Japan Defence Forum

[Aepsilons]

That's rather upfront and bold, but what the heck.

Oh, and nice to see you again. You may remember me from:

Nordic Defense News, pictures, videos and history | Page 20

I had to take some time away from the forum, but I'm back now. Surprised no one's yet to notice the similarity/connection between my new name and my old one.

LOL! Nice to see you again, me'lady !

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

rom the forum, but I'm back now. Surprised no one's yet to notice the similarity/connection between my new name and my old one.

I think it was pretty obvious. You picked up where you left off in threads.

 

[Aepsilons]

Mitsubishi boasts tech leap with armored amphibious vehicle, eyes exports


In January, a top U.S. Marine general visited Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in Japan to look at a prototype of an amphibious assault vehicle that could one day be a key pillar in Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s push to sell weapons abroad.

Using engines adapted from the main battle tank the company makes for Japan’s military and new water jet propulsion technology, the full-size prototype is undergoing pool tests, although it is in the early stages of development and production could be years off.

Nevertheless, the maker of the wartime Zero fighter plane is eyeing overseas sales after Abe lifted a decades-old ban on arms exports in April last year as part of his more muscular security agenda, two Japanese defence industry sources said.

Mitsubishi designers believe the prototype shown to U.S. Marine Corps Pacific commander Lt. Gen. John Toolan will be more maneuverable and faster across the water than the 40-year-old AAV7 amphibious assault vehicle used to carry U.S. Marines onto beaches from naval ships anchored offshore, the sources said.

The AAV7 is built by the U.S. unit of Britain’s BAE Systems .

The prototype’s engines in particular could be fitted onto other armored vehicles, the sources added.

“It’s an opportunity for Mitsubishi Heavy to tap overseas markets for its engine technology,” said one of the sources, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Mitsubishi Heavy wants to build an amphibious armored vehicle that can move through water at 20 to 25 knots (37 to 46 kph) compared to the more than 7 knots (13 kph) reached by the AAV7, said the sources.

“If the Japanese can get 20 knots in the water without compromising maneuverability on land, we will be very interested,” said one Marine Corps official who saw the prototype in January but declined to be identified.

“Whether that’s possible remains to be seen.”

A Mitsubishi Heavy spokesman said the prototype had been shown to the Ministry of Defense, but declined to give details about the vehicle. At a Paris arms show last June, a suitcase-size model of an eight-wheeled armored troop carrier was the centerpiece display at the company’s exhibition booth.

The Defense Ministry was aware of Mitsubishi Heavy’s research into amphibious vehicles but was not involved in the project, a ministry spokesman said.

Manny Pacheco, a spokesman for U.S. Marine Corps procurement, declined comment on the prototype.

But he said the Marine Corps was “always interested in the technological advances of industry” and encouraged manufacturers to use “every opportunity to showcase their wares and get their products submitted through our competitive procurement process”.

Amphibious vehicles are central to marine units around the world, allowing forces to operate on land and sea. But there has been little significant technological advancement in such vehicles in recent decades.

A tracked Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that was being developed for the U.S. Marine Corps by U.S. weapons maker General Dynamics Corp. was canceled in 2011 after big cost increases and technical issues.

The Marine Corps last year kicked off a competition for a new wheeled amphibious combat vehicle (ACV) that could operate on shorelines and shallow water.

Pacheco said the Marine Corps was reviewing proposals from five manufacturers to build a prototype. He did not identify the companies.

A feasibility study by BAE and General Dynamics had recommended against using current technology to build a vehicle in line with Marine Corps requirements, a U.S.-based BAE spokeswoman told Reuters.

“The study concluded that although the technology existed, it would not be fielded at an affordable price,” she said.

BAE was talking to Mitsubishi Heavy about being a potential partner on the body design of the new Japanese vehicle, the BAE spokeswoman added.

General Dynamics was in similar talks with Mitsubishi Heavy, said sources in Japan. General Dynamics said it did “not have any information to provide at this time”.

Mitsubishi Heavy has been making armored vehicles for Japan’s military for around 80 years, beginning with the Imperial forces in the 1930s. It also builds fighter aircraft, naval vessels, submarines and missiles.

The company also makes high-speed marine engines and water jet propulsion systems, according to its website.

