With the Ministry of Defense’s decision to pursue the F-35, we’ve seen some fantastic coverage of the decision among the international press. In case you’ve not been following the issue, take a look at AP’s report below, which covers all the basic relevant details… it’s okay, I’ll wait:
Okay, done? Great. This post is going to show you a few of the choice articles and opinions out there, starting with Humza Ahmad’s opinion piece in the Japan Times today which notes the role of the US-Japan alliance in underscoring the F-35 deal:
F-35 fighter deal brings Japan multiple benefits
The biggest diplomatic advantage of the F-35 is that it sustains and reaffirms the U.S.-Japan relationship. Though some may point to precedent in buying U.S. aircraft rather than relationship tending, recent developments create a need for gestures of goodwill and trust between the longtime allies. The ongoing local opposition to the relocation of the Futenma Air Station from Ginowan, Okinawa, and the failure to adequately handle the issue by former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama continues to cause controversy on both sides of the Pacific. Japan watchers have wondered whether the relationship is truly adrift. After the U.S. Forces Japan’s much applauded Operation Tomodachi, which provided disaster relief following the Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, Japan’s purchase of the F-35 is another strong sign that the U.S.-Japan relationship is anything but adrift.
Read the full article
Over in Britain, the Financial Times had a few things to say on the issue, affirmed the same view on the alliance politics as above, but questioning the technology transfer:
Japan opts for US F-35 fighter
The decision is not such good news for Japan’s defence industry, which was offered more collaboration by Eurofighter’s Typhoon. Lockheed Martin said Japan’s role in building the F-35 would be predominantly assembling the planes and that the F-35’s parts would continue to be made by the original partner nations, with the US and UK in the leading roles.
Japanese industry may be hit by new fighter
Given Japan’s increasing fiscal strains, it would not be unreasonable to simply decide to rely on imports for future air defence. Yet, the government is hardly entertaining such a shift. Instead, the defence ministry excitedly plans domestic development of a stealth fighter. An early test aircraft is scheduled to take to the air by 2014.
How feasible such dreams prove could depend in large part on Japan winning significant access to F-35 technology. Without it, Japan risks merely driving up the cost of the new fighter while leaving itself incapable of creating a successor.
Bloomberg Businessweek was far more upbeat on the technology transfer side of the decision, of course it helps that they were interviewing a Lockheed man:
Lockheed Martin Wins Japan Order for 42 F-35 Fighter Planes
The F-35 probably won the Japan contest because of its stealth technology and the nation’s traditional reliance on U.S. military hardware, said [James Hardy, a London-based analyst at IHS Jane's DS Forecast] at Jane’s. Eurofighter is a venture between BAE Systems Plc, Finmeccanica SpA and European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co.Japan also considered the amount of production work that could be undertaken locally as it seeks to develop its domestic defense industry. Japanese companies will do final assembly as well as work on components, [Steve O'Bryan, Lockheed's vice president for business development] said.
The work “will transform Japanese industry,” O’Bryan said. “They get advanced composite work, automated machining with tight tolerances associated with a stealth airplane.”
From China, we have an editorial via Xinhua by Li Hongmei, covering the fears from Japan’s neighbors and the role played in US strategy by the F-35 fighter program, which is expected to extend to South Korea too:
Could F-35 act as game changer in Asia-Pacific region?
While Pentagon wished to take advantage of the reset rapprochement between allies to work as a stepping stone to gaining a predominating presence in the Asia-Pacific region, the jets deal, however, can not necessarily work to that effect.
“The F-35 Program Office looks forward to strengthening partnerships with Japan, and contributing to enhanced security throughout the Asia Pacific region,” as it said in a statement after Japan announced its decision.
Unfortunately, the purchase spree would not only give a boost to Lockheed Martin’s fighter business, but also give rise to a scenario with “swords drawn and bows bent”—perhaps, a region of turbulence and intranquility is just what the U.S. needs to retain its position as a “Pacific power”, ready all the time to reach out the meddling hand.
