Japan hosts arms show looking for an edge in tech

A country whose constitution renounces war, and preaches peace hosts an arms show!!!!

"Producing more weapons is not going to make us safer. Japan has to rely on diplomacy," said one of the protesters, who only gave her first name Takako.

I get her point, but she fails to realize it isnt about "safety", it's about money.

Relying on diplomacy is doomed before it even starts when it comes to Abe!

Threat from China toward Japan ? That is only freedom of expression.

Yet in the more than five years since that ban ended Japan has largely failed to make inroads overseas, hobbled both by a lack of experience and concern that the reputational risk of selling arms could hurt other more profitable businesses.

Japanese weapons export failure is due to uncompetitiveness of Japanese weapons and nothing to do with reputational inhibitness. Japanese arms vendors want to sell if they could, but no one wants Japan's high-cost, low effective weapons.

1) Soryu class subs : Soryu wa sized for Japanese crew, meaning it was too small for Australian crew just to get around. Automation level was decades behind German and French rivals, meaning more crew was required. Range was too short.

2) P-1 : This plane lost in all contests it entered(UK, New Zealand), mainly due to its substandard ESM equipment that couldn't tell incoming radar signals apart. This substandard ESM equipment famously couldn't tell MW08 X-band search radar apart from STIR-180 fire control radar due to lack of threat library; all it could tell was that the plane was getting X-band radar signal and caused an international diplomatic crisis. Korea shared its findings with the allies and the P-1 became the laughing stock of the world's navies, eliminating any hope of winning future export deals.

.

Japan's state-of-art techno,gy will garner it a cosy niche in the arms trade market.

.

.

I applaud prime minister Abe, the U.S. blackmails Japan with EIGHT billion demand to keep troops, Japan does this. It's good that NK knows who they are messing with.

hmmm, didn't Japan "renounce war forever". September 1951 the United States and 48 other nations signed a formal peace treaty with Japan. On April 28, 1952, the treaty went into effect, and Japan assumed full sovereignty as the Allied occupation came to an end. The second chapter of the Japan Constitution contains a declaration that the Japanese people "forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation." In addition, the document promises that Japan will never use force or the threat of force to settle international disputes. To uphold this promise, the Japanese Constitution also promises that no armed forces will ever be maintained by the nation of Japan. The Japan Constitution, can be amended, if two-thirds of the Diet agrees to an amendment, however it is brought before the people in a special election. If a simple majority of the people approve of the amendment, it becomes a permanent part of the Japanese Constitution. This is why it is very crucial today to pay close attention by following what is going on at the Diet level and vote before only a few "in the know" are the ones making the decision for amending the Constitution.

Not sure if its tanks we really need...

Ex_Res

I’m not sure that you understand the concept of self defense.

If you are a human you need it on earth. Japan has many threats (China, NK, Russia) and a threat to them (the US) with bases all over the island.

Good for Japan. No one has the right to criticize Japan having a legal and profitable arms industry, when all other developed nations do.

Thanks Samit for that information about the P-1. Explains that incident

 to counter threats posed by China and North Korean.

Threats? What threats? Little Kim is more likely to blow himself up and China? To my knowledge, they have not made any direct threats to Japan. They are only squabbling over possession of a few rocks in the pacific, just as Japan is. This is just more propaganda to gain support for changing article nine.

It’s only natural that Japanese arms manufacturers are having a hard time making inroads into overseas markets. Weapons improve by being used in extreme conditions of real battlefields. And no Japanese-made weapons have been used in real war since the end of WW2.

to make weapon and business we need a threat , that is why they made the north Korea and china monster stories.

first they make the excuse, then make the action to counter the fake problem.

@indigo

Pardon? Fake problem? I may agree with China, but NK? Have you read the news about their constant launching of missiles towards Japan?

Japan: Welcome to the beginning stages of a more made-obvious-to-the-public Military Industrial Complex. Now it's in your face and before you know it citizens will be facing down police clad in military armor armed with military grade weaponry. I'll give it 3 to 5 years.

Nobody wants this in Japan.

didn't Japan "renounce war forever". September 1951 the United States and 48 other nations signed a formal peace treaty with Japan.

Abe trying to backflip on the San Fran treaty yet again. He is trustworthy according to his hypocritical logic.

I’m not sure that you understand the concept of self defense.

Pathetic excuse. Japan already has the defense force without the need to change the constitution.

This show would be mostly for Japan looking to buy foreign made weapons.

Japan's industry for the most part would be like it is with mobiles for example, that is a PARTS supplier

Very unlikely any J-made ready to use equipment\machinery would interest most overseas buyers

But if the govt keeps pushing who knows, personally I cant see it ending well for Japan persuing this road

2) P-1 : This plane lost in all contests it entered(UK, New Zealand), mainly due to its substandard ESM equipment that couldn't tell incoming radar signals apart. This substandard ESM equipment famously couldn't tell MW08 X-band search radar apart from STIR-180 fire control radar due to lack of threat library; all it could tell was that the plane was getting X-band radar signal and caused an international diplomatic crisis. Korea shared its findings with the allies and the P-1 became the laughing stock of the world's navies, eliminating any hope of winning future export deals.

And this folks is how SK propaganda works. Nevermind the P-1 was designed to hunt submarines, yet they were threatened by a plane that has NO WEAPONS...

HokkaidoboyToday  08:21 am JST

@indigo

Pardon? Fake problem? I may agree with China, but NK? Have you read the news about their constant launching of missiles towards Japan?

If north Korea did not launch couple of dummy missiles in the sea. north Korea could be already invaded and destroyed.

Anti-missile, tank, drone can not stop the fatal radiation effect of a nuclear attack.

Japan is just an american proxy base, it is not a sovereign country. US prepare their future moves and make some money with the fear of people. news do have to be trusted.

Check NK by yourself, 99 percent of people want peace and are like you and me. the difference is that they have been war victims.

Japanese citizens are the real looser who have to pay tax and crazy amount of money to US .

Okinawa people said NO via a referendum to the US base move and extension, guess what happened. democracy has been ignored.

only diplomacy and love can end this vicious circle. people are the key

didn't Japan "renounce war forever". September 1951 the United States and 48 other nations signed a formal peace treaty with Japan.

Japan signed the document the world put in front of it to sign, and they did it to get sovereignty back after their defeat in WWII. The wording was not Japan's but that of the occupying forces as punishment for Japan's wartime actions and aggression.

Japan as a sovereign nation has the option and right to alter is constitution at any time, and has its own rules on how to legally go about any changes. It could even dump the entire document and write a new one from scratch if it wishes. No different from any other nation in the world in that regard.

This arms show is a way to get people to come to Japan and see not only what is on offer, but to say what they are looking for so that Japan can better cater to others needs when designing and manufacturing defense items. Cloaking technology is being researched by a number of nations but is not yet perfected so is an area Japan could engage in. Super magnetic screens to repel or attract incoming ordinance would be another defensive item Japan could research and develop. The future is open to a country that has many wacky and innovative ideas on many things technology based. Just give them a little time to gather momentum.

Considering threats from China and North Korea are eminent and that the US commitment to its traditional allies including Japan particularly under Trump's reign is uncertain, Japan first needs to focus more on weapons that can detect and destroy the incoming missiles.

Sooner or later, Japan will have to stand on its one feet to defend itself. In such circumstances, like how Israel can effectively defend itself in the Middle East, apart from buying hi-tech weapons from the US and Europe, Japan really needs to produce its own.

Japan signed the document the world put in front of it to sign, and they did it to get sovereignty back after their defeat in WWII. The wording was not Japan's but that of the occupying forces as punishment for Japan's wartime actions and aggression.

Well said! And nor should the wording be Japan's after the atrocities the IJA committed before and during the war. And the suffering it brought to Japanese people, too. The constitution was written to denounce war for good reason. Sensible Japanese citizens have agreed with it ever since. Yet, here we are, the descendants of the war-mongers themselves, that brought such mass suffering to Japan and it's neighbours, steadily steering the ship back toward mass-suffering yet again...

That's over dramatic. Japan is not heading to war.

@Shin Ra

Nevermind the P-1 was designed to hunt submarines, yet they were threatened by a plane that has NO WEAPONS...

So you didn't know the P-1 carried anti-ship missiles?

@Hillclimber

Are you implying other Asian submarines are sized for Australian crews? 

There are only three Sub exporting Asian nations. They are

1) China

2) North Korea

3) ROK

I don't know about Chinese and North Korean subs, but ROK submarines are indeed designed to be exportable from scratch; all ROK weapons are. The fact that Koreans are the tallest and broadest shouldered Asians also helps Korean subs sized comfortably for European sized males.

which was why it was short listed.

Australian MoD dropped the Soryu proposal without taking price bids, then ran the final price bidding between German and French bids.

this sound file evidence(RWR records) was rejected to be examined by Korean MND at the time of working-level consultations held on 14 January.

The sound file was analyzed by experts and was proven to have come from a revolving type radar. Japan apparently either lacked radar experts who could do signal analysis or couldn't face the truth. This is why Japan went to US DoD, was rejected by the Americans who probably came to same conclusion that the P-1 ESM equipment picked up a revolving type search radar, and decided to not to pursue charges anymore.