“Japan’s technology is good enough that we have to look at it,” said a U.S. military industrial source familiar with the amphibious vehicle plans.

Although a coastal nation, postwar Japan only formed an amphibious military unit in 2012. The 3,000-strong unit will be equipped with more than 50 AAV7s.

It was disappointment at the speed of those vehicles over water that spurred Japan to build a new one, Japanese defense officials told Reuters.

Japan’s military is also concerned about the ability of the caterpillar-tracked vehicles to ride over coral reefs, a common feature in the East China Sea, where Tokyo is embroiled in a territorial dispute with China.

The BAE spokeswoman acknowledged the desire of the U.S. Marine Corps to increase water speed, adding there should be “no operational concern” with coral reefs.


Mitsubishi boasts tech leap with armored amphibious vehicle, eyes exports | The Japan Times

 

[mil-avia]

Seven types of aircraft :

Related link(s).

 

[AMDR]

Japan Blazes Trail For US Army: Coastal Defense Vs. China

By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.on July 15, 2015 at 2:58 PM

Japan Ground Self-Defense Forces soldier.

WASHINGTON: How can we deter — or, in the last resort, defeat — a more assertive China? Air and naval forces may not be enough. While the US Army is ambivalent, the Japanese army may have some lessons for their ground force counterparts in America.

“They’re not standing around waiting for us to do something,” Andrew Krepinevich, head of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, told me after his latest trip to Asia. “Japan wanted to do its part in defending the northern sector of the ‘First Island Chain'” — a long arc running from the Japanese home islands down through Taiwan and the Philippinesinto Indonesia. “They are building a series of facilities along the Ryukyu island chain to discourage Chinese acts of aggression and coercion,” he said. “It was very impressive.”

In particular, the effort by the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force aligns with a concept Krepinevich laid out in in a February Foreign Affairs article on “archipelagic defense.”

“Rather than risk sending warships within range of PLA defenses,” Krepinevich wrote, “the United States and its allies could rely on ground forces, based along the first island chain and armed withmobile launchers and anti-ship cruise missiles,” as well as anti-aircraft missiles and missile defenses. In Krepinevich’s concept, Navy ships and long-range Air Force bombers would form a mobile reservebehind the land defenses, reinforcing threatened points and stopping Chinese breakthroughs. The fleet itself, however, would stay on the far side of island chain from China.

In the Western Pacific, Krepinevich told me, “one of the big advantages we have is — unlike many of our other recent military operations, where we’re projecting power — in this case we’re merely trying to defend our allies. It’s the Chinese who have to come out.”

In short, we don’t have to take the war to the enemy or destroy them: We just have to keep them from successfully taking the war to and destroying us. By contrast, advancing US ships and aircraft into easy missile range of the Chinese homeland would be a very expensive way to lose.

That message isn’t easy for the US military to hear. We’ve not had to play defense since the Cold War. Once the Soviet war machine collapsed, the US focused on power projection: aircraft carriers, strike fighters, rapidly deployable ground forces and the like. Going into other people’s airspace, waters, and territory to destroy targets is what we do. The Army in particular, under intense pressure to reinvent itself for the post-Afghanistan era, would rather tout its agile expeditionary forces than its ability to dig in and hold islands.

Digging in and holding islands, however, is hardly counter-cultural for the Japanese armed forces, as veterans of Iwo Jima would attest. Nor is a defensive strategy anathema for Japanese policymakers, whose post-1945 political culture is deeply pacifistic.

In his Foreign Affairs article, Krepinevich had already noted with approval Japanese wargames that put shore-based anti-ship cruise missile units in the Ryukyus. When he visited this summer, he found they had gone farther. “I was invited to visit the commander of the Western Army and his staff,” Krepinevich told me. “He was excited because he believes they are implementing what the article was talking about in terms of ground forces.”

The Japanese are deploying air and missile defense batteries to the islands to protect against Chinese strikes. They are deploying shore-based anti-ship missiles to keep Chinese ships at bay. They are training to lay minefields offshore. And they are working with the US Marine Corps to develop an amphibious brigade that could seize or reinforce embattled islands.

Krepinevich cautioned against relying on amphibious units as a mobile reserve, however. In an “anti-access/area denial” (A2/AD) environment dominated by precision missiles, he said, “it’s going to be difficult to maneuver troops. They’ll be going across no man’s land.”

