In an effort to enhance its standoff defence capabilities, Japan’s Defense Ministry is evaluating the possibility of outfitting its C-2 transport aircraft with long-range missiles.

As revealed in a recent report, “The addition of these missiles could significantly improve Japan’s ability to conduct counterstrike operations by targeting enemy bases, including missile launch sites, from a safer distance.”

The Defense Ministry has shown interest in a specific missile type that ignites its engine post-drop during flight. This technology would necessitate only minimal aircraft adjustments. Notably, the U.S. is concurrently advancing similar missile tech.

For the project’s preliminary phases, $25 million has been earmarked in the fiscal 2023 budget. Post thorough technical scrutiny, full-fledged development is anticipated to commence by fiscal 2024.

Japan doesn’t aim to design or procure new missiles tailored for the C-2 planes. On the contrary, prospective missile choices include the American-made Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), boasting roughly a 900-kilometre range and a variant of the Type 12 surface-to-ship guided missile, which is under development and has a 1,000-kilometre range.

“Japan’s Ground Self-Defense Forces’ ground launchers, Maritime Self-Defense Forces’ destroyers, and Air Self-Defense Forces’ fighter jets are already equipped to target invading forces from a distance.”

The C-2 aircraft distinguishes itself due to its capability to transport a larger missile payload compared to many fighter jets and its prolonged airborne duration, approximately 15 of such aircraft are currently stationed nationwide.

You can read more by clicking here.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

58 COMMENTS

  1. Rapid dragon is, to properly use the phrase, a game changer for those nations who do not have dedicated heavy bombers. A real heavy duty standoff capability.

    I wish we had more c17’s now but another 3 or 4 A400’s would be handy

  2. I’ve often thought of this due to the long range of both the long range and duration of these large planes as well as their capacity. Over the horizon missiles are a great option, completely streamlined inside the fuselage, but bebat least 200km from any fighter bases otherwise it will turn into a suicide mission,

  3. There are positives and negatives to this. Positives are obvious, a simple but effective method to bring a long range stand off missile capability. The negatives are your transport fleet becomes a major target for the enemy. For Japan this is unusual, since they have a large fleet of MPA aircraft that would surely be more capable in this role due to better self protection systems. But what do I know, Airborn will have the answers.

    • Frost002
      7 hours ago
      Reply to Airborne
      No such thing Mr cunty bollocks? How about you wipe an arse for 11 pounds an hour?

    • Frost002
      7 hours ago
      Reply to Airborne
      What are you Mr born. Pro what? Pro free buss pass? that’s it. Enjoy your retirement you wrinkly old twat. How is the English?

    • I have no need to, just a little CUT AND PASTING from your previous efforts at abuse, all due to the fact you keep getting caught out trolling. Its just so other posters understand you have no interest in the subject matter, you just want to abuse more reliable, knowledgeable and experienced posters. Its not out fault you failed to get in any military and now can only read about others exploits! But interestingly enough, your replying to another poster, on a subject I have not commented on but still feel the need to use my (incorrectly spelt) avatar. It does seem you don’t like being taken to task.

    • Frost002
      7 hours ago
      Reply to Airborne
      Hi warrior. How is “wetherspoons”, enjoy your ale in the house of the fallen, my old tosspot.

        • No worries George, apologise for being a little immature regarding certain trolls and their behaviour, but they do need challenging. I have no concerns as such and don’t want to sully decent conversations and articles with none constructive posts, but there are some clowns cutting about isn’t there who need to be challenged and brought to task. Keep up the good work, regards.

          • You are very good at it.

            Your humour is the best weapon in your box of tricks.

            I am stunned anyone could write such appalling comments. Most around here have served or been in male occupations. Talk back like that and you would wake up surrounded by a crowd.

          • Airborne and Frost
            How about you meet in playground and the rest of can stand round in circle shouting fight fight like we used to in the play ground. Which is exactly where your behaviour belongs.
            I let my grandson read this website as he has the same interest as I do and it is normally a well rounded and safe site.
            However I now have to explain what a cunty bollocks is and why two grown men who normally post decent info have resorted to name calling .
            Please sort yourselves out.

          • Rob thanks for the advice however he never posts decent material and second trolls need calling out, simple reply. Thanks.

          • Hi Airborne
            I fully agree with you they do need to be called out, and Bell ends like him are prime example. But please don’t lower yourself like that. Both myself and my grandson hold your knowledge in high regard. I’m presuming from most of your stuff you served same era as me.
            Rob

          • Thanks mate, all I did was cut and paste a few comments to me, as old Frosty does like to draw people in pretending to be a serious poster. Glad you like this site, I have to admit its a great read and the amount of SMEs from various areas makes it invaluable for those of us who are still interested, and of course concerned, about the UK military, and others and the ongoing conflicts around the globe. Cheers.

          • “why two grown men who normally post decent info”

            Two??? Hi Rob, if your read “Frosts” history you read a never ending list of windups, insults and snipes about the UK to rile and upset on subjects he thinks some posters will find sensitive.

            Only one posts abuse like that and that is Frost, all Airborne does is call him out for it.

            Sorry your grandson read that awful post though, but blaming both equally is harsh on Airborne and not justified.

          • But that is part of my point. Frost is a troll and a bell end but if we ignore him he will F… off some where else

          • Yes, one way to look at it. Though there is also the train of thought that why should trolls have a platform unchallenged to spread their propaganda.

          • Just leave jillted John alone, he’s got enough on his plate with Gordon. Even his mate Barry wants nothing to do with him, which is why he cried all the way to the chip shop.

          • Methinks you are correct Farouk, I will improve and make an effort at maturity! But, I will still challenge his chuff, albeit constructively.

          • This is what Mr C*nty Boll*cks looks like in Russian Airborne….

            Мистер Канти Боллокс,

            Perhaps it looks better in its native Russian🤔

            More worrying mate, how does he know your knick name?

            Is there an ice-cream van with blacked out windows and a satalite dish on it outside your house Airborne?🫣

          • Knick name, John they are my middle names! I’m looking out of my window right now, kneeling down, checking the perimeter…..mmmmmm nothing seems obvious apart from 2 pale, underfed scruffy male tourists, wearing 80s tracksuits with a tour guide map of Salisbury! Should be ok! 😂👍

  4. There seems to be no replacement on the Horizon for ageing C-5 & C-17. I did wonder if something like an XXXL C-2 lookalike, might be the answer.

    • John the C5 fleet were all upgraded to the C5M Super Galaxies standard by 2017 So I suspect like the B52, they are going to be around for a while. As for the C17, there really isnt a plane that can beat it, for what it does, so i suspect that the US will knock out a upgrade for the fleet.

      • Sure you can patch up & upgrade for a decade or so, but the time will come for the shiny new. Given how long these projects take…….

    • The USAF have been looking at a long term replacement for the KC-46 that can operate closer to enemy airspace, i.e. a stealthy tanker. There has also be moves to include a transport requirement to replace the C17 Globemaster. So replacing 2 aircraft with one in a long range strategic platform. The C5’s replacement I have not heard anything on. Though there was some talk around using the hybrid airship for strategic heavy lift. I don’t think it went anywhere?

  5. The MoD looked at this possibility many years ago regards the FOAS, Future Offensive Air System, which was to be a Tornado replacement, before, as usual, it was cut. 🙄
    A new manned fast jet, through to using Storm Shadow type stand off missiles dropped from, I think, the ramp of a long range transport type, were considered.

    Very useful?

    • We got a contract from MBDA, following a MOD request, to study the feasibility of this on the A400M. The study showed it was perfectly feasible. No further interest from MOD.

        • Hi DP. From the top half of the rear ramp. It would be a modified wedge dispenser. This wedge fits against the lower ramp so that when closed, it provides a flat loading area accessible by the upwards opening of the upper tail door. Missiles would then be released to slide backward into the airstream. I cannot tell you how many missiles were envisioned to be carried. The wedge load is normally used to simultaneously disperse smaller equipment while troops jump out of the side parachute doors. Extraction is normally by gravity or parachute assisted

    • with FC/ASW coming in from the late 2020’s we may be left with hundreds of perfectly useful storm shadows. Converting them into a rapid dragon style deployable configuration would be fairly easy and would give the RAF a massive firepower upgrade for SEAD operations at the start of a conflict.

  6. Was there a similar concept considered for the Nimrod when it was in service,? I seem to recall reading something similar before.

  7. RAF air transport fleet is busy doing air transport stuff. I suppose Japans don’t have such commitments away from the home islands so probably makes some sense. It’s still a cheapskate method to avoid spinning up a proper strike capability though and as such I disapprove.

    • Given that the US has both global commitments and a “proper strike capability” and is also developing such systems for its transports, perhaps your disapproval might be wrong?

      • My concern would be enemy states abusing situations that are unlikely but possible. Suppose a state like Cuba or Argentina were to fall under the influence of a malevolent regime like China, and allow basing. Now imagine one of our Caribbean islands is struck by a hurricane or whatever and we want to fly in medical supplies, water purifiers etc. As far as we are concerned, these transports are flying peacefully on their way to help. But are they actually carrying stand-off weapons in range of a Chinese airbase? Could be an interesting argument in the UN if they are shot at. If you want bombers, build bombers.

        • It’s about deterrence too. Argentine pulled a hell of a lot back to the mainland because of Black Buck, the fact that we could fly several dozen storm shadow off their coast would, if nothing else force them to commit resources that should otherwise be deployed*

          *if they get resources obviously

        • It does not really matter, if it’s in international air space it can carry what ever it wants and there is nothing that can be done. If it’s more than 12miles out it can be carting around a nuclear payload and you cannot stop it…if you interdict/shoot down another nations military aircraft in international airspace your asking to end up in an armed conflict…if your in an armed conflict it would be irrelevant what your military transport was carrying it would be a legitimate target. If your transport plan crossed the 12 mile line or crossed without permission it would again be irrelevant what it carried it would be a legitimate target if that nation was playing hard ball. The USSR, china etc have all shot down unarmed military planes ( US) that were in their air space. So no it would not be an interesting argument at the UN you shoot a military plan down in international airspace and the other side would be justified in taking military action in return. They are all military aircraft if your not at war and they are in international airspace they can do what ever they like…test your air defences….bring loads of strike missiles within 13 miles of your coast..nothing you can do..if your at war you will be shooting down everything that’s not clearly civilian ( and sometimes even if it is civilian and in the wrong place)…it could be a military transport full of civilians or medical supplies..if your at war it would be a legitimate target.

          • You really don’t want your heavy transports lost in such a manner, especially in wartime. It will seriously curtail your plans for combat operations down the road.

          • But in reality it would be irrelevant what the transport was carrying, If for some reason a state actor decided they were going to shoot down a military aircraft in international airspace what it was or was not carrying would not be relevant.

            in truth there is a very good chance that moving forward large transport aircraft will become more and more weaponised…the very best way to dump a load of autonomous drones into an area is via a large transport.

            It also depends what your combat operations are..if your not going to moving lots of troops around but want to be striking military assets or infrastructure then having a strike option for your transport fleet opens options…..ad mentioned by others part of deterrent is showing the ability to strike and harm an enemy…showing your large fleet of transport aircraft can dump untold hurt at very long range is a very significant deterrent.

  8. Being of an older generation, this is NOT what I remember as a Kawasaki.
    Is there a Suzuki version as well??? 🏍

  9. The thing is it’s not just about strike missiles…the amount of autonomous unmanned air vehicles your can dump out the back of a transport would be very significant. You can see a future where you need an Arsenal aircraft for autonomous unmanned air vehicles and transports would be an idea option….dumping a ton of autonomous systems on the edge of the battle space.

    the 2015 CSBA paper on the future of air combat along with other papers having looked at how technologies have changes in air combat have suggested that small fast and agile fighters many not be the future of air combat..instead the keys to success with be large airframes with the space for significant processing of sensor data as well as large weapons bays for large numbers of weapon systems…when you can see and target the opponents from hundreds of miles away using linked sensor nets from autonomous vehicles and deploy weapon systems that can attack from well beyond visual range, small and fast losses to large with better processing powers and a larger stock of weapons.

  10. Type 12 seems like a damn good missile. Land, ship and air launched, shares sensors with the AAM-4 which we’re also doing dev on to merge with Meteor. Long range, going up to 1000/1500km. Work getting done to integrate onto transports as a Rapid Dragon type thing.
    Possibly something we should have been considering?

  11. I think this is a good idea, I wish MOD had lateral thinking as good. You don’t need a dedicated bomber if you need to bomb, you improvise Well done Japan.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here