Home » Budget Industry » Report: Japan’s Largest Warship Heading to South China Sea, Will Train With U.S., Indian Navies

Report: Japan’s Largest Warship Heading to South China Sea, Will Train With U.S., Indian Navies

An undated photo of JS Izumo (DDH-183) underway. The ship commissioned on March 25, 2015. JMSDF Photo

One of Japan’s largest warship is set to conduct three months of operations in the South China Sea, according to a Monday report in Reuters.

The 24,000-ton JS Izumo (DDH-183) will depart in May from its homeport in Yokosuka, Japan for a series of port visits and exercises running into August.

The ship, “will make stops in Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka before joining the Malabar joint naval exercise with Indian and U.S. naval vessels in the Indian Ocean in July,” reported the wire.

“The aim is to test the capability of the Izumo by sending it out on an extended mission,” a source told Reuters.
“It will train with the U.S. Navy in the South China Sea.”

A U.S. defense official told USNI News on Monday that there were training events with the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces planned for the period but did not outline specifics.

Izumo is one of two helicopter carriers the Japanese have built for the stated claim of anti-submarine warfare and humanitarian aid and disaster relief operations. The ship entered into service in 2015 and its sister ship Kaga is set to commission this year.

Both ships field seven Mitsubishi-built SH-60k ASW helicopters and seven AgustaWestland MCM-101 mine countermeasure (MCM) helicopters, according to U.S. Naval Institute’s Combat Fleets of the World. Both ships can also accommodate U.S. Marine Corps MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

Japanese officials have said the threat of an expanded Chinese submarine fleet was a key driver of Japan developing the ship class.

Izumo’s ASW capability fits in with the goals of Malabar 2017 trilateral exercise with India and the U.S., according to a December interview with U.S. 7th Fleet commander Adm. Joseph Aucoin with the Press Trust of India.

Aucoin promised a larger and more complex ASW exercise in 2017 that would combine new capabilities of the Indian and U.S. forces in the region – like the Indian and U.S. P-8A and Indian P-8I ASW aircraft.

Beijing, for its part, has been vocally opposed to Japan operating warships in the South China Sea and leaned on memories of Imperial Japanese actions in World War II.

“Japan should reflect upon rather than forget what it has done during the aggression, act and speak cautiously on issues concerning the East China Sea and the South China Sea, and make more efforts to increase mutual trust with its neighbors and promote regional peace and stability instead of sowing discord,” Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Hong Lei said last year.

The deployment comes as the Trump administration has said it will be more aggressive in ensuring freedom of international waterways in the region.

In addition to the size of the ship, the helicopter carriers name sends its own message.

“The original Izumo, an armored cruiser that participated in the Battle of Tsushima, was purchased with reparations from the first Sino-Japanese War,” wrote USNI News contributor Kyle Mizokami.“There is little doubt all parties, particularly the Chinese, are aware of the lineage.”

  • A Marco Cota

    Situation in S China sea is critical. China obviously will never back down from Island Building which can only mean ,,,, ?

    • Duane

      China is just posturing, mostly for the folks back home, and also trying to convince the other regional powers that they’re the big man on campus. The truth is, the bases are nearly useless militarily .. . not large enough or well supplied enough to be useful in any kind of invasion or attack, and too far from internal lines of communication to be defensible beyond the opening hours or days of a war. A handful of Tomahawks or JDAMS from F-35s based out of Japan, South Korea, or our carriers, and they’re out of the conflict.

      • A Marco Cota

        I agree that the physical part, or Islands are of little use, but the implications are astounding considering all other issues in the region. It is not the material world we are concerned with, it is the current mental state and it is getting to very serious levels.

        • Duane

          Yes, China is practicing psychological warfare with these facilities … they’re designed to provoke a reaction, to generate fear and uncertainty. That’s why it’s important not to over-react and do something that plays into their hands. That doesn’t mean we ignore them, but now that we know their island-building schtick, we must firmly prevent them from repeating this elsewhere. If they show up with a bunch of dredging equipment, we and our allies send out our warships and prevent them from constructing anything. Better yet, tell them that up front, quietly, so that the Chinese don’t mistake our intentions, go out and try to do this again, and then lose face when we show up to stop them. That is guaranteed to escalate things much more.

          We have to call their bluff, but without effectively pulling a Colt 45 out of our vest pocket and start blasting away, like in an old western mining town saloon.

