I don't know what the Japanese system is like, but the point is that there are multiple variables to take into account. Length of contribution, type (tax rate and pre or post, or flat) + amount of contribution, when you qualify to receive it, recipient stipulations (can you work or not, does the rate change, does the age change, etc).
Based on some back of envelop comparisons from my little research of the Japanese system (what wikipedia provides, since I can't read Japanese); it would seem that the US system is a little fairer (or, at least, generally equivalent) for W2 employees: a lower rate and contribution requirement [6.2% vs 10%], with a shorter term requirement [35 vs 40 years] but a slightly lower payout at a later age [4.5kusd@70 vs 5.5kusd@65] with a lower overall tax burden [nominal 17% vs flat 25%]. But both are a fair bit better than the Irish system. Please feel free to correct me if those are off, however.
Even those are just assumptions based on you making no private retirement contributions and you working a white collar job and then going full state pensioner at the full retirement age. If any variables change, it can drastically effect the payout/taxrate. So it's almost impossible to fully compare.
Reminds me of some (Dutch) people who made a chart of % taxation (including every kind) vs income by using real world data... It came out like white noise. Apparently if you make as many rules as possible to make it all as fair as possible you end up with the lamest possible system - even worse than a lottery.