In the Marine TImes, we get to see what the F-35 pick means for the future successors of the F-15s, which are seemingly (and quite literally at times) falling to bits:
Japan F-35 buy big victory for troubled program
[Jun Okumura, a counselor for Eurasia Group] cautioned however that the selection of the F-35 does not mean that the fighter is an automatic choice for the F-XX program, a 100-plus fighter replacement for Japan’s aging fleet of F-15s, that will form Japan’s next big-ticket purchase.
“The Air Self-Defense Forces have in the past preferred to have a number of different fighters for different roles. And remember, the more F-35s that are produced locally, the more the cost will increase,” he said.
The tone of the Wall Street Journal‘s James Simms cuts to the heart of another debate, weapons exports:
Japan Puts the Dog in Dogfight
Instead of using multiyear contracts, Japan still mainly buys defense equipment in tiny, yearly lots. For those F-35s, the budget request for the fiscal year starting in April is for only the first four jets out of a total order of 42.As a result, Japan’s weapons prices are three to 10 times those paid by nations with reformed procurement processes, according to the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan. The last major off-the-shelf U.S. jet built under license in Japan, the F-15, cost about $160 million each at today’s exchange rates, several times more than in the U.S.
[...]
Superiority in the air is fine, but Tokyo needs to get its act together on the ground.
The majority of the reports on the pick have been balanced, considering the capabilities of the F-35 alongside the tech-transfer and timing issues, but if anything the coverage goes to show not only how much the F-35 program needed a boost (to steal the Marine Times‘ argument), but also how tight the competition was as a result of the US decision to ban the export of the F-22: the F-35 is not the right aircraft for the the F-X program (on this I highly recommend The Diplomat’s interview with Prof. Christopher Hughes), but neither were the other two.
The other question, raised in some of the articles above, is whether Japan really needs its own domestic fighter industry when it can just import the aircraft straight from the US. In terms of its culture, the MoD (and the ASDF in particular) are crazy about having a domestic fighter development capability, but given the cost of keeping up with the extremely high-level technology involved and constraints on exports, perhaps it is time Japan abandoned this commitment?
What do you think? Have your say in the comments.
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
15 comments
Tri-ring says:
Dec 22, 2011
It's about independence since there could be another F-22 denial in the horizon only this time it will be a crucial part of defense and not a supporting part.
The biggest problem with the F-35 decision is that Japan is now reliant not only on the actual planes but also the armaments like AAM since the latest type 99 Mitsubishi AAM-4 nor the XASM-3 that which will come online in 2016 will fit in the mission bay of a F-35.
Another will be about value for price, I believe I mentioned this before but without license production an overseas manufacturer can charge over bloated pricing for a black box component which actually only costs a fraction in street price.
In any case the real F-X project would be the replacement of the F-15J fleet which will be the real deal with over hundred planes to replace, not just forty and this would probably a domestically built or co-developed fighter with Japan taking initiative since the US has nothing in the pipeline within that time frame(2025).
loading...
Robert says:
Dec 22, 2011
I don’t get why Japan is so hell bent on keeping their domestic aerospace industry alive when they so readily cede anything and everything else to the U.S.(territory,foreign policy,etc.).Is it about jobs or what.They can’t attach any prestige to it looking at some of their other decisions.I truly don’t get it.If they want a indigenous industry then why for fighters then why shut F-2 down.They have a transport,and other aircraft industry in place.I am missing something or it (this issue) is being carted out for other means.
loading...
Tri-ring says:
Dec 23, 2011
If you think about it both the C-2 and the P-1 was developed out of necessity and was only possible because Japan had an indigenous industry.
With the P-1 Japan was looking for a replacement for the aging P3C Orion but none was to be found it was right after the cold war so the Americans didn’t consider it to be a priority issue so Japan went on on developing it independently. It was only after the Japanese government announced that they had started development when the US announced their P8 Poseidon project.
With the C2 Japan was looking for a replacement for their aging C1 and again going through the market they went on developing their own since the C17 was too big and the C130 was too small and too slow. (Japan owns 16 C130H acquired in mid 80′s and 90′s which are not license built)
loading...
HB Pencil says:
Dec 24, 2011
The official USAF budget data (from SAFFM.hq.mil) only goes to 2016, at which time the USAF should have 300 F-35s (and this is before the latest round of concurrency cuts). really you need to extend it out until 2019 to see it reach +700 when production efficiency reaches its peak. Second 90 million is not the reoccurring flyaway, which is the base cost. It includes stuff as ground equipment and initial spares.
The best resource is not the budget data, but the selected acquisitions report, because they go into greater detail into the costs.
As to altering the guns vs butter debate, I find it poorly thought out. While Defense is a public good, investing money into the military is a very inefficient way of supporting stimulus. There is little productive benefit (O&M has no economic benefit for the country). Social security is much better at delivering economic performance. Given the massive greying of the Japanese population,
To me the F-2 illustrates all that is wrong with Japanese industry and defense policy. Poorly rationalized and thought out, the F-2 basically is an un-upgradable, expensive white elephant. I look at it and compare it to the new F-16E Block 60 upgraded and purchased by the UAE, which have superior engines, jammers, weapons loads, range, avionics… at a significantly lower flyaway. What was achieved with the F-2? Some vague notion of self sufficiency? Was it worth an extra 40~60 million dollars per aircraft? Absolutely not.
And frankly, the entire indigenous production for security reasons rings hollow.No other country is as closely wedded to the United States as Japan (except maybe Canada.) So many of Japan’s core weapon systems are American. So the need to maintain facilities to produce indigenous fighters to me is not there. It ill serves the Japanese people, particularly given its fiscal situation. Let it compete in the private market, where Japanese firms already do quite well rather than eat up precious portions of the public purse.
A final note. For those who would like Japanese defense industry to be a world player, in most cases it is too late. You have highly entrenched prime contractors that can offer weapons cheaper and with more advantages to the customer than Japan. The fighter market is a great example. Basically you’re starting to see The F-35 clean up the top end of the market through attractive workshare arrangements and top tier capabilities. The SSK market is basically dominated by the Germans (either directly or through proxies) and the Russians. Its going to be extremely tough for Japan to get a foothold directly at this point, though allowing sub-contractors is a good start (its how Canada is the 5th largest arms producer, yet has surprisingly few major weapon systems for offer.)
loading...
arkhangelsk says:
Dec 24, 2011
It computes fully to 2016, then there is a column marked “To Comp”. It seems to say the USAF is looking to buy the remaining 1512 fighters in the plan at an average flyaway cost that is the basically the same as the 2016 cost, though the Weapons System Cost fell 15 million.
=
I’ll actually term Defense as not only a public good, but also the 1st Social Security the State provided for its people. Back before we had human rights in the modern sense, welfare payouts … etc, we had Defense.
I disagree that Social Security = butter anyway. Social security is really, in a way, dumping money at a relatively unproductive end of a population. Sure, the elderly go buy something with that handout, but then so do the employees in a defense plant. If they didn’t have the handout, it could have been given back to the people in the form of reduced taxes, and to a more productive segment which means it contributes more to economic strength. If you want butter, don’t tax. Or at least put the taxes towards something like Education. Even some public works (as long as they aren’t pork) is butter. Never pretend either social security or defense is butter, because overall neither are, IMHO.
When one also considers that defense is, as you say a public good that benefits (or at least protects) all, while social security often dumps money towards defending essentially the weakest, least productive portion of society, where the money should be dumped is far less obvious.
I’m not saying don’t have social security. I’m saying that like defense, don’t have it to the point where you collapse the economy or government budget. The Japanese seem to have avoided crashing the budget with Defense, only to fall into the other trap.
=
As for comparing the F-2 to the Block 60, well, one does have to consider that the Block 60 is a much later design. If they tried to make something close to Block 60 in the 1990s period for a roll-out around 2000 or a bit earlier, it will, for one, have the -129 engine instead of -132, and vice versa (at least, if America approves the licensing for the new engine). A 90s version of the Block 60 probably won’t have ANY phased-array radar. And a lot of the other weapons are choice – if Japan bought say a Block 52 F-16 in the 90s, given the political climate of the times it’ll probably have stripped out or at least left unused any circuitry concerning LGBs and the like.
As for the range, it seems that they needed something more than what would have been available in a F-16 of the time. Maybe if General Dynamics came up with the F-16E type CFT plan back in the 80s, it might have bought the F-16 enough to meet the range/payload spec, but they didn’t.
This is not to say that I don’t think the F-2 program lost its primary meaning when they buckled and agreed to joint production (and with a large part of the plane built in the US, at that), thus they are actually arguably LESS self-sufficient than if they just license produced something, as can be seen from the fate of our F-2Bs.
Or that any operational advantages it may have had is neutralized by its massive cost disadvantage.
=
Your 5th paragraph, from the viewpoint of America, is correct. From the viewpoint of other nation, it is not necessarily so. Canada’s small size makes it inexpedient to have a fully independent arms industry in any case, but Japan is still the 3rd biggest economy in the world, and it lives in a much more hostile security environment. Further, Japan also draws some lessons from Taiwan. It is undeniable that recently the US has been a lot less willing to sell weapons to them. Sure, the fact that the US is very ambiguous on whether Taiwan is a nation or not plays a part, but it is hard to deny that the power-balance has a part to play. So, when will it be Japan’s turn?
=
I agree mostly with your final note, but as I said, I don’t think exports are the savior of the Japanese arms industry anyway. Besides, there may be a few niches they can take. For example, Australia is now looking for new subs because their Collins aren’t doing too well. And while the medium to small diesel sub market is indeed dominated by the Germans and Russians, the Aussies seem to like large subs. So they are thinking of buying nukes but if they don’t (as seems likely due to cost), there aren’t that many other builders in the large SSK market, and not everything is scaled up beautifully from small-medium to large. So maybe a chance there if they can fix their interpretation of the rules and the Aussies shy away from domestic production, but mostly I agree.
loading...
HB Pencil says:
Dec 27, 2011
Cost: As I stated before, the budget data has extraneous costs that do not reflect the flyaway. Furthermore to comp is ALL the costs together. Again the best way to do it is through the Selected Acquisition Report:
http://www.fas.org/man/eprint/F-35-SAR.pdf
Then go to page 29. Then take the 2020 USAF Then year estimated non-reoccurring flyaway, divide it by 80, then find an online inflation calculator that has the Department of Labour Statistics numbers until 2060. calculate back to 2011: Voila, 68 million.
There is a way to do it through the Budget but its time consuming and requires the use of a learning curve formula.
—————————-
Social security is butter. I don't think anyone I have ever encountered would call it otherwise. The money that goes into their hands is immediately spent in the economy on goods. I can't see how you would say otherwise. I'll just quote Peter Orzag on this one:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=830
Yes its unemployment insurance, but the argument transfers to old age as well. People who obtain support through these systems tend to spend it directly into the economic system. Its considered one of the most effective means to stimulate an economy.
Why is Guns not as effective? First off the largest non-personnel cost in the defense budget is fuel, which Japan does not produce and must import. Second much of the money is not effectively spent. Much of the JSDF's purchases go abroad, or to inefficient domestic production systems. Domestic defense research may not have any net benefit for wider society. Personnel's future pensions must be contributed too as well (which means money is not immediately available.) Those are just a few major differences.
————-
The issue between the Block 60 and the F-2 is not so much the difference between when it was introduced. Its what Japan received for its cost and It is the interoperability between the F-2 and other F-16 fleets. Because Japan was so insistent on having indigenous design, they got a overpriced capability with significant limitations in its upgradability.
