A More Assertive Japan: Good or Bad for Regional Stability?"

[tomahawk6]

Good for the Japanese to respond to the PRC threat by bolstering their defenses.The Chinese have only themselves to blame.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20131217/NEWS08/312170031/Japan-s-hawks-unveil-sweeping-defense-upgrades

 

[CougarKing]

Isn't this title a little misleading? Considering the Japanese Self-Defense Force has been existence since the 1950s, so the Japanese have been re-arming for decades now. The JSDF, as we all know, is one of the better-equipped, better-trained, militaries of East Asia. 

Wouldn't the title "Japanese responses to Chinese aggression" seem better?

Plus more information for this thread:

Japan invests in new military kit as China row simmers
Yahoo! News - AFP

The shopping list is part of efforts by Abe to normalise the military in Japan, which has been officially pacifist since defeat in World War II. Its well-equipped and highly professional services are limited to a narrowly defined self-defensive role.

 

[tomahawk6]

SMA the actions of the PRC has begun the process of a resurgent Japan. Ever since WW2 Japan decided to let the US protect them and they did not invest in a strong military.Now the threat from China is so great that others in Asia are not concerned by Japanese rearmament/modernization.

 

[CougarKing]

Related: Japan plans to replace all its F15Js with F35s:

from South Korea's Arirang news

Japan to replace 100 F-15s with stealth F-35s

Japan says it will build up its fighter jet fleet, amid a growing territorial row with its neighboring countries.
NHK reported Wednesday that Tokyo's Defense Ministry plans to replace roughly 100 planes in its F-15 fighter jet fleet with F-35s, which have stealth capabilities.

The move comes as the Cabinet on Tuesday agreed to raise its military budget by five percent over the next five years.
NHK said the plan is designed to allow Japan to demonstrate its military superiority, following China's unilateral decision to expand its aerial defense zone while the two countries are embroiled in a dispute over the sovereignty of a group of islands in the East China Sea.

*Furthermore, please note other threads about the JMSDF's Hyuga and Izumo class "helicopter destroyers" or carriers.

 

[a_majoor]

Japan might be able to get a deal on the F-35 by taking the orders that nations like the Netherlands have dropped (exploiting economies of scale)

We might be able to take advantage of this by going in with the Japanese on their very handy helicopter "destroyers"; these ships are already capable of transporting 500 troops (and landing them ashore via helicopter), which would solve the decade old "Big Honking Ship" issue quite neatly, not to mention getting some economy of scale for us as well.

 

[CougarKing]

Just some information on Japan's Soryu class "stealth" submarines:

*a youtube video of the latest sub in the class being launched a few months ago:

Kokuryu (Black dragon) Submarine

*And an article.

Japan’s new ‘ninja’ submarines are all about stealth

(japandailypress.com)

Quote:
Japan’s Soryu class submarines were launched by the Marine Self-Defense Forces (MSDF) in 2007, as an effort to increase the countries submarine force to a total of 22 (from the current 16) by the year 2024. The submarine Hakuryu, or White Dragon, is the third of the class that is known for packing enough firepower to bring down an aircraft carrier. But according to the MSDF, the firepower is not the submarine’s best weapon – it is stealth.

And another update about a move that will strengthen Japan's weaker Southeast Asian neighbours, such as the Philippines, by allowing exports of Japanese made military equipment to help them counter a rising China. Taiwan could also use an export version of Japan's Soryu class submarine, even if Tokyo recognizes Beijing with its "One-China" policy.

From Defense News:

Japan Lifts Own Blanket Arms Export Ban
Apr. 1, 2014 - 08:59AM  |  By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE 

TOKYO — Japan on Tuesday lifted a self-imposed ban on weapons exports, introducing new rules covering the arms trade in a move supporters say will boost Tokyo's global role, but which unnerved China.

The cabinet of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe approved a new plan that replaces the 1967 blanket ban, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters.

