Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
politics

Defense minister urges ruling parties to approve fighter jet exports

17 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

17 Comments
Login to comment

Ministry stronger than parliament?

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Japan doesn't have to export fighters as long as it's willing to export GCAP parts to UK and Italy, who then can export fighters assembled in UK and Italy.

Japan declining to export fighter jets is totally fine with UK and Italy, they will simply div up the world markets between themselves and thank Japan for its deep rooted pacifism.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

War is such a lucrative business for some, isn't it?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

" What possibly can the Japanese offer in terms of any plausible expertise to the mix? Think about it."

"Japan’s contribution to the project could be significant, including composite materials, radar sensors and three-dimensional thrust-vectoring engines, said Yee Kuang Heng, an international security professor at the University of Tokyo"

"https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/12/14/japan/politics/japan-uk-italy-joint-fighter-jet-development/#:~:text=Japan's%20plans%20to%20co%2Ddevelop,the%20roles%20of%20each%20partner."

Intended as an answer to a dumb rhetorical question.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

The Italians and the British have the know-how, without question. What possibly can the Japanese offer in terms of any plausible expertise to the mix? Think about it.

Japan have its own experience in aircraft technologies..

If Japan belongs in that group is for something..

The fact that you can't stand anithing positive from Japan is another different thing..

Think about it..

4 ( +7 / -3 )

*anything..

2 ( +4 / -2 )

As if Japan is going to have a veto over the UK and Italy. NOT!

ProtestantToday  07:22 am JST

The Italians and the British have the know-how, without question. What possibly can the Japanese offer in terms of any plausible expertise to the mix? Think about it.

A different perspective. They might also bring to the table a sense of "it actually working". instead of the british kind of thinking of....."It'll kinda do". They might also bring to the table a sense of purpose and commitment. Unlike the HS2.Start and stop. The UK has had a history of this. Another thing is CASH and TIME. Something the UK doesn't have at the moment. 14 years of austerity and a debt that eclipses austerity, we might have to wonder.....has the life of british people improved. A housing crisis, a Banking crisis...Albeit food banks, a debt thats ballooning, a health service thats been crushed. It might be better to ask.....what possibly can the British offer. Lets think about it.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

the old constitution about lethal weapon export ban is outdated and shall not be adopted anymore. You are dealing with commies chinese and Russian now, you cannot obey to the rules while the enemies can go against the rules every single times they wish. The old Japanese mentality shall wake up and be flexible. It is not that you are shouting peace peace, it is that in order to maintain peace, you need to have the alliance and you need to co-operate with them

0 ( +3 / -3 )

MarkToday  02:54 pm JST

the old constitution about lethal weapon export ban is outdated 

There is nothing in the constiution refering to weapons exports.

The ban is a self imposed law just like the 3 point no-nukes law. It's not in the constitution and could be amended.

What needs to be changed in the ctual Article 9 in the constitution which bans the use of military force to settle territorial disputes. This is seen as the weak point in Japan's position.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@OssanJapan

What needs to be changed in the ctual Article 9 in the constitution which bans the use of military force to settle territorial disputes. 

Actually that's not how LDP interprets Article 9.

LDP says it's kosher to preemptively attack the Southern Kurils and the Liancourt Rocks because they are Japanese territories illegally occupied by Russia and Korea, and Japanese preemptive attack constitutes a policing action on Japanese territory and not an invasion of a foreign territory.

A preemptive Japanese attack on North Korean nuclear missile base with hypersonic missiles is what's triggering the Article 9 debate, not the preemptive Japanese attack on the Southern Kurils and the Liancourt Rocks which LDP and Japanese MOD consider to be entirely constitutional.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

ProtestantToday  07:22 am JST

The Italians and the British have the know-how, without question. What possibly can the Japanese offer in terms of any plausible expertise to the mix? Think about it.

Ever heard about Ceramic composite fibers?

How about gallium nitride power semi-conductors?

How about the newly developed adhesive bonding method?

You certainly should know about Carbon composites which Japan has a virtual monopoly of?

Newly powered AESA radars that can double as microwave disruption beam emitters?

How about the XF-91 engine that can generate 108kN dry and over 147kN thrust with after burners?

How about the 250kW on-board electric generator recently developed by IHI?

I can go on.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Submarines were approved for sale to Australia, but the deal fell through.

Jet fighters, like submarines, are not lethal weapons in themselves but are weapons platforms. Fighter jets like submarines, launch the lethal weapons.

So selling fighter jets should be considered in a similar way to the submarine sale, and the sale of patrol boats that may later be fitted by the recipient with lethal weapons.

If Japan were to export the weaponry, like missiles, bombs and canon rounds with the aircraft, then it may cross a line. But given that ammunition is being exported now by Japan, back to the nation it procured a license to manufacture from in the first place, things are being watered down and loophole created to enable Japan to do what needs doing to assist allies and friends.

Continually stretching the piece of string will see it eventually break and the article 9 will need to be revised and possibly altered or scrapped all together in the near future to enhance Japans security.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

In light of pacifism struck home in its pacifist constitution Japan has maintained three principles of non-production, non-export and non-purchase of lethal weapons. And so, at the start of negotiations to jointly produce next-generation fighter jets, the UK and Italy must have sought Tokyo's assurance that Japan's pacifist constitution and the three non principles are no hindrance for the joint project of producing next-generation fighter jets which could be exported to third countries for profits.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Probably, behind the scene is the U.S. government, now encouraging Tokyo to go ahead with the joint project. Washington must have a far sight in the future of Japan-U.S. relations and eventually encourage Japan to participate in joint defense projects with it, to save money.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In all likelihood Japan wants to export aircraft in order to achieve lower unit costs for those procured for the JASDF. In the “Cumulative Average Model” (or “Wright’s Model”), which was described by T.P. Wright in 1936 in his work “Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes“, after realizing that the cost of aircraft production decreased with the increase in production performance. From first hand experience adding more units to your production profile reduces unit cost. Adding foreign military sales to the Japanese production profile would benefit the Japanese taxpayer by reducing the cost of the aircraft the JASDF procures.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Probably, behind the scene is the U.S. government, now encouraging Tokyo to go ahead with the joint project. Washington must have a far sight in the future of Japan-U.S. relations and eventually encourage Japan to participate in joint defense projects with it, to save money.

There are military advantages to your joint allied force having more variation in aircraft and sensor types confronting an enemy. Developing effective countermeasures requires and adversary to expend a great deal of effort studying your systems to learn their operating parameters so the adversary engineers can develop the tools to spoof radars and jam communications links. The more systems they confront the less likely they are to be able to develop effective countermeasures and the more likely the joint allied force will be successful. A particular countermeasure might have some degree of effectiveness against one aircraft and have no effect on another. Things like that matter in combat. The US alone cannot fund the development of multiple high end combat jets so it is advantageous to all the allies for them to fund additional new types. It makes the allied force that much harder to defeat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites