Here is an interesting little loosely translated snippet from the Sankei on troubles within the selection of the F-X next-generation fighter proposals:
“We are having trouble with the English,” Ministry of Defense staff reported. The Air Staff and the Next-Generation Fighter Planning Office are currently inspecting the proposals submitted by the manufacturers, but they are said to be in dire distress over their comprehension of the English-language proposals.
Unfortunately for the ministry, the request for proposals stated that English-language proposals would be acceptable. Another official lamented, “As the Ministry of Defense is the customer, we should have written that only proposals written in Japanese would be accepted,” but it’s too late. While the assembled elites of the selection committee grapple with the thick proposals, day after day passes by.
Oh my.
loading...
Related posts:
A former contributor to World Intelligence (Japan Military Review), James Simpson joined Japan Security Watch in 2011, migrating with his blog Defending Japan. He has a Masters in Security Studies from Aberystwyth University and is currently living in Kawasaki, Japan.
His primary interests include the so-called 'normalization' of Japanese security (i.e. militarization), and the political impact of the abduction issue with North Korea.
James Simpson has 254 post(s) on Japan Security Watch
18 comments
Tri-ring says:
Dec 9, 2011
The article is lame beyond words to say the least. They are late because they are having difficulty with language?
Give me a break.
The true nature of delay is undoubtedly the delay in development of the F-35 and it's outcome in delivery schedule since it may be pushed back further due to the recent test results and head of development is advising to slow down production schedules.
This is going to be interesting since the technological advancement camp backed by US pressuring had hit a brick wall and the domestic industry advocate camp is gaining steam.
F/A18 was only meant to be a cannon fodder from the beginning so neither side would be fully satisfied if it was selected.
loading...
James Simpson says:
Dec 9, 2011
I agree 100%. To be fair, the Sankei article places the problem as one of a series of problems, but I quoted only the amusing part
loading...
Craig Scanlan says:
Dec 9, 2011
I'm never against articles that point out Japan's massive fear of English, no matter how unfounded and silly ;-p
loading...
Tri-ring says:
Dec 9, 2011
I can't see anything amusing being a Japanese.
By the way were you able to read the entire article?
loading...
arkhangelsk says:
Dec 9, 2011
Well, the mechanics in the JASDF will be happy at least if they pick F/A-18. Some don't like Eurofighter because they fear European standards, procedures … etc would be different and they don't like JSF because of the man-hours stealth coatings tend to take, and since it is unlikely the JASDF will be able to hire more mechanics, it means they'll have to work harder.
loading...
Tri-ring says:
Dec 9, 2011
I doubt it. The only planes built by Bae will probably be the first two or three planes delivered for qualification purposes followed by complete domestic product under a license, same with the F/A-18. The most problem the mechanics will have is undoubtedly the F-35 with so many black boxes they would need to ship out to LM for them to fix.
loading...
HB Penil says:
Dec 9, 2011
Triring: That's incorrect. The F-35 uses a performance based logistics model where every part on the aircraft has defined life-cycle. They are overhauled or replaced according to that time frame.
Black boxes greatly simplify logistics; you check the diagnostic or maintenance program, pull out the box and send it back to LM. That's it. No lengthy diagnostics or difficult repairs: those are done by the OEM.
loading...
Tri-ring says:
Dec 9, 2011
Yeah until a component breaks down prematurely in which case the mechanics does not know which black box had gone kaput, really helpful.
It also ties down the plane until the black box is sent back(if ever) from LM, again really helpful.
Naw, I rather have it completely built domestically under a license without any black boxes.
loading...
Hb Pencil says:
Dec 10, 2011
Tri-ring: I think you're greatly misinformed about how maintenance works today, or will on a fighter like the F-35. The entire system is designed to operate so that it is as efficient as a corporate fleet like FedEx, which does not undertake depot level work onsite, yet still has fantastic aircraft generation rates.
The F-35 also contains an powerful onboard diagnostic system that identifies which part requires replacing… rather than a red fault light that only indicates a system failure. That saves quite a bit of time for maintainers. The F-35 system is designed to be highly maintenance friendly: Something like 95% of all major work can be done with a small set of tools.
Furthermore, avionics repair is horrendously difficult and expensive. Not going down the Performance Based Logistics route would greatly increase the cost of the system and time spent in maintenance.
Using a PBL model for avionics repair, the JASDF would send the damage component in the morning, replace it with a spare on hand and have a replacement unit in the afternoon or next morning. Its far more efficient than other sustainment models; Maintainers are responsible for the immediate repair needs of the aircraft; its sub-components repair (which takes valuable time) are sent to the depot or the OEM.
Finally, depot level work would in all likelihood be undertaken by an authorized Japanese subcontractor (likely MHI given the co-production scheme offered), not LM.
loading...