Under the policy, arms sales are banned to conflict-plagued countries or nations that could undermine international peace and security, the sales must contribute to international peace and boost officially pacifist Japan's security.

(...EDITED)

 

 

[CougarKing]

Anyone else envision a scenario where Tokyo commits JGSDF troops to the Korean peninsula to support the ROK and the US?

Military.com

Japan Prepares End to Ban on Defending Allies

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan -- Japan is poised to introduce a plan that would allow its forces to defend allies for the first time in the post-World War II era, even as polls indicate public opposition to a reinterpretation of the nation's pacifist constitution.

Advisers to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government say the legal maneuvers to end Japan's ban on engaging in collective self-defense will begin before the end of the national Diet session June 22, despite recent speculation that doubts from the public and some lawmakers within Abe's ruling coalition would force delays.

Under current Japanese law, Japan cannot fight back if a U.S. Navy ship with which it is sailing comes under fire, unless the Japanese ship is also attacked. Nor can Japan use its Self-Defense Forces -- a quasi-military the size of Britain's -- to rescue Japanese aid workers taken hostage in a foreign country.

If ending the ban were just about those two examples, there would be far less controversy. A January Kyodo News poll showed 70 percent approval for aiding Japanese hostages, and the United States enjoys high favorability ratings among Japanese.

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

If Abe gets what he wants, will this mean JSDF troops fighting on the Korean peninsula in the event of a North Korean invasion?

Military.com

Japan's Abe Bids to End Ban on Fighting Abroad

May 16, 2014 | by Justin McCurry
Japan's prime minister, Shinzo Abe, has announced plans to lift the country's ban on fighting in conflicts overseas, a move certain to raise tensions with China and anger voters at home. He called for a review of how Japan interprets its pacifist constitution to allow its military to participate in conflicts beyond its borders.

In an apparent bid to address concerns in China and other parts of Asia where memories of Japan's wartime conduct remain strong, he said Japan would never again become "a country that wages war".

China, which is involved in a dispute with Japan over ownership of the Senkaku islands, which are known as the Diaoyu islands to the Chinese, is concerned by the prospect of a more assertive Japanese military. A foreign ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, said China had "every reason to be highly vigilant on Japan's true intentions and its future development".

Abe believes that the constitution, compiled by US occupation officials after the war, unfairly restricts Japan's ability to exercise its right to collective self-defence, or come to the aid of an ally under attack.

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

Philippine leader backs larger Japan military role

TOKYO (AP) — The leader of the Philippines on Tuesday endorsed Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's ongoing push to expand Japan's military role.

President Benigno Aquino III, after meeting with Abe, expressed his support for Abe's proposal to reinterpret Japan's pacifist constitution to allow its military to defend not only Japan but also allies that come under attack.

"We believe that nations of goodwill can only benefit if the Japanese government is empowered to assist others and is allowed the wherewithal to come to the aid of those in need, especially in the area of collective self-defense," he told reporters at a joint news conference.

(...SNIPPED)


Yahoo News

 

[CougarKing]

Wouldn't "A more assertive Japan" be a better title for this thread? Japan already re-armed decades ago when the SDF was formed; the only issue now is whether Japan will continue to have its constitutional limits on using that military more assertively.

Reuters

Japan poised to ease constitution's limits on military in landmark shift

By Linda Sieg and Kiyoshi Takenaka

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's cabinet is expected on Tuesday to end a ban that has kept the military from fighting abroad since World War Two, a major shift away from post-war pacifism and a political victory for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who has pursued the change despite some public opposition.

The move, seen by some as the biggest shift in defense policy since Japan set up its post-war armed forces in 1954, would end a ban on exercising "collective self-defense", or aiding a friendly country under attack.

It would also relax limits on activities in U.N.-led peace-keeping operations and "grey zone" incidents that fall short of full-scale war, according to a draft cabinet resolution.

