Japan on December 18, 2018 announced Japan’s Izumo-class “helicopter destroyers”
will become true aircraft carriers by hosting F-35B
STOVL stealth jets. Japan hasn’t
wielded true carriers since 1945.
By coincidence the Izumo class's second ship is JS Kaga. An actual World War Two Imperial Japanese Navy carrier was called IJN Kaga. IJN Kaga was sunk at the Battle of Midway.
Japan on December 18,
2018 announced that it would change its defense guidelines and buy:
- 105 more F-35As (in addition to the 42 F-35As it is already buying). So totalling 147 F-35As, and
- 40 F-35Bs (about 20 for training
and 10 each to operate off JS Izumo and Kaga.
These around 190 F-35s for Japan will make Japan the second largest F-35 owner in the world after the US itself.
Japan said it would alter the
flattop decks of Izumo and Kaga to handle weight, heat and blast when operating F-35Bs.
Japan's carrier decision is in the face of rising threats from China, Russia, and
North Korea. Also its reacting against US President Trump tweets that Japan is not paying enough for Japan's own defences.
Japan had originally sought F-22 long-range,
stealthy air superiority fighters to replace its aging F-4 Phantoms and F-15
Eagles. US refusal to export F-22s means Japan has had to settle for F-35s. Japan has made some gestures toward developing its own stealth jets (equivalent to F-22s). But the costs and difficulties of developing Japanese stealth jets have been too great for a serious project.
Japan’s extra F-35 buying strategy is also arms
buying trade-diplomacy to increase the chances that the more powerful US formidable armed
forces (in Japan, Okinawa, Guam and South Korea) will protect Japan.
Australia
This F-35B purchase by Japan may also influence a possible future F-35B purchase by Australia. This is noting Australia is buying 72 F-35As and has two Izumo sized flat top Canberra class LHDs already fitted with ski-jump bows for STOVL jets. See 5th paragraph down in the Design and capabilities subsection.
Pete
The Pacific is obviously turning into “Hi Tech Soup” but is this enough to pacify their nearest belligerent neighbour?. Japan is nestled into China’s proverbial armpit. Who is being contained here? . To be a wake up call for China, that comfortable lump in the armpit needs to be able to fire RPGs when scratched to often.
ReplyDeleteThis being the case,should not Japan spend more on medium range missiles with the “ Point Making” war head, rather than self containment.?.
When China did not have any aircraft carriers, Japan could afford not to have any as well. Even if they had stopped at the ex Ukraine half finished carrier, they probably would not have worried. However China is going all out on aircraft carriers. Really, Japan does not have many alternatives. Relying on US carriers is fine when no one else has any in numbers. By the 2030’s, China is expected to field 5 or 6 large carriers of the size of UK QE class. I fully expect Japan will not stop at the current 2 ships. The question then becomes how long can the AU government hold out before being forced to follow suit. I would suggest a 3rd Canberra class is on the cards with whatever mods were required for Turkey’s 2 JC1 derivatives in regards to F35B operations. The whole idea of 27,700t amphibious assault ships without any form of organic fast air is & always was operationally unrealistic.
ReplyDeleteChina's rapid carrier building program may well produce 6 large UK QE sized conventionally propelled carriers by 2030.
ReplyDeleteThis may amount to a useful power projection force in relation to Southeast Asian countries that surround "China's" South China Sea. China's carriers countering Japan's new carriers but still inferior to the US nuclear carrier force.
Also useful protecting China'a oil Sea lines of communication across the Indian Ocean. To overawe Indo and Pac island countries, and for counter-insurgency airstrikes in the Middle Eat and Africa.
Chinese carriers may als be handy to enforce a blockade of Australia.
For Australia building a third Canberra class LHD carrier to carry 8 F-35Bs or converting an existing Canberra class LHD for F-35s may suffer from:
ReplyDelete- being too weak to take on China and
- too inappropriate to influence a Pacific Island country emergency
Retaining primacy of the LHDs:
- helicopter wing (including the unused Tiger attack helicopters) and
- landing craft to land troops and/or provide humanitarian relied
would be more beneficial than jets buzzing or blowing up things on Pacific Islands.
