Japan F-18 Super Super Hornet?

[swerve]

To actually make the Japanese Defence industry sustainable over the long term they are going to have to address Article 9 to allow exports of their local defence industry.

Article 9 does not prevent arms exports. It says absolutely nothing about them. The constitution is completely silent on the matter. Japan has no constitutional or legal bar on exporting arms. There is, in fact legislation on arms export permits.

The export of weapons & dual-use equipment is prevented by a policy, not law or any part of the constitution. The policy is rather simple: the export permits required by law will not, in general, be issued. There are a few very narrow exceptions related to joint developments, all of which are currently with the USA.

In theory (it would be completely legal & constitutional), the cabinet could decide tomorrow to change the policy, & instruct the civil servants who are responsible for export permits accordingly, without reference to the Diet. In practice, things are different: such a move would cause a political storm.

I repeat this regularly, on this & other forums. Sometimes I provide a link to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which spells out the matter on its website, the official English translation of the constitution, also online, & the Ministry of Defence explanation of the sections of the constitution relating to weapons & armed forces.

 

[MrConservative]

Article 9 does not prevent arms exports. It says absolutely nothing about them. The constitution is completely silent on the matter. Japan has no constitutional or legal bar on exporting arms. There is, in fact legislation on arms export permits.

The export of weapons & dual-use equipment is prevented by a policy, not law or any part of the constitution. The policy is rather simple: the export permits required by law will not, in general, be issued. There are a few very narrow exceptions related to joint developments, all of which are currently with the USA.

In theory (it would be completely legal & constitutional), the cabinet could decide tomorrow to change the policy, & instruct the civil servants who are responsible for export permits accordingly, without reference to the Diet. In practice, things are different: such a move would cause a political storm.

I repeat this regularly, on this & other forums. Sometimes I provide a link to the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which spells out the matter on its website, the official English translation of the constitution, also online, & the Ministry of Defence explanation of the sections of the constitution relating to weapons & armed forces.

Swerve I am fully aware of Article 9. What you say is not wrong regarding what what Article 9 explicitly says or does not explicitly say. However from a matter of Constititional Jurisprudence there are nuances that are not initially apparent to the non legal professional.

There lies the heart of contextual difference here - explicitness. For Japan to begin to export weapons Japanese Constitutional academics believe and so do I, that Article 9 would have to be amended to explicitly make it so - thus avoiding the political minefield of decisions that could cause the unwinding of the whole constitution itself. Law and politics do not like grey areas. It likes certainty. For Japan to export defence equipment whilst the constitutional is still grey (and grey in a number of other areas) it would need an amendment for certainty. The JV stuff is close to the bone I know but their is possibly enough of a distinction. I have had the privilege to attend in Japan plenaries on this topic as it is an area of interest. I have been working on a NZBORA and Japanese Constitutional analysis since last year.

 

[swerve]

Unless the official English version is a very poor translation, I fail to see the problem. Where is the ambiguity? Where are the grey areas?

I can only imagine that it is being interpreted through a very dense filter, so dense that the meaning is heavily distorted. I've seen this in other cases. Political & economic circumstances dictate interpretation, not the words on the page.

I also fail to see how it is possible to legislate for arms exports (which is what Japan has done, by creating an export permit system) if the constitution is ambiguous on the matter. Do you not agree that is inconsistent?

 

[MrConservative]

Unless the official English version is a very poor translation, I fail to see the problem. Where is the ambiguity? Where are the grey areas?

I can only imagine that it is being interpreted through a very dense filter, so dense that the meaning is heavily distorted. I've seen this in other cases. Political & economic circumstances dictate interpretation, not the words on the page.

I also fail to see how it is possible to legislate for arms exports (which is what Japan has done, by creating an export permit system) if the constitution is ambiguous on the matter. Do you not agree that is inconsistent?

It is inconsistent. That is the big issue.

They have not legislated into statute law for dual use export permits for arms. What they have done is introduce regulations that have steemed from policy directives to possibly enable permits on a case by case basis. Those permits come under the orbit of principal export legislation. There is a difference in the primacy and legal efficacy between permits by regulations and actual statute law. In a well written constitution the constitution in itself should provide for the architecture for statute law to be understood and not lead to inconsistent law making.

The Japanese Constitution as fundamental law, generally has problems in terms of what it can provide for the statutary interpretation of legislation that exists under its umbrella or in the case of subset regulations like the enabling of import or export permits. To make it even more problematic in Japan there is no Interpretation Act for anyone to have certainty and clarity in their decision making, whether it be judicial, as a policy maker, or as a civil servant.

What has happen around the Constitution is that a raft of subsidary regulations and inconsistent legislation have evolved. Therefore the primary law that we are interested in - Article 9 of the Constitution needs to be amended to match the primary laws and secondary policies that exist under its umbrella so as to not allow for conflict in regards to interpretation, intent, subsidary law and regulation - viz a viz - explicitness is required. Without that explicitness there could be problems as it is so arbitary and adhoc at present. Also the dual use permit approach via the 3 principles policy is a tad unsatisfactory once we get down to wanting to enable a viable and sustainable Japanese defence export industry.

 

[swerve]

It sounds to me as if you're saying that the effective constitution, i.e. including subsidiary legislation, has contradictions in which make the interpretation of the core constitution (i.e. the document called "The Constitution") difficult, rather than that the core constitution is ambiguous in itself, at least in this particular respect. It's certainly ambiguous in other respects, e.g. as regards the armed forces.

From your other comments, I get the impression that you consider the Japanese constitution in general to be rather unsatisfactory.

 

[MrConservative]

It sounds to me as if you're saying that the effective constitution, i.e. including subsidiary legislation, has contradictions in which make the interpretation of the core constitution (i.e. the document called "The Constitution") difficult, rather than that the core constitution is ambiguous in itself, at least in this particular respect. It's certainly ambiguous in other respects, e.g. as regards the armed forces.

From your other comments, I get the impression that you consider the Japanese constitution in general to be rather unsatisfactory.

The core constitution or what there is of it is OK. Renouncing war – great, wonderful stuff – if that is the collective sentiment of the people. The problems I see with it are that it does not provide for certainty in regards to its explicit supremacy. That is why we have these legal and policy contradictions.

Ideally a Constitution should be supreme law to the point that all statute laws, regulations and policy directives are subject to its fundamental principles. In the Japanese Constitution that is not robust enough, thus there should be a further Article that is explicitly stating that all law passed and policy developed must be compatible to the Constitution and referred to the Constitution, during the whole legislative process. Then following that all passed statutes must in there preamble or long title have reference to the fact that this law is enacted with reference to the Constitution. I think it is unsatisfactory that really the only administrative law check is via the Judicial Review provisions of Article 81. That is ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff in regards to constitutional provisions.

I think we should head back into the cool planes stuff Swerve – having me walloping along on such a topics as Constitutional Law is probably very irritating.

 

[Ananda]

I think we should head back into the cool planes stuff Swerve – having me walloping along on such a topics as Constitutional Law is probably very irritating.

I for my self think it's quite interesting reading you and swerve discussion on Japanese Constitutions since I my self still wandering what really hindered Japanese to export Military stuff. It's Constitutions of Political Will. I my self like to see The Japanese can enter the market with C-X it can provide country like Indonesia a choice for something bigger than C-130.

Back to Super Shornet, why go there and not just modified F-2 ? It's will be more cost effective for Japan and their Industry compared to build another projects. I think F-2 still has room to grow.

 

[Bonza]

Back to Super Shornet, why go there and not just modified F-2 ? It's will be more cost effective for Japan and their Industry compared to build another projects. I think F-2 still has room to grow.

Not sure, but from what I understand they did have some cost problems with the F-2. Maybe the development cost vs benefit wouldn't be as favourable as with a Super Hornet variant, as they could piggy back onto US upgrade programs, which are pretty much assured of happening due to the large USN fleet of Supers, as opposed to going it alone with an F-2 upgrade program? I'm not really sure, but that would be my guess.

I don't know much at all about the F-2 so it would be interesting to find out more about it re growth potential and so on. I like the idea of an upscaled F-16, just don't know a lot about how it went in practice.

 

[swerve]

As I understand it, manufacturing cost of the F-2 is quite low, but it suffers from unit cost comparisons which include fixed costs, & because of the small production run the overall unit cost is, of course, high. It therefore has political problems.

There were some technical problems with the F-2, e.g. the radar didn't work well at first (but it was the first fighter AESA radar in service), & there were problems with the composite wings (also innovative). AFAIK these have been resolved, but they didn't do much for its image.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I do wonder what could be achieved with F-18 electronics and mechanicals in a sleeker, stealthier body.