Long constrained by the pacifist post-war constitution, Japan's military would be more closely aligned with other advanced nations' armed forces in terms of its options to act, though the government would likely remain wary of putting boots on the ground in multilateral operations such as the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

Military.com

Japan's Government Approves Larger Military Role

Associated Press | Jul 01, 2014 | by Mari Yamaguchi
TOKYO — Japan took a step away Tuesday from an American-drafted constitution that has long kept its military shackled, approving a plan to allow greater use of a force that was vanquished at the end of World War II.

In one of the biggest changes to Japanese security policy since the war, the Cabinet approved a reinterpretation of the constitution on military affairs.

The contentious move will allow the military to help defend other nations in what is known as "collective self-defense."

Previous governments have said that Japan's war-renouncing constitution limits the use of force to defending Japan.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, in a televised news conference, said the shift is intended to protect the lives and security of the Japanese people. For example, he said, Japanese warships would be able to help protect U.S. ships that were fighting to defend Japan.

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

China's response to the landmark change in Japanese defence policy:

Defense News

China Criticizes Japan's Move To Expand Military Role
Jul. 2, 2014 - 03:08PM  |  By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE

  BEIJING — China’s government and media launched a broadside Wednesday against Japan’s move to loosen the bonds on its powerful military, casting it as a threat to Asian security.

The criticism came one day after Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said his cabinet had formally endorsed a reinterpretation of a constitutional clause banning the use of armed force except in very narrowly-defined circumstances.

“We urge Japan to follow its path of peaceful development and be prudent in handling relevant issues, honestly respect the legitimate security concerns of Asian countries and refrain from doing anything which may jeopardize regional peace and stability,” said Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei.

Beijing had expressed its concern to Tokyo “on many occasions” over the rule change, he added. “We ask Japan not to infringe on China’s sovereignty and security interests.”

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

Japan's defence policy change continues to make waves among observers of the region:

Pacifist no more? Experts discuss Japan's military
By MARI YAMAGUCHI and MIKI TODA
Associated Press - Thu, Jul 3, 2014


Three experts shared their thoughts with The Associated Press about where Japan's military is headed and why it is such a sensitive issue. Quotes have been edited and condensed.

THE ANTIWAR CONSTITUTION

"Article 9 was part of the U.S.-written constitution that banned Japan from maintaining armed forces and resorting to war. Over the years, Japan has actually built up a fairly large and modern defense: navy, air force, army. Also, Japan has stretched the envelope of what's possible in terms of what it can do in the security realm. But this really is not seen by Washington as enough, and certain conservatives in Japan have long advocated for Japan to develop a more assertive defense posture. So Article 9 is seen to be a constraint on Japan's desires to up its security profile, and the fact is, Japan does live in a dangerous neighborhood."

- Jeffrey Kingston, head of Asian studies at Temple University Japan[/b]

UPPING JAPAN'S ROLE

"We seek to play a more proactive role to ensure peace and stability in the region. It must have been difficult for the U.S. to serve as lone policeman for the world, and it might have faced calls from its people to step back. But we say, 'America-san, please keep your presence here for the peace, stability and prosperity for the Asia-Pacific region. Japan will help more, so let's do it together.' That's what we are trying to do."

- Takeshi Iwaya, chairman of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's Research Commission on Security[/b]

PUBLIC FEARS

"A lot of analysts say, 'Hey, you have North Korea lobbing missiles, China flexing its muscles, you have these disputes in the East China Sea. Why don't the Japanese people get with the program?' The thing is, pacifism is part of Japan's national identity. Postwar, the Japanese people have found in pacifism - redemption. All children, where do they go for their school trips? Hiroshima and Okinawa. Both places reinforce anti-war sentiments, which are further reinforced in Japanese textbooks. Look what happens when you go to war. Look at the devastation the Japanese people suffered during the war. Japanese people are very much aware of what happened the last time militarists were in control of their country. So there is an abiding fear of what might happen if Article 9's constitutional constraints are eased on what Japan can do militarily. They really fear that the alliance with the United States will somehow pull Japan into conflict. That's why it's so controversial."

