Military Review

Japan to build ships to defend against ballistic missiles

37
Japan to build ships to defend against ballistic missiles

Japan has found a replacement for the American ground-based missile defense system Aegis Ashore, which it had previously decided to abandon. As reported by the Kyodo agency citing government sources, Tokyo decided to build specialized ships to counter ballistic missiles.


Japan has notified the United States of plans to build special ships designed exclusively to combat ICBMs. These ships will replace the American ground complexes Aegis Ashore and will be much cheaper than ships with Aegis systems. Also, the construction of ships and their placement does not require permission from local authorities, as happened with the American complexes.

The new ships will be equipped with equipment that the United States must supply under the already concluded contract for Aegis Ashore. An option was considered with sea platforms instead of ships, but this option was found vulnerable to torpedo attacks. What ships will be used as missile defense systems is not reported.

The Japanese missile defense system is a two-tier one and includes ships with Aegis complexes and SM-3 interceptor missiles, as well as Patriot PAC-3 complexes. The ships must intercept the missile in the middle phase of the trajectory, and the Patriot PAC-3 systems in the final phase of the flight.

To strengthen the missile defense system, Japan intended to purchase two Aegis Ashore ground complexes from the United States, but in the end refused to place them, saying that it would find other ways to protect against ballistic missiles.
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grazdanin
    Grazdanin 9 September 2020 12: 53
    +2
    Reasonable compromise. The Japanese navy is getting stronger.
    1. lucul
      lucul 9 September 2020 13: 04
      +8
      Reasonable compromise. The Japanese navy is getting stronger.

      Well, still, they have to fight China to the last Japanese (it's not America's fight with China)))
      1. antivirus
        antivirus 9 September 2020 15: 01
        0
        they have to fight China until the last Japanese

        ----------- the next Chinese aircraft carrier - Nanking?
    2. Cyril G ...
      Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 14: 13
      +1
      Quote: Grazdanin
      An option with offshore platforms instead of ships was considered, but this option was found vulnerable to torpedo attacks.

      Japan notifies US of construction plans special ships designed exclusively for combating ICBMs. These ships will replace the American ground complexes Aegis Ashore and will be much cheaper than ships with Aegis systems.


      Don't you think it's just enchanting? Show me a ship invulnerable from torpedo attacks? !!!
      1. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 9 September 2020 14: 29
        0
        Many articles here are extremely illiterate. You need to look for the original source. Rather, it meant that a stationary platform is more vulnerable than a ship. Of course the question is what kind of ship will be. Maybe under the guise of a cruiser will be revived? (In the order of delirium)
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 9 September 2020 14: 59
          0
          Quote: Grazdanin
          Of course the question is what kind of ship will be.

          PMSM, it will traditionally be a destroyer with the addition of "PRO".
          Fortunately, the Japanese destroyer-helicopter carriers with a total displacement of 27 kt have considerably pushed the boundaries of the "destroyer" class. smile
          1. Grazdanin
            Grazdanin 9 September 2020 16: 10
            0
            Yeah, "helicopter carrier" which is a couple of tens of meters shorter than Kuznetsov.
      2. Avior
        Avior 9 September 2020 14: 47
        +2
        The platform is less mobile and much more vulnerable to torpedo attacks.
        The ground complex has another problem - its location is precisely known and it is possible to deliver a preemptive strike against it with both ballistic and cruise missiles.
        With the sea, this does not work, you first need to find it.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 15: 25
          0
          Quote: Avior
          The platform is less mobile and much more vulnerable to torpedo attacks.

          I wonder who told you this garbage?
      3. Grazdanin
        Grazdanin 9 September 2020 16: 24
        0
        If the Japanese says something, look for the 2 and 3 bottom. What they say and what they mean does not correspond to each other. There are air defense missile destroyers Aegis, they will create an air defense missile cruiser. For their theater of operations and conditions, a reasonable decision. The number of ships they will always have less, it is necessary to take quality.
      4. cost
        cost 9 September 2020 17: 52
        -1
        Cyril G ... (Cyril): Show me at least one ship invulnerable from torpedo attacks ?!