HB Pencil says:
Dec 9, 2011
I think you're mistaking the F-22's RAM coating issues with the F-35, which uses a completely different and far more resilient carbon mat application. That system is so effective that the USAF plans to retrofit the F-22s with that skin.
loading...
arkhangelsk says:
Dec 11, 2011
@HB
I see a lot of recitation of the company propaganda. I remember back when they swore that F-22's coating would be a massive improvement in maintanability over say the F-117's stealth coating (I think back then F-22 was still supposed to be operational BEFORE the 21st century, too). Now it is only so good they are looking forward to the F-35's RAM coating, and at least for a period of time the F-22's cost per flight hour was enormous … and I think the JASDF mechanics remember all this when they listen to the new boast.
Similarly, the manfactuerers always SWEAR that their new product is easier to maintain than the old one. We shall see.
As for the swapping out of LRU black boxes (it is not clear what Performance Based Logistics have to do with this), the JASDF's experience with them had not, apparently, been always positive in the past, with delays in getting black-boxed parts back from the States. It is the other reason why they always try to licence-produce as much as possible (the first reason is obvious).
The very CONCEPT of a line-replaceable unit and moving repairs back to depot level causes mixed feelings among line maintenance staff anyway. Every one of those means yet another part that has bloated in complexity so much that front line staff can no longer be expected to be able to repair it so it is shoved back. It might be more efficient, but less robust and to a military man the latter is far more important, especially since they'll know when the more efficient system comes up short.
loading...
HB Pencil says:
Dec 12, 2011
Arkhangelsk.
As a broader point, I am not automatically biased towards everything the contractor says. I think it needs to be tempered and corroborated with other sources, such as that provided by government sources. I've been doing that for F-35 program and other large-scale capital programs. Personally and professionally I feel obligated to be balanced in my view, which is what I'm trying to do here.
F-35's skin: There is quite a bit of evidence that the system is far more durable than the F-22's ram coatings. There is a GAO report on corrosion, media reports, and information from the USG/DoD about the reliability… all of them suggest the F-35 is much more reliable than its predecessor.
Firstly the F-35 skin is a woven carbon matt that is integral to the aircraft's skin. The physical properties are much more resilient with the carbon metallic infused paint used on the F-22 and the B-2 programs. Remember this is the system that must operate from the harsh environmental conditions on US Navy Carriers. Thus the JSF had to meet the Navy's much more demanding standards on corrosion and reliability. Furthermore the F-35 program must meet metrics on its sortie generation rates; this was not present on the F-22 program. These concerns meant the program was far more aware with skin durability and overall reliability than the F-22, and that has been reflected in the outcome. I think the fact that the USAF has already started to retrofit the F-35's skin onto the F-22 speaks volumes about which one they prefer. It might not be at the level of legacy systems like the F-16, but it won't be the $55,000 dollars per hour it costs to operate the F-22.
Black Boxes. PBL approaches to the F-35 maintenance meant that they designed the avionics to be modular and easily replaceable as LRUs. Consequently maintainers will not be responsible for any repairs in this area. Rather, the boxes will be removed and sent to the OEM for all repairs. I can understand the hesitance towards this sort of contract based on previous experience. However the PBL process won't be unique to Japan, rather they can pattern it according to how JSF Partner nations undertake their maintenance structures, almost all of which will be operated in a similar fashion. That also means there will be unheard of quantities of spares out there, because there should be 2000~2500 aircraft out there sharing the same avionics suite.
Also, there won't be licensed producing the avionics structure for two reasons. Everything I've seen suggests this is actually the area where LM is most concerned about proprietary technology… which is why there was no give on the issue with the UK and Turkey. It also doesn't make sense economically or operationally. License production means the Japanese will likely end up replacing parts for "efficiency" sake, reducing overall commonality (and the advantages of production scale) while increasing its upfront cost. Its the F-2 all over again. Regardless of whether the avionics are licensed or not, the Japanese will likely obtain some tech transfer (licitly or illicitly) and use it for the F-X. However license production will not help them along that road.
Your final point:
"The very CONCEPT of a line-replaceable unit and moving repairs back to depot level causes mixed feelings among line maintenance staff anyway. Every one of those means yet another part that has bloated in complexity so much that front line staff can no longer be expected to be able to repair it so it is shoved back. It might be more efficient, but less robust and to a military man the latter is far more important, especially since they’ll know when the more efficient system comes up short."
The reality is that combat aircraft ARE becoming increasingly complex… regardless if its the PAK-FA, J-20 or the F-35 and repair tasks increasingly require specialized skill sets beyond that possessed by frontline staff. Asking for less complexity is akin to spitting into the wind. Instead it is a more useful question to understand how you manage complexity.
That said, a PBL contract is not simply a zero-sum tradeoff between efficiency and robustness. Rather the client and provider agree on a level of mission availability, then negotiate a cost. They also divide up the maintenance tasks between the two parties (in the F-35's case, avionics are the complete responsibility of the contractor). Failure to meet the prescribed availability (such as part delays which you are worried about) then the provider pays a penalty. They have been shown to dramatically reduce maintenance costs (often as much as 30%), and are now a preferred strategy of the US Military. In most cases its cheaper to have a private civilian contractor repair units than trying to build and maintain the capability in house. Furthermore by creating defined life-cycles for parts and overhauls, it decreases unanticipated breakdowns, increasing the overall availability of an aircraft in the field.