- Jeffrey Kingston, head of Asian studies at Temple University Japan

POLITICAL CONSTRAINTS

"We often see concern that Japan will take excessive military action if the country is allowed to exercise collective self-defense, but what we really should worry about is not going too far, but not being able to do anything. Collective self-defense is only a right, and whether to exercise it is a political decision. It won't be easy for Japanese lawmakers to decide to execute it while facing a risk of losing public support. Countries in the region are increasingly concerned about tension over China's high-handed approach, and showing high expectations for Japan's role. Previously, Japan could have said, 'We cannot contribute to the region because we cannot exercise the right to collective self-defense.' Japan now has lost that excuse, and the question is how much will Japan be able to contribute to security in the region."

- Narushige Michishita, director of the Security and International Studies Program at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies

THE FUTURE: AN ASIAN NATO?

"In the long run, I think we should put a large security umbrella over the entire Asia-Pacific region, like the one in Europe. That's the direction we seek under the slogan that the Abe administration promotes: 'proactive contribution to peace based on international cooperation.' There will be a large free trade bloc in the region in the future, and in order to protect that I believe the establishment of a large collective security framework should be a long-term goal in the region."

- Takeshi Iwaya, chairman of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party's Research Commission on Security


AP / Yahoo

 

[CougarKing]

China's Growing Military Might Has Japan on Edge: Tokyo Responds
Benjamin Schreer
August 8, 2014


China's growing military challenge is the biggest driver for JSDF modernization, followed by North Korea’s missile program.

The new National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG) of December 2013 provided defense-planning guidance for the next five years. They built on the 2010 NDPG, which called for the development of a "Dynamic Defense Force," that is, a more mobile force better capable of defending the Japanese archipelago against new emerging threats. The 2013 NDPG introduced the concept of a "Dynamic Joint Defense Force," which paves the way for greater cooperation within a heretofore largely disjointed force. It also announced new capabilities to strengthen Japan's air-maritime denial capabilities:

The Maritime Self-Defense Force (MSDF) Navy is set to acquire 23 new P-1 long-range maritime patrol aircraft to replace the existing P-3C Orions. A further aim is to increase the number of destroyers from 48 to 54. The new destroyers will be smaller, more modular and fitted with minesweeping equipment. At the same time, the number of minesweepers will be reduced by 25%. There will also be ballistic missile defense (BMD) software upgrades for the two Aegis destroyers of the Atago-class as well as acquisition of two more ships, bringing the BMD-capable destroyer force to eight. The submarine fleet is to increase from 16 to 22, as announced in 2010.

The Air Self-Defense Force (ASDF) will deploy more F-15 fighters closer to the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and will double its Airborne Early Warning Squadrons. It will also expand the number of fighter squadrons, not least through the acquisition of 42 F-35A Joint Strike Fighters.

The Ground Self-Defense Force (GSDF) will continue its build-up of an amphibious brigade around the Western Army Infantry Regiment. It will acquire new amphibious assault vehicles as well as 17 V-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft. Moreover, the GSDF will further reduce its number of tanks, invest in a new mobile combat vehicle and establish coastal observation and area security units through the Ryukyu Islands. Finally, Japan will also develop nine anti-ship missile companies, which could be forward deployed.

The 2014 defense white paper confirms all of those defense equipment plans.


National Interest

 

[Nemo888]

The last arms race was a disaster in terms of wasted human potential.  The trillions wasted on all those useless nukes. We could have built moon bases or cured cancer with that money. Humans are pretty stupid though and "defense" can be a very lucrative investment. Eventually the defense industry becomes a political force. That is happening now in China so the rest of Asia has no choice but to gear up.