        But what about our "Packet-E / NK" anti-torpedo system, which supposedly makes ships practically invulnerable? I dare not say anything, not a sailor, I just refer to the Chief Designer of the State Scientific and Production Enterprise "Region" Konstantin Drobot.
        https://vladivostok.bezformata.com/listnews/korabli-vmf-ispitali-pervij/74457851/
        It would be interesting to hear your opinion on this matter.
        1. Cyril G ...
          Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 18: 01
          +4
          Quote: Rich
          Which supposedly makes ships practically invulnerable?


          Exactly what is alleged. As usual, the question will be as follows. How many counter torpedoes are we able to admit? Here the corvette of project 20380 has 8 units ready for launch. Moreover, either torpedoes or counter-torpedoes. Or or. That is, we will be fine if there are 2 MGT torpedoes and 6 counter-torpedoes. Wpop, that is, the probability of hitting an anti-torpedo target is good if 0.8 ... Let's remember the reload, we don't have it. At enemy submarines, the devices recharge quickly. If the first volley of the enemy 6 torpedoes, while repelling the first volley, let's say we were very lucky and we hit all 6 enemy torpedoes. We will have nothing to reflect the second volley.
          1. cost
            cost 9 September 2020 18: 05
            0
            Thank you for the clarification
            1. Cyril G ...
              Cyril G ... 9 September 2020 18: 11
              +4
              The bad idea is initially that the products of the Package are stored in TPK, weighing 700-800 kilograms. The enemy, for example, can reload his torpedo tubes on the NK, if necessary, manually ...
              It looks like this ...
              Enemy reloading of 324 mm torpedoes




              This is what Package-NK looks like

              However, in any case, it is necessary to clearly understand in real combat conditions, from 1.5 to 2 counter-torpedoes will be spent to defeat one torpedo going to the NK.
  2. Oleg83
    Oleg83 9 September 2020 13: 06
    +1
    I wrote about this when Japan abandoned the ground version. Moreover, Japan participates in the creation of SM-3
  3. novel66
    novel66 9 September 2020 13: 10
    -2
    the ark will be built to drop while the missiles are flying
  4. An64
    An64 9 September 2020 13: 13
    -1
    Why is this delusion that the Patriot PAC-3 intercepts ICBMs in the final phase of the flight? Patriot PAC-3 is not even an S-400, and our ICBM complex does not intercept.
    1. sergo1914
      sergo1914 9 September 2020 13: 52
      -1
      Quote: An64
      Why is this delusion that the Patriot PAC-3 intercepts ICBMs in the final phase of the flight? Patriot PAC-3 is not even an S-400, and our ICBM complex does not intercept.


      This is a disguise. There, specially trained people with katanas will stand and chop off incoming warheads.
    2. mvg
      mvg 9 September 2020 15: 03
      +6
      PAC-3 is not even a S-400

      Patriots, in contrast to the S-400, have been participating in real databases for 30 years. What can the S-300/400 boast of? Some advertising brochures. And also the regular bombing of Syria, at what the capital Damascus and the international airport. Moreover, an indistinct infa from the PRC about the successful test of the MRBM.
  5. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 9 September 2020 13: 15
    +7
    Under various pretexts and excuses, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces are gradually turning into the Imperial Japanese Army. The process is very gradual, but obvious
    1. Avior
      Avior 9 September 2020 16: 10
      +3
      For several years now they have been doing it openly, but without changing the constitution.
      They just read it differently.
      But in this case we are still talking about self-defense.
      1. KVU-NSVD
        KVU-NSVD 9 September 2020 16: 16
        0
        Quote: Avior
        For several years now they have been doing it openly