The advantages of commonality is critical. For example, Europeans have been able to collaborate on upgrading their F-16s, the MLU program. The US has commonality among their Vipers with the CCIP upgrade program. It lowers overall costs and ensures the fighter remains viable in the long term.
I don't highlight this problem because Japan is unique. Its a serious problem that afflicts every state that buys weapons and then tried to "customize" them for critical "national needs." Most of the time I find them extremely overstated and only serve to add greater costs with only marginal improvements on capability. Instead of ~90 F-2s, the JSDF could have purchased 150 F-16 block 50s and still be significantly under what they paid.
And there weren't "limits" to defence cooperation in the mid 1990s as you suggest. The United States sold fighters to Bahrain, and a whole host of other less than reliable allies. They sold Block-40s and 50s to Korea during this time too, and even allowed to upgrade them with Harpoons. So I don't think the argument holds.
————-
Japan is not Taiwan, nor is the comparison even close to being valid. Taiwan doesn't have a strong defense treaty with the United States that is 70 years old. Taiwan doesn't have over 10,000 US soldiers deployed, the homeport for a Nimitz Class Carrier, a Marine Expeditionary Unit, or a whole fleet. Taiwan doesn't get F-15, F-35s, Patriot PAC-3s, Spy-1 Aegis, E-2 2000, Standard SM3, and a whole host of other cutting edge US systems. Actually, no other state in the world does. The US has more joint ventures with the Japanese than any other nation. The US-Japanese relationship is the second strongest the US has. If anything, the US's statements in the past decade have indicated that relationship becoming even stronger. The problem with Taiwan is that its actually not a state… rather its a semi-autonomous part of China (that believes itself to be the rightful government of the state) with a lot of history that completely irrelevant to Japan.
So with that in mind, arguments about the need for a strong self sufficient defense industrial base as being somewhat hollow. The cost of maintaining a DIB has actually acted to the detriment of the industry. Lower production scales and increasingly inefficient defense sector means that the industry is now facing a major reduction in scale because it is unaffordable.
Completely independent DIBs are really becoming a thing of the past. Almost every Western State is moving towards a more integrated model. Europe is, particularly after the 2003 Thessaloniki summit. Its the only way to have a functioning defense market these days without massive amounts of state investment.
—————
Frankly speaking, I don't think that exports will be the savior. Japan's DIB is inefficient and bloated because the government paid it to be that. Now that Japan can't afford to sustain it, its going to go through restructuring. People will lose their jobs and companies will close. That is a good thing actually, because I think the more efficient and innovative companies will actually find niches for them prosper in. It also might force the government to make better equipment choices as well.
Also there are a bunch of risks involved in becoming more export oriented too. Thus far the US has been extremely open with the level of technology transfer its offered to Japan. That's because they are far less worried about the spread of them due to Japan's stringent export policies. If Japan becomes more export focused, the level of tech transfer may slow or involve more bureaucracy, which is a serious issue. Its something that needs to be considered.
loading...
arkhangelsk says:
Dec 23, 2011
I have to agree with the author’s sentiment as to the choices. As I’ve lamented on Japanese boards, the choice is really between a horrendously expensive stealthy attack plane (HB Pencil, you’ve convinced me that it is getting cheaper, but if it starts its descent from 180mil, there will be limits, and as of now the official USAF budget only seems to project a bottoming at 90mil), a fighter plane that’s very expensive for a fighter not having full stealth, and a fighter bomber that’s still not really all that cheap.
As for continuing attempts to maintain or acquire domestic production, I think it is smart Japanese strategy being compromised by the lack of national will. Their best chance of beginning indigenous fighter production was really with the FS-X. Unfortunately the Americans wanted commercial advantages (the Americans call this neutralising existing disadvantages), and the Japanese conceded on the problem they shouldn’t have conceded on so they can concede less on commerce which is considered more important. The resulting F-2 project resulted in pretty much the ends of both worlds. If they even license-produced a complete design they would have been able to replace those swamped Matsushima F-2Bs locally, but it would seem the American plant co-producting the F-2 changed to preparing to make F-35s, so making new F-2s is now not economically feasible.