 

[a_majoor]

Of course Japan needs to pay for all the shiny new toys and the manpower to use them:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/385373/print

Economic Lessons Unlearnt
Everybody loved Abenomics until five minutes ago.
By Kevin D. Williamson

The economy of Japan, long stagnant, has taken a sharp turn for the worse: It contracted nearly 7 percent (annualized and inflation-adjusted) in the quarter ending in June. By way of comparison, consider that the U.S. contraction in the quarter ending in June 2009, when we were feeling the worst of the financial crisis, was 4 percent; the worst quarter of the 1982 recession saw a contraction of 2.6 percent. You’d have to go back to the 1940s to see a quarter with a 7 percent contraction in the United States.

That atrocious quarter may be a sign of very bad things to come for Japan, or it may turn out to be a fluke. The cause of that contraction in the view of most Japan observers was a substantial increase in the country’s consumption tax, rising from 5 percent to 8 percent — with consumers, knowing that a big tax hike was coming, moving forward purchases, contributing to more positive numbers in the last quarter and despair-inducing numbers in this one. The consumption tax is scheduled to rise to 10 percent next year.

“Abenomics,” the stimulus-oriented economic program put forward by Prime Minister Shinzō​ Abe, has — or had — many admirers in the United States, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle. Paul Krugman, holding up Abenomics as a model, described Japan’s policy as the only operating alternative to the “economic defeatism” of the West: “Nobody else in the advanced world is trying anything similar,” he wrote, though he was befittingly cautious, offering his judgment on it as “So far, so good.”

Matt Yglesias, identifying “important lessons for us,” declared that Abenomics “seems to be working” and praised Abe for having “brushed off the doubters and plunged ahead with new fiscal stimulus,” “leading the path forward to recovery.” Mr. Yglesias’s headline writers were even more confident than he was: Slate heralded the “Triumph of Abenomics,” called it “The Salvation of Japan,” and eschewed caution almost entirely: “Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s bold recovery strategy is working.”

Adam Posen of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in a generally positive assessment of Abenomics, argued in February of this year that Japan should incorporate an even steeper increase in its consumption tax: “Raising the consumption tax to 10 percent, and dangerously suggesting that it might be postponed, is not sufficient. There needs to be a multi-year commitment to raising the consumption tax to the neighborhood of 20 percent.” Mr. Posen has an interesting take on the conflicting views about Japanese economic policy: The Abe-doubters, he said, are “leftovers,” people without sufficient intellectual talent to have moved on to greener pastures as demand for Japan experts subsided in recent decades. As an example of how arguments are constructed at Mr. Posen’s level, he is worth quoting at length:

A number of the best Japan specialists have moved on to other issues — people with transferrable skills transferred and those without them remained. The unfortunate impact of this is that much of the press coverage is dominated by this group of leftover people who are very cynical about Abenomics and Japan.

It’s a little different in my community: Economists who have worked on Japan in the past. Among this group, which includes central bankers from around the world, there is huge excitement and admiration for what the Bank of Japan (BOJ) is doing. An overwhelming majority of central bankers are very strongly supportive of what the BOJ is doing and very impressed with how they are doing it. Broadly speaking, Abenomics has strong support from the central banking community.

Such non-argument arguments go on and on. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, another Abenomics triumphalist, declared that Japanese policy represented the ascent of “sound economic policy” over “scare stories about debt and deficits.” All the best evidence, he was confident, supported this view: “At this point, America’s deficit hawks are jumping up and down screaming that the boost to Japan’s economy is just a ‘sugar high,’ and that it will soon face a horrible collapse as payback. Of course, anything can happen in the future, but we just don’t see any real evidence of the deficit hawks’ doom story as of yet.”

Revisiting Abenomics, Professor Krugman considered the argument that the Japanese approach would play out differently if enacted in the United States. Perhaps “considered” is too strong a word: He merely wrote that he couldn’t think of any reason, and demanded of critics: “Show me the model.”

“Show me the model” is an interesting choice of words. The modelers estimated that Japan’s quarter would be even worse than it was: The consensus estimate compiled by the Wall Street Journal called for a 7.1 percent contraction. Since the emergence of economics as a profession associated with mathematical models, we have been promised, with varying degrees of confidence, that certain policies would produce certain outcomes as predictably as an object falling in a vacuum will accelerate at 9.8m/sec2 under Earth gravity. But none of them seems to work.

Why?

Perhaps the problem is ideology or crass political calculation, but that seems unlikely: Politicians, especially presidents, tend to be much more committed to their own political careers than to any congeries of abstractions. If there were some set of reliable policies that would create predictable, steady, strong growth, and all of the salubrious effects on wages and employment that one would hope for, then it seems likely that it would have been implemented by now. Assume, arguendo, that Barack Obama’s apologists are correct, and that his policies would be working much better if not for the fact that the Republican party controls one-half of one-third of the government. Why did they fail to implement those policies when they had uncontested control? Why did Republicans fail to, when they enjoyed complete control of the federal government? There is so much to be gained from a strong economy, and so little to be lost in disappointing ideologues in one’s political coalition, that it is very difficult to understand why “the right policies” have not been enacted if they are known. It’s not as though the White House cannot locate Professor Krugman’s telephone number.

More likely, the science writer David H. Freedman is correct when he argues that “economic models are always wrong,” that the process of calibrating models to account for historical and current data renders them very, very precise and very, very useless. This is another example of the mapmakers’ dilemma: In order to be manageable, models must, by definition, be simplified versions of the real world, and the more simplified they are, the less accurate they are. There is no economics version of the all-seeing Laplace’s Demon. Professor Krugman’s demand — “Show Me the Model!” — assumes the usefulness of the model, which cannot, in fact, be assumed.

There is no obvious reason to believe that successful economic policies are transferable from country to country. Indeed, it may be that “successful” policies in the main merely coincide with happy economic outcomes rather than causing them. There is not much reason to believe that they are transferable from year to year, much less from generation to generation, in spite of the moanings of our phantom armies of New Deal romantics. Economic conditions change very quickly and in ways that are impossible to predict.

The battle against scientism in economics is a long one. I am afraid that is also is a losing one. F. A. Hayek, in his Nobel lecture, dropped an Austrian hammer on “The Pretense of Knowledge” in his profession, but the tendency of economists to present their theories as a kind of fiscal physics has, if anything, intensified since Hayek’s time, abetted by the rise of a distinctly phony school of political rhetoric dressing up familiar prejudices as “empirical” and “evidence-based.”

I’ll bet you your next unemployment check that if Japan continues to slide, the answer from the Left will be: “Abe was on the right track, but he didn’t go far enough. And here’s my model proving it. I’m only following the evidence.” But the evidence suggests that there are a lot of moving parts to an economy, and that their relationships are unpredictable. Perhaps Japan benefits from stimulus, but stimulus adds to debt, which in Japan is very heavy — higher, proportionally, than in Greece. That can be offset by tax increases, as with the consumption tax, but those have effects on economic behavior. You might have three balls in the air at the same time, but that doesn’t mean you’re juggling.

The first issue of evidence we should consider is whether there is any evidence that large, complex economies such as those of Japan or the United States are in fact manageable through the blunt instrument of politics. If there is a political constituency for a 6.8 percent contraction in the Japanese economy, it is not obvious what it is. If there is a political constituency for the current state of the U.S. economy, especially the stagnation of middle-to-low-income wages, that is equally non-obvious. All the best people were convinced that Shinzō Abe had it figured out — and, by coincidence, he was putting forward policies very similar to the ones they themselves prefer. That’s evidence of something, too: the human capacity for self-delusion, one of the few commodities to which the economic concept of scarcity does not apply.

— Kevin D. Williamson is National Review’s roving correspondent and the author of The End Is Near and It’s Going to Be Awesome.

