The Japanese government has announced plans to equip the Maritime Self-Defense Force’s (MSDF) Aegis destroyer, JS Chōkai, with the capability to launch U.S.-made Tomahawk cruise missiles.

JS Chōkai will be the first Aegis destroyer in Japan to have a long range strike capability.

The Japanese Defence Ministry has requested $12.3 million for this plan as part of its fiscal 2025 budget.

In January 2024, Japan signed a contract to purchase up to 400 Tomahawk missiles, which reflects concerns over security threats from regional powers such as China and North Korea.

The Tomahawk missiles, including Block IV and Block V variants, have a range of approximately 1,600 kilometres and can be launched from warships. The deployment of these missiles is now expected to begin in fiscal year 2025, which is one year earlier than initially planned.

The refurbishment of JS Chōkai is scheduled to include the capability to launch Tomahawk missiles, with completion expected by March 2026.

JS Chōkai is a Kongō-class destroyer with a standard displacement of 7,500 tons, which increases to 9,500 tons when fully loaded. The ship measures 528.2 feet (161.0 metres) in length and has a beam of 68.9 feet (21.0 metres) and a draft of 20.3 feet (6.2 metres). Propelled by four gas turbines, the destroyer can reach speeds of up to 30 knots (56 km/h) and has a range of 4,500 nautical miles at 20 knots (8,334 km at 37 km/h).

The ship is equipped with a range of advanced sensors and weapons systems, including the AN/SPY-1D radar, a 90-cell Mk. 41 Vertical Launching System for various missile types, and a 127 mm Oto Melara Compact Gun. Additionally, JS Chōkai can carry one SH-60K helicopter and is designed to accommodate a complement of 300 personnel.

Japan intends to eventually equip all eight Aegis destroyers stationed at the MSDF’s Yokosuka, Maizuru, and Sasebo bases with Tomahawk missiles.

Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

42 COMMENTS

    • Why?

      Land attack is better done by submarine, which can get closer to shore without being spotted, leaving the escorts to do their main job of escorting ships.

      Also we only have around 50 odd tomahawk, which the subs would get through fast in a war situation.

      Budgets are limited, no point fitting escorts with a capability if there isn’t enough missiles to actually utilise it when needed.

      • It takes subs away from carrier escort or hunting other subs though and carrying TLAM eats up valuable magazine space. It’s not like we have many attack boats either

      • In reality the T31 would be a great hull to fill with tomahawks as it’s not got a specific specialist function within the fleet..maybe it could specialise in intimidating land attack capabilities…..

        • If it was going to be used for land attack it would need a proper main gun to allow shore bombardment but it isn’t getting one. It’s role if such a role exists in a war is low threat escort.

          • NGFS and the almost strategic threat that tomahawk represent are to completely different roles and having nothing to do with each other…NGFS is part of an amphibious support role..tomahawk is about threat at a geostrategic level…do something I don’t like and I will destroy something significant to your nation…

            T31 is not a low threat warship…its 6000 tons, it’s going to have a large number of type 41 strike length silos, one of the best anti air gun fits of any escorts and CAMM a very good short range area defence missile….it’s a potent surface combatant and will be used as such.

          • The t31 doesn’t have the missiles tube numbers to operate in a high threat environment, it would be very quickly saturated and sunk.

            Time will tell what goes into them mk41 tubes, but I suspect nothing initially as there is no budget for it and no budget means it won’t happen in the current budgeting cycle.

          • We don’t know the numbers but it will probably have more than most of the FREMMs at 16 silos and they are high end warships…they are not going to purchase and fit strike length silos and not put anything in them.

          • This is fair although I suspect the FREMM nations are probably looking at options as 16 is woefully insufficient in the era of drones and cheap ish anti ship missiles.

          • It’ll be interesting to see if they do a mk41 and CAMM farm combo or just 4 MK41s on the T31s. Their forward 40mm position looks like it could take 2 MK41s or even a teduced CAMM farm.

          • With a mix of CAMM and CAMM-MR, the Type 31 could carry a mix of 48 medium and short range SAMs, leaving space for 16 vertically launched offensive missiles, or even up to 64 SAMs with 8 vertically launched land strike or anti-ship missiles. Not an Arleigh Burke, but a ship capable of self defence.

          • Has any of that been confirmed? Last time I tried to find any official data on how many silo the uk ones would have, I couldn’t find it anywhere.

      • Can’t see a reason not to do it. Every ships should carry what can be sensibly fitted. T26 has the silos’ so should carry TLAM. T31 I’m not sure .

      • land attack should not be made by SSN’s.
        Firing a missile says where the sub is automatically. The main function of a SSN is to destroy enemy submarines and surface ships.

        • Tells you where a the sub was not where it is. Plus it’s a whole lot harder to do a counter fire attack against a sub under water than it is a ship on it.

          But fair subs should be countering other subs but we don’t have enough of anything. Ideally you would have enough subs for both roles.

      • You are completely wrong regarding not fitting TLAMs to the surface fleet.

        In any future maritime conflict, the limited number of available Astutes will be focused on ASW missions, not LA. Each CBG needs at least 2-3 submarines depending on the threat (think Russian, China for example among other bad state actors) while excluding any SSBN sanitising missions. If you are (extremely) lucky you may a sub for covert special forces ops available separately…..makes one wish the replacements for the Upholders (sic) were available 🙃

        Modern naval warfare requires surface warships have LA missiles, the UK is just a little slow and sea blind to act in this manner. 🤣 laughably, the (🐌) race is on between the T31 and T26 to ‘maybe’ have a rather token TLAM capability in the next 5 years, maybe. After that, look to the T83. Surface escorts protecting a CBG are the prime platforms for LA missions, especially prior to carrier air strikes ashore/ASuW; again, while the Astutes protect from below – that’s what they are primarily designed for.

        You are correct though in highlighting the extremely low quantities of the TLAM inventory, even for the small number of Hunter-Killers the RN has….why the UK government hasn’t taken back from the foreign aid or NHS budgets is also just ludicrous.

        How the UK won in WWII is a distant (book/online) memory, the Falklands was ‘…a close run thing’ and look how the military has faired since!

        • Whilst I get your thinking but also all available surface ships will also be needed to protect the carriers, as we don’t have enough spare, so kinda mute point all round.

          Think falklands there were 20 odd surface ships trying to protect the carriers and still an enemy sub was not detected as in lord wests own admission he didn’t have enough vessels to cast the anti sub web wide enough.

          • Not a mute point at all. Simply, only an idiot would re-mission an Astute (or more) from ASW defence of a task force to (noisily) launch some TLAMs, give away their position and become the hunted.

            West 1. Was just a 3 ringer on a T21 and not in charge of an ASW frigate squadron, or anything… it is ironic the parallels between the T21 though and the future T31, which won’t have any meaningful ASW capabilities like the 1st class T22/23 before them. 2. Was responsible for a massive cut in the fleet as 1SL, so far from a credible voice for military critical mass.

            Fleets need screens of frigates and destroyers for a CBG and if required to be torpedo/missile sponges for a major unit, like the carrier or major support ship.

          • That’s actually a good analogy in terms of capabilities of the Type 31 basically being no different from the Type 21 which were really just patrol frigates and not useful in a peer fight.
            I think given what we have witnessed in the last 12 months around the waters of Yemen shows that the Type 31 design as it currently stands is stupid.
            When terrorists with state backing now have the ability to target vessels in all domains, warships must be equipped to fight in all domains and defend themselves as well as others.

      • I thought other than anti-sub that was the purpose of the Type 26 Frigate and why it has 32 Mk cells. Those 32 cells exist to be loaded with Tomahawks. It was originally called the Global Combat ship and was designed and born in a time when the global war on terror was in full swing.
        I personally am not sure how usefully Tomahawk is against say China as the design while great for the 80s, is now obsolete. ie the F-22, F-35 have a much much lower RCS than the Tomahawk missile. The air launch JASSAM-ER and Storm Shadow as much better at penetrating air defense because they are designed to be stealthy from the start.
        I think given what we have witnessed over the last serval months those 32 VLS would be better off being loaded with air defense missiles like the Aussies are doing with their’s.

        • Go back 3 years and I was of the opinion that sub sonic non stealthy missiles would have no chance of getting to their target but having seen how badly russian air defences have handled the like of shadowstorm etc I’m not so sure anymore.

          For sure Ukraine has used some very creative tactics to defeat the air defences but the west can learn from them and innovate, so maybe they will still be effective.

          • Yeah but I don’t think we can put China in the same box as Russia.
            I do think the west is going to get a nasty surprise if we ever go to war with China.
            Storm Shadow is a steathly cruise missile. Yeah not as steathly as JASSAM, but when compared to a tomahawk Storm Shadow is a ghost.
            Alot of Ukraine’s success is down to the fact that Russia is so huge with targets spread out so far apart that there are just so many holes for Ukraine to target. Then there’s the fact that Russian radar tech is clearly behind by about 2 to 3 decades.

    • We don’t have any mk41 silos to put them in at present. It would not surprise me at all if the RN did not infact make a modest tomahawk purchase when we have a type 26 and T31 to put them in.

      • What about ship launched FC/ASW?
        The subsonic is reported to be aiming for significantly improved range over Storm Shadow and will be around by the time all of the new frigates are in service.

        • Yeah if FCAS has a Cruise Function I doubt we’ll be seeing more Tomahawks being purchased (and I’d argue against it, FCAS money stays on this side of the pond).

          • At the end of the day it’s still a missile in the concept phase, with no design contract signed off.so I would say 2028 to 2030 is very soft..if it slips a couple of years or so the RN could have MK41 silos in commission for 6 years before a long range land attack missile is ready. As the highest risk with china is 2027 to 2034 there could be a place for tomahawk in those years…not having a capability for 2027/28 is not such a good move geostrategicly.

          • Different beasts with a completely different range…tomahawks have the range to pretty much hold anything at risk..NSM far less so..it’s very useful and a whole heap better than nothing but it’s still very range limited.

        • Well it’s a weapons programme that has not yet produced a weapon.so I’m always a bit cagey about in service dates. At present it has still not moved out of concept phase..and having a work share debat, between France, UK and Italy…so 2028 to 2030 I would say is very very soft…I could see it running out to 2034 at which point we have a potential 6-7 year gap between the RN having mk41 launchers and a long range land attack missile…a modest buy of tomahawk would fit the bill to cover that especially as we know the highest risk of a shooting war with china is between 2027 and 2034/5.

          • If the lid suddenly flips a Tomahawk purchase will be the only choice. Same done by the Netherlands, Australia, and Japan. No naval launch Storm Shadow option unless that’s the latest subsonic FC/ASW in the works?

    • china has the biggest stock of any nation of theatre ballistic missiles, in any China japan war, Japan will be smashed with a day one missile bombardment…having the ability to smash back is a good idea.

    • Sorry to be greedy but MK41s could be added into the T45s with the space for two already there. Would be good for a lot of additional missiles especially if T45s operate in isolation as well as in a group and still have 15 years of service life left.

        • No, the T45’s need to be maximise for AAW use.
          That’s why a mix of CAMM and Aster 30 B1+ will be of better value for money to the RN. The T45 will get NSM for ASuW.
          Mk.41 modules would add to considerable expense of millions of $’s for each module.

          Also the RN does not use X-band radar to guide the simi-homing SM series of missiles.
          Only sm-6 can be a full homing missile, to use S-band.

      • My understanding is that space has been taken up by the CAMM silos they are going to put in.
        Also given what has just happened around the waters of Yemen over the past 12 months the Type 45s for their size have a woefully inadequate magazine size for SAMs. I mean the ship is basically the size of a Burke DDG with with less than half the magazine capacity.
        How long in theatre could the Type 45 stay in a fight against China, I can run simulations where the answer is literally measured in minutes and hours not days or weeks.
        So that means an entire UK Carrier group could be forced to leave an area in a very very short time for quite a long time if it’s faced with a barrage of serval dozen anti-ships missiles which is what an attack against a carrier battle group would face.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here