Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[SamuraiBlue]

Thanks for that!

I looked at the whole report and was going to ask you today about those very pictures.

Here's another one:

View attachment 11471
​

Is that a JAMSDF design VTOL aircraft similar to the Osprey, or is it supposed to just represent an Osprey for the paper? What is the wording with that?

They state that they will acquire A tilt rotor to enhance transport ability without specifying the model.

Here's another:

View attachment 11472
​

Is that a new LPD? it is clearly not an Osumi but it has a well deck. IS that just supposed to represent an Osumi, or is it something new? What wording is there with that?

That is where they say they had allocated 5 million yen to go abroad to study on how to operate and utilize an amphibious assault ship.

Finally, I did see a picture of the AAM-4B...any word on that?

Pretty good document...wish they had an English translation.

They say they had allocated 16.4 billion yen to acquire three years worth of rocket propellent to compress costs by 2.6 billion yen.
They also add that they have budgeted 21 items for multiple year acquisition.

 

[Miragedriver]

SamuriBlue, Can you confirm or explain this:

Thanks


India could build six submarines under license Soryu Japanese

(defensa.com) The Indian government is considering building their country under license in six submarines of Japanese conventional propulsion Soryu class. According to local media collected, India have asked to Japan the possibility to build six submarines under license in Indian shipyards for a sum of over 8,100 million. Recall that the government of Prime Minister Modi has refocused many military programs to local construction, following the motto "Make in India", allowing participation of foreign companies as technology partners. This would involve the formation of a joint venture between Japanese yards Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Shipbuilding Corporation with local companies.

As has been reporting, Australia is interested in this type of submarines, of which at the moment is negotiating the purchase or joint production of up to twelve submarines. Japan has offered India Navy maritime patrol seaplanes US-2i of India would have agreed to acquire six units, negotiation that has been announced since January last year.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

7



Back to bottling my Grenache

 

[SamuraiBlue]

SamuriBlue, Can you confirm or explain this:

Thanks
Back to bottling my Grenache

Well I posted that news about a week ago in the Indian Military News II thread.
Since I have not seen it in any Japanese newspapers, I believe although PM Abe had received the invitation the government is still mulling the idea.
On another note Japan may withdraw from Australian proposal. The Australian government had completely miscalculated how Japanese would react, Japanese hate last minute changes since they go completely out of their ways to accommodate the plan during negotiation process so any major changes will change all plans that had been done on Japan's side. Beside I do not think any nation appreciates being treated as a cannon fodder.

 

[Miragedriver]

Well I posted that news about a week ago in the Indian Military News II thread.
Since I have not seen it in any Japanese newspapers, I believe although PM Abe had received the invitation the government is still mulling the idea.
On another note Japan may withdraw from Australian proposal. The Australian government had completely miscalculated how Japanese would react, Japanese hate last minute changes since they go completely out of their ways to accommodate the plan during negotiation process so any major changes will change all plans that had been done on Japan's side. Beside I do not think any nation appreciates being treated as a cannon fodder.

Thank you. That explains a lot.

 

[Brumby]

On another note Japan may withdraw from Australian proposal. The Australian government had completely miscalculated how Japanese would react, Japanese hate last minute changes since they go completely out of their ways to accommodate the plan during negotiation process so any major changes will change all plans that had been done on Japan's side. Beside I do not think any nation appreciates being treated as a cannon fodder.

The submarine story is typically not well covered in Australia unless you go looking for it. The general population is more interested in who won the last football or rugby game. That's how it is.

Back to the submarine. You said that Australia is changing in a big way the submarine plans. Can you please elaborate what was the agreed plan and what had been changed. The development to-date in my mind (not really a plan) is that Australia has expressed an interest in the Soryu design. Everything else is still work in progress.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Back to the submarine. You said that Australia is changing in a big way the submarine plans. Can you please elaborate what was the agreed plan and what had been changed. The development to-date in my mind (not really a plan) is that Australia has expressed an interest in the Soryu design. Everything else is still work in progress.

First I speculate this plan got rolling with strong endorsement from the US in which they played a heavy role in matchmaking coaxing Japan to participate as allies.
In moving forward there needs to be a letter of intent signed between the negotiating parties to outline how they would agree on how to carry out this plan with various clauses stipulating how changes would be made in fore mentioned outline negotiated.
Basically that announcement to the press made by that senator completely disregards protocol on how business negotiations is carried out making a mockery of the other negotiating party.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

Here is an article that elaborates the situation.

