Japan 20000t SPY-7 guided missile destroyer/cruiser

And kinda pointless. I'd give it a couple of 76mm instead.
Bigger surface ships tried going couple 76mm route in the 1960s...didn't end well.

(1)It isn't like a larger gun, built on a similar tech level, is less capable in just about anything other than the CIWS role; guns of any size are automatable, and we know since 1970s1940s they work perfectly fine.

(2)For the capability, the opposite is obviously the case, as a larger shell simply makes more room for any usable content, flies order(s) of magnitude further and faster. Nor it's probably that much more expensive to produce, as the difference is mostly steelwork and actuators of heavier turret, the 'smart' part is similar. Smaller naval guns aren't that cheap just because they're small.
Nor their smart ammo is cheap because it's small. It's just less capable, and far more difficult to be made capable. Zumwalt 155 guns and their ammo shall serve as a stern warning here.

(3)The positive difference, if it exists, is limited to smaller guns already being available (but we're already developing a whole new unique, large ship?), and being easier to mount...which is worth the less the larger the ship. Installing it in the primary DP position is just a waste.

(4)It made a lot of sense when there were just no big enough ships to go beyond a normal DP weapon; missiles just don't depend on launcher size, unless they physically can move with them. Nor their usable magazine scale well with the size of a ship (it scales linearly=badly).

(5)But for large ships, gun as a system always benefited disproportionally from size. You just waste the already obtained internal volume, structural rigidity otherwise. Disproportionally larger shells(of any purpose), disproportionally more ammo, disproportionally cheaper.
This isn't about an established separate need - more about not using the opportunity to install a balanced(to size) weapon, which is already here.
 
Bigger surface ships tried going couple 76mm route in the 1960s...didn't end well.

(1)It isn't like a larger gun, built on a similar tech level, is less capable in just about anything other than the CIWS role; guns of any size are automatable, and we know since 1970s1940s they work perfectly fine.

(2)For the capability, the opposite is obviously the case, as a larger shell simply makes more room for any usable content, flies order(s) of magnitude further and faster. Nor it's probably that much more expensive to produce, as the difference is mostly steelwork and actuators of heavier turret, the 'smart' part is similar. Smaller naval guns aren't that cheap just because they're small.
Nor their smart ammo is cheap because it's small. It's just less capable, and far more difficult to be made capable. Zumwalt 155 guns and their ammo shall serve as a stern warning here.

(3)The positive difference, if it exists, is limited to smaller guns already being available (but we're already developing a whole new unique, large ship?), and being easier to mount...which is worth the less the larger the ship. Installing it in the primary DP position is just a waste.

(4)It made a lot of sense when there were just no big enough ships to go beyond a normal DP weapon; missiles just don't depend on launcher size, unless they physically can move with them. Nor their usable magazine scale well with the size of a ship (it scales linearly=badly).

(5)But for large ships, gun as a system always benefited disproportionally from size. You just waste the already obtained internal volume, structural rigidity otherwise. Disproportionally larger shells(of any purpose), disproportionally more ammo, disproportionally cheaper.
This isn't about an established separate need - more about not using the opportunity to install a balanced(to size) weapon, which is already here.
Before all this, you've got to consider that this ship is something that is replacing Aegis Ashore and is meant for the defence of mainland Japan. One of its key benefits is envisioned to be freeing other JMSDF Aegis ships of Fleet Escort Force from BMD role so that they could actually be deployed alongside other Fleet Escort Force Ship to ECS without causing a BMD gap. As such, the possibility of ship main gun of ASEV actually being employed in combat is very low in the first place and as TomS has pointed out, bigger guns are "pointless" for this ship's role.
 
Just so. A couple of small guns would be more useful on dealing with small boats (which China does use, though not to the same extent as Iran). The 5-inch gun is rather ill-suited to dealing with small surface threats and IMO serves very little purpose on major combatants in general.
 
ASEV:
Length: ~190m (Maya Class: ~170m)
Beam: ~25m (Maya Class: ~21m)
Standard displacement:~12000t (Maya Class: 8200t)
Crew:240 (Maya Class: ~300)

MK-41 VLS: 128 cells (Maya Class: 96 cells)
Does the Standard displacement figure of ~12,000 mt look understated (Standard displacement also known as Washington displacement in which ship is fully loaded including armament only excluding fuel).
The Zumwalt has very similar dimensions (Length 186m; Beam 24.7m) with a quoted fully loaded displacement of 15,995 mt, assuming the ASEV fuel load of approx 1,000 mt that would give fully loaded displacement of only 13,000 mt, a 3,000 mt difference?
 
Does the Standard displacement figure of ~12,000 mt look understated (Standard displacement also known as Washington displacement in which ship is fully loaded including armament only excluding fuel).
The Zumwalt has very similar dimensions (Length 186m; Beam 24.7m) with a quoted fully loaded displacement of 15,995 mt, assuming the ASEV fuel load of approx 1,000 mt that would give fully loaded displacement of only 13,000 mt, a 3,000 mt difference?

“(the displacement of the ASEV)is 1.7 times that of the Flight III”

“DDG-51 Flight III : standard displacement :~7000t,( Full loaded )displacement: 9650t ”


;)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7378.jpeg
    IMG_7378.jpeg
    579.2 KB · Views: 26
“(the displacement of the ASEV)is 1.7 times that of the Flight III”

“DDG-51 Flight III : standard displacement :~7000t,( Full loaded )displacement: 9650t ”


;)
Thanks for your info “the displacement of the ASEV is 1.7 times that of the Flight III” looks much more realistic, which if taking CBO FLD figure for Flt III of 9870 mt would give ASEV FLD of ~17,000 mt, slightly higher than the Zumwalt's 16,000 mt

The CBO quote the DDG-51 Flt III light displacement as 7700 mt, defined as the weight of the ship excluding munitions, fuel, water, ballast, stores, crew etc. so puzzled and makes no sense as to why the Japanese can quote a standard displacement of only ~7000 mt.
 
Japan MoD Secures $2.5 Billion To Build Two ASEV For FY2024
The Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) on December 19 announced it has secured $2.59 billion (373.1 billion yen) for fiscal year 2024 from the Ministry of Finance to build two Aegis System Equipped Vessels (ASEV), which are alternatives to Japan’s now-scrapped plan for a land-based Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system.
 
Last edited:
Japan MoD Secures $2.5 Billion To Build Two ASEV For FY2024
The Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) on December 19 announced it has secured $2.59 billion (373.1 billion yen) for fiscal year 2024 from the Ministry of Finance to build two Aegis System Equipped Vessels (ASEV), which are alternatives to Japan’s now-scrapped plan for a land-based Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system.
Why did they scrap Aegis Ashore?
 
Why did they scrap Aegis Ashore?

There were huge pragmatic concerns with where it could be adequately located with sufficient clearance downrange for boosters and misfires, and also radar horizon/detection without interfering with local air traffic and other civilian infrastructure. I do not think any officials came out and stated it, but I imagine there were also concerns with the vulnerability of a static site to any type of attack, ballistic or otherwise.

Note that the defenses to be installed on Guam have all of the same concerns, and I suspect US will struggle to site all of the radars it wants due to local emissions concerns. Aegis ashore was rejected there purely for vulnerability reasons, and as such the radars and launchers are all to be trailer mounted.

ETA:

The US defensive plan for Guam likely also is largely static sites despite nominally be relocatable equipment. I think the main advantage of using ICBS, SPY-7, and Mk41 trailers (among other systems) vice Aegis Ashore is that at least the combat system, all four radar faces, and the magazine aren't colocated where one hit destroys every single piece of capability.
 
Last edited:
Japan MoD Secures $2.5 Billion To Build Two ASEV For FY2024
The Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) on December 19 announced it has secured $2.59 billion (373.1 billion yen) for fiscal year 2024 from the Mini
The DoD FY2024 (March 2023) Justification Book Navy SCN quotes cost of two Burke Flight IIIs as $4.43 billion, 70% more expensive than the Japanese ASEVs, the big unknown is if the build up of the figures comparable, at first glance makes the smaller Burkes look very expensive.
 
The DoD FY2024 (March 2023) Justification Book Navy SCN quotes cost of two Burke Flight IIIs as $4.43 billion, 70% more expensive than the Japanese ASEVs, the big unknown is if the build up of the figures comparable, at first glance makes the smaller Burkes look very expensive.
Er, check your math. The amount secured for ASEV in the current budget is not the total amount to build two ships. The Naval News story says:

The ministry expects the total construction cost for each [ASEV] vessel to reach about 395 billion yen as of late August.

and

In comparison, the latest U.S. Arleigh Burke-class Aegis destroyer (DDG-51 class), in the case of Flight III, the latest estimate for 2023 is $2 billion (about 290 billion yen) per ship.

That makes ASEV about 35% more expensive than a Flight III DDG-51. Even if we take the $2.95b price fro a Flight III instead, it makes the DDG-51 only 424 billion yen, about 7% more expensive. And that leaves us with the question of what's getting left out of ASEV. My hunch is ASW.
 
I most say do I not follow your logic, are you seriously suggesting we take Naval News $2 billion figure for the cost of a Burke Flight III and not the DoD FY2024 Justification Book figure of $2.2 billion ($4.43/2).
 
I most say do I not follow your logic, are you seriously suggesting we take Naval News $2 billion figure for the cost of a Burke Flight III and not the DoD FY2024 Justification Book figure of $2.2 billion ($4.43/2).

