Japanese cruise missiles

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
16 April 2008
Messages
8,283
Reaction score
9,960
MTCR only applies to exports. Japan really isn't looking to sell complete weapon systems yet, so I'd assume the range is really driven by their own operational requirements.
 
Without an OTH (over the horizon) radar or a network of ocean surveillance radar satellites you won't know where a ship is past 300 km. Loud convoys might be triangulates with SOSUS-like systems at even longer ranges, but warships not really.

So airborne radars will be needed, and 300 km is a sensible air/ground radar range.
13,000 m altitude offers about 470 km radar horizon, but detection at such ranges is very difficult with today's RCS reduced warships. SAR mode is typically published to be useful out to 300 km at most (except satellites, which operate very differently).

So one could assume that the Japanese think of the islands as protected by land-based SAM and some AEW&C or MPA plane flying in this umbrella of protection, detecting, tracking, classifying targets.

300 km is also a huge range in regard to cruise time. a warship may move more than 10 nm by the time a missile has flown this distance, and likely still more than 5 nm if it's a supersonic one. So midcourse updates make sense, and reliable datalink for those cannot be expected at 200+ km anyway.
So overall even a Mach 3 cruise missile would have a hard time finding warships at 500 km range reliably.


MTCR is about payloads of 500+ kg. Typical warheads against ship targets are about half that heavy.
 
sferrin said:
Wonder if there's any relation to this:

Possible, but not likely I think. From what has been described of the new system so far, it appears to be an SRBM rather than an air-breathing missile.

DrRansom said:
Is Japan bound by mtcr(sp?). Any reason for the 300km range besides export potential? The US has allowed Korea to go over 300km.

IIRC, Japan used to use the MTCR as a semi-official benchmark to clearly differentiate offensive missile systems from defensive ones. That practise seems to have fallen into disuse in recent years, but they may have partly revived it in this case to emphasise the defensive nature of the Type 23.
 
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/760e5c60-6445-11e6-a08a-c7ac04ef00aa.html

Japan plans missile to test Chinese strategy in East China Sea

Leo Lewis and Kana Inagaki in Tokyo

bbc7ac49-648c-489d-b706-0c4b72dd66d3.img

Japan's new missile, with a 300km range, will be able to cover the waters around the Senkaku islands


Japan is planning to develop a new tactical ballistic missile that would reset Chinese military strategy around disputed islands in the East China Sea.

Plans for the surface-to-ship weapon, which would be the longest-range missile ever built by Japan, have emerged after prolonged months of rancour between Tokyo and Beijing over rival territorial claims.

As tensions have persisted, Japan revealed last month that it scrambled fighter jets a record 199 times in the second quarter as Chinese military activities intensified around Japan’s territorial waters and drew closer to the uninhabited Senkaku islands — a chain known as the Diaoyu in China.

The new missile, say military experts familiar with the plans, is designed to “complicate enemy planning”. By positioning them on Japanese islands in the East China Sea and with a range that stretches to the edge of Japan’s territorial claims, the missiles would discourage naval aggression. If an attacking force were planning a landing on a Japanese island, its commander would need to destroy the missiles beforehand — in effect initiating conflict.

Japan’s move to build the missiles comes as the country strengthens its internal capability to develop military equipment after Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ended the country’s self-imposed ban on the export of weapons in 2014. The programme is part of a wider effort to reduce spending on foreign-made weaponry if a domestic alternative can be produced.

The new vehicle-mounted, GPS-guided missile system is expected to be deployed to locations such as the southern island of Miyako in Okinawa, according to people familiar with the plan.

With a range of about 300km, the system will be able to cover the waters around the Senkakus. Experts say the current Type 12 surface-to-ship missiles, which Japan procured in 2012, have a range of roughly 200km.

The defence ministry said it was studying ways to enhance its existing surface-to-ship missile capability to deter invasion of Japan’s remote islands.

But it declined to comment on details after an August 14 report in the Yomiuri Shimbun newsppaper said the new missiles were expected to be deployed around 2023.

Industry watchers say the move to develop a new missile is no surprise given that the ministry’s defence guidelines released in 2013 called for Japan’s Self Defence Forces to strengthen their ability to deal with attacks on islands using aircraft, naval vessels and missiles.