Instead, he argued, in many cases the best reinforcements may be long-range missiles. The geometry of the Western Pacific is such that if one fortified island is being overwhelmed, other islands along the defense line can fire their long-range weapons in its defense. It’s a massively upscaled version of the machinegun nests whose interlocking fields of fire made First World War trenchlines nigh-unbreakable.

How far can missiles reach? “We’re of course limited by the INF [Intermediate Nuclear Forces] treaty, but we could still go up to over 300 miles — 500 kilometers is the limit,” said Krepinevich. “300 miles gives you a lot of ability to maneuver fires instead of forces, to concentrate fires instead of physically concentrating units and troops, and that can be a way to help protect a threatened point.”

Even with long-range missiles, however, Japan can’t cover the whole threat zone by itself. “The Japanese I spoke to were thinking of a division of labor,” Krepinevich said, “where they took primarily responsibility in the northern sector of the First Island Chain and we took primary responsibility in the southern sector.” While advanced and prosperous US allies like Japan, Korea, and (unofficially) Taiwan can anchor the north end of the line, poorer countries like the Philippines can’t hold the southern end without extensive help from US forces.

The US Army doesn’t have all the weapons systems it needs to execute these tactics, however, particularly anti-ship missiles capable of being launched from shore. But it could buy them from Japan or other allies — if the Army decides it wants them.

Right now, the service is unsure. “The Army’s under a lot of pressure right now as the service that’s being asked to sacrifice the most in the drawdown,” Krepinevich said, and it has obligations not only in the Western Pacific but in the Middle East and in Europe.” While both the House and Senate Armed Services committees want the Army to look into shore-based anti-ship weapons, he went on, “it hasn’t really been directed by senior Pentagon civilian policy-makers to figure out how ground forces can help defend the First Island Chain.”

“Finally, you’re talking about upsetting several dominant subcultures in the Army,” Krepinevich said. “Archipelagic defense is not built around brigade combat teams.” The Japanese are downsizing their conventional ground combat units to free up resources for their new coastal defenses. Given limited budgets, the Army would face the same choice. With the service still struggling to implement the last round of cuts and bracing for another, finding money for anything new is hard.

 

[AMDR]

JMSDF demos P-1 to undisclosed party at RIAT
JMSDF demos P-1 to undisclosed party at RIAT - IHS Jane's 360

The Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) demonstrated its Kawasaki P-1 maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) to a potential operator on 17 July, although officials declined to name exactly who.

A 'customer' demonstration flight was conducted out of Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford during the first day of the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT), although the chief of the service's air arm would not comment on precisely who was on board the aircraft.

"We are at RIAT for such a short time," said Vice Admiral Makoto Sato, Commander Fleet Air Force, JMSDF, "but we hope we can show the P-1's high manoeuvrability and low-level capabilities to Europe and the world. We did conduct a demo flight [on 17 July], but I am not saying who to."

With a pair of P-1 aircraft from Air Development Squadron 51 having flown more than 9,000 km to RAF Fairford from their home base at Naval Air Facility (NAF) Atsugi, near Tokyo, Japan has made no secret of its desire to sell the platform to the UK as a replacement for the cancelled BAE Systems Nimrod MRA.4.

While the official line of the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) is that no decision on any possible replacement will be made until after the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) planned for later in the year, manufacturers have been jockeying for position in the expected requirement for many months already. Having signed a strategic partnership with the UK in 2013, the Japanese government harbours high hopes of leveraging this to secure the indigenously-developed aircraft's first export sale if and when such a requirement is officially announced.

If this is to happen, the P-1 will have to beat off fierce competition from several other platforms, with a variety of aircraft, including the Boeing P-8 Poseidon, having already been touted as probable contenders.

"It is hard to compare the P-1 with the P-8," Vice Adm Sato said. "The P-1 has been developed especially for Japan's national security environment, with a Magnetic Anomaly Detector [for tracking submarines], and an emphasis on visual identification with large windows. It has been developed solely as an MPA." On the question of whether the P-1 might make a good fit for the UK, the vice admiral was circumspect, saying, "That is a decision for the UK government, and is one that is well above my pay grade."