          • A Marco Cota

            Yes I am in agreement on that. I have many associates who also agree and some from China as well. There is a war strategy by the Chinese though that actually is quite sound in retaliating if not semi defending these islands. The Chinese have gone to great lengths with basic submarine technologies that on paper are highly threatening to our most capable systems. Check it out if you have not. They have gone undetected right in the middle of a task force, and that is not good. They are deployed in S China sea at all times 24/7

          • Duane

            The Chinese have no actual experience with submarine warfare. While we have many decades of experience at anti-submarine warfare, honed throughout the Cold War.

            The internet myth about a Chinese sub going undetected in the midst of a US CVN task force is silly and BS. Every CVN task force has extensive experienced and capable ASW sensing, from ships, aircraft, and most importantly, from Los Angeles class SSNs that accompany every such task force. I guarantee you that the Chinese sub was detected, most likely by multiple USN ships in the task force, from at least dozens of miles out before it approached the task force.

            But the Chinese and their trolls love their myths of invincibility.

          • Paul

            The issue with ASW is it needs to be constantly honed as, irrespective of the technologies involved, it still relies extensively on trained and experienced professionals. The end of the Cold War saw a significant reduction in ASW effort that has yet to be fully remediated.

      • Knotty

        Hmmm. Same with Midway and Guam islands being poorly supplied.. What is your point or are you just assuming we are going to war?

        • Duane

          I’m not making any assumptions about war, other than China does not want a war, and neither does Japan, South Korea, or the United States. The presumption in most of the writings about the new Chinese bases in the various shoal waters of the SCS is that they are designed to wage war. I disagree – they are designed to persuade … both the Chinese population, and China’s neighbors and potential opponents.

          As for Midway and Guam, yes, they were poorly supplied and posed only minor threats to the Japanese in the opening months of the Pacific war. Midway only became a major battle because of the carriers that did battle there, not the island base itself. Indeed, even the Philippines were easily overrun by the Japanese, in part because of being remote from the US, in part from suffering from poor defensive preparation by MacArthur, and in part by the US government’s preoccupation with the ETO. We conceded the Philippines at the outset of the war.

          The Chinese bases are far more remote and fragile than either Guam or the Philippines – which were, and remain, large islands and chains of large islands, with well established supplies, cities, airports, and port infrastructure.

          • RDF

            These bases are 75% to defend natural resources claims, and 25% to look big in the neighborhood. IMHO. A typhoon or a few cm and cratering JDAM, and it’s lights out.

  • Beowulfsfriend

    No mention, but just take note, the elevators will handle the naval version of the F35. Could be quickly converted if need be.

    • Duane

      Japan is currently committed to purchasing 42 F-35A models, which cannot launch from carriers. While it’s possible that our Marine F-35Bs could operate from such a ship, the ship would require substantial modification to fly the F-35. We had to beef up the flight deck on our America class amphib to take the heat projected by the vertical lift fans … and then you also have to provide for the onboard sustainment of the F-35 too.

      • Beowulfsfriend

        I knew it had to be the Marine variant and I didn’t know what they had purchased. Thanks. If they buy any marine variants and do a refit, then China will have something to complain about. I did find their elevators size interesting though. Did anyone note India’s carrier troubles?

        • Horn

          Just going off of tech forum chats, but the hangar appears to be large enough to house Ospreys. That could account for the larger elevator size.

        • pacino4

          India’s carrier troubles stem in part from the fact that US would like India to buy more naval equipment from them as opposed to the Russians who supply majority of foreign equipment….

    • PolicyWonk

      If (when) Japan’s “helicopter carriers” are modified to handle the F-35 “B” variant, then the Chinese will have a lot more reason for concern.

      Since the “helicopter destroyers” lack CATOBAR, the naval version of the F-35 (the “C” variant) won’t do them much good.

      • Duane

        The Chinese already have plenty of concern from Japan’s order of 42 F-35As, which when launched from Japanese air bases have the combat radius sufficient without refueling to go all the way to the China coast, and plenty to spare.

        • tteng

          PLAAF is slotted to get 3-4 dozen J-20 per year starting later half of 2017 (or 2018), and mainland China is one big airport.

          If China timed F-35As airborne time, and attacked the runways; then these 42 planes will last 1-2 sorties each.

          • Duane

            The J-20 is a Chinese knock-off of the F-22 … it is a generation behind the F-35 in its qualities particularly in lack of sensor fusion, it costs a great deal more than the F-35 to produce, and consequently China cannot afford to produce but a handful. Given that in 9 years the Chinese have produced a grand total of about a dozen of them altogether, they are far behind the US and our allies. We’ve already produced more than 200 F-35s, we’ve upped production to around 100+ F-35s per year, and within a year and a half from now, production will level at about 150 per year, headed towards a total fleet for US and our allies of over 3,000.

            As for taking out runways, that’s silly. First of all, the J-20s will almost certainly never make it to Japan through a screen of our own F-35s and AEGIS SAMs (both Japanese and US Navy warships are AEGIS equipped) … and even if the Chinese manage to survive any of that, just to blow a couple of holes in runways, it will have no effect. You do realize that Japan has hundreds of airports at which the F-35 can land … and nearby ally South Korea has another 100+ airports.

            You’re just chestpounding on behalf of the Chinese.

          • tteng

            From what I read in the Chinese site for the last year or so regarding J-20, Chengdu aviation has expanded its production line from 1 to 2 mid-2016 with each line slotted to produce one J-20 per month, and it is planning to expand that to 3 lines in 2017 or 2018, depending on the performance feedback from 10 or so J-20 spreading around its various PLAAF units. The reporting and reader comments seem to be consistent enough, over such time period, for it to be unsubstantiated propaganda.

            As for small number (10 or so) of J-20s produced so far, it is probably due to normal cycle of introducing any new piece of equipment: proof-of-concept machine, prototype, and finally production. The first flight of F-22 was in 1997, and its service introduction was 2005. The first flight of J-20 was in 2011, and its introduction was this year. Therefore, the time lag between first flight and operation is about 6-8 years for both aircraft.

            As for quality of a knockoff, well what we know is this: China had hacked LM (and probably its suppliers) ‘blue prints’ for F-35 until 2007. Think about this: F-22 was produced by the same company(s) from 1997-2011. If LM hadn’t been able to guard its F-35 database before 2007, what about its F-22 database ( R&D, prototype, and production) from 2007 and before? My guess: China might not be able to reproduce everything on its J-20, but it has a good understanding of what F-22/35 are, and that information can roll into offensively its J-20 and defensively its anti-stealth AD. As for being ‘a generation’ behind, do you think several F-22 can match up well against several F-35, being that F-22 also a generation behind F-35? My guess: if F-22 can give F-35 a run for its money, a ‘knockoff-F-22’ wouldn’t be that hopeless.

            As for plane numbers, while overall there are many more F-22/35 combined in the future. Let me ask you: where are they going to fly from? Recently, a flight of F-35s from CONTUS to Okinawa took 9 air refueling over a course of 20 hours flight time (A Boeing 747 can do under 10 hours). Now, they could be practicing air-refueling on its way over, otoh it could indicate its vulnerability: frequent refueling and long refueling station time. Also, the most relevant fighter bases are Futenma and Kadena, both are within 500 miles of mainland China; Chinese planes can launch LACM 500 miles inside its own coast, while F-15/22/35 has to venture 3-400 miles Chinese inland (one way) to engage its target. Also, these two bases are even smaller than couple Chinese fake-islands (i.e. mischief and subi reefs) in SCS. If these fake islands can be taken out in hours-to-days, then these two Okinawa bases won’t fair better either (from high hundreds to low thousand of SRBM/LACM/JDAM). While there are tens of AFB on Japan home islands (or SK), they are too far (>1000 miles round trip) to matter in the ‘Taiwan/Okinawa’ scenario. (here I stipulate the ROE for such conflict will probably limited to T/O’s immediate area. Anything more than that will probably escalate uncontrollably. e.g. broader attack on both mainland and Japanese home islands). As for F-35B/C, they need flat tops which are just as A2/AD-vulnerable as any carriers, and they are too short ranged if these flat tops had to operate east of Ryukyu chain. You see, by asymmetric tactic, PLAAF will go after big-slow-less stealthy (or fixed) AWACs/air-refueler/flat tops/landing strips/maintenance facility and not searching/chasing/losing air fights against superior F-22/35s. Chances are PLA might even grab the strategic high ground by invading Taiwan in the beginning (without even attacking Okinawa proper to invoke US/Japan MTD obligation). If Taiwan falls and PLA can hold it (and the US/Japan unable/unwilling to fight a land war to retake Taiwan), then the US decision becomes ‘escalation, or accept broken 1st island chain’. I do war-game this back and forth without caving in my chest.

