You mean any two navies the same?

Different governments and militaries respond differently to the same regional and global circumstances but that doesn’t mean they exist in separate universes, just that they see the same universe differently. Take for example the recent focus on piracy especially off Sudan. Governments and Navy’s are responding to this situation – dictated by the actions of the pirates and the shipping industry , ie macro factors.

Similarly the recent trend in close-in anti-boat weapons fits. That’s dictated by the evolving threat, again an outside influence of defence procurement.

A minor influence, nothing that seriously shifts defence requirements.

You are failing to make the required intellectual leap to understand how and why a navy is constructed.

Why has the requirement gone away? ASW is every bit as relevant as it once was during the Cold War when Haruna and Shirane was conceived, considering the PLAN has chosen to focus its investment on subs so far. Whilst the PLAN undersea capability is still some way from reaching Soviet Union levels, with a resurgent Russia and the PLAN continuing its current modernisation efforts the JMSDF would mainly be facing an ASW problem. That is critical considering Japan’s dependence on SLOCs for its survival, so much so that the JMSDF has a requirement to be able to secure the SLOCs up to 1000 miles from mainland Japan. With this in mind there is no perceived need for the ship to be entering the littorals.

To do that they have decided base their fleet organisation around 8 escort flotillas of 3 to 4 vessels each, centered around either a ASW command ship or a Kongou class BMD-capable AEGIS vessel. Within each escort flotilla would be either an Atago or the future 19DD tasked for area air defense.

So what can be ascertained so far is this:

1. no need for any anti-surface warfare capability. So that leaves out any anti-ship missiles or any main gun, though a 76mm Oto SR with the DART munition might be acceptable if it didn’t give much ship impact. On the other hand the Phalax Block 1B or RAM is still the optimal solution for close in defense.

2. No need for an area warfare capability, so leaving out SM-2s. That task is for the Atago or 19DDs. A respectable self defense in the form of the ESSM and a close in layer should suffice.

3. The ship’s ASW requirements means it must have a good sized complement of helis and the necessary bunkerage, stores and spares for them. The original Shirane’s and Haruna’s complement of 3 was probably based around the requirement of having 1 available at all times. With the alleged capability to carry up to 11 helis in the hangar, apparently the requirement was raised to have a minimum of two available at all times. As an ASW focused ship, naturally it should have the full complement of ASW-related equipment like towed array sonars etc. ASROC will also be needed for instances when subs are detected closer in and require immediate prosecution.

4. As the capital ship around which the flotilla is centered it should have good command facilities, and the flat-top 13,500 ton DDH provides ample space for that.

All in all the 16DDH is a natural progression of what the Shiranes and Harunas are. The requirement hasn’t changed, only the possible degree of threat. Designing ASuW and area AAW capabilities into the ship is only counter productive and will only detract from its primary missions. If one had to do further enhancement, maybe the capability to handle UUVs and USVs (and perhaps UAVs as well) should be designed in from the beginning to allow for broad area sensor coverage through the unmanned vehicles, in a fashion similar to the LCS.

Excellent post.

I would make one addition, I suspect that the massive reduction is surface and air threat since the end of the Cold War has contributed to the move away from the installation heavy AAW+ASuW capability on the new ships. If the SU still existed and its armed forces had progressed as they planned these ships would have a much stronger missile compliment.

That is part of the question: the JMSDF ships were designed for that role but how suitable are they in todays environment? Is there still a need for such a dedicated ASW/Sea control platform? Or are there perhaps other roles that such a design could be eminently suitable for? E.g. more oriented toward littoral ops with a combination of armed heli’s (not necessarily primarily ASW platforms) and UAVs like the MQ-8B Fire Scout and with Italian Otomelara guns 2x 127/54 LW gun systems with Vulcano (arty) forward and 2x 76mm SR with Strales/Davide (CIWS) port/starboard on the flank/rear. Coupled to a VLS, which rather than e.g. SAM/ASROC could fit SAM/LAM. Or perhaps a navalised MLRS (e.g. IMI’s 45 km LAR-160 / 90 km MAR-350 or US MLRS/ATACMS or Avibras Astros.

Generally, form follows function. However, in this case there is a given form and there is the question of what functions it can (best or alternatively) perform.

Frankly that is a stupid question, there is no such thing as ‘todays environment’, that is determined by the operational requirements of individual navies. If you want this thread to work you need to provide us with a navy first.

But frankly the specific question you are asking has already been answered by the Absalon and the F125.

It is not even certain that it can at all, in practise. Theoretically, it might if specific conditions are met. “Perfectly capable”, you’ll have to substantiate or concede the point.

Claiming the Polish missiles (called GMD, by the way) are “perfectly capable” of stopping a warhead fired at Europe is like calling the AIM-4 an A/G missile, just because it could hit a ground target in a narrow set of parameters (a very hot target, such as a VC campfire, at night). Only it’s not even certain if the campfire is hot enough, in this case.

SLL, being adamant and gruff about your points does not bring them any closer to the truth. You’ve demonstrated a shaky understanding of what the European missile defence site is all about, you might want to reconsider being so condecending or at least start providing sources for your claims.

I for one am bowing out of the discussion, I seem to keep repeating myself uselessly.

:D:D:D Demanding evidence having provided none yourself…….hypocrite.:D:D:D

Good Call!
We too turn a blind eye, money is involved you see. Well, oil for UK Guvmint and money for BAe. Money has no flag. Ever.

I am going to assume that the above is a slip. The government soes not need oil, we all do. You will struggle to find anything in your home that has not had oil involved in part of its existence.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/images/pohang_cor-1.jpg

just forgot to write “Even if are real ABM’s”

But my point is clear, why ABM’s when there arent ICBM’s?, there is not even a sign of an iranian ICBM..

You can name IRBMs as ABM’s, name ICBM’s as ABM’s, you can actually use them as ABM’s, or long range ABM’s as ground to groun missiles, that was one of the reasons why ABM’s were limited, because you can easely abuse with than concept

There are already Iranian ballistic missiles with the capacity to reach Europe and a known Iranian missile program.

Yeah those KKV’s are going to trash Moscow.:rolleyes: