via Cdr Salamander...
I knew that the Japanese, S. Korean and Singaporean Navies were all getting bigger and much more capable but I didn't factor in how much larger they are in comparison to their European counterparts.
Time to take a closer look and perhaps compare the lineups world wide.
Back on topic though; yes, the facts are clear.Though you can find +/- difference depending on source, definitions, and recent com/decom; here are the numbers:Royal Navy:Helicopter Carriers: 2Amphibious Ships: 2Destroyers: 7Frigates: 13Submarines: 6-SSN, 4-SSBNWell call that 24.Japanese Navy:Helicopter Carriers: 2 (technically 4, all of which are helicopter carrying destroyers. The SHIRANE Class of 2 are only half decks and are really just destroyers. HYUGA Class of 2 are no-kidding helicopter carriers. Two more much larger 19,500 ton ships on the way this decade as well).Amphibious Ships: 5Destroyers: 40Frigates: 6Submarines: 16-SSWell call that 67. If you are what Salamander defines as “major combatants” then you have 2.8 times, not 4x, but there are lots of ways to count. Perhaps they are looking at smaller ships as well. By either definition though, it should give one pause not only to reflect about the decline of the Royal Navy – but more importantly – the latent and potential power of the Japanese Navy.Anyone who has worked with the Japanese will agree with me as well that from a professional point of view, they are an exceptionally quality force.Here is the tie in.Did you catch this little memo?Japan’s Defense Ministry will request a second boost to its military budget, according to reports, just a day after the government announced the first Defense budget increase in 10 years.The boosts, although relatively modest compared with Japan’s overall defense spending, coincide with increasing tensions in the Asia Pacific region.Japan’s Defense Ministry intends to ask for 180.5 billion yen ($2.1 billion) from a government stimulus package – on top of an increase of more than 100 billion yen ($1.1 billion) to its military budget announced earlier this week – in order to upgrade its air defenses, according to the BBC..Good. Japan needs to continue to do this, and we should welcome the move as long overdue (though don’t get too excited, their larger budgetary problems are even greater than ours). Europe fades, Royal Navy withers … where can the USA look for its major partner at sea?We don’t have to look far. With the tweaks they are on the road to make in their Constitution – Japan is right there.Uh wow.
I knew that the Japanese, S. Korean and Singaporean Navies were all getting bigger and much more capable but I didn't factor in how much larger they are in comparison to their European counterparts.
Time to take a closer look and perhaps compare the lineups world wide.
While I can't argue with the numbers, it is easy to why Japan is increasing their defence budget while other whither. Most European nations do not see a big bad (annoyed) predator over the horizon, our ruling elite don't see China as anything other than a sovereign wealth fund to prop up the failed social experiments.
ReplyDeleteJapan and China have history, both recently and long ago in history. Let's not poke an angry dragon though.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteWhilst i'd agree the decline of the Royal Navy is tragic and on a massive scale, i'd say that the Japanese are much more likely to need those forces than the UK in the future, so its right for them to invest more.
I would point out that our forces are tailored to do very different things, if the US needs an ally that can project a major naval force globally, the UK (and to a lesser extent France) is still one of its only possible partners (especially once the QEs are up and running). The Japanese lack almost all the logistics and force multipliers necessary to do that, they are very much a regional force. This include many of the supporting capabilities necessary for major Amphibious work, some of the UKs RFA needs to be taken into account here.
I'd also say that looking purely at numbers is dangerous, partly because the Japanese use some crazy ship definitions (take a look again at all those "destroyers" they have). And when it comes to high end forces in AAW and ASW (both ship and sub based) things look a lot more even in comparison and capability. For example their actual destroyers on par with a T45 actually number 8 I believe.
Just a few points for thought.
hmmm...i would break down the differences a bit differently.
Deletemy view is that the Royal Navy is capable of expeditionary warfare...ie amphibious assaults while the Japanese Navy is a more capable blue ocean force. those destroyers and helicopter destroyers are some pretty big and impressive beasts additionally they have a number of AEGIS equipped destroyers that are on par with our Burke's...
in a fight against the Chinese I would love to have the Japanese and British Navies fight with us but when it comes to assaulting the beach then give me the Brits...open ocean give me the Japanese.