Vice Adm Soto added that, while there were currently no UK personnel flying with the JMSDF, he was open to future exchange tours between the UK and Japan, saying, "Defence partnership and engagement with the UK is very important, as is interaction between the countries' crews. There are no plans right now for an RAF exchange, but in the future if agreeable it can be considered."

Separate to the customer demonstration flights and any possible UK interest in the P-1, Vice Adm Sato said that the JMSDF has now settled on a requirement for 70 aircraft to replace its ageing Lockheed P-3C Orions, and that a rolling upgrade programme would be carried out to enhance the aircraft's capabilities every couple of years. To date, 10 aircraft have been delivered to the JMSDF, all of which are operating out of NAF Atsugi.

Although the type is still conducting its operational test and evaluation phase through to the end of September (at which time full operating capability will be declared), it has been flying operational missions since March.

 

[mil-avia]

F-2 and F-15J fighters flying :

800 × 600 pixels


Related link(s).

 

[mil-avia]

Five types of air force planes and a ground force copter (extreme right) :

1600 × 300 pixels


Related link(s).

 

[Fenrir]

P-1

 

[Fenrir]

Japan eyes laser weapon ahead of G-7 summit

Drone threat: Japan eyes laser weapon ahead of G-7 summit - Nikkei Asian Review

An anti-drone laser weapon developed by German missile manufacturer MBDA Deutschland (Photo courtesy of MBDA Deutschland)

TOKYO -- The use of small, affordable drones is spreading fast around the world. And with that explosive growth comes the increasing risk of terrorist attacks using the unmanned flying machines. An experimental laser weapon developed in Germany is drawing attention as a potentially effective tool for keeping the bad guys out of the skies.

The Japanese government is already showing interest in the device, made by German missile manufacturer MBDA Deutschland. The country is scheduled to host the Group of Seven summit next year, and officials here want to make it as safe as possible. That includes keeping drones away from venues where global leaders will be gathering.

MBDA's weapon can destroy a small drone from a distance of 500 meters in just 3 seconds. Laser devices are widely expected to become a mainstream form of weaponry, but their applications are currently limited and largely in the experimental phase. The U.S. Navy is testing a laser weapon designed to disable enemy boats and aircraft approaching its ships. But that weapon is relatively large and designed for maritime use. In contrast, MBDA's device is so small that it can be loaded into a vehicle and carried just about anywhere.

Automatic destruction

The device produces four beams that merge to form a single beam. It automatically tracks and locks on to the flying targets. At an international air show held in Paris earlier this month, MBDA impressed audiences with a video it showing its weapon targeting and shooting down a drone in a process that took just 3.39 seconds.

There have been increasing reports from around the world of commercial drones approaching or crashing into key military, government or other facilities. This trend has governments rushing to introduce legal measures to restrict the use of the machines.

While these rules may prove effective at reducing incidents involving careless but otherwise law-abiding citizens, they cannot be expected to stop those bent on causing harm. Some drone manufacturers have tweaked their software so that their machines are incapable of flying near certain facilities. But a skilled hacker may be able to change those commands.

In Japan in April, a drone carrying mildly radioactive material was found on the roof of the prime minister's office. It was later discovered that a man intentionally flew the machine over the building.

That incident is still fresh on the minds of Japanese officials as they prepare for the G-7 summit in Mie Prefecture in May next year and the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The international reputation of Japan's public safety authorities is at stake, and drones have been singled out as key potential threat.

Currently available countermeasures include shooting drones down with shotguns or with high-pressure blasts of water. But these techniques are effective only at close range, among other drawbacks.

MBDA's laser weapons, meanwhile, have been shown to be effective from a distance of 500 meters, and the company says it plans to increase that range to 5km within five years. Unless Japan is developing similar hardware, the country may need to seek MBDA and Germany's approval for use of the of the device -- even a test model -- as soon as possible so it can put it through its paces ahead of next year's summit.

Beyond borders

For Japan and other countries, drones are not merely an internal security matter, something to be handled by the police. North Korea has flown small, fixed-wing unmanned aircraft into South Korean airspace. A source at the Japanese defense ministry said, "North Korea or others might spread terror with such aircraft." The Chinese or North Korean militaries may try to provoke Japan by sending out drones from vessels disguised as fishing or other types of vessels.