 

[CougarKing]

Japan's highest GSDF general wants the US to confront China:

Military.com

Japanese General Calls on US Military to Confront China

Oct 15, 2014 | by Richard Sisk
In stark contrast to White House policy, a top Japanese general on Tuesday said the U.S. military rebalance of forces to the Pacific should confront Chinese aggression in the region.

Japanese Gen. Kiyofumi Iwata, chief of staff of Japan's Ground Self-Defense Force, said that "some countries want to change the status quo by force" in the region.

"This is a reality we must face up to," Iwata said.

He then made clear his intent with a reference to China's declaration late last year of an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the East China Sea to include the disputed islets called the Senkakus by Japan and the Diaoyu by China.

China warned at the time that aircraft passing through the ADIZ without identifying themselves could be subject to "emergency measures."

(...EDITED)

 

[CougarKing]

Apparently Japan's biggest defence budget to date isn't enough to meet their goals:

Defense News

Experts: Japan Budget Boost Still Won't Meet Goals

TOKYO — While Japan's newly unveiled defense budget represents the third small hike in a row after decades of low spending, experts say such spending remains insufficient to fund Tokyo's plans for "dynamic defense forces."

Japan's defense budget for fiscal 2015 is edging up 0.8 percent to ￥4.82 trillion (US $41.12 billion), according to figures by the Defense Ministry, bringing defense spending closer to 1990 levels.

While well below the 2.4 percent boost requested last August, the increase represents the third small hike in a row after a decade of decline. Japan has adopted a more assertive defense posture under the administration of the conservative Prime Minister Shinzo Abe.

The MoD will receive funding for all the major purchases it has requested to begin updating its Air Force, restructure its defense posture to better protect Nansei Shoto, its southeast island chain south of Okinawa, and boost its naval fleet to strengthen its deterrence posture against China's Navy.

Three big-ticket items include ¥350.4 billion (down from ¥378.1 billion requested) to deploy 20 PC-3 replacement Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol aircraft; ¥168 billion to start the purchase of new Atago-class Aegis destroyers; and ¥103.2 billion (compared with ¥131.5 billion requested) for six F-35A joint strike fighters for the air self-defense forces.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[CougarKing]

The JMSDF asked to protect South Korean AEGIS destroyers in the event of a conflict where both South Korea and Japan are allies?

Newsletter Navale (original site article in French)

South Korean Aegis destroyers could be object of defense by Japanese navy
Tokyo is planning to revise a law to include any vessels contributing to Japanese defense.

"The Japanese government notified the ruling party of its plan to include a clause that would allow the Japan Self-Defense Forces to defend the warships of countries other than the US in a revision to legislation pertaining to national security, including the Self-Defense Forces Act, which it plans to submit to the Diet during the current session. There is a growing sense inside the Japanese government that the militaries of other countries, including Australia, are likely to participate in a missile defense system. As a result, it began reviewing the idea of revising the law to enable the Japan Self-Defense Forces to defend the military units of other countries - not just the US - to ensure Japan's security." - Mainichi Shimbun newspaper - Jan. 27, 2015

When the Japanese cabinet announced in June 2014 that it was altering its interpretation of the constitution to allow the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, it stated that it would revise the law to enable the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) to take the minimum necessary military action to defend US warships or other military units that are acting in concert with the JSDF to protect Japan. As a specific example of what such a revision might mean, the Japanese government explained that Japan could defend American Aegis destroyers off the coast of Japan that can detect ballistic missiles launches in North Korea. If the Japanese government's plan takes effect, the JSDF would be responsible for protecting not only US vessels, but any vessels that are contributing to the defense of Japan. While the Mainichi Shimbun mentioned Australia as a country to which the plan could apply, realistically speaking, South Korea‘s Aegis destroyers - which are capable of tracking North Korea’s ballistic missiles - are expected to be the primary beneficiaries of protection by the JDFS.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[tomahawk6]

A larger Japanese Navy and Air Force would be essential for their defense.More submarines,Aegis type destroyers,more ASW destroyers,minesweepers and more aircraft.