• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Japan possibly planning to build two Kirov-like battlecruisers?

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,822
Points
1,160
This YT video talks about a proposal up for budget approval in Japan, that would see two Aegis equipped ships in the 20,000DWT range equipped with a variety of missile types.

 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,342
Points
1,040
It's a little over the top in the title.

They are looking for a platform to put their purchased Aegis ashore on. After it was politically wanted on land. But the ships will be interesting. Full warships or a missile platform?
 

stoker dave

Member
Reaction score
221
Points
660
Although big compared to frigates, in shipbuilding 20,000 tons is not 'behemoth'. HMCS Protecteur was that size. HMCS Bonaventure was about that size (16,000 tons). US Navy ships that move around marines are about that size (16,000 tons). The big WWII battlecruisers were about 40,000 tons. USS Gerald R Ford (a modern US aircraft carrier) is 100,000 tons.

(all numbers approximate intended to show scale)
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,808
Points
1,090
Agreed - 20,000 tons isn’t huge in shipbuilding metrics. Flt 2 Alreigh Burke class destroyers of the USN sit around 7500, so that’s only 2.5 times larger than the standard USN surface combatant.

Japan already has several Aegis equipped ships in their fleet, plus Aegis ashore. Plus, you know, 7th Fleet of the USN.



Why would they want a platform to put their Aegis ashore system on?

I like the concept of what they’d like to do with the ship.

For a country with a still passivist view on deploying military forces away from the island chain, Japan really does carry a pretty big stick. (Aka Caveman Club)
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
2,096
Points
1,090
An AEGIS Ashore platform is a non-moving static target.

Vulnerable to attack from land, sea, and air.

A Shipborne system is less vulnerable.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
703
Points
1,090
I hope they name them Yamato and Musashi!

But, yes, 20,000 is quite large. By comparison, the Renhai class #notacruiser is 11,000 tons, the Zumwalt class is 15,500 tons, and the Ticonderoga class cruiser is only 9600 tons. The only thing close is the Kirov, which is 25,000 tons!
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,808
Points
1,090
An AEGIS Ashore platform is a non-moving static target.

Vulnerable to attack from land, sea, and air.

A Shipborne system is less vulnerable.
I realize that. But didn’t they have Aegis equipped ships well before they acquired Aegis ashore?

One questions why they didn’t just build another Aegis ship instead… 🤷🏼‍♂️
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,342
Points
1,040
Agreed - 20,000 tons isn’t huge in shipbuilding metrics. Flt 2 Alreigh Burke class destroyers of the USN sit around 7500, so that’s only 2.5 times larger than the standard USN surface combatant.

Japan already has several Aegis equipped ships in their fleet, plus Aegis ashore. Plus, you know, 7th Fleet of the USN.



Why would they want a platform to put their Aegis ashore system on?

I like the concept of what they’d like to do with the ship.

For a country with a still passivist view on deploying military forces away from the island chain, Japan really does carry a pretty big stick. (Aka Caveman Club)
The Aegis Ashore program ran into NIMBY's in Japan

The locals did not like the idea of the booster rockets falling on them. That was the news reports.

That could have been used as the excuse to not go further forward with the shore based plan.

Now the next part is do you build a large 20,000 tons warship that is a full multi function ship or just a platform for the missile and Aegis system and for cruising in protected home waters?

My thought and this is pure speculation that the navy and/or some political faction says OK if you want missile defence on the sea to protect the country we can only do that with a very large full spectrum warship. All the bells and whistles and this gets them by the "no offensive weapons" people and factions in Japan. That is me just thinking about it.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,808
Points
1,090
I suspect you may be right. Quite clever logic actually - their Navy & politicians seem to be quite good at acquiring platforms which technically respect the line of thinking their constitution is based on, while still giving them quite the punch if need be… “Helicopter Carrying Destroyers” 😏
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,342
Points
1,040
A very interesting paper on this topic.


"The reality of the matter is that there are many complex reasons why Japan may have decided not to go forward with Aegis Ashore. But the truth is also that it is generally recognized that the official Japanese position is not sincere. The Japanese decision may be interpreted differently among allies and adversaries, but it is by and large understood that Japan is using this opportunity to further build up offensive capability."
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,342
Points
1,040
More


Again this looks like a plan to build a big over powering ship.

Yamato Class?

I know much smaller than a WWII BB but the capabilities this proposed ship will far out class anything else on the sea.

Will it set off a arms race as things like this in past have done?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
5,822
Points
1,160
Will it set off a arms race as things like this in past have done?
The only navies that could afford to take part would be China and the US. Just the cost of loading the munitions on such a ship would likely cripple the RCN budget.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,342
Points
1,040
The only navies that could afford to take part would be China and the US. Just the cost of loading the munitions on such a ship would likely cripple the RCN budget.
Oh didn't think we would be going the party. :)

We are already removing some VLS from the CSC designs.

I would think the South Koreans may bring some bigger ships also.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
6,701
Points
1,110
Did the Japanese Navy during WW2 field at least two very large Battles Ships? 80,000 tons?

If this has been covered my apologies.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,342
Points
1,040
Did the Japanese Navy during WW2 field at least two very large Battles Ships? 80,000 tons?

If this has been covered my apologies.
Yamato and Musashi. The third sister Shinano converted to an aircraft carrier. She was sunk by a USN sub on her maiden voyage.

At 72,000 tons and with 18.1 inch guns the largest in the world.

The two battleships did not in end do much.

But the Yamato did get a second life when in year 2199 the Galimons destroy much of the Earth and some remaining humans rebuild the ship to travel FTL to get a device to clear the radiation on the Earth. Etc.
 
Top