 P-1 was priced out of negotiations

The P-1 offer came with a very attractive financing package for which Japan is famous for.

New Zealand still said no.

Follow n respecting treaties commets coming from SK is a joke n basu baba stop living in the past yesterday has been n gone juse start seeing today n tomorrow. This r the result of hostile neighbors only. N they should know they can't cath with Japan on tech war

Regardless of the ethics of selling arms to other nations, arms usually used to subject other humans to repression, suppressions, injury, misery and death, the tank, as a singularly focused platform / weapon, is obsolete for modern armies.

Some 200 protesters gathered near the entrance of the convention center near Tokyo, calling for the government-backed DSEI Japan exhibition to be shut down as they regarded it as an affront to the nation's pacifist constitution.

These people fail to realize that a strong military is necessary to preserve the very peace they hold so dear. They are naive beyond measure, they deny the nature of thier species. Because of this they are more of a threat to peace and stability than the very forces these weapons were made to counteract.

Quite honestly, people who advice Japan to have more fighting powers don't respect Japan's sovereignty. To them, Japan isn't an independent country. Japan needs and must listen to their recommendations.

gotta say, that tank does not look very robust. Lacking armor and the profile, makes it look like a toy

Diamond cuts diamond so with hostile neighbors of Japan hostility is the only explanation hostile neighbors understand so it's not Japans fault here. N looks can be Alys deceiving.

Japan as a sovereign nation has the option and right to alter is constitution at any time, and has its own rules on how to legally go about any changes. It could even dump the entire document and write a new one from scratch if it wishes

No thats not really how it works. Japan is not really a sovereign nation but is tied to the politics and economy of the U.S. They once were, but no longer.

Sure, they could make a go at it but after getting denial to the US markets if the US gov does not approve of any radical changes, then its economy dies overnight.

"Producing more weapons is not going to make us safer. Japan has to rely on diplomacy," said one of the protesters, who only gave her first name Takako."

Hey Takako, How is diplomacy working with North Korea?

Don't worry abt the market as US also need allies n do u think japan building it without consulting with its allies no TLT n that's not how Allies work

So you didn't know the P-1 carried anti-ship missiles?

It is capable of it, but they dont usually fly around with any weapons...

If a country does not feed its army, then it will feed another army.

needs to counter threats posed by China and North Korean.

China is the threat. NK is just China´s puppet and will collapse the moment China's support ends.

"South Korea's (!!!)" submarines:

"South Korean shipbuilding companies Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering (DSME) and Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) developed the ROKN’s submarines with support from Germany’s Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW). [11] In March 2019"

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/south-korea-submarine-capabilities/

Enough said.

Daewoo is bankrupt company n now it's own by tata motors Hyundai tech is Mitsubishi tech so what's new here

@Hillclimber

So why didn't the ADF consider a South Korean sub?

The Australian MoD required that bidders have completed a sub similar to what's offered at the time of bid submission to reduce risks.

The KSS-III was still in construction at the time wasn't eligible. Nonetheless, the KSS-III was designed to be exportable from scratch and European sized crews will find it comfortable there. 

If the contest was being run right now, the KSS-III would be the favorite.

Wrong again! 

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/submarines-announcement-expected-next-week/7340996

Submarine deal: Successful bid for new Royal Australian Navy boats to be announced next week

While it is not clear if the committee has made a final decision, it has all but eliminated the Japanese bid to build a fleet of 12 submarines to replace the Royal Australian Navy's ageing Collins Class subs.

That leaves France and Germany still in the race.

After this date, Australian MoD ran a price bid. In other word, the Soryu was ruled as not meeting the technical requirements of the Australian MoD and was eliminated before the final price bidding between two technically qualified bids.

"we used multiple radars and they probably got confused"

It was Japan that got confused. There was only one X-band radar operational at the time, the search radar on the coast guard ship, which the P-1's ESM mistook for a fire control radar due to its lack of a threat library.

The Australian MoD required that bidders have completed a sub similar to what's offered at the time of bid submission to reduce risks.

LAUGH OUT LOUD!!

The French Short Fin Barracuda is nothing near the Nuclear powered cousin and the French had to re-design it from scratch.

You simply cannot power a sub with a nuclear reactor in mind and convert it into a diesel powered sub.

The Australians ate it hook, line and sinker and are chocking on it right now since they are going to get another orphan sub that they do not know if it will fit the required specification just to please the South block who insisted on securing construction at their coveted construction site that has no actual experience in constructing a sub resulting to retaining French construction workers to actually construct the sub.

Sweet. Lord of War.

So why didn't the ADF consider a South Korean sub?

The Australian MoD required that bidders have completed a sub similar to what's offered at the time of bid submission to reduce risks.

