intersecting course a well established series of warnings are to be issued these including RT messages and a pattern of blasts on the ships horn. If there is no response to this, and you have no searoom to maneuver, you come to a dead stop, if that will allow him to pass clear, or go astern. You do not have the right to cross the bows of an oncoming vessel and cause one crash to avoid another.

The master of that SK vessel might be finding himself in hot water soon if the Japanese choose to press the issue.

Asia bent on acquiring aircraft carriers

UPI Asia.com

Nov 2, 2009

New Delhi, India — Recent years have seen a flurry of orders for aircraft carriers by Japan, India, Australia, South Korea, Russia and China. The sudden focus on air capability at sea represents a paradigm change in the thinking of these states, and both communist and democratic governments appear to be on the same wavelength. Is this a harbinger of a new cold war in Asia?
Unresolved territorial disputes in East Asia, especially related to maritime boundaries, have resulted in the naval build-up by countries in the region. The discovery of oil and gas deposits in deep-sea locations around islands in the region has strengthened the importance of ownership claims.

The pursuit of aircraft carriers is also being fanned by recession-hit European economies largely funded by liberal government bailouts. Their high-tech exports have limited markets, but the rising economies of East and Southeast Asia have become prime candidates for military sales.

As the U.S. military withdraws from Iraq and perhaps Afghanistan, many think Asia could become the next flashpoint. Therefore Asian states are equipping their navies with the prime symbol of power – the aircraft carrier.

Equipping the Indian navy with aircraft carriers, as envisioned by former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, has stood India in good stead. The country has been operating them for well over 40 years now, which has boosted its naval and air power both in times of war and peace.

For almost a decade India operated two aircraft carriers, since the commissioning of the INS Viraat in 1987, which enhanced its operational profile and service capabilities in the Indian Ocean. The INS Viraat has recently been refitted in India and should see active service till 2015, while the 45,000-ton INS Vikramaditya is being refitted in Severodvinsk, Russia and should commence trials in 2011.

The new Vikrant class aircraft carriers are the Indian Navy’s first to be fully designed and built in India by Cochin Shipyard. Work on the lead vessel commenced in 2008 and is scheduled for launch in 2010. All aircraft carriers are being fitted to support three types of aircraft: the Sea Harrier, MIG-29KUB, the naval version of the light combat aircraft LCA and the TEJAS twin-seater being manufactured at Hindustan Aeronautics in Bangalore.

Some countries view the rise of the Indian Navy as inimical to their military power and business interests in Asia. Old thought processes die hard, and so a vigorous, proactive maritime diplomacy must be pursued by the Indian government.

China’s strategy to acquire aircraft carriers was enunciated by Admiral Liu Huaqing, who studied under Admiral S.G. Gorshkov at the Naval War College in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg). As with the Kremlin, the Chinese admiral had an uphill task to change the land-focused thinking of the Chinese Politburo. However, China’s recent naval review is a clear example of its “sea denial” strategy.

China is also pursuing an aircraft carrier acquisition strategy. Photographs have been taken of the unfinished Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag, purchased by China in 1998 and repainted in the colors of the PLA Navy, in a dockyard in the northeast port city of Dalian.

The Chinese story was that the ship would be used for a casino in the enclave of Macau. A chance meeting with the Macau delegation by the author indicated that they were from the PLA Navy. When asked for an opinion on the warship, I told them it would be very difficult to bring it up to its former Kuznetsov-class standards, but not impossible if money was available. The smiles of the officers said it all – finance is not a limitation for China. This indicates the seriousness with which China is pursuing its dream of an aircraft carrier.

Attempting to start aircraft carrier operations with a 60,000-ton hull is a leap into the unknown. It requires not only the acquisition of a mother ship, aircraft and helicopters, but the ability of 2,500 men and machines to operate at sea with clockwork precision and zero error, every day and in all weather conditions.

To work up the ship from its present refit state to combat status will take a minimum of 10 years. The learning curve will be very slow, difficult and full of hurdles to make the man and machine interface work smoothly. Intelligence reports indicate that China also plans to construct two new aircraft carriers in a shipyard in Shanghai. Apparently the ships will be similar to the Varyag, with nuclear propulsion.

Japan is building Hyuga-class helicopter destroyers, which are essentially 18,000-ton amphibious warfare ships that carry only helicopters. Japanese shipyards are more than capable of achieving the task, given their capability of operating aircraft carriers in the past.

Japan’s new government has recently stated that it will reexamine its past agreements with the U.S. military. The Japanese navy will have to scramble for additional units if the new dispensation is a “go it alone” strategy and the government asks the U.S. Navy to withdraw from its base in Okinawa.

The Australian government has also taken the bold decision to reacquire aircraft carriers and has placed orders for two Canberra-class ships. If hostilities develop in the Strait of Malacca and ships are rerouted into waters near northern Australia, protecting Australian waters will be imperative. Australia will need air power more than 500 miles from its coastline, and shore-based aircraft could not handle the task.

The Canberra-class ships, which are similar to India’s INS Viraat, are expected to be in service from 2014. They will be capable of operating 18 MRH-90 helicopters during hostilities. The navy’s biggest problem will be its ability to retain trained manpower. There are also reports of navy discussions on making Christmas Island an unsinkable aircraft carrier.