        So I'm not talking about secrecy, I'm talking about various excuses and re-interpreting concepts
        They just read it differently.
        the law, that the drawbar, how you turn (interpret) and so it happened
        But in this case we are still talking about self-defense.
        See point two ..
        without changing the constitution.
        They need to change it .. it's just not the time to see it ..
  6. d4rkmesa
    d4rkmesa 9 September 2020 13: 19
    +1
    Because Japs will have a mini-aircraft carrier, but now they need more missile destroyers. Little by little, under the guise of self-defense, they have an independent fleet.
    1. Avior
      Avior 9 September 2020 16: 10
      0
      And they have it, and not weak
      1. d4rkmesa
        d4rkmesa 9 September 2020 16: 59
        0
        Well, until now, their fleet was more focused on PLO. The most massive destroyers are something like frigates or patrol boats. There are not so many missile destroyers with Aegis.
        1. Avior
          Avior 9 September 2020 19: 11
          +1
          With Aegis a dozen, and with MK41 much more.
  7. KCA
    KCA 9 September 2020 13: 20
    +3
    Looking at the transport container A-235, and comparing it with the length of the SM-3 (6.55m), I somehow very much doubt its ability to shoot down ballistic blocks of ICBMs, and so that the Patriot would shoot them down at the final stage of the flight, it's just fantastic
    1. Avior
      Avior 9 September 2020 16: 13
      +1
      In fairness - cm3 has a kinetic interceptor
      1. KCA
        KCA 9 September 2020 16: 45
        0
        According to rumors (performance characteristics are classified) "Nudol" is also equipped with different warheads - TN, HE, and kinetic
        1. Avior
          Avior 9 September 2020 19: 05
          +1
          The size will then be determined by the formatting object part.
          1. KCA
            KCA 9 September 2020 20: 24
            0
            The size is also determined by the amount of fuel required for acceleration, maximum speed and maneuvering, the same kinetic projectile must be delivered to the defeat stage, how is it separated from the 2nd or 3rd stage? I suspect that it is being fired, which means there is still a powder or other charge, and not just a blank weighing 0,5 kg, or whatever
    2. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 9 September 2020 19: 44
      0
      Primitive RSDs will be able to shoot down, well, and also satellites, the trajectories of which are relatively easy to calculate.
  8. sen
    sen 9 September 2020 13: 52
    +1
    Data from Wikipedia:
    SAM "Patriot" PAC-3 tested in 1997. Introduced into service in 2001. The probability of hitting an aircraft - 0,8-0,9, a tactical missile - 0,6-0,8 with one missile in the absence of interference The maximum target speed is 1600 m / s. The height of the destruction of ballistic targets is up to 15 km. It was also reported to increase the height of destruction of ballistic targets to 20 km.

    He needs a special satellite that is in orbit. This satellite must inform the PATRIOT location station in advance of the coordinates of the rocket and the trajectory of its flight.

    https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Пэтриот
  9. Boa kaa
    Boa kaa 9 September 2020 14: 48
    +2
    This is an obvious decision not to give the Americans under the bases of the land, which is so scarce. Amer bases are extraterritorial, and in addition, the primary targets of the enemy's strike. And the ship is the territory of the flag under which it goes.
    Secondly, it can be propelled into a threatened direction, massing efforts by placing 2-3 missile defense ships.
    The problem is different: How will GMU influence it? A 6-7 storm or a typhoon, for example? After all, there are restrictions on pitching angles, wind speed ...
    Thirdly, I think that such ships themselves will become the primary targets when carrying out support actions to break through the missile defense system. Therefore, they will have to be protected by a detachment of forces from boats and aircraft (PLO / air defense). Which is also not good.
  10. Avior
    Avior 9 September 2020 14: 48
    0
    If there were missile defense missiles for MK57 cells for the Japanese, it would be better to put them, and not MK41 - the energy capabilities would be higher
    In principle, there is no problem to make containers for cm-3 for mk57, but in the future it would be possible to supply a more effective rocket
    1. d4rkmesa
      d4rkmesa 9 September 2020 17: 00
      0
      Is there any unique weaponry for the Mk-57? It seems that the volume remained unclaimed.
      1. Avior
        Avior 9 September 2020 19: 04
        +1
        As far as I know, no.
        This is one of the problems of the Zamwolts.
        They do not want to develop new missiles for three ships, they will get expensive ones.
        Although the cell for missile defense missiles is much more effective than the MK41.
        If the Japanese are added yet, you look, and they will undertake, the Americans are also interested.