            Asymmetric weaponry / asymmetric tactic / asymmetric strategy

          • Duane

            China cannot reverse engineer the F-35, or the F-22, or build them from prints that may or may not have been stolen in a one-time snapshot theft a decade and a half ago. The reason it took 14 years and nearly $200B to develop the F-35 before the first B model went operational in 2014 is because of massive amounts of institutional learning that cannot be fabricated by the Chinese and their poor knockoffs.

            The F-35s are going to fly from forward ships and ground bases that entirely surround China from north, east, and south … from Japan to South Korea to Taiwan to the South China sea and the Philippines where the USA is using a number of air and naval bases, that’s where. Every bit of those bases and ships are stationed well within the unrefueled combat radius of the long range F-35 (630 nm mission combat radius) to the disputed seas and the Chinese coast. Covering all of the Sea of Japan, the East China Sea, and the South China Sea

            China is completely surrounded, and their leaders know it, even if their trolls on the internet don’t.

            The Republic of China is never going to fall to the PRC. The PRC has never in its entire history conducted a single successful amphibious invasion of anybody, anywhere. It does not possess the ships to transport troops, and if they sent them in ships those ships will be artificial reefs within minutes if not hours of leaving port. China does not possess an airborne invasion force either. And the Republic of China itself has formidable defenses, naval, anti aircraft, anti-missile, anti submarine, etc. It is only a PRC fantasy that they will invade Taiwan. No can do. The only powers on earth that have successfully conducted amphibious invasions are the United States and the United Kingdom … and in those invasions our side held total air and naval superiority, which the Chinese will never have.

          • tteng

            I don’t understand why your statement of ‘China can’t reverse engineer F-35/22…”. China has a proven track record of reverse (and then improve) engineering everything it hacked: from space capsule, to rocket, to HGV, to missiles of all kind, to tank, to drones, to J-series fighters, to Iphone, to high speed train, etc. LM already admitted lost files that they can disclose publicly. And being that J-20 is so different looking from Sukoi-copy and Lavi-copy fighters. Simply to fly that thing (relative concurrently with all their other newer fighters), China must of got hold of F-22 (or 35) aerodynamic model and MIMO control algorithm (i.e. modern fighter pilot don’t fly the plane, the computer does) and internalized the information well enough to re-produce its own version of it (that’s how I see it as a controls engineer). Beside, fwiw, there was one article about a two-ship J-20s scoring 10:0 vs their Sukoi-copy fighters during mock air combat. So, will one errs on the side of caution, or disbelieving, in case if that article is true.

            ” The F-35s are going to fly from forward ships and ground bases that entirely surround China..” Which ones (ships and bases) are unreachable by various LACM/SRBM/MRBM/ASBM/ASCM we talk about, by looking at distance marker from each locality to China: Taiwan (100 miles), Okinawa (500 miles), ROK (500 miles), the PH sea (500-1000 miles). Also, think about this: a F-35 cost about $100M, a SRBM/MRBM/LACM $1-3M. That means, for every F-35, 30-100 missiles can be had. Asymmetrically, a 3000 F-35 fleet is equivalent to 90k-300k missiles. If there are 100 targets (runways + flat tops), each target will garner 900 to 3000 missiles. If missile interception rate is 90%, that means each target will get between 90 to 300 hits; if missile interception rate is 99%, that means between 10 to 30 missiles will hit its target. Now, of course I’m exaggerating this number game a bit (China will not produce these many missiles, just as unlikely final tally of 3000 F-35s). However, asymmetrically speaking, if any hint of that number game is true (or if China can and does produce missiles in tens of thousands), a 90% missile interception success will fail to protect most of F-35s because of ‘mission killed’runways and flight decks.

            “The Republic of China is never going to fall to the PRC.” On what base do you make that call? Taiwan’s own think tank predicted (and possibly concurred by RAND), by 2020, China will have absolute mil superiority in the ‘Taiwan-grab’ scenario.

  • Bill Wisniewski

    as we recall from 1941, the japanese can build a credible carrier force….but the PLA deploys many missiles!……..with japan and viet nam protecting our flanks, we can clean china’s clock, if, and only if, putin sits it out on the sidelines….this situation explains why the trump regime is sucking up to putin to obtain “carte blanche” to incinerate china and korea!

    • Jay F

      Russia and China’s relations are similar to US and Japan. They are tight like that.

      • Bill Wisniewski

        if we can’t breach that bond, then we can’t fight the PLA/PRC without nucleur annihalation!

        • Bill Wisniewski

          fear of the russian military is why LBJ half-stepped in viet nam!

        • Duane

          Not true – there is no, I repeat no mutual defense treaty between China and Russia.