By comparison a more traditional model is a real source of bloat, creating large inefficiencies to an equivalent level of participation. Military personnel cost more to keep and train, partly because there is significant turnover and the pension/medical costs are significantly higher.
That does not have to come at the detriment to robustness… it can even assist it. A frontline maintainer can focus his time on repairs that actually get the aircraft flying… leaving complex and time consuming repairs to the OEM. The Military can focus its training and force generation on the frontline individuals. Furthermore they can retain additional spares at times of crisis in order to keep repair times low. If the USMC (the force most concerned with deployability and operational sustainability) endorses PBLs as a way to reduce cost without damaging its force structure.
The Royal Canadian Air Force has been using PBL systems for the better part of a decade to manage its two most active assets: CF-188s and CC-130s. Its significantly cheaper and has allowed the RCAF to maintain very high availability rates despite an extremely active operational tempo (supporting operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Africa, Libya as well as NORAD commitments.) That experience runs counter to the claim that PBLs are not robust enough to support major combat operations. Furthermore the need for such robustness makes little sense when the JASDF has deployed a total of 0 aircraft in the past 50 years for combat operations.
I'm not saying that PBLs are perfect for all situations… they aren't. However in this case the F-35 was designed to operate using this model and its advantages are clear over those of its competitors.
loading...
Robert says:
Dec 12, 2011
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-market-news-stor…
Well maybe we will find out friday.I do not think there is a problem with coming out and saying "Hey we are having some difficulty in sorting this particular issue out" vs. coming out and saying Hey we are having issues with the language in these propsals.That to me is sohpomoric and reinforces the belief that Japan sometimes can be seen as childish,inept,immature,not ready for primetime,etc,etc,etc.Why in the heck would you come out and say we can't understand the proposals because they are in english.Way to capitalize on the goodwill generated by the Tsunami efforts.This is like when they said they might not be able to defend the southern islands.You choose your words carefully when you are dealing with potential bullies and the one that "defends" you.Japan wants to be seen as a player then they have to talk and act like one.Next time choose your words more carefully and at least bluff folks into thinking your on the ball!
loading...
arkhangelsk says:
Dec 13, 2011
Yes, it superficially doesn't sound so good. On the other hand, it is a tiny part of an article intended for domestic consumption, and represents a legitimate concern.
One has to remember the proposals they are reading through isn't ordinary reading. They combine the worst aspects of legalistic, bureaucratic and technical documents, so most translators are useless because they won't be able to translate in-context.
Also, they are not going for general understanding. They have to translate each and every word, including some for which Japanese may have no exact equivalent and even identify all the possible nuances. Each word is a potential landmine. I think even a fluent native English speaker might want a dictionary, or two, to hand.
From the Japanese point of view, previous attempts at licensing and co-production had not gone completely well for them. You remember those replacement parts HB-Pencil mentioned? Well, some of them are because the United States refused to sell certain portions (as the Japanese apparently thought they agreed to), forcing replacements to have to be hastily developed and integrated.
So they are being very careful to avoid being shafted again.
loading...
Pete Murdoch says:
Dec 11, 2011
With an emphasis on plugging near term defence gaps, but a need to remain viable for 20+ years, then the most logical decision would be the Eurofighter cw Meteor and upgraded AWAC's near term with F-35 to follow………….however, decision is likely to be politically based rather than be based on military logic. Could be an interesting couple of weeks….near term gap filling super bug or sacrifice near term gap filling for longevity of F-35 ???
loading...
Tri-ring says:
Dec 11, 2011
Mitsubishi AAM-4 is on par with the Meteor and the E-767 AWACs are fairly new and also the J/FPS-5 radar system is supposedly able to see stealthy crafts so those areas are covered.
loading...
Pete Murdoch says:
Dec 12, 2011
Thanks Tr-Ring…that makes the proposition even better from a domestic economy perspective. Bit of an internal boast by EF but an interesting concept discussed below.
Question..Can the F-35 carry the M AAM-4 internally or would the JDF have to acquire AIM-120 etc
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/201…
loading...
HB Pencil says:
Dec 13, 2011
Comparing the relative sizes of the AAM-4 and the Meteor it seems the former would not fit on the internal air to air launcher without decreasing the size of its fins…. which is the same problem the meteor has. However there are several modifications that can be made and Japan will have more leeway towards how they build the fighter, so I wouldn't be surprised if they integrated the missile over time.
As a system the Eurofighter is really not that great. If you're going to go down the Eurocanard path, then I'd buy the Rafale, even with a higher price. As Odyssey Dawn illustrated, it can undertake the entire range of combat operations with high sortie rates. The Eurofighter could not, and had very limited A2G capabilities.
loading...