A Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force mobile combat vehicle is on display at a defense equipment fair at the Makuhari Messe convention hall in Chiba Prefecture on Monday. Photo: KYODO
politics

Japan hosts arms show looking for an edge in tech

51 Comments
By Tim Kelly

Japan's first ever fully fledged arms show opened on Monday, creating a forum that Japan's government hopes will help it tap technology it needs to counter threats posed by China and North Korean.

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.

Worried by increased Chinese military activity in the East China Sea and North Korea's ballistic missile advances, Japan has increased defense spending over the past seven years to around $50 billion annually, purchasing advanced U.S. stealth fighters, missile defense interceptors and radar systems.

"Technology is advancing quickly and our equipment can't cope against things such as hypersonic warheads and drones," Gen Nakatani, a former defense minister and senior ruling Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker told Reuters at the arms show.

"Innovation is happening around the world and through an exchange of that Japan will be able to keep up," he added.

China spends more than three times as much as Japan on defense, while recent North Korean advances threaten to make Japan's new missile defenses obsolete before they are deployed.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government in 2014 abolished a decades-long ban on foreign military exports in a bid to cut procurement costs by allowing Japanese companies such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to widen their production base.

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.

There is still abiding foreign interest in tapping Japanese technology for military use, with companies such as Lockheed Martin Corp , Raytheon Co and BAE Systems PLC all looking for new partnerships in Japan.

"There is a great deal of interest internationally in seeing what Japan has to offer the world," said Alex Soar, International Development Director at Clarion Events which organized the show covering land, air and naval equipment.

Abe's government faces opposition at home to policies that some Japanese people fear could erode the pacifist constitution and herald a return to the militarism that devastated the country in World War Two."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.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2019.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

51 Comments
Login to comment

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

0 ( +18 / -18 )

"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!

-5 ( +12 / -17 )

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

-28 ( +2 / -30 )

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.

-1 ( +18 / -19 )

.

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

.

.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

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.

6 ( +13 / -7 )

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.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

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.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

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

3 ( +18 / -15 )

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

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

 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.

-16 ( +5 / -21 )

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.

11 ( +11 / -0 )

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.

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

@indigo

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

11 ( +18 / -7 )

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.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

Nobody wants this in Japan.

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

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.

-10 ( +8 / -18 )

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

15 ( +16 / -1 )

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...

10 ( +15 / -5 )

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

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

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.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Samit BasuToday  07:21 am JST

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.

It's a good thing they're doing something about this then, isn't it? Because if they didn't, you'd have to work overtime trying to disparage any Japanese efforts across all spectrums. See below.

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.

Are you implying other Asian submarines are sized for Australian crews? Any Asian sourced sub will sufer this same sizing problem. The ADF was very close to siging the deal with Japan actually, the pros of the Soryu class made them a viable alternative, which was why it was short listed.

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.

This is pure South Korean propaganda to divert attention away from BOTH its fire radar lock on and other systems used on the Japanese UNARMED patrol P-1 aircraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Japan%E2%80%93South_Korea_radar_lock-on_dispute

"On 21 January, Japanese MoD released the final statement regarding this incident including the location-relationship-diagram and the sound file of the radar reception(also known as RWR records). Japanese MoD also pointed out that 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.[35] After Japan's final statement, Choi hyon-su, official spokesperson of Korean MND, on the official regular briefing, stated "(from the sound records released on January.21) We couldn't interpret the sound records since we were not passed conversion logs for the records from Japan,[43][44] and RWR reception record cannot exactly prove the usage of STIR-180 since **various radars were used at the time, like Kelvin radar making similar frequencies, using I-band, in Sambongho, Korea Coast Guard's vessel, and MW08 that can be identified as FC radar, that could have confused P-1's ESM recorder.**"[45][46] Japan declared there would be no more working-level consultations while Korean MND suggesting further joint investigations comparing each countries' data.[47]"

What you wrote about "This substandard ESM equipment famously couldn't tell MW08 X-band search radar apart from STIR-180 fire control radar" is disingenuous to the extreme. It was merely suggested by the Korean MND because they were in damage control over Japan release video and audio evidence of the FC radar lock on. But you are passing the Korean MND's comments off as proven fact. They proved absolutely nothing and in response Japan decided to end discussions.

As for the P-1 losing to the Boeing P-8 in the UK and NZ, the P-1 was priced out of negotiations. All the information is out there. The fact that it made the short lists for both countries means it suited their purposes.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

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.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

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...