Like I said, even if we take the DoD value, ASEV is still not 70% less expensive per unit that a Flight III. A 7% differential is very small and is probably reflecctive of the efficiency of Japanese shipyards and the lower DC standards being applied.

If you're looking at cost on a per-ton basis, "steel is cheap, and air is free" comes to mind. But designing a new hull is not.
 
A 7% differential is very small and is probably reflecctive of the efficiency of Japanese shipyards and the lower DC standards being applied.
DC standards? Like damage control? If so I haven't seen anything suggesting Japanese damage control is sub-standard when compared to the US. If anything their preventative measures seem to be quite exceptional seeing as how few failures we see with how large of a fleet Japan operates.

But designing a new hull is not.
The ASEV likely isn't a clean sheet design. Even the Hyuuga and Izumo used existing designs, just enlarged to the required tonnage.
 
Like I said, even if we take the DoD value, ASEV is still not 70% less expensive per unit that a Flight III. A 7% differential is very small and is probably reflecctive of the efficiency of Japanese shipyards and the lower DC standards being applied.

If you're looking at cost on a per-ton basis, "steel is cheap, and air is free" comes to mind. But designing a new hull is not.
Another write up on ASEV buy USNI saying Japan’s Defense Ministry Tuesday has secured the funding for the build of the two new ASEV Aegis destroyers confirming cost of 373.1 billion yen / $2.6 billion, a slight reduction from the 379.7 billion yen / $2.64 billion, that the Ministry sought in its August FY 2024 budget request.

So it would confirm my earlier post the two FY2024 Burkes budgeted at $4.43 billion are 70% more expensive, the detail breakdown of the US and Japanese budgets are unknown so no exact apples to apples comparison is possible, but would repeat at first glance it makes the smaller Burkes look very expensive in comparison to the Japanese ASEVs.

 
Last edited:
Note the article says the funding is for FY2024 and that two ships are to be built, one from FY2024 and one from FY2025. The $2.6 billion is the first budget request for the long-lead items and initial work on the first hull. The second ship is not fully funded yet as the Japanese Navy won't have put their FY2025 funding request in yet. So its too early yet to determine the final price.
 
There were huge pragmatic concerns with where it could be adequately located with sufficient clearance downrange for boosters and misfires, and also radar horizon/detection without interfering with local air traffic and other civilian infrastructure. I do not think any officials came out and stated it, but I imagine there were also concerns with the vulnerability of a static site to any type of attack, ballistic or otherwise..

I just saw the whole shebang as a civilian in one of the designated basing areas - which was chosen as the SDF actually owned land there.

There was a furore when it was discovered that the SDF had used Google Earth to determine the terrain at the site, using rulers on computer screens, IIRC. We didn’t have the booster or radar concern, given the location, well - save for fishing vessels.

The biggest problem was the locals didn’t see any benefit to the project. Most areas of Japan expect some kind of kickback in exchange for hosting national infrastructure - but nothing was offered, so no support was forthcoming.
 
Note the article says the funding is for FY2024 and that two ships are to be built, one from FY2024 and one from FY2025. The $2.6 billion is the first budget request for the long-lead items and initial work on the first hull. The second ship is not fully funded yet as the Japanese Navy won't have put their FY2025 funding request in yet. So its too early yet to determine the final price.
In the Naval News Dec 19 write up by their Japanese defense writer Kosuke Takahashi on the ASEV destroyer contract it stated the Japanese Ministry of Defense (MoD) on December 19 announced it has secured $2.59 billion (373.1 billion yen) for fiscal year 2024 from the Ministry of Finance to build two ASEV, which are alternatives to Japan’s now-scrapped plan for a land-based Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense system.
"In a press release following today’s ministerial-level negotiations, the defense ministry specifically said that 373.1 billion yen as construction costs of the two ASEV was allocated on the two promises:
(1) it will aim to build an effective project management system ;
(2) when acquiring and updating Aegis destroyers in the future, such as updating the Kongo-class Aegis destroyers, it will take a zero-based review regarding the selection of to-be-installed radars (for successors to the Kongo-class ships).
The defense ministry has selected Lockheed Martin AN/SPY-7 solid-state radars (SSRs) on the two ASEV over Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6 radar, which was originally designed for US Navy warships equipped with the Aegis Combat System."

Which interpret as the 373.1 billion yen/$2.59 billion is the fully funded cost of the two ships not just FY2024 funding as is the DOD FY2024 Justification Book figure of $4.43 billion for two Burkes.


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...res-2-5-billion-to-build-two-asev-for-fy2024/
 
Japan has one of the of the top three shipbuilding industries on the planet. The US shipbuilding industry is practically defunct. They are consistently paying much less for similar ships, I think because of this.

As are South Korea, but they don't seem to have separated power plants like Japan and the USN do.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom