politics

Japan, Britain, Italy mull defense chief talks in Tokyo in December

16 Comments

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

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

16 Comments
Login to comment

The pacifist constitution prohibits Japan from developing weapons with attack capability, much less selling them to a third country. Together with the doubling of Japan's defense budget, this joint project of developing next generation fighter jets will be subjected to a fierce Dietary debate.

 Will the Kishida government's short shrift to the constitution win over the Diet and the nation? To win, the Kishida government will do more of fear-mongering campaign.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

There is no 3rd country that Japan could sell this $250 million fighter jet to.

In a multinational program like this, partners divide up the market for which they are responsible for;

1) UK gets Western Europe and Middle East.

2) Italy gets Central and Eastern Europe.

3) Japan gets Asia Pacific excluding Middle East.

Now the question is, is there an Asian Pacific country able to afford a $250 million fighter jet?

There isn't. India is hell bent on making its own jets no matter the cost and time.

Singapore buys only US jets.

Korea has its own stealth jet already doing air shows and has countries lined up to buy it.

The rest of Asia is too poor to afford a $250 million fighter jet.

Japan's only hope appears to be Australia, assuming UK releases Australia to Japan's marketing territory which may not be the case. After all, Australia still is a British common wealth country.

So Japan really doesn't have a market to sell this jet.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

There is no 3rd country that Japan could sell this $250 million fighter jet to.

It won't sell for that much. Lots of nations pay $110 million or more for a 4th gen F-15. F-35A flyaway cost is down well below $100 million and countries are lining up to buy them now. There are these things called rate and learning that tend to make aircraft less costly to build the more you buy. You don't see rate and learning as strongly in weapons procurement but you certainly see it with aircraft production.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Desert Tortoise

It won't sell for that much.

Yes it will.

The current development budget estimate is $30.2 billion, which is sure to rise as time passes by.

At the production volume of 300, it's $100 million per unit just for development.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Aerospace-Defense-Industries/Japan-U.K.-and-Italy-seek-next-generation-fighter-jet-design-by-2024

Wallace said on Wednesday that the project will need more than 25 billion pounds ($30.2 billion) over the next 10 years, with the U.K. investing 10 billion pounds.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

The pacifist constitution prohibits Japan from developing weapons with attack capability,

Really? All weapons can be used for attacking. Japan develops its own submarines, frigates, destroyers, missiles, tanks which can all be used offensively. I guess it is a matter of perspective, and the Japanese perspective is that all weapons it develops are for defense use. The new next gen fighter will fall into the same category and will not face any hurdles more than anything else it develops.

These fighters may well include a cheaper "export" model with less sophisticated equipment and parts for nations on a budget. Nations like Indonesia may well seek to purchase one or two squadrons if they are any good and in the right price range. They have looked at a number of different aircraft for purchase in the past including from Russia, US and Europe.

There are a number of nations that may look to upgrade if hostilities ramp up in their neighborhood including Thailand, Vietnam, and even Australia could use a fast air superiority fighter in small numbers to provide interdiction and protection for F-35's.

New Zealand may be looking at reforming its air force to once again include fighter aircraft, and could be signed up early as a "limited partner" to get cheaper and early access.

Many things are possible over the next 12 years, so making any guess at this stage would be premature.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

*Japan's only hope appears to be Australia**, assuming UK releases Australia to Japan's marketing territory which may not be the case. After all, Australia still is a British common wealth country.*

Quite a few inaccuracies.

The last time I checked, Australia was an independent nation and has been for 122 years. They buy far more military hardware from the US than the UK. The UK has zero control over which military hardware Aus source.

FYI - There is no such body as the "British Commonwealth" any more. The Commonwealth of Nations is not comtrolled by Britain - and has 30% of the world's population in this voluntary organisation. Many of these nations are not in any way aligned militarily to the UK. Canada is the only Commonwealth nation the UK is bound to defend, and vice versa.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Peter14

These fighters may well include a cheaper "export" model

Export models aren't cheaper. To the contrary, they usually cost more than domestic use models.

with less sophisticated equipment and parts for nations on a budget.

Nations on a budget don't go shopping for a $250 million fighter jet.

Nations like Indonesia

Indonesia's broke and can't afford anything.

Australia could use a fast air superiority fighter in small numbers to provide interdiction and protection for F-35's.

Australia isn't looking to buy new fighter jets, they are done with 75 F-35s and almost all available resourced are being redirected toward $50 billion AUKUS submarine project.

New Zealand may be looking at reforming its air force

New Zealand has outsourced its defense to Australia.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Fighto!

 Australia was an independent nation and has been for 122 years. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia

King of Australia

Charles III since 8 September 2022

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor-General_of_Australia

Governor-General of Australia

The governor-general of Australia is the representative of the monarch, currently King Charles III, in Australia. The governor-general is appointed by the monarch on the recommendation of the prime minister.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Nations on a budget don't go shopping for a $250 million fighter jet.

None of the three nations involved will be paying $250 million per jet. Export models are cheaper when nations want to make sales.

Indonesia's broke and can't afford anything.

Irrelevant, we are talking over 12 years into the future and anything can happen between now and then. When your being threatened by war, you find the money.

Australia isn't looking to buy new fighter jets, they are done with 75 F-35s

No, they are not. The plan is to replace the 24 Super Hornets with more F-35's when their at end of life. That could change, as all things can when war threatens or breaks out.

almost all available resourced are being redirected toward $50 billion AUKUS submarine project.

Not true. New self propelled guns being made in Geelong, IFV's and Recon vehicles being replaced with new modern Boxers and Redback IFV. The Navy is looking at increasing the number of surface ships with perhaps 12 new corvette type ships. 75 new upgraded Abrams MBT's. M28 Ghost-bat AI fighter supplements, the list goes on and on. Australia is a rich nation and will get whatever it needs. If it decides it needs air superiority fighters, it will source them and buy them.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@ SamitBasu - are you seriously suggesting the UK is in control of the foreign policies - and the military acquisitions - of Canada, NZ, Pakistan, India, Jamaica, Australia etc - simply because they are in the Commonwealth of Nations? That they are not independent?

Cmon man, do just a little research. Don't you study the world in South Korean HS?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes it will.

The current development budget estimate is $30.2 billion, which is sure to rise as time passes by.

At the production volume of 300, it's $100 million per unit just for development.

Sigh. By definition Flyaway cost does not include sunk costs for development. Flyaway/Rollaway/Sailaway cost includes the cost of "Prime Mission Equipment" meaning the aircraft, ground vehicle, weapon or ship, along with the cost of tooling expended in its production. It does not include sunk costs from the development phase. For FY23 the Flyaway cost of an F-35A is $91.56 million while the Flyaway cost of an F-15EX is $107.094 million. Consider that the bulk of the F-15s development costs were expended 45 years ago.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Export models aren't cheaper. To the contrary, they usually cost more than domestic use models.

Not always. Often the contracts to buy an aircraft from a foreign supplier include a long term maintenance contract, spares and often the aircraft producer setting up a maintenance operation on the territory of the foreign customer. The actual flyaway cost is not greater.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Australia isn't looking to buy new fighter jets, they are done with 75 F-35s and almost all available resourced are being redirected toward $50 billion AUKUS submarine project.

Then explain how Australia is buying Tomahawks, JASSM, co-developing an air breathing hypersonic cruise missile with the US, developing a new class of frigates to replace the aging Anzac class, Buying MQ-4 Tritons and standing up the maintenance and operating infrastructure for them (not simple or cheap btw), co-developing Loyal Wingman with the USAF and standing up a capability to build missiles like Tomahawk among others in Australia?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Is it just me, but how would these two countries help Japan in a time of war..........Oh, maybe the UK can send its one aircraft carrier.......if it is not in dry dock.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is it just me, but how would these two countries help Japan in a time of war..........Oh, maybe the UK can send its one aircraft carrier.......if it is not in dry dock.

The Royal Navy has two aircraft carriers, not one, the HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The Italian Navy also has two aircraft carriers. All of these currently operate the F-35B. Both Royal Navy carriers have operated with mixed RAF / US Marine Corps air wings. In fact the Prince of Wales is off the coast of Virginia right now testing the new General Atomics Mojave combat UAS, the largest UAS to operate from a flight deck to date. Because the Mojave is a version of the Reaper and Predator optimized for short field use it does not need catapults or arresting gear to operate from an aircraft carrier. So the Brits beat the US Navy to test it on an aircraft carrier, but you can bet Mojaves will show up on US Navy LHA/LHDs and maybe the Izumo class.

https://news.usni.org/2023/11/17/u-k-aircraft-carrier-hms-prince-of-wales-launches-recovers-mojave-drone

https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/mojave

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ah, the Japanese have a delegation aboard Prince of Wales to observe the tests in preparation for the arrival next year of JS Izumo for her own F-35 trials. So yes there is value in teaming with the Europeans.

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