For Southeast Asian contingencies the extension of the range of F-35As (and Growlers) from Tindal Air Base using inflight refueling would be a better solution than spending $2 Billion on a 3rd Canberra Class carrier which might only accomodate 8 x F-35Bs.
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteI've read some forum discussions about converting the Canberra's, or getting another one for F-35B's.
As you say, they aren't big enough for large scale carrier operations and they require a compromis of any amphibious operations.
If the Canberra's were to carry F-35B's, the planes would be for fleet defense only. Many non naval people (including me until I read that forum), would assume a carrier automatically meant it would allow Australia to do what the US does- launch hundreds and hundreds of fighters non stop for weeks, launching hundreds and hundreds of missiles and bombs.
We can only do that with multiple large carriers, and hundreds of warplanes. If we bought 3 QE carriers, we'd need to triple our air force!
Having said that, my armchair amateur opinion is that we need more subs, frigate/destroyers/OPV's and much sooner- not in 2050, but by 2020 (can't be done, but...)
I didn't used to think patrol ships would be needed, but given the hundreds of Chinese spy boats...I mean fishing boats, we need to keep an eye out over large areas.
Crewing issues can be overcome by increasing the pay and poaching Canada's Naval staff- they take so long to do anything we'll have shiny new Type 26's /hunters before they start building their first. Who wouldn't jump from a 35 yo frigate to a higher paid job in a nicer office? ;)
Thanks again for your blog Pete.
Adrian
Izumo and Kaga are slated for 8 F35B each. I would expect the follow on light carriers to Kaga will be much bigger, and ditto for any Canberra follow on.
ReplyDeleteGiven China is planning 5-6 big flat tops, I predict that in a not so distant future, non MTCR compliant Ashm will show up in the SCS like that 1000km LRASM. After all SCS is only 1000km from shore to shore.
As to Japan, I can understand the purchase logic behind F-35A/B. But really, it is not F35 that is going to protect Japan, what it needs are more babies or new immigrants if the baby option does not pan out. You cannot expect to protect Japan with senior citizens (even if they are fit).
KQN
ReplyDeleteSK destroyer [1] locked a weapon-guiding radar on JMSDF P-1 twice for minutes on DEC/20/2018 in Japanese EEZ [2-3]. SK Navy said the radar irradiation was used to search for a NK ship in distress. Japan MoD does not believe such an explanation at all and believes the radar locking was purposely conducted, because a weapon-guiding radar is not suitable for such purpose [5]. Japan MoD feels SK Navy conducted a surprise attack on friendly country and will never trust SK.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwanggaeto_the_Great-class_destroyer
ROKN Gwanggaeto the Great, DDH-971
[2] https://www.sankei.com/politics/news/181222/plt1812220012-n1.html
[3] https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-Relations/Japan-accuses-South-Korea-of-locking-radar-on-patrol-plane
[4] http://www.mod.go.jp/j/press/news/2018/12/22a.html
[5] Gwanggaeto the Great equips with Signal Tracking and Illuminationg Radar (STR) (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/STIR/STING) as weapon-guiding radar and AN/SPS-55(https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPS-55) as surface search radar, and STR was used for P-1. According to expert, STR is not used for surface search.
Hi KQN and my pleasure Adrian
ReplyDeleteA Canberra class LHD-carrier, probably limited to 8 short range F-35Bs will be even more limited.
Ideally its airwing will need 2 F-35Bs or 2 jet powered drones dedicated to inflight refueling duties for decent range extention of the other 6? F-35Bs. Also 2 helicopters for plane-ditching picker-uppers and essential for inter-ship and land-to-ship resupply, liaison duties.
Using the usual rule of thirds calculations Australia would need three such carriers and three amphibious orientated LHDs on the existing pattern.
This is at a time Australia will build 9 Frigates, 12 corvette sized offshore patrol vessels and those 12 subs. Busy ambitions.