The KSS-III was still in construction at the time wasn't eligible. Nonetheless, the KSS-III was designed to be exportable from scratch and European sized crews will find it comfortable there. 

If the contest was being run right now, the KSS-III would be the favorite.

100% speculation on your part. Nice try.

Wrong again! 

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/submarines-announcement-expected-next-week/7340996

Submarine deal: Successful bid for new Royal Australian Navy boats to be announced next week

While it is not clear if the committee has made a final decision, it has all but eliminated the Japanese bid to build a fleet of 12 submarines to replace the Royal Australian Navy's ageing Collins Class subs.

That leaves France and Germany still in the race.

After this date, Australian MoD ran a price bid. In other word, the Soryu was ruled as not meeting the technical requirements of the Australian MoD and was eliminated before the final price bidding between two technically qualified bids.

Usually when someone provides a link to back up their claim, it actually contains something backing it up. Nowhere in this article does it mention that the sub doesn't meet the criteria. Do you even read the articles you link to or do you stop as soon as you find something you think is relevant? Because the article does go on to mention the reason and it has absolutely nothing to do with technical requirements:

"Defence department officials have had reservations about the Japanese bid from the outset, because it emerged as an understanding struck between former prime minister Tony Abbott and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe."

So in other words: More incorrect speculation on your part.

"we used multiple radars and they probably got confused"

It was Japan that got confused. There was only one X-band radar operational at the time, the search radar on the coast guard ship, which the P-1's ESM mistook for a fire control radar due to its lack of a threat library.

Funny that you keep saying this but all the evidence says contrary. You do like to make things up though, as you continue to prove in every post.

@Triring

You simply cannot power a sub with a nuclear reactor in mind and convert it into a diesel powered sub.

The French have done that before.

http://www.military-today.com/navy/rubis_class.htm

Rubis class

Nuclear-powered attack submarine

A smaller design was then initiated, based on the hull form of the diesel-electric Agosta class and with basically the same fire-control, torpedo-launching and sonar detection systems.

Koreans are proposing to do the same with the KSS-III Block 3, by inserting a nuclear power section into the hull to turn it into a nuclear submarine.

@extanker

100% speculation on your part. Nice try.

https://books.google.com/books?id=c0I_DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&source=bl&ots=ucLYMFbJYz&sig=ACfU3U3WHQg3rubQUUisnqLBAEBPZKWJ-w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidi67Y_PblAhVhiOAKHcFnCOwQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage

One illustrative example that has surfaced in the discussion of the Future Australian Submarine is that the interior design of the Soryu submarine, considered for a while for off-the-shelf procurement by Australians is that it has been designed for short Japanese, not for tall Australians. To attend to that seemingly minor problem would require radical structural redesign.

@Hillclimber

So in other words, a then non-existent proposal by the South Koreans would have won the contest if it was ready at the time

The KSS-III was still in construction then and was not completed.

Note that the Saab bid was not considered even though Saab supplied the Collins class subs, because Saab didn't have a sub model similar to what would be proposed to Australia.

By comparison, the KSS-III is now competing in the Indian sub contest, because it now meets India's "Already exists in physical form" requirement. 

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/sweden-out-south-korea-in-for-rs-45000-crore-submarine-project/articleshow/71303887.cms?from=mdr

Sweden out, South Korea in for Rs 45,000 crore submarine project

NEW DELHI:The Rs 45,000 crore submarine project contest for the Indian Navy continues to throw up surprises with the last minute entry of a South Korean shipbuilder and the pulling out of Swedish company Saab after red flagging policy strictures that can potentially place unlimited liabilities on foreign vendors.

RAN decided to reject ALL BIDS in favour of extending the service life of Collins class beyond 2030.

What are you talking about? Collins class had to be overhauled so that Australia had subs to operate until the Short Fin Barracuda became ready in 2030s.

First sell then talk babaji n tell what SK has achieved n innovated not what France Germany or others European n American tech giant has done.

So in other words, a then non-existent proposal by the South Koreans would have won the contest if it was ready at the time

The KSS-III was still in construction then and was not completed.

Sooo... it didn't exist and couldn't compete, so it is irrelevant.

Note that the Saab bid was not considered even though Saab supplied the Collins class subs, because Saab didn't have a sub model similar to what would be proposed to Australia.

So Saab didn't have a vehicle that met the requirements. Also irrelevant.

By comparison, the KSS-III is now competing in the Indian sub contest, because it now meets India's "Already exists in physical form" requirement.

So it exists now, so it can compete. Whether it wins or not remains to be seen. But... also irrelevant.

Do you have anything actually pertaining to the topic at hand or are you just going to keep defending the South Korean submarine that has nothing to do with the conversation?