The ministry is currently explaining to local municipalities in Miyako and Ishigaki islands in Okinawa and Amami island of Kagoshima in southern Japan about its plan to deploy its surface-to-ship guided-missile units.

It is expected to seek funding for development of the new missile in its initial budget requests for the 2017-18 fiscal year, to be submitted later this month.

Governments in the Asia-Pacific region are closely scrutinising Japan’s military posture following this month’s appointment of Tomomi Inada as the country’s defence minister. The outspoken nationalist, who returned on Wednesday from a visit to a Japanese military base in Djibouti, has previously expressed a hardline position on Japan’s territorial rights in the East China Sea.
 
I notice that they only refer to GPS guidance but also talk about this as an anti-ship weapon. GPS alone isn't likely to be good enough to hit moving targets at sea at that range. Is there an as-yet-unmentioned seeker as well, or do we anticipate something like AMSTE, where the GPS-guided weapon gets continuous target location updates from an off-board radar?
 
Might be just a journalistic error, after all the first line calls the missile a "tactical ballistic missile". ::)
 
Hood said:
Might be just a journalistic error, after all the first line calls the missile a "tactical ballistic missile". ::)

Based on Grey Havoc's post, that isn't necessarily an error.

There's been some recent interest in anti-ship ballistic missiles (see China's DF-21d). This clearly isn't in the same class as DF-21d, but I can see Japan wanting to look at ballistic rather than air-breathing trajectories, especially if they think that the PLAN's TBMD capabilities are lagging their air defense capabilities.
 
I note the wikipedia entry for the Type-12 SSM says this:

In 2015, an upgrade of the Type 88 became operational called the Type 12. The Type 12 features INS with mid-course GPS guidance and better precision due to enhanced contour/terrain matching and target discrimination capabilities. The weapon is networked, where initial and mid-course targeting can be provided by other platforms, and also boasts shorter reload times, reduced lifecycle costs, and a range of 124 mi (108 nmi; 200 km).[2][3
 
Yes? SSM-1 (Type 88 or Type 12) is a liquid-fueled air-breathing missile. If the new missile is solid-fuel as reported, it's not related.
 
Though in some respects it would be closer to a navalised/Gryphon-ised AGM-129.

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0004078720

Japanese version of Tomahawk eyed


8:20 pm, November 20, 2017


The Yomiuri Shimbun

The government is considering developing a cruise missile capable of striking targets on the ground.

The Defense Ministry plans to start research on antiship missiles from fiscal 2018, and it is considering adding land-attack capabilities to the missiles. If realized, it will be the first time for Japan to develop land-attack cruise missiles on a full scale.

The key aim of the plan is to regain control of remote islands occupied by enemies, but the new cruise missile will be technically able to attack enemy bases, which is expected to heighten deterrence of North Korea.

Cruise missiles are precision guided weapons that head for targets using on-board radar and other equipment. Compared to ballistic missiles that fly on a parabolic curve and come from above, cruise missiles fly level using wings and jet engines, just like aircraft. Since the envisaged cruise missiles have much in common with the U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile, officials of the Defense Ministry position the planned cruise missiles as a “Japanese version of the Tomahawk.”

The Defense Ministry asked for ¥7.7 billion in its budget request for fiscal 2018 for research on a new antiship guided missile to defend remote islands. The ministry announced that it would start research on new antiship missiles, and it is considering incorporating land-attack missile functions that have many technical commonalities. The ministry aims to build a test model by fiscal 2022.

In the planning stage, the envisaged antiship cruise missile will have a range of over 300 kilometers, and be capable of being launched from special vehicles, destroyers, P1 patrol aircraft, fighter jets and other places. The missile will fly low using GPS and other devices, switch to on-board radar just before reaching a target, and destroy it.

With a shape that enhances its stealth capability, the new missile will be better able than U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles of escaping enemies’ radar nets. In addition, the ministry also will consider introducing functions to enable the new missile to avoid interceptions more easily, such as changing directions during flight.