I'd say that on the Amphibious side you're definitely right, and i'd perhaps agree in an open ocean fight simply in terms of numbers of Japanese vessels available, BUT that falls apart if that ocean isn't western pacific, because as I said, those long range logistics forces aren't available.
ReplyDeleteSo i'd maybe add that if you want an ally you can rely on to put an Amphib group and/or (in a couple of years time again) a full carrier group anywhere in the world to assist you it'd still have to be the British (and the French a few months out of the year if CDG decides to work for a while). The Uk also has benefits in that its navy can easily send assets to join US/European task groups as its done plenty of training alongside many global navies, and can therefore add useful niche assets, including its world class MCM and ASW capabilities. Where the Japanese sit in those areas I don't really know, but numbers aren't everything in that case.
Finally, as for your assertion above Sol, i'd suggest that Britain'd Helicopter carriers are at least as effective as those Japanese "Helicopter Destroyers", and again can embark some pretty niche kit, like our Apaches. And those destroyers on par with Burkes, sure, does that make them better than a T45 in AAW? I'd say no better.
yeah but we run RIMPAC every year too in addition to a number of other exercises so interoperability isn't something that the Japanese Navy is unfamiliar with. additionally numbers do eventually matter. especially if you consider saturation attacks and you're able to add another 8 Japanese type AEGIS ships (their ships have more launchers than ours and ours are pretty awesome) to a formation...compare that to how many Type 45's coming online?
Deleteits all apples and oranges in the end. different needs lead to different requirements. all i'm saying is that the Japanese Navy is quite powerful...more powerful than I thought and on paper at least more powerful than the Royal and French Navy almost combined.
I didn't mean to imply that the Japanese aren't interoperable, but I do wonder how much regional cooperation goes on without a heavy US presence (hey even Europe and NATO fall apart without that a lot of the time).
ReplyDelete6 T45s are coming online, so 2 less than the Japanese Aegis ships. And the UK is one of the few naviess in the world with significant operational experience in air attacks against ships, and the requirements needed. A T45 is gold-plated (as the UK press like to dub it) to have the best kit available to deal with that. It's why our SAMPSON system has some expensive differences to the PAAMS systems its based off used by the French and Italians.
But you're right, it is all Apples and Oranges, the UK spent a long time doing exactly what the US and NATO wanted it to and patrol GIUK, and is now focusing on global expeditionary force. So i'd say its great that the US has a force like Japan on side when it comes to China, as the UK has no business in that fight, but for ops elsewhere, I wouldn't suggest the yanks abandon the RN just yet. After all, the US Marines need a navy that know the proper way to fit a ship for F35B use, ski-jumps an all :P.
who is talking about leaving the Brits behind? quite honestly the Royal Navy has a longer history in the Pacific than the US does. my biggest quibble is that i'm not seeing the Royal Navy sailing in the Pacific more often.
DeleteThe UK has very little practical strategic interest in the Pacific, certainly no threats and even less ability to do anything.
ReplyDeleteHence we concentrate on the Atlantic and Middle East
Are we missing something as well, training.
There is a reason most navies send their people to the UK for military training
Type 23, Sonar 2087 and Merlin HM1/2 combined with the RN training and experience makes it just about the best ASW force out there. The whole point of the RN in the Cold War was open ocean ASW to allow US reinforcements to sail over the water.
Astute, as above, the Perisher course is tip top and the kit itself will be rather effective
Lets not forget mine countermeasures, who is in the Gulf right now leading the combined task force, who provided most of the Libyan MCM capability. MCM is another jewel in the RN crown, proven, effective and with bags of operational experience
Finally, deployability and sustainability count just as much as the tip of the spear, we need to count the RFA as well
Apparently, US Navy people have been slack jawed in amazement at what Type 45 and Astute can do as seen on recent exercises
Numbers count but so does quality and deployability and that is derived from more than just kit numbers
The RN might be in reduced circumstances but it is used to fighting and that goes a long way