Confusion in Japan, Australia over submarine tender pledge

SYDNEY — Officials in Australia and Japan on Monday expressed skepticism and confusion over a pledge by Prime Minister Tony Abbott to give an Australian state-owned shipbuilder the option to tender for a major submarine contract, heightening the uncertainty around the project.
Sources have said Australia is strongly considering buying a version of the 4,000-ton Soryu-class submarine built by Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki Heavy Industries to replace its aging Collins-class fleet.
But Abbott on Sunday promised shipbuilder ASC Ltd the option to bid for the next-generation submarines, worth as much as A$40 billion ($31 billion), in an attempt to shore up support ahead of a challenge to his leadership from within the ruling Liberal Party. He survived the revolt during a vote earlier on Monday.
Abbott had pledged ahead of his election in 2013 that up to 12 submarines would be built at ASC in South Australia state, before beginning to back-pedal last year, signalling that cost and timely delivery were paramount.... to read more

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In Japanese there is an expression "You had smeared mud on my face" which is exactly what Australia had done to both Japan and the US if my speculations are correct.

 

[Brumby]

First I speculate this plan got rolling with strong endorsement from the US in which they played a heavy role in matchmaking coaxing Japan to participate as allies.
In moving forward there needs to be a letter of intent signed between the negotiating parties to outline how they would agree on how to carry out this plan with various clauses stipulating how changes would be made in fore mentioned outline negotiated.
Basically that announcement to the press made by that senator completely disregards protocol on how business negotiations is carried out making a mockery of the other negotiating party.

There are some good lessons from this because it does highlight a significant gap between two countries which operate very differently because of culture and politics. I am very surprised that you talk of a letter of intent because that would signify that Australia has already made a choice to source from Japan and the rest is about working out the details in how the collaboration would proceed. The most I could see to-date is Australia might have provided some sort of letter of expression of interest to work towards a decision on whether the Soryu (in modified form) might be the right design for Australia.

I would suspect that Tony Abbot because of his personaility might have created some of the false expectation besides the cultural difference in terms of how deals are put together and how they are communicated to the public. Presumably you are aware that Tony Abbot almost lost his PMship this week and that is primarliy because he tends to cash in cheques he can't honour. His supporters are tired of him making decisions withourt consulting other stakeholders and invariably creates tension and push back on projects. The one example is the submarine project. He might have created the impression that it is a done deal but the reality is that in Australian poilitics that is not the way things are done. The office of the PM does carry significant weight but Tony Abbot is not king and he cannot make things happen by executive fiat. A project of such signficant size like the submarine project has to follow due process. The Senator that you mentioned is a sign of push back because consultation and process is not followed. In Australia the concept of fair play is ingrained and governs how things are done. You can't have such a major project being fenced off to people like ASC because fair play requires that they should have an opportunity to be heard and to bid for it.

On the Japanese side I think it is also a lesson to learn that exporting defence programs is a new entity and there will be hiccups along the way. In fact one of the main concern with Japan as the partner is precisely the fact that Japan has not in a long time exported defence programs and there is a concern the learning curve will be very steep on both sides. There is then the issue of culture, language and work habbits.

 

[SamuraiBlue]

There are some good lessons from this because it does highlight a significant gap between two countries which operate very differently because of culture and politics. I am very surprised that you talk of a letter of intent because that would signify that Australia has already made a choice to source from Japan and the rest is about working out the details in how the collaboration would proceed. The most I could see to-date is Australia might have provided some sort of letter of expression of interest to work towards a decision on whether the Soryu (in modified form) might be the right design for Australia.

I would suspect that Tony Abbot because of his personaility might have created some of the false expectation besides the cultural difference in terms of how deals are put together and how they are communicated to the public. Presumably you are aware that Tony Abbot almost lost his PMship this week and that is primarliy because he tends to cash in cheques he can't honour. His supporters are tired of him making decisions withourt consulting other stakeholders and invariably creates tension and push back on projects. The one example is the submarine project. He might have created the impression that it is a done deal but the reality is that in Australian poilitics that is not the way things are done. The office of the PM does carry significant weight but Tony Abbot is not king and he cannot make things happen by executive fiat. A project of such signficant size like the submarine project has to follow due process. The Senator that you mentioned is a sign of push back because consultation and process is not followed. In Australia the concept of fair play is ingrained and governs how things are done. You can't have such a major project being fenced off to people like ASC because fair play requires that they should have an opportunity to be heard and to bid for it.

On the Japanese side I think it is also a lesson to learn that exporting defence programs is a new entity and there will be hiccups along the way. In fact one of the main concern with Japan as the partner is precisely the fact that Japan has not in a long time exported defence programs and there is a concern the learning curve will be very steep on both sides. There is then the issue of culture, language and work habbits.

From your posting it seems you do not understand how LOI or MOU works.
It is neither binding or in good faith unless it is written out BUT you need to put down in writing your intent for negotiation so the other party can evaluate whether to sit at the table or not.
Basically the Abbot cabinet requires to write down a LOI or a MOU to even meet the right counter person.

 

[Brumby]

From your posting it seems you do not understand how LOI or MOU works.

You got me on this one. Is LOI relevant? Should there be one?