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

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

12 ( +14 / -2 )

@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.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

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

8 ( +11 / -3 )

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.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

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.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

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.

-17 ( +0 / -17 )

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

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

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.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

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.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

"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?

10 ( +11 / -1 )

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

6 ( +7 / -1 )

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...

10 ( +10 / -0 )

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

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Samit BasuToday  11:43 am JST

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

All you need to know is that Japan DOESN'T equip it with them. It's role is a patrol aircraft. Insinuating that it can fire missiles on (South Korean) vessels is absolutely ridiculous.

@Hillclimber

*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.

So why didn't the ADF consider a South Korean sub? Because when they trialled one in negotiations for what was to become the Collins class sub procurement, the ROKS Lee Sunsin, a South Korean submarine based on the IKL/HDW Type 209 design. The Type 209 unsuccessfully competed against the Kockums Type 471 for selection as the basis of the **Collins class.**

You could say that the Aussies knew better than to waste time with a South Korean sub again... and they didn't. They didn't waste any time contacting the Japanese.

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

Wrong again! From wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine

"Throughout 2014, there was increasing speculation that the Sōryū class (or a derivative) was the most likely candidate for the replacement.[ .... In January 2015, a three-way "competitive evaluation process" between the Japanese proposal, ThyssenKrupp's plan, and the Thales-DCNS offer was announced.[211] A 2012 study of the Collins class concluded that the submarines' lifespan could be extended by one maintenance cycle (seven years) to cover any capability gap, with lead submarine Collins to be retired in the early 2030s.[212]"

The Soryu deal was going to go ahead but was dropped because the ADF decided to extend the operating life of Collins subs past 2030 with massive upgrades.

You have literally misrepresented this entire situation to make Japan out to be some incompetent fool. This is South Korean propaganda at its most ineffectual.

*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.*

Speculation doesn't work. Neither does backpedalling.

The fact is South Korea had a chance to officially DENY that they used FC radar lock on (like shown in the Japanese supplied video and audio as evidence) yet all they could do was side-step the matter by saying "we used multiple radars and they probably got confused".... Japan ended the discussions at that point because South Korea showed its hand... it had nothing in response. The information is all out there, you should read it instead of approved South Korean media propaganda.

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

New Zealand still said no.

Incorrect again... the Boeing P-8 was cheaper. End of story.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

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.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

"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.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

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

10 ( +11 / -1 )

@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.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

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.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Sweet. Lord of War.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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.

12 ( +13 / -1 )

@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.

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

Thanks extanker, you saved me some typing.

Samit BasuNov. 19  11:04 pm JST

@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.

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 (or now if the contest was current). This is 100% dream-like supposition on your part. Laughable.

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

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.

There you go misrepresenting the facts again. The article you linked clearly states this:

"Key points:

Unknown if a final decision on the subs contract has been made

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."

What you say about the French and German bids is FACTUALLY WRONG as the RAN decided to reject ALL BIDS in favour of extending the service life of Collins class beyond 2030.

In you effort to disparage Japan you are having to misrepresent facts that anyone can for themselves... you're even pointing them to it!

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Samit BasuNov. 19  11:04 pm JST

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.

Really? Then why didn't South Korea provide actual evidence of this to counter the Japanese video and audio evidence? The time was ripe for a South Korean response to blow Japan out of the water and what did they do? THey fumbled as said some unprovable comment "we used multiple radars and they got confused because reasons". Note thet they never once denies outright and gave proof that they didn't use FC radar.

Watch the Japanese video, they state 4 times over different radio frequencies that the FC radar is pointing directly at the Japanese P-1 and they asked what was the purpose of the South Korean boats action... the South Korean response? Absolute silence!

You'd think that if the Japanese plane was mistaken the South Koreans would correct them immediately, and if not actually correct them, then just deny it at the time. But no, they knew they messed up and the ball was in Japan's court to release video/audio evidence of the FC radar use afterwards. South Korea called Japan's bluff and they lost.

You say "the P-1's ESM mistook for a fire control radar due to its lack of a threat library". Where's your evidence of this? And if it exists, why wasn't it made public at the time? Answer: There is none.

I'm sorry but not everyone is gullible like you want them to be. The South Korean tactic of hoping the world sides with them by default so that they will swallow anything South Korea says is extremely myopic.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

@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.

-14 ( +0 / -14 )

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.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

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?

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