          Far more likely is if a shooting war were to erupt in the ECS or Sea of Japan, between China, Japan, and the United States – which DOES have a mutual defense treaty with Japan – the Russians would be looking for places to send their little green men in along the Sino-Russo border to see if they can pick off some low hanging fruit.

      • Duane

        Not – the Russians and Chinese are traditional regional competitors and enemies in east Asia, going back hundreds of years. They went to war against each other in the late 60s, and then in the 70s supported opposite sides in Cambodia and Vietnam. They may be on the same side of any given issue when it suits them, but they are not allies, they have no mutual defense treaties, and if one thought they could get the upper hand against the other in a conflict, they’d do so in a heartbeat.

        • Corporatski Kittenbot 2.0

          Very true.

          Russia must surely see that in the long term their greater threat comes from the east….. it isn’t like the West wants to conquer the place.

          I’m sure they love their recent alliance with China for now….
          Long term, Siberia is just one big empty, sparsely populated fuel resource that China may one day feel like acquiring.

          • Rudy

            Gosh yall got it all figured out. Run for public office. We need yall.

          • Stephen

            Russia is busy solidifying its colony in Syria. At some point they will shift to Asian/Pacific Fleet. They currently rely on Imperial China to rattle its Naval sword & harass all military & commercial fleets in its 1000 mile perceived sphere of ownership.

      • Knotty

        No they are not.

      • RDF

        Historically there are over 600 years of history that say you are incorrect. You cannot get over that with a handshake between two oligarchs. They are not at all like US and Japan.

        • Jay F

          Dude, seriously? Just look at what’s going on. It’s pretty common knowledge at this point. Russia and China are allies. 600 years ago they may not have been, 500 years ago they may not have been. 100 years ago.
          But today, they are.
          60 years ago we were at war with Japan. Today we are not. They are close allies to the US. Just like China and Russia are.

          • RDF

            You cannot ignore the cultural effects of 600 years of enmity.

          • Jay F

            OMG, are you seriously arguing this? Please just google “China and Russia relations” and figure it out for yourself.

          • RDF

            Only if you Google golden horde and Russian occupation. Deal?

          • life form

            When one does google as asked, you’ll find there is no mutual defense treaty between them, and their borders are heavily militarized.

          • Jay F

            Well I guess we can just agree to disagree and let time tell.

          • life form

            Is there a mutual defense treaty between them? (no.)
            Is the Russia/China border heavily militarized? (yes)
            Do they share intelligence and interoperability as US and Japan do, with software like Link 16? (no)
            These are objectively demonstrable facts.

  • peacenik

    Nuclear war victory would be but ashes in our mouths.

    • crescentfang

      The logic of the cold war standoff was peace based on the certainty that there would be no survivors if war broke out. “Mutually Assured Destruction” works as a two player game but there are now a lot more than two players.

      If China encourages a new Korean War or tries to take over Taiwan, all bets are off. Even a brief conventional battle involving either of these two countries would destroy the global electronics industry because “Silicon Valley” isn’t in California anymore. It was outsourced to Korea and Taiwan years ago.


    The Japanese Navy can take on the Chinese Navy without 7th Fleet’s intervention .Currently the Chinese have the quantitative advantage but that will change when Japan abolishes the self imposed post war restrictions and starts commissioning more Aegis outfitted large surface combatants ,advanced conventional submarines like the Soryu class and F-35B capable “Helicopter Destroyers “. Japan is a global superpower .The absence of nuclear weapons makes people forget that .The only reason they don’t have WMD is because they choose not to have them .However they can get that capability tomorrow should they choose to change that policy . They have both the tech and the industrial capacity to manufacture both the nuclear warheads and their delivery systems in large numbers and deploy those systems very quickly

    • Knotty

      Japan has no reason to change policy. It would hurt them economically to do so.

      • but you people don’t care about economics. Neoliberalism only.

    • RDF

      How quickly?

    • Secundius

      Unfortunately Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution prevent Japan from being a “Global Superpower”, Militarily Speaking…

    • RDF

      So you are saying, if the Japanese navy was as big as US navy, they could take on the current Chinese navy themselves? No argument here.

  • Corporatski Kittenbot 2.0

    The Izumo class ships look great, a very nice design.

    A ski-jump and a squadron of F-35’s would look even better!

    • Secundius

      Mitsubishi already has a License to Home Build the F/A-35A! How much more Difficulty is there in Building the F/AV-35B…

      • John B. Morgen

        None! No difficulty of building or deploying F-35Bs.