The government is considering developing land-attack, antiship cruise missiles due to a sense of urgency over the Chinese military, which is pushing to modernize itself in tandem with its maritime advancement. If the missiles are deployed, Japan’s ability to attack vessels approaching remote islands or ground forces landing on such islands will significantly increase. If vessels or aircraft equipped with the missile are deployed near enemy bases, they can be used to attack bases.

However, the government takes the stance that Japan is allowed to have the capability to attack enemy bases under the Constitution, but will not possess the capability as a policy decision from the perspective of the country’s exclusively defense-oriented policy. Within the government and the Liberal Democratic Party, there is the opinion that Japan should have the capability to attack enemy bases given the situation surrounding North Korea. However, the government will promote the development of the new cruise missile focusing on the defense of remote islands.

Among defense equipment developed by the Japanese government in the past, its antiship missiles can be categorized as cruise missiles, such as vehicle-mounted Type 88 surface-to-ship guided missiles; Type 90 ship-to-ship guided missiles, which are an improved version of the Type 88 missile; and Type 93 air-to-ship guided missiles.

This appears to be a separate project to the JGSDF's IRBM program.
 
This sounds very much like the earlier solid-fueled 300km weapon linked earlier (August 2016). Could it be journalistic inaccuracy making both sound like separate programmes or have the JSDF simply looked at the range of options and found the cruise-missile is the better option as being more flexible and offering the advantages of additional range and multiple platforms?
 
If there is a push for a Japanese Tomahawk, I strongly suspect that this will be a purely internal development process. A Japanese Tomahawk is an obvious candidate for a nuclear weapon delivery platform, so I expect the Japanese to try and develop it in-house, so as to internally develop the industrial knowledge.
 
sferrin said:
Sounds like a customer for JASSM-ER / LRASM. ;)

The Japanese appear to have a pretty poor opinion of that missile family, though this may be somewhat coloured by the ongoing difficulties they are having with Lockheed Martin re. the F-35J.

Hood said:
This sounds very much like the earlier solid-fueled 300km weapon linked earlier (August 2016). Could it be journalistic inaccuracy making both sound like separate programmes or have the JSDF simply looked at the range of options and found the cruise-missile is the better option as being more flexible and offering the advantages of additional range and multiple platforms?

While there is some operational overlap, the two programs are aimed at different requirements overall. Though the article does seem to have muddled the details a bit. Other sources suggest that the new missile's range will actually be at least in excess of 400km/216 nautical miles. The GSDF's IRBM is intended as a rapid response, MTCR compliant (at least in theory) weapon for helping to defend the outer islands from an aggressor, while the JSDF's new cruise missile would appear to planned as a post-MTCR general purpose (again in theory) multi-platform weapon for hopefully deterring an enemy from hostilities in the first place. As DrRansom alluded to, the mere potential of a cruise missile to be utilised as a nuclear weapons delivery system would be a deterrent in itself, though only up to a point.

The IRBM is currently scheduled to enter service in 2023, while, based on it's known/inferred development schedule, the cruise missile won't be entering service before 2025 at the earliest, barring a crash program. Perhaps tellingly, it looks like the JSDF may be bypassing the Acquisition Technology and Logistics Agency on this program (the GSDF are already handling their new missile in-house) which if true is likely to give rise to speculation that that agency is about to get the chop or at least a severe overhaul. Much like it's counterparts in the United States (DLA) and the United Kingdom (DE&S) it is in a right old mess, and no mistake.
 
Grey Havoc said:
The IRBM is currently scheduled to enter service in 2023, while, based on it's known/inferred development schedule, the cruise missile won't be entering service before 2025 at the earliest, barring a crash program.

Is there any publically available information on this IRBM? I ask because it seems very strange for such a project to be going on in Japan with no criticism from the generally pacifistic opposition parties.
 
Grey Havoc said:
sferrin said:
Sounds like a customer for JASSM-ER / LRASM. ;)

The Japanese appear to have a pretty poor opinion of that missile family, though this may be somewhat coloured by the ongoing difficulties they are having with Lockheed Martin re. the F-35J.

What "ongoing difficulties" are they having with the F-35J? What evidence is there that they have a "poor opinion" of the JASSM family? Just curious. Any misgivings with Lockheed, if true, don't seem to have affected sales of PAC-3 to Japan.
 