When a drone crashed on the roof of the prime minister's office, the media pointed out that the country lacked measures restricting the use of the machines. That may be true, but the underlying problem seems to be the absence of adequate discussions about the matter among all parties involved to create a safer society. And this is not limited to drone terrorism; it applies to Japan's national security as a whole.

---

Buy American

 

[mil-avia]

F-3 stealth fighter top, front and side views infographic :

1040 × 720 pixels


Related link(s).

 

[initial_d]

Japan's Totally Original Maritime Patrol Jet Is Hunting For Buyers

In terms of looks, if a DC-8 and a P-3 ever drank too much high octane fuel and had a steamy one-night stand, the Kawasaki P-1 would be born nine months later. Japan’s home-made and high-tech multi-mission maritime patrol aircraft is a purpose-built weapon system with a lot going for it, and Japan hopes potential foreign customers agree.

Japan began working on the P-1 as a replacement for their aging P-3 Orions after the Lockheed P-7 was cancelled in the 1990s and after no other available type seemed to meet their needs. This occurred in a very similar manner as how the U.S. Navy developed the Boeing P-8 Poseidon. The big difference between the P-8 and the P-1 being that the P-8 was adapted from the most prolific airliner of all time, the 737, while the P-1 was a clean-sheet design that is specifically configured for the long-range multi-role maritime patrol mission set. Most notably, the P-1 is slightly smaller than the P-8 yet it features four turbofan engines instead of two.

Many have besmirched the P-8 for only having two jet engines. Its challenging mission set, that often sees the aircraft flying to very remote areas and at lower altitudes where birds often share the airspace, does question the logic of procuring a twin-engine aircraft in such a role. Boeing and the Navy have posited that the P-8 can operate at higher altitudes with its improved sensors and that engine technology has come a long way in recent decades. How higher operating altitudes and two engines instead of four will affect the P-8’s effectiveness and safety remains unclear, although the jet has seemed to have gotten good reviews after several high-profile public events that it was involved in. Those being the search for MH370 and monitoring China’s island building in the South China Sea. Still, these tasks are a far cry from hunting elusive enemy submarines in all weather conditions.

The stubby Kawasaki P-1 also features a Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) boom on its tail, a feature that was dropped from the U.S. Navy’s P-8 equipment list due to cost and integration issues. The MAD is used to detect submerged submarines and many in the P-3 community were very concerned that it was omitted from the Poseidon’s final configuration, especially consider the exploding threat that submarines, especially long-diving and relatively cheap Air Independent Propulsion equipped diesel submarines, pose to American interests around the globe.

Other differences between the P-8 and the P-1 are the latter’s massive cockpit windows, which allows the pilots to become a little more engaged with surface searches. The P-1 has a bit smaller cabin than its American peer, a reality that may limit future upgrades and added capabilities, something the P-8 is already experiencing. Also, although a fresh design has clear advantages, the P-8 is a next generation 737 at heat, which means parts and support are not an issue.

The P-1 first flew in 2007 (as the XP-1) and entered limited service in 2013. It was originally designed together with another of Japan’s indigenous aircraft designs, the XC-2 (now known as the C-2) that was meant to replace Japan’s C-130s and C-1s. Although both aircraft became very different designs in the end, the C-2 and the P-1 have similar components and subsystems, which saved billions of dollars in their development.

The P-1 is really a cutting-edge design. By taking a “clean-sheet” approach, Kawasaki was able to incorporate some unique systems in the jet that help with its primary mission. The main one being a “fly-by-light” control system. This is similar to fly-by-wire but instead of traditional wiring and communications interfaces between the controls, flight control computer and control surface actuators, a fiber-optic system is used. Not only does this system help with reliability and upgrades down the road, but it also causes less electromagnetic interference with the aircraft’s sensitive mission hardware.

The P-1 has roughly similar sensor suite to that of the P-8, although the effectiveness of either one when compared to each-other remains unknown. Some of the sensors and mission equipment installed on the P-1 include a Toshiba HPS-106 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system which has four antennas, giving it constant 360 degree coverage. It packs a self protection suite including missile launch detectors and the aircraft also has an infrared and electro-optical turret for examining and tracking surface targets. A MAD (like the P-3 has it replaces), a LIDAR system and 30 sonobuoys ports that can be pre-loaded with room for another 60 sonobuoys stored in racks in the cabin, are all there for chasing subs. These systems are tied to a user interface in the cabin that uses intuitive control and artificial intelligence to predict a submarines movements, giving operators the best probable options for continuing to track one using the aircraft’s various systems as a single integrated force.

Other systems include a high-end communications system which includes various data-links as well as satellite communications and data exchange capability. Japan’s latest electronic surveillance measures suite for sniffing out enemy radars and electromagnetic emissions is also added. All together, these capabilities give the P-1 a secondary communications relay and information, surveillance and reconnaissance capability in a similar fashion as the American P-8.

As far as combat punch goes, the P-1 definitely has it. By not adapting an off-the-shelf design, Japan was able to create a jet optimized to carry external and internal stores, as opposed to retrofitting such a military-only capability. In total, the P-1 has 16 hardpoints, two on each wing, two on each wing root and eight in its weapons bays. As far as the weapons “menu” that the P-1 can use, it is similar to the P-8. These include AGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, AGM-65 Maverick air-to-surface missiles, Japan’s indigenously produced ASM-1C anti-ship missile, as well as various bombs, mines, torpedoes and depth charges. Like the P-8, one day the P-1 could integrate laser guided and GPS guided bombs into its quiver. Such a capability would give Japan a more persistent over-land close air support capability than their fighter jet force can provide. In this way the P-1 would work as a communications and surveillance node, as well as an arsenal ship/bomber.

Today, a couple dozen P-1s have been ordered by or delivered to Japan and after teething problems, the aircraft is rumored to perform fantastically well at its job. Still, Japan’s demand for the aircraft is limited to replacing their own P-3 fleet and seeing that the aircraft is a now an integrated weapon system that has its major bugs worked out, Japan wants to see if it can get some of the billions of dollars invested into the program back in the form of international sales. This is precisely why two P-1s will appear at the Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT) this year, with one aircraft being shown as a static display and the other flying a routine during the air show and arms expo.

The UK’s Royal Navy in particular is in great need of a maritime multi-role aircraft. Since theNimrod MRA4 debacle of the last decade, the Ministry of Defence has no maritime patrol and sea control fixed-wing platform, which is pretty absurd for an island country. This is especially true seeing as Russia has drastically increased its submarine patrols all around the British Isles and even has sailed its ships into the English Channel.

Current candidates to fulfill this huge capability gap include America’s P-8 Poseidon, its smaller cousin the Challenger business jet-based Boeing Maritime Surveillance Aircraft, a multi-role maritime patrol version of the C-130J known as the Sea Hercules and an Airbus C-295 configured for the maritime patrol role. Although other defense contractors will offer even more options, as of now this would put the P-1 somewhere between the P-8 and the Sea Hercules when it comes to cost and capability.

Currently, the P-1 is said to run about $140 million per copy fully outfitted (the P-8 is about $250M), but this figure could drop as efficiencies are found in producing higher numbers of aircraft at a time and as the aircraft matures. Additionally, Japan can be quite aggressive with its exports, and could even take a loss to realize a larger and more efficient total fleet size of P-1s and to get their first international customer for the type.

The UK is not the only customer out there that really needs to get into the maritime patrol game in a larger way than they currently are. Countries around the globe are finding huge capability gaps in this space. Asia especially, with its growing territorial tensions should see the multi-role maritime aircraft marketplace explode in the coming decade.

When you look at the P-1 and the P-8 closely you realize that the U.S. and their close ally Japan basically built similar aircraft for almost the identical mission. It is unfortunate that they could not work together on a common design. With a little foresight, who knows? We could be seeing P-1s with U.S. Navy titles on their wings today.

In the end the marketplace will tell if the P-1 offers enough extra capability at the right price to bring in the big defense bucks from abroad, but out of all the aircraft on the market in its mission-space, it is the only clean-sheet, totally purpose-built design. In this day and age of multi-role everything, where manufacturers constantly shoehorn disparate capabilities into a few common designs, that has to be worth something.

Photos via: Wikicommons: Top shot- Ken H / @chippyho, side shot of 5501 Toshiro Aoki, XC-2-Richard Vandervord. P-8 and P-1 via USN. All other shots via Japanese Government/MoD

Indonesian air force is looking for C-130 hercules replacement and an MPA aircraft, i hope the big brass at TNI-AU (Indonesian air force) would consider and choose C-2 And P-1.

