Talk:Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force

28th January, 2006
I've fleshed out the fleet listing, divided the surface/submarine fleets up and removed training ships from the list. I also removed the Chikugo and Takatsuki classes, as GlobalSecurity.org says that they've all been "striken" - I can only guess that means htat they are decommissioned. If someone can verify this, please post here to confirm. Thanks, John Smith&#39;s 19:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * "Stricken" is harsher than "decommissioned". "Stricken" means that they are gone forever and will be sent to the scrapyard or set up as a memorial ship. "Decommissioned" can mean that the ship was merely removed from service and put into longterm storage, possibly to he recommissioned later on. For example, the battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62) has been decommissioned three times and recommissioned twice, but she has only been stricken once. The latter was so that she could be set up as a memorial ship in Camden, New Jersey. In contrast, the USS Enterprise (CV-6) was stricken to be scrapped, and other warships such as the USS Saratoga (CV-3) have been stricken to be used as practice targets.


 * This is no place to be "guessing" about things like "decommissioned" and "stricken". You should KNOW before you write anything here. 98.67.106.59 (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

3 February, 2006
I fixed some incorrect numbers. I think that the training ships that are part of the existing classes should be listed, as outside of maybe an added classroom they are the same ships and will serve the same purpose as the other ships when needed. Yes, the Chukigo and Takatsuki class ships are all decomissioned.Spejic 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

External linking
According to External links we should always prefer internal links to external ones. If information from the site was used to improve the article then it should be cited under "References", which the GlobalSecurity site already is. If the other site was used as a reference, then please cite that one in the references section as well. Bare external links should be used sparingly, and for articles like this should be generally restricted to official pages only. Adding anything more invites linkspam. -Loren 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, where does it say you cannot use information that isn't from an "official site" in external links? All the Navy articles on wiki that I've come across put information sites apart from the official one in external links. Why does this page have to be any different? John Smith&#39;s 21:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What I'm saying is that we should be very conservative when it comes to external links, especially if said links do not contain any more information then the article itself would once it has been brought up to a complete form. If information from the site was used in writing the article then it goes under References. As I have said before the Global Security article has already been listed as a reference and is therefore redundent. I did not personally use the private site when making the contributions I did, and therefore did not include it as a reference. If you did, then you're more then welcome to cite it. Finally, yes, many articles (not just navy ones) have long lists of external links, many of which, strictly speaking shouldn't be there according to guidelines. Which is all the more reason to keep this one as clean as possible. -Loren 21:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But the GS link as a note is not nearly as prominent as an ordinary link is. There is too much information from the site to make a note every time. And it's a guideline, not a rule. The link is highly useful for anyone wanting to learn more than doesn't read Japanese. It should stay. You can remove the mecha one if you want. John Smith&#39;s 23:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Images
Hi. I have asked John Smith's to revert back the two images removed as they are properly licenced. They were tagged for consideration for removal under an old licence but are now properly licenced. I also understand that editors should not interfere with images that are tagged as these are dealt with by admin. The users error is understandable, but any other objections? Thanks Des Desk1 09:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Des, you didn't make it clear enough that they were your own pictures. People frequently use the free tags because they want to trick people into thinking they're free, when they're not. What I suggest is you do the following. So please go through all your pictures and put the correct descriptions in. Say they're your pictures. Also remove duplicate descriptions. Your two MSDF pictures have the same summary on the image pages - separate them out.


 * I will add one picture back - I don't think editors should push two of their pictures onto an article. Of course you can add them to the relevant entries on those ship types if they currently have no images. John Smith&#39;s 18:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Point taken on descriptions, each image must of course stand alone, done. Clarified for you that I am the copyright holder on Licencing, but this is already clear in the Licence details.  Personally I think you did not select the best image if only selecting one.  The point of the images is to illustrate that Japan strongly supported the event and went so far as to offer a salute and this in itself was an historic action.  Other users had no objection to two images being used and other users have previously tidied up the presentation of the pictures?  If you can source a better picture of this historic moment then please do so, but both pictures should be in for completeness.  Can you put the other one back as well unless you have a strong objection?  Also the Article text should be reverted back, the amendment claims that Japan only sent two ships and this is not accurate. Again the text is about Japan, Elizabeth II, and Trafalgar 200 not just the ships.


 * The pictures were intended to support the main Article but of course can be used anywhere under the terms of the licence. Therefore if relevant to other Articles then of course you are free to use them. As far as I am aware there is no policy that editors cannot use their own pictures.  I was there on the spot taking pictures and know that no others of this specific PoV were taken or are available, it is irrelvant who shot the pictures (other than for licencing) what is relevant is that they are being made available to Wikipedia from a pro source Gratis!  Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk1 09:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Project Assessments
Nice length overall, nice intro, nice infoboxes, and pictures. But each individual section is really short. Is there any expansion that can be done? LordAmeth 09:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a real JMSDF recruitment ad?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJrIF7pHyO0 --293.xx.xxx.xx 21:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Aircraft Inventory
I thought that the general trend of this article was to be more general. Is a listing of all aircraft really needed? Spejic 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

JMSDF Fleet
And now I don't understand what is happening here. The same person both moved away all information, and is asking for more? What is this supposed to mean? Could people discuss or at least explain big changes here before making them? Spejic 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

"Expand the section with information on the main aspects of the Japanese Naval fleet. JMSDF Fleet article link must be given in the main part and that article will have details of all current ships in JMSDF. Similar to Royal Navy today section in the Royal Navy article and Ships section in the U.S Navy article. Chanakyathegreat 07:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Naming Convention
I am confused by the termology. The article refers to "destroyer escorts" and "frigates". Which term is the official one in the JMSDF? Also it refers to "helicopter destroyers", "guided missile destroyers", and "destroyer"s, but all of them carry helicopters and guided missilies! Again if this is the correct terminology of the jmsdf it should be explained. David.j.james 15:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Think of it this way. In the original Japanese, all the destroyers and frigates are slotted into the term [i]Goeikan[/i], which IMO actually translates to the Russian [i]Storozhevoy Korabl[/i] ("sentry ship") much better than English terminology. The English terms are mostly there for the convenience of the West, and are the official translations. The differentiation is the emphasis. A ship dedicated for area antiaircraft warfare is considered to be a "guided missile" warhsip. A flagship with three helicopters is a "helicopter destroyer" (more in the new 13500t class). A ship with only basic point defenses and one helicopter is a destroyer. --Kazuaki Shimazaki 07:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Confirmation needed: Is the "Japan Maritime Self Defense Force" (JMSDF) the current name of the "Japanese Navy" because of the controversial (for miltarists) Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution? If yes, this matter should be highlighted in the article as no other standing national force has doubly underlined the nonaggressive nature of its existence. Sujay85 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Of Course the JMSDF is the official name for the so-called "Japanese navy". Please do some more reading, such as the entire article on the History of Japan from 1945 through the present. This is no place to argue about something that is an abvious truth. 98.67.106.59 (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Image:WY2T1426 japan2.jpg
I removed this picture as it is low resolution and the lighting is poor. I also could not make it fit well with the others. If anyone wants to restore it, please put it in carefully so the layout of the page isn't distorted. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture overload
Unless anyone has objections, I will look into removing some of the pictures. Currently the article has too many, and in some cases they are distorting the layout (e.g. edit boxes lower down). John Smith&#39;s (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea. Please proceed. Megapixie (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On a separate point, does anyone object if I restore the "thumbnail sizes" of some pictures so that they fit in with the text, rather than have one or two lines creep underneath them? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 11:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Rank Chart
From the Web site of the U.S. Forces Japan:

http://www.usfj.mil/Japanese%20military%20rank%20chart.pdf172.189.213.185 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 edit
I have done my best to rewrite the article to improve grammar and make it easier to read. I have cut bits of material where I was not sure what the original editor was trying to say. We should use the term "JMSDF" throughout the article, rather than switching between that and "MSDF" or "Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force".

Furthermore I have removed a few pictures, as at the moment I think there are too many towards the latter part of the article. The remaining ones need to be re-organised so that they do not "cramp" the edit buttons for sub-sections. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hyuga-class carriers
I have updated the entry to say that two are under construction and removed the bit on "planned" as I don't think any more are planned at the moment. But maybe someone could enlighten me if more are going to follow in the near future (I could imagine they would after a while when the Shirane class needs replacing). John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GlobalSecurity asserts, "A total of four are planned to replace the two Haruna-class and two Shirane-class DDHs in the ASW role. The earlier DDH had an operational life of about 35 years, suggesting that three more units would be required in the time frame of 2015." (sdsds - talk) 19:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2009 collission
Here is a source for the recent collision: http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20091029a1.html "The collision between a Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyer (Kurama) and a South Korean containership on 27 October 2009 in the Kanmon Straits may have been caused by wrong guidance given by a radar traffic controller minutes before the clash, the Japan Coast Guard". N2e (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Further reading needs help
This could use a better bibliography. I will add a brief one if not objectionable. Ed Gris 02:48, 16 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Gris (talk • contribs)