Sorry, my entire post got wiped out by a browser glitch, I'll have to try again tomorrow. Argh!!!
beating-head-against-the-wall.gif


EDIT: One quick note though, I was wrong about the F-35J designation being adopted.
 
Grey Havoc said:
The GSDF's IRBM is intended as a rapid response, MTCR compliant

An MTCR compliant, conventionally armed IRBM is practically a contradiction in terms.

Reposting slide: Japan's evident interest in LRPF co-development/co-production is potentially relevant here.
 

Attachments

  • precision-fires-road-map2.png
    precision-fires-road-map2.png
    227.9 KB · Views: 399
sferrin said:
Sounds like a customer for JASSM-ER / LRASM. ;)
Perhaps they can purchase the data and IP on Northrop-Grumman's ill-fated TSSAM (AGM-137A/BGM-137B)?
 
elmayerle said:
sferrin said:
Sounds like a customer for JASSM-ER / LRASM. ;)
Perhaps they can purchase the data and IP on Northrop-Grumman's ill-fated TSSAM (AGM-137A/BGM-137B)?

Would the US sell? Also, wouldn't they see that is a risky compared to just buying something off a running production line?
 
sferrin said:
Sounds like a customer for JASSM-ER / LRASM. ;)

Yes, for real.
Not everything has to turn XXX-centric as some like to push.
Japan has developed a few of their own turbojet powered anti-ship missiles with ranges approaching 200km. (ASM-1 and ASM-2)
They are also busy bringing the ramjet powered ASM-3 to fruition.
Postwar, Japan has designed and built turbojets, and low and high bypass turbofans.
The type of cruise missile intimated in the press reports are well within their scope, and fits in with their other munitions/weapons development.

Maybe they will develop their own missile, as they're intimating in the press reports.
Personal wishlists of what others want them to buy are neither here nor there.

EDIT: In the original post, it indeed seems to be that they are wanting to develop an anti-ship missile, with a land attack derivitive. I'm not sure where this leaves a Tomahawk type cruise missile, nor indeed the upcoming ramjet powered ASM-3 in the scheme of things.
 
kaiserbill said:
sferrin said:
Sounds like a customer for JASSM-ER / LRASM. ;)

Yes, for real.
Not everything has to turn XXX-centric as some like to push.
Japan has developed a few of their own turbojet powered anti-ship missiles with ranges approaching 200km. (ASM-1 and ASM-2)
They are also busy bringing the ramjet powered ASM-3 to fruition.
Postwar, Japan has designed and built turbojets, and low and high bypass turbofans.
The type of cruise missile intimated in the press reports are well within their scope, and fits in with their other munitions/weapons development.

Maybe they will develop their own missile, as they're intimating in the press reports.
Personal wishlists of what others want them to buy are neither here nor there.

Why does it bother you so much? My initial comment was partially in jest, partially in "it makes sense" since it would be off the shelf. Not once did I ever indicate Japan couldn't or shouldn't build their own. I am well aware of their competence there.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5491.msg311405.html#msg311405
 
It bothers me because of the invariable clutter and derailing that occurs. Your link above is a case in point. The discussion in that thread ceased to be about Japanese missiles, and became about the B1 bomber/US weapons/wishlists. The same thing happens on some indigineous fighter threads, where some can't resist dropping the F-3youknowwhat into almost every one of those threads. As somebody interested in the actual and various indigineous projects, it's wearying.
Not aimed at you..just a general observation.
Anyhow...
 
Anyway, below is an edit from my previous post"
EDIT: In the original post, it indeed seems to be that they are wanting to develop an anti-ship missile, with a land attack derivitive. I'm not sure where this leaves a Tomahawk type cruise missile, nor indeed the upcoming ramjet powered ASM-3 in the scheme of things.
 
kaiserbill said:
Anyway, below is an edit from my previous post"
EDIT: In the original post, it indeed seems to be that they are wanting to develop an anti-ship missile, with a land attack derivitive. I'm not sure where this leaves a Tomahawk type cruise missile, nor indeed the upcoming ramjet powered ASM-3 in the scheme of things.