 

[Fenrir]

Exclusive - Japan eyes British help to sink German bid for Australian submarine: sources

Exclusive: Japan eyes British help to sink German bid for Australian submarine| Reuters

TOKYO/SYDNEY (Reuters) - A Japanese government team is in talks with at least two top British firms to help a Japanese consortium land one of the world's most lucrative defence contracts, sources in Tokyo said, a $50 billion (£32 billion) project to build submarines for Australia.

Germany's ThyssenKrupp (TKMS), a rival bidder, is wooing anxious members of Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s ruling Liberal Party with the economic and political benefits of its proposal.

Two Japanese government officials and a company source in Tokyo said Babcock International Group and BAE Systems had approached the consortium of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries with offers of help. Other British defence contractors may also be involved, they said.

All three sources spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Both Babcock and BAE declined to say whether they would work with the consortium, the builders of Japan's 4,000-ton Soryu diesel-electric submarine, on the Australian project.

A spokesman for Japan's defence ministry said the Japanese bidders were responding to Australia's desire to have as much local participation as possible in the project.

"With Mitsubishi Heavy taking the lead, we are gathering information from both Japanese and foreign companies in regard to Australian industry but we are unable to disclose any specific names," the spokesman said.

Both Babcock and BAE Systems are well established in Australia. Industry sources in Europe said any decision by Babcock to work with the Japanese bid could unsettle TKMS and France's state-controlled naval contractor DCNS, which is also in the fray for the submarine contract.

Babcock does maintenance work on Australia's Collins-class submarines, including the torpedo tubes and other parts of its weapons system.

BAE Systems, which builds the U.K.'s nuclear submarines, employs 4,500 people in Australia. It's biggest project there is the construction of Australia's two new 27,000-ton Canberra-class amphibious assault ships, the largest ships ever to be operated by the Royal Australian Navy.

"Japan is arguably ahead of the Germans and French in regard to its technology but lags in terms of doing business in Australia and organising an industrial package there," one of the sources in Japan said.

Japan may also seek cooperation from Saab by tapping the engineers at the Swedish company who built and still help maintain the Collins-class submarine fleet, the sources said.

Saab also declined to comment.

POLITICAL WORRIES

Parliamentary colleagues of Abbott have told Reuters that the fear of a serious blowback from failing to choose the winner of the contract wisely is one of the most hotly debated topics within the ruling party. The bidders were well aware of this, they said.

According to a company document seen by Reuters, the German bidder TKMS will train local contractors using advanced German manufacturing and production technology and help establish Australia as a naval shipbuilding and repair hub in the Asia-Pacific region. The document is to be shared privately with Australian government ministers as part of the proposal.

That is an attractive proposition for a country still reeling from the decision by Ford Motor Co, Toyota Motor Corp and General Motors Co to halt local production in 2016.

Two TKMS executives told Reuters in an interview on Tuesday that the Australian government would struggle politically to turn down the economic incentives built into their proposal.

"There's an awful lot of politicians across the board ... that will not be very politically happy if this A$50 billion life cost sophisticated programme goes to solve Japan's deficit problem," TKMS Australia Chairman John White told Reuters.

Senator Sean Edwards - chairman of the economics committee in the upper house of Australia's parliament - said that no government could say yes to any proposal that did not offer significant economic benefits for Australia.

"I think it's compelling (to build the submarines in Australia). And I think this is a problem for Japan," Edwards told Reuters.

However, Australia's Abbot has described Japan as his country's "closest friend in Asia". With the United States also keen to spur friendlier ties between its two key allies in Asia, Tokyo has Washington's backing for made-in-Japan submarines packed with American surveillance, radar and weapons equipment, sources familiar with Washington's thinking told Reuters earlier.

Each of the bidders have been asked to provide three estimates; one for construction overseas, one for a partial assembly in Australia and one for a full build in an Australian shipyard. A recommendation is likely in November.

 

[mil-avia]

Japanese Defense Technology Seminar 2014 on future fighter's engine, airframe, and other details of combat capability

 

[mike2000 is back]

According to the agency, the total cost for H3 development will be about ¥190 billion. Regarding the new rocket, it aims to lower the cost for one launch to about ¥5 billion

How much is that in dollars?