All the best till after Christmas.
Pete
Hi Anonymous [at 23/12/18 9:07 AM]
ReplyDeleteThanks. I'll write an article about the South Korean gesture after Christmas.
Till then regards.
Pete
I wonder what will happen to the F-3 program now. The money for the F-35 has to come from somewhere...
ReplyDeleteHappy New Year Anonymous [at 1/1/19 5:15 AM]
ReplyDeleteI think the Japanese F-3 stealth fighter program is mainly a slow moving, under-funded political gesture aimed to show displeasure at the US blocking sales of F-22s to Japan.
There is also a smaller element of the F-3 being a Japanese aviation industry hedge against the F-35s being proven to be inferior air superiority fighters. In 20-30 years Japan may need to rely on F-3s to match Chinese and Russian stealth fighteers.
Regards
Pete
According to Spain, a JC1 configured in light carrier mode (dedicated to aircraft only) is expected to operate with 8 - 12 F35B. Their recommendation is 10 F35B & 10 helicopters. If you wanted all fast jets, you are looking at a maximum of about 18 F35B. It all depends how you want to configure. In amphibious assault mode, you are looking at 0 - 6. Again it depends on what if anything you want to give up in the way of vehicles or helicopters or both in order to operate F35B. If Australia did aquire F35B, it does not automatically follow that they would always be operated from the LHDs. Tiger light attack helicopters will struggle against heavy armour or any form of anti air systems or fast jets or heavy attack helicopters or bunkers. You can take one out with a RPG or machine gun. There can be times when helicopters will just not cut it. F35B can also operate from land, not just the LHDs. These can be austere bases where the landing is (LHD acting as aircraft ferry), or normal bases that cannot handle the F35A runway requirements. Eg Manus island or Christmas Island.
ReplyDeleteThe argumentment that the F35B is too short ranged too simplistic. They can refuel from tankers just like F35A. The LHDs can be moved closer (unlike an airfield, it’s not fixed). Long range fleet or ground attack support however, via tankers, is completely unviable. Too much time is taken up just getting there. We simply do not have enough aircraft & pilots to do it. If it took 4 hours to fly there, stayed 2 hours, 4 hours back, then in order to keep a single plane on station continually, you would need another 2 planes in the air on the way there & there would be 2 more in the air on their way back ie 5 to do the job of 1. Want 2 on station (common for CAP), you need 10. Plus tankers, tanker crew, fuel & an exhausted fighter pilot or 2. It also means minimum 4-5 hrs notice if you want to change anything eg swap from air defence load to bomb load. There is no way to surge for fleet defence (fleet under attack). If that plane goes into action, as soon as it’s out of munitions, it’s gone. Too bad the replacement is still 90 minutes away. The British tried this out years ago based on assurances from the RAF - it did not work & no one else has been silly enough to try it again since. If a F35B needs more fuel or munitions, land & refuel or rearm, swap pilots, swap planes if needed. That’s the whole point of the F35B & the Harrier before it. You shift the aircraft to where the action is. The other thing to remember is Naval fast air is far more efficient than ground based fast air. You need less to do more, because everything & everybody is right there on top of each other all the time.
Hi Barry
ReplyDeleteGreat minds think alike. It so happens that the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD, also known as the Quad) between the US, Japan, Australia and India restarted in 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrilateral_Security_Dialogue
The Quad is an informal strategic dialogue. But made more substantial by naval, air and ground training exercises between different combinations of the partners several times a year.
Even if the erratic US dropped out of the Quad a loose alliance of the combined forces of Japan, Australia and nuclear armed India are almost equivalent to China's. Also Japan, Australia and India are well placed geographicly to contain China from West, East and South. Only Russia is to China's north.
Japan, Australia and India also represent a good trading bloc for Australia's agriculture and resources in return for manufactured goods from Japan and India. I think the US will always rate trade with all 3 highly even if US strategic support is less certain under the Trump junta.
Regards
Pete