| Submit your comments on this article |
| East Asia |
| Japan mulls 30% cut in number of tanks, artillery |
| 2004-01-06 |
| The Japanese government is considering a cut of about 30 per cent in the number of tanks and artillery, while boosting ground forces personnel by more than 5,000, a news report said on Tuesday. No mention of special forces, but that would be nice. In the new framework of the National Defence Programme Outline, the government is also considering dispensing with the guideline under which Japan possesses the minimum necessary defence capability, Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper said, citing a government source. Japan currently has about 1,480,000 ground troops, and "we are trying to adjust the number so that we can effectively deal with new types of security concerns," an army spokesman said, without commenting directly on the Yomiuri report. Since its establishment in 1954, the military has been organised and equipped primarily to counter the threat of Soviet invasion. The official said the Ground Self Defence Force, as the army is officially termed, has about 1,080 tanks along with 900 artillery pieces. Under the new defence framework, those would be cut to about 600 to 650 each, the Yomiuri said. International co-operative tasks, such as UN peacekeeping operations, This is AFP, so I guess they inserted the UN bit will be promoted from incidental duties of Japanese soldiers to their primary duties under the new framework, the Yomiuri said. Makes sense! Japan is hardly ideal tank country. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #12 You'd think those Super-Saiyens and Gundams would be sufficient defense. :-) Seriously, sounds like they're starting to switch over from a 'cold war' military, to one that can deploy rapidly. Could be handy if Kim Sung Il has a particularly bad hair day. |
| Posted by: A Jackson 2004-1-7 12:07:43 AM |
| #11 Zhang Fei,the Japaneses designed and ordered these ships a few years ago when there was supposed to be a true VTOL version of the F-35.I remember reading a couple of years ago that Britain,Spain and Japan were interested in buying the VTOL version,and wondering why the Japanese were interested.Now that the F-35 has become an over-priced runway hog,the Japaneses are stuck w/helos.But you have to start somewhere,and I fearlessly predict the Japanese will have 1-2 full-fledged aircraft carriers by the end of the decade.Won't faze China,but,Thailand,Malaysia,et al might get nervous. |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-1-7 12:02:56 AM |
| #10 If I ran a govt. in Asia I would get a little nervous if the Japanese started to deploy peacekeepers in the South East Asian Coprosperity Sphere.Backed up by aircraft carriers-er,"really large destroyers". These aircraft carriers have displacements of 20,000 tons and can carry a few helicopters at most. WWII Japanese carriers displaced 70,000 tons and carried 100 warplanes. Worry isn't the first thought that comes to mind when one thinks of these upsized destroyers. More like a belly-laugh. It would be nice if Japan started putting together British-sized carriers, though - they could help in any scrap over Taiwan. (For some perspective, modern-era Nimitz-class carriers have displacements of 100,000 tons and carry 90 planes). |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-1-6 11:11:29 PM |
| #9 Yes, I see. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-1-6 9:43:51 PM |
| #8 They may have Godzilla in storage but we've triple cloned Raymond Burr. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-1-6 4:44:23 PM |
| #7 But they still have Godzilla in storage somewhere, right? |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2004-1-6 4:11:44 PM |
| #6 Those would be "through-deck frigates", I believe. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-1-6 2:42:16 PM |
| #5 If I ran a govt. in Asia I would get a little nervous if the Japanese started to deploy peacekeepers in the South East Asian Coprosperity Sphere.Backed up by aircraft carriers-er,"really large destroyers". |
| Posted by: Stephen 2004-1-6 2:19:18 PM |
| #4 Zhang, are you sure that this is not a transition to create more heads for overseas deployment? |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2004-1-6 11:49:01 AM |
| #3 Yep, guess they accepted the fact that tanks and artillery are not much good against incoming missiles. Practical lot, those Japanese... Additional infantry aren't much good against missiles either. This is a really bad move. It sounds like the defense budget is running short of cash, and officials had to choose between men and equipment. The problem with this approach is that infantry don't have much killing power - they serve mainly to direct artillery fire, less of which will be available because of this downsizing. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-1-6 11:19:47 AM |
| #2 Sorry Fred, I seem to have mixed up Source with Posted By. My apologies! |
| Posted by: phil_b 2004-1-6 6:02:56 AM |
| #1 Yep, guess they accepted the fact that tanks and artillery are not much good against incoming missiles. Practical lot, those Japanese... |
| Posted by: Carl in NH 2004-1-6 5:43:00 AM |