In 2007 South Korea commissioned an 18,600-ton “air warfare destroyer” equipped with the AEGIS system imported from the United States. This has amphibious capability and presently operates only helicopters. The South Korean Navy will reportedly acquire four of these Dokdo-class ships in the near future, primarily aimed at the North Korean navy.

Recently, this “interim aircraft carrier” has evoked a fair amount of interest from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. South Korea has very competent shipyards, and it is possible that after gaining valuable operating experience at sea, a larger variant may emerge in the decade beyond 2020.

Russia is the latest entrant to the aircraft carrier acquisition program, amid stirrings of national pride and a desire to reacquire old capabilities. Russia is reportedly purchasing a Mistral-class amphibious ship from France. It has been operating the aircraft carrier Kuznetsov for many years, and has deployed the ship and its fighter wing of SU-33 aircraft in European waters and the Mediterranean Sea. It also successfully tested the naval variant of the supersonic MIG-29 KUB from the Kuznetsov in 2009.

Media reports in Russia indicate that six new aircraft carriers are being sanctioned for operations in the Atlantic and Pacific seas by 2025. Russia could rebuild its naval power faster than anyone else in the Asia Pacific region, as it has its own manufacturing facilities, technology input and research and development facilities.

Modern nuclear-powered SSN submarines are based in Vladivostok to work in tandem with the aircraft carrier groups. The need to protect the oil- and gas-rich Siberian peninsula weighs heavily on the Russian government, as exports from this region to China and Europe are the mainstay of its economy.

The Pacific rim, from Vladivostok in the north to Australia in the south and across the Indian Ocean to the Suez Canal, is in the throes of economic rejuvenation. The two fastest growing economies, China and India, have generated massive commodity trade, virtually all seaborne. Maritime tourism is rising too, as large cruise liners from the West are porting in Singapore and Hong Kong, among other places.

Security issues are increasingly coming to the fore, as the forces of destabilization are also located in this region, unfortunately. Organic air power at sea, beyond littoral waters, can be effectively provided by aircraft carriers only. This requirement is a boon for the languishing shipyards of Europe, as Asia is presently bereft of crucial infrastructure and manufacturing skills.

The aircraft carrier programs of Asia Pacific countries will cost well over US$100 billion in this decade, while infrastructure to support the ships over the next 50 years will cost another US$100 billion. The acquisition of armaments, aircraft, helicopters and associated systems will cost more than US$100 billion in the next five decades.

Aircraft carriers for Asia are a perfect opportunity for the slumping economies of the West, as their military and industrial complexes are geared to supply them. This has made the industry in the West recession proof. Aircraft carriers seldom sail singly; the battle group in support costs a pretty sum too, as it consists of high-technology ships like cruisers, destroyers and frigates. These add-ons will transfer at least US$200 billion to Europe, Russia and the United States in the decade ahead.

—

(Captain Devindra Sethi is an alumnus of India’s National Defense Academy, the College of Defense Management, the College of Naval Warfare, and the War College in St. Petersburg, Russia. He is a successful entrepreneur in the maritime industry and fluent in English, Russian and Hindi. ©Copyright Devindra Sethi.)

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20091029-00000092-san-soci
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20091028-00001369-yom-soci

Drawings of the JDS Kurama collision.

For another example:

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20091030-00000554-san-soci
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20091030-00000096-san-soci
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20091030-00000541-san-soci

On 29 October 2009, about 11:55 PM, in the Iyo Sea, 5.4 klicks from Iyo City, Ehime Prefecture, the parked JDS Miyajima (510 tons, 40 crew, based at Kure, Hiroshima) was rammed from her port-aft, by a Japanese fishing boat (4.99 tons, two crew) on auto-pilot.

The fishing boat crew were busy on her deck with the, well, fishing equipment.
The JMSDF boat reportedly had only one crew on duty in her bridge.

BTW, months ago, JMSDF boats already misfired their cannons at civilian houses, just as the USS Ramage, USN, did in Poland, a few days ago.

And a freighter disobeying traffic control and turning into the path of the JMSDF ship, effectively ramming the Japanese warship is the fault of the Japanese warship’s manning level how?

Sorry, I wasn’t being clear in my response – I was referring to the last line I quoted:

“This is just another of a few accidents, collisions, and fires involving JMSDF ships in recent months.”

I recall reading somewhere that the JMSDF has a serious manning problem at the moment the article stated that at least some ships are going to sea without a full complement.

And a freighter disobeying traffic control and turning into the path of the JMSDF ship, effectively ramming the Japanese warship is the fault of the Japanese warship’s manning level how?

Swerve might know, I don’t speak Japanese, so I can’t read japanese news paper articles.

I speak very little Japanese (Mrs. Swerve prefers perfecting her English with my help to teaching me), & can’t read Japanese papers.

AFAIK, 22DDH funding is in the current MoD budget request, which is awaiting approval – but the sum of departmental budget requests is a lot more than the total spending level the government is willing to approve. 🙁

Musashi could be right.