Now its Britain's turn...

Royal Navy's HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier to visit Japan and South Korea

The UK government said HMS Queen Elizabeth will carry out exercises with forces from Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, France, the UAE, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Turkey, Israel, India, Oman and South Korea.

HMS Queen Elizabeth includes 18 F-35B stealth fighters, two destroyers, two frigates and two support ships.

The twin island carrier...The reason for two islands is, simply put, due to the gas turbine exhausts. The design would have either had two small islands or one large, long island. The two smaller islands were chosen. The location and alignment of the islands are based around the 2.4 metre diameter gas turbine exhausts which were pre-fitted in the island and below in the ship superstructure.

 

.So it goes. Japan the Major enemy is now a ģood ally.

 

Does Japan still have military restrictions? If so, should they be lifted by now?

 

The weapons restrictions imposed by the US can only be lifted by the Japanese, because we enshrined it in Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution.

 

They had some kinda defensive forces but they have been developed further. My guess is that the US wants more protection against North Korea.

 

I'm guessing it's the Japanese who want more protection. DPRK has launched several missiles over Japanese territory, including one passing nearby cities.

 

Makes one wonder what secret weapons Japan might have...

 

North Korea or Japan?which you like?

 

Not sure what you mean mate...I was thinking about our submarine choice a few years ago...Japan wanted us to buy theirs and said that we would get access to their secret sub tech if we did...don’t know obviously what that tech is/was, but made me think anyway...

 

Optimized and quieter hull(flow noise, machinery noise, low-frequency noise), improved sonar, a silent drive, new Lithium-Ion batteries, and new torpedo.

Basically, everything they will be putting or testing on their newest submarine class, the Taigei class submarines.

 

For the Japanese Self Defense Forces, both the US and Japan saw that not having a Japanese military was not in their best interests. This led to the creation of the Self Defense Force in 1954, to guard against China and the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent North Korea. As the threats increased and changed, so did the weapons systems that were considered "defensive" in nature.

Some Japanese have been pressing to amend Article 9, but so far this has not happened, as the majority of the Japanese are happy with it as is.

The only real no-no has been nuclear weapons, although, Japan could have them, if she so desired, in about 1 year of beginning development.

 

Duplicate

 

I wonder how much this article 9 is respected behind the scenes...it would be naive of them to just follow along, relying on the US when they are so close geographically to certain destruction...are we being naive believing it...They have the technological knowledge and the economy to develop and invent their own indigenous ‘defences’...No, I’m not talking about Godzilla...

 

Well, Article 9 was written(1947) during a different political time...The US was the sole superpower, China was still friendly, and the Soviets had no navy worthy of the name, and pacifism reigned supreme in post-WW2 Japan. The Japanese interpretation of Article 9 has changed with the political climate - their military was recreated and renamed(Self Defense Forces), weapons systems were renamed(tanks were called "special vehicles"). So, while the letter of the law is not specifically followed, the law's spirit is - renouncing war as a tool of the State. Nor have the Japanese naively followed it with weapons development - they have one of the premier main battle tanks, formidable submarines and destroyers, and will still have stealth fighters. However, all are being acquired in numbers below that needed for offensive operations on a large scale.

 

Not to mention their new Hyuga- and Izuma- class "destroyers", capable of operating F-35s.

My understanding is that there's a bit of pressure to change Art9, but I don't know either popular or political opinions in Japan enough to assess that pressure and its likelihood of success.

 

I think Japan's big problem is not invasion, but a (continuous) missile attack...stealth incursions for bombing...So I would be asking what missile defence does Japan have? They need "super" patriots...missile defence destroyers, maybe laser satelites...Can they target missile sights before launch even...

 

China issues new warning to Australia as Philippines refuses to back down in South China Sea

China tells Australia to abandon its 'Cold War mentality'

Be in no doubt China is currently trying to hurt Australia financially...Also worthy of note the Federal government is buying Chinese assets in Australia, that cash strapped states have sold for quick money (including a Port in Darwin).
Kevin Rudd, a previous Prime Minister and keen China watcher, says that the majority of what China is doing and saying is for domestic purposes and is nothing more than "politics"...Hmmm...
Perhaps Australia's talk is domestic also, giving an excuse to increase it's defence spending...

 

Their Patriot equivalent is the Type 3 Chu-SAM.

They have 8, these modified Arleigh Burkes are all ABM capable.

 

This is still very much a future technology, as it has proven to be an incredibly costly and complex. Lasers have so far lacked the power to destroy ballistic missiles at a safe range. The targeting systems have only been completely capable of targeting a missile in it's boost phase(slowest motion & easily identifiable heat signature). While development is ongoing in several nations, no laser ABM system has proven to be reliably successful...Hence, the continuatual expansion of missile based ABMs.

As to destroying ballistic missile sites prior to launch with lasers...This is not Battletech. Lasers are barely capable of destroying ballistic missiles at close range, destroying a hardened missile site is out of the question with current technology.

 

Of course...but you are assuming that the public know what is out there...remember the saying ‘what ever you have seen the military is at least 30 years ahead...’.
This could be wishful thinking...it could also be an understatement...