Still, if maintaining the national industry is hard, getting them to build a new one when conditions are right might be even harder. So they are trying to keep it alive.
What Japan needs is not so much allowing exports. Exports are ultimately supposed to be supplementary to own-nation purchases, not a substitute anyway. They need to recognize they need defense more than they need social security. Limiting GNP for military expenses to 1% is arguably too small, but the idea of a hard (in practice) limit for something that has infinite greed is a good one. Just that why do they think that excessive militarism will wreck the economy (true) but excessive social security isn’t (in both cases ” excessive” here means relative to the national economical strength)?
They should limit social security and defense to 2% GNP each, while not really increasing military manpower, and all of tha sudden the defense industry will look a lot better, they’ll be able to start repaying their debt and maybe even throw in a tax cut, plus their forces will modernize a lot faster. 400 tanks for 150,000 men is about as acceptable as 400 computers among the same population.
loading...
Robert says:
Dec 24, 2011
The relaxation(or removal altogether)of the ban is simply a means to an end.I think there needs to be a striking of it for other reasons but the most important big picture advantage will be the dismantling of another absurd,obsolete,crippling policy that the Japanese have got to shed. These are baby steps to a "normal" state that the Japanese,if they want to remain relevant have got to undertake.Every step like this where a law or policy of this type(post war,pacifist,pie in the sky,detached from modern reality,etc.)that is stricken or brought more in line with the real world gets them (and also helps the U.S.,and the free world,while giving pause to potential bullies)one step closer to addressing that abomination of a constitution! That's the overriding impetus.
loading...
Tri-ring says:
Dec 24, 2011
For those who are interested here is an article writing of the scheduled announcement on easing the self imposed arms export ban.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/…
loading...
James Simpson says:
Dec 24, 2011
Thanks for posting this, I was working on a translation of a Jiji press release from the day you first mentioned it but got side-tracked by Xmas
loading...
Tri-ring says:
Dec 24, 2011
I believe some at Airbus Military is pissing in their pants right now hear the news that Kawasaki C-2 had officially became a direct competitor of the A400M.
South Africa can make a call on Tuesday.
loading...
Robert says:
Dec 24, 2011
Again, this is very good news and will bring immediate benefits.
loading...
DAN says:
Dec 26, 2011
F-35 is failed project already. I don't understand why Japan is signing themselves death warrent.
loading...
DAN says:
Dec 26, 2011
Their military aerospace industry will ruin by this decision. F-35 project is the ultimate screw up ever and it will bring downfall of all western countries.
loading...
Bill Simpson (no rel says:
Apr 12, 2012
Only one country can threaten Japan, China. Why would the Chinese want to risk a major war, when they are getting richer by the day? In another 20 years, they will OWN a lot of Asia without firing a shot or risk getting nuked by the USA, or by their good Russian 'friends' with mobile missiles mammy.
The Chinese know that they aren't bullet proof. They are aging FAST compared to neighboring countries like Indonesia, the Philippines etc. They can count. Starting a war in Asia could unleash an unlimited amount of young men (quite a few of them Muslims wearing explosives looking for the 72 virgins, who, unlike Tibetans, kill you, instead of just burning themselves.) for them to fight. They would be supplied with the latest weapons by the West. The Chinese already have enough trouble in western China and in Tibet. Start a war and everyone might jump on them from all sides. I'm sure they figured that out.
They also know that they will eventually absorb Taiwan. Unless the Taiwanese are dumb enough to declare independence (which they aren't) nothing will happen there either. I doubt they will wake up one morning and say, "Let's become independent and have China come down on us. That will be fun and great for business. We will be so much happier after the Chinese level this place with thousands of missiles, then invade and put us all in concentration camps."
loading...