Given the short range, I'd guess an ASM-3 or derivative wouldn't be out of the question. Depends on how much bang they want, I guess. Also, Japan tends to import foreign words and tack them on to things with a vague resemblance, so I wouldn't read much into "Japanese Tomahawk".
 
marauder2048 said:
Grey Havoc said:
The GSDF's IRBM is intended as a rapid response, MTCR compliant

An MTCR compliant, conventionally armed IRBM is practically a contradiction in terms.

Reposting slide: Japan's evident interest in LRPF co-development/co-production is potentially relevant here.

This answers my earlier question on why there have been no protests about this. If it's used in the MLRS it won't have the "image" the public has about ballistic missiles.
 
Starviking, that was basically what I was thinking too, hence why I mentioned the ASM-1 through to 3 regarding range.
These are approaching 200km already, so when the article in the original post stated ranges required of around 300km, and then toward the end intimated a link with an anti-ship variant, I immediately thought of a longer ranged ASM-3.
But could a ram-jet powered vehicle really be described as a "cruise" missile? ;D
 
kaiserbill said:
Starviking, that was basically what I was thinking too, hence why I mentioned the ASM-1 through to 3 regarding range.
These are approaching 200km already, so when the article in the original post stated ranges required of around 300km, and then toward the end intimated a link with an anti-ship variant, I immediately thought of a longer ranged ASM-3.
But could a ram-jet powered vehicle really be described as a "cruise" missile? ;D

Given how sped-up Japanese tours are, 'cos of the short holidays - it may for Japan ;)
 
I apologise if this is totally daft, but I wonder, what with the talk of shared missile development etc whether the UK has anything to offer in terms of joint development.

The nice thing about the Anglo/Japanese partnership is that there is shared interest, requirement and ability.
 
kaiserbill said:
But could a ram-jet powered vehicle really be described as a "cruise" missile? ;D

Depends on the range I'd think. Things like Navaho, Triton, Rigel, Buran, and Burya were all ramjet powered missiles meant to fly hundred or thousands of miles. More recently there were Meteorit (Kh-80) and GELA (Kh-90).
 
oh, look here is an article which may have some bearing on the topic:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Japan-and-UK-to-collaborate-on-missile-development
 
mrmalaya said:
oh, look here is an article which may have some bearing on the topic:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Japan-and-UK-to-collaborate-on-missile-development

That's for an air-to-air missile.
 
sferrin said:
mrmalaya said:
oh, look here is an article which may have some bearing on the topic:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Japan-and-UK-to-collaborate-on-missile-development

That's for an air-to-air missile.

That's what I thought but from the article:

A former Air Self-Defense Force general said that "if the U.K. hands engine technology over to Japan,
we can use it to develop anti-ship missiles and other weapons as well."
 
marauder2048 said:
sferrin said:
mrmalaya said:
oh, look here is an article which may have some bearing on the topic:

https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Japan-and-UK-to-collaborate-on-missile-development

That's for an air-to-air missile.

That's what I thought but from the article:

A former Air Self-Defense Force general said that "if the U.K. hands engine technology over to Japan,
we can use it to develop anti-ship missiles and other weapons as well."

Hmmm. One would think Japan would already have suitable small turbofan technology. (The engine used in the UK's Storm Shadow is French.) ???
 
Well if we are reading the article right, it is more likely to refer to the replacement for Storm Shadow - which is 2030 onwards and is dual role cruise and anti-shipping at this stage:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_(missile)

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,28806.msg303145.html#msg303145

All a bit tentative though.
 
sferrin said:
Hmmm. One would think Japan would already have suitable small turbofan technology. (The engine used in the UK's Storm Shadow is French.) ???

I read that comment as referring to Meteor's ramjet technology, no need to bring Storm Shadow into a Meteor-related project.
 
The fastest way would likely be extrapolating ASM-2. Making it somewhat like Popeye Turbo. No need to reinvent the wheel or reinvest on expensive lifting body.

Land attack Ramjet cruise missile approach is possible, BUT likely to be larger due to need to have a rocket booster and some portion of the trajectory would be at high altitude.

I think.
 
Back
Top Bottom