        • Secundius

          “Thai Military and Asian Region” website says that Taiwan Has “Strong” Interests in Obtaining A “Stealth & V/STOL” Capable Fighter. Though not mentioned in that report directly. There are Unconfirmed Statements that the Pentagon might have reached out to Taiwan in regards of Addressing That Problem, without going into Specifics. So unless there’s another Stealth capable V/STOL Fighter in the US Inventory other then the F/V-35B, I don’t know what it is…

          • John B. Morgen

            Pentagon still supports Taiwan, regardless what the State Department has to say officially. There might be a Stealth V/STOL aircraft in R&D with Lockheed or Northrop-Grumman.

  • crescentfang

    The Chinese and North Koreans are playing into the hands of the militaristic Japanese politicians. Japan has avoided rearming or building nuclear weapons since WWII but that is coming to an end. If the Japanese and South Koreans decide that they can’t rely on the Americans to defend them, we will have two more nuclear powers in the world. The proximity of these country’s is also a problem since they will have to put their nukes on submarines to avoid having them destroyed in a surprise attack. The world is about to become a much more dangerous place.

    • Knotty

      Okay. Now go take your meds and go back to sleep.

  • RDF

    Any ship that can beat up subs has my vote. Welcome. Welcome.

  • Don

    Thank-you Japan and India for your ongoing efforts in this endeavor.

  • Time to think of the possibility of another Pearl Harbor.

  • Lawrence D Rogers

    there is strength in unity! let us lead them and back them up to resist Chinese expansion and territorial grabs

  • John B. Morgen

    This would be an excellent time for both the USS America and Izumo to operate together as a single unit, by exchanging USMC F-35Bs from the America to Izumo. Of course, I’m assuming that the America would be operating with these naval forces…..

  • Ed L

    Izumo and the Kaga two famous warship names from the past.

  • omegatalon

    Can you imagine China’s response if the US Marines landed a F-35B or an Apache attack helicopter on this heavy cruiser.

  • NEC338x

    Bravo zulu to JMSDF PAOs for their Photoshop skills and/or Izumo’s Deck Department for the picture of such a sat looking ship.

  • A Peaceful Life

    I believed that the Japanese people have no claim in the South China Sea, but they wanted to stir up in the region. I also believed that it’s time for the Japanese people to pay back the price because in the 20th century, more than half million of Japanese had invaded China: bombed, raped and massacred. The PLA should send 1 or 2 of the DF-21C missiles to the Japan’s largest warship (Lzomo). I just can’t wait to see the lzomo is being sinking lol …

  • A Peaceful Life

    I believed that the Japanese people have no claim in the South China Sea, but they wanted to stir up in the region. I also believed that it’s time for the Japanese people to pay back the price because in the 20th century, more than half million of Japanese had invaded China: bombed, raped and massacred. Good luck China…

    • I want to be objective

      They have already paid very much for imperialism action in china. If Japan should be criticized, it is because they did not criticize invasion and racial cleansing in Tibet, Uzbekistan, Mongol and Manchuria after WW2by China. Mao Zedong thanked Japan for expelling Chiang Kai-Shek from the continent and welcomed enhancing Japanese military power in Cold War era (when China and Russia are in severe tension). Now, chinese communist party is trying to control its people. Easiest political measure to distract the intense dissatisfaction of Chinese people is “bashing Japan anyway and forever”. It has been very effective because Japanese people is forced to have improper sense of guilt by brainwashing of massmedia that broadcasted the story for 70 years, and as a result, Japanese people not object to fabricated story of WW2. It is interesting that total number of “Nanjing incident” is increasing every year, especially when tension between two countries increased.
      Japanese government should be criticized for not non-legalizing communist party in Japan and stopping castration of its people that started in 1945 by strange cooperation between activities of communist agents in Japan and US anti-Japan Asian policy. (This is different from that of W.Germany. Anti-Japan Policy in US is started and escalated by Chiang Kai-Shek and his wife.) Weak Japan is making the power balance in far eastern Asia unstable. It is the time to establish NATO in east Asia.

  • Secundius

    FYI: According to “Military Powers In Asia” dated 16 March 2017, titled “Taiwan Plans To Buy Stealth Fighters” by Vishakha Sonawane. Taiwan is interested in purchasing Stealth Fighters that “Must Be” V/STOL capable. No Number is given as far as quantity, but talks with Pentagon date back to at least late 2016…

  • RDF

    MCM is a big deal. We can use all that help we can get.