Equipment
I don't know how many people read this page, but when and why were all details of the ship & boat classes removed from the page? I think a simple table is a good idea. After all there's one for aircraft. Why on Earth not one for the ships and subs? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The Entire Article did not include any of these
The ENTIRE Article did not include any of these, including the wikilinks. antisubmarine warfare, antiaircraft, antiaircraft warfare, destroyer, aircraft carrier, helicopter carrier, submarine, guided missile destroyer, AEGIS air-defense system, surface-to-air missile, antimissile warfare, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, Standard Missile SM-2MR, Standard Missile SM-3.

How on Earth is anyone going to write anything at all about the JMSDF without any of these, and especially since one of the primary missions of the JMSDF has been antisubmarine warfare for decades? Also, the new and important warships of the JMSDF carry the AEGIS air-defense system, and furthermore, the size of these AEGIS ships is the same as the size of a light cruiser instead of a destroyer. Hence, for all practical purposes, the JMSDF has guided-missile cruisers that carry the AEGIS air-defense and antimissile systems, the Standard Missile SM-2MR, and the Standard Missile SM-3 for ballistic missile defense. 98.67.106.59 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * While they are in port or close to the seacoast, the AEGIS ships of the JMSDF can provide air defense for Japanese cities and air bases. Furthermore, while they are in port or close to the seacoast, the AEGIS ships of the JMSDF can provide ballistic missile defense for Japanese cities and air bases. Defending these places against ballistic missiles is a big worry for the Japanese Government because of the threat of missile attacks from North Korea and Red China (the PRC). Thus far, the Japanese Government has been the only one that has been granted the privilege of buying the SM-3 and its associated computer software (etc.) from the United States for its AEGIS warships.
 * Perhaps this will change once the new AEGIS warships of the Royal Australian Navy start to enter service.
 * So far, ships from the JMSDF have already taken part part in live-fire tests of the SM-3 near Hawaii, intercepting targets fired by the U.S. Air Force. 98.67.106.59 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120620125930/http://www.ihi.co.jp/ihi/press/2011/2012-1-27/index.html to http://www.ihi.co.jp/ihi/press/2011/2012-1-27/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110609044156/http://opencrs.com:80/document/RL33436/2009-07-28/?23745 to http://opencrs.com/document/RL33436/2009-07-28/?23745

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct name?
As a former USN liaison officer to the JMSDF I can attest that we always referred to the JMSDF (both informally and in official documents) as the "Japanese" Maritime Self Defense Force and not the "Japan" Maritime Self Defense Force.Oldbubblehead (talk) 06:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The JMSDF appears go call itself the "Japan" Maritime Self Defense Force per its own English website. - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100617054520/http://www.bucharestherald.com:80/worldnews/43-worldnews/7538-japan-to-build-fleets-biggest-helicopter-destroyer-to-fend-off-china to http://www.bucharestherald.com/worldnews/43-worldnews/7538-japan-to-build-fleets-biggest-helicopter-destroyer-to-fend-off-china

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Allegiance Box
, per Template:Infobox military unit, the allegiance category is reserved for "Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state; can usually be omitted otherwise. In the case of National Guard or Naval Militia units, the State of origin should be indicated." This does not apply for the JMSDF. Garuda28 (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * JMSDF Kure District Headquarters Government Building.jpg
 * JMSDF Yokosuka Base seen from the sky.jpg
 * JS Izumo（DDH-183）seen from the sky 10-03-2021.jpg
 * JS Mogami（FFM-1）.jpg

Question on objectivity
Without a citation or source, the following statement at the bottom of the Capabilities segment looks like a subjective opinion, especially with the quotation marks on "passive" making it look like sarcasm:

"These capabilities are force multipliers, allowing force projection of Japan's sizable destroyer and frigate force far from home waters, and acquiring them is contentious considering Japan's "passive" defense policy."

At the very minimum, we need an answer and a linked, credible source for who is considering this contentious. Otherwise I would suggest deleting this part. 81.191.83.149 (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)