Japan’s defense ministry requests nearly 12% budget increase to bolster military’s strike capability
Japan’s defense ministry requests nearly 12% budget increase to bolster military’s strike capability
Japan's defense ministry requests nearly 12% budget increase to bolster military's strike capability
Japan’s defense ministry is requesting a nearly 12% budget increase that includes two warships with advanced radar and long-range cruise missiles as it further fortifies the nation’s military in the face of North Korean threats and Chinese military advancement.
The record 7.7 trillion yen ($52.5 billion) request for the 2024 fiscal year marks the second year of a rapid five-year military buildup under a new security strategy Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s government adopted in December. It focuses on reinforcing strike capability in a break from Japan’s postwar principle of having a military only for self-defense.
Under the five-year plan, Japan plans to spend 43 trillion yen ($315 billion) through 2027 to nearly double its annual spending to around 10 trillion yen ($68 billion), making Japan the world’s third-biggest spender after the United States and China. How to finance and justify the growing military spending is uncertain in a country with steeply declining births and increasing costs of caring for its aged population.
I’m curious if they’ll build any fleet carriers? Large super carriers are a sort of requirement for fighting on the vast Pacific Ocean. Or any ocean really.. but especially the biggest (the best ocean)….
They probably won't for a while. They do, however, have helicopter destroyers that coincidentally support F-35 operations. However, please keep in mind that this isn't a carrier, but rather a helicopter destroyer. We may also expect to see helicopter cruisers in the future, but that's TBD.
/s if that wasn't obvious, they already very much have carriers even if they aren't exactly Nimitz-class carriers.
Do they need to be able to fight across the entire Pacific? Their most likely adversaries are right next door and their most likely ally is the dominant naval power already.
I any money spent on a large carrier would probably be better spent on other things. You can spend 10 billion on a single carrier or get a fleet of ~100 F-35s. I would guess mid-air refueling and more planes will get more sorties over likely targets in a conflict than a carrier would.
I also don't think carriers are going to be the dominant sea power force in a future peer conflict. I think the submarine will dominate the next war. The carrier will be regulated to power projection after the sea is won and made safe to operate in.
Submarines can't win a war at sea alone, and we have ASW capable aircraft flying constantly for surveillance against them. We've been doing it for more than half a century now.
The reason aircraft carriers became ubiquitous was because aircraft are the most effective means of deploying weaponry. That hasn't changed. They can also project power inland as well as engaging surface and sub surface craft.
Nothing about warfare technology has been drastically altered enough for submarines to be the primary fighting force. They have a job that they're damn good at, but aircraft are more multirole and far quicker.