My guess is quiet a lot, the SH is quiet a compromise. However it would seem to be very high risk, why not just manufacture the SH locally (or alteast parts of it).

SH has pretty much the good stuff, electronics, powerful twin engines (not fastest but speed is no longer the issue, lots of power there tho).

I would imagine something that is simular in dimentions to a F-18, but with a slicker body, some internal weapon storage, better designed to take CFT, twin engined.

 

[reinhard5490]

F-18? AFAIK they've considered Typhoon and F-15. why turn into F-18 at the time when they planned to build their ATD-X?

IMHO, ATD-X went to replace F-15J, when at the same time, they need lighter aircraft to replace F-2.

 

[swerve]

F-18? AFAIK they've considered Typhoon and F-15. why turn into F-18 at the time when they planned to build their ATD-X?

IMHO, ATD-X went to replace F-15J, when at the same time, they need lighter aircraft to replace F-2.

ATD-X is a technology demonstrator. It won't turn into a fighter for at least ten years, & probably longer. The JMSDF can't wait that long. It has aircraft which need replacing now.

ATD-X is small, not F-15 size.

 

[Ananda]

Not sure, but from what I understand they did have some cost problems with the F-2. Maybe the development cost vs benefit wouldn't be as favourable as with a Super Hornet variant, as they could piggy back onto US upgrade programs, which are pretty much assured of happening due to the large USN fleet of Supers, as opposed to going it alone with an F-2 upgrade program? I'm not really sure, but that would be my guess.

I don't know much at all about the F-2 so it would be interesting to find out more about it re growth potential and so on. I like the idea of an upscaled F-16, just don't know a lot about how it went in practice.

From Asahi, and I also read on other forums, seems with 21st sq having swept away by Tsunami's at least 18 F-2 in that sq will have potential as write off. Don't know though if this happen to other JSDAF AB.

With the lose of substantial part of F-2 fleet, will this disaster prompt Japan to reopen F-2 Production line ? If they do. perhaps they will decide to increase the capabilities of F-2. Perhaps this disaster can be a benefit for F-2 program. Well who knows.

Try to attached pictures from Asahi sites but seems have problem.

 

[reinhard5490]

ATD-X is a technology demonstrator. It won't turn into a fighter for at least ten years, & probably longer. The JMSDF can't wait that long. It has aircraft which need replacing now.

ATD-X is small, not F-15 size.

ups, sorry : my bad

still, I think ATDX is quite promising aircraft, it would be nice if Japanese would sell it in the market. though from some rumours claim it to be equal of F-22 (which I dont believe it)

 

[SASWanabe]

when you consider they wanted the F-22 but couldnt get it, then they built that over buying more F-35 i would imagine it is atleast above F-35 even if its not to the F-22 level

 

[swerve]

It isn't anything yet. It's a technology demonstrator, & it's under construction. We have no information at all about performance. We can't say what it might be better or worse than.

 

[Arthicrex]

From Asahi, and I also read on other forums, seems with 21st sq having swept away by Tsunami's at least 18 F-2 in that sq will have potential as write off. Don't know though if this happen to other JSDAF AB.

With the lose of substantial part of F-2 fleet, will this disaster prompt Japan to reopen F-2 Production line ? If they do. perhaps they will decide to increase the capabilities of F-2. Perhaps this disaster can be a benefit for F-2 program. Well who knows.

Try to attached pictures from Asahi sites but seems have problem.

21 SQ is a training SQ equipped with F-2B. I don't know how many of those F-2B will be written off, but in the end it will have no effect on the actual combat capability of JASDF. Although It will no doubt have an impact on the pilot training program.

As for increasing the capabilities of F-2, it is already ongoing. One of the upgrades is improved J/APG-1kai AESA radar and AAM-4.

 

[fretburner]

I guess there's not going to be a Super Super Hornet?

Boeing, Lockheed, BAE To Vie for Japan's F-X

TOKYO - Following an April 11 request for proposals, Japan's lengthy search for a replacement next-generation fighter, dubbed F-X, has been whittled down to three candidates: Boeing, with its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; Lockheed Martin, with its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; and BAE Systems, representing the Eurofighter consortium. The results were announced at an April 13 bidders meeting at the Japanese Ministry of Defense...

No F-15SE neither. Seems like the F-35A is going to win this contest.

 

[swerve]

Depends on urgency and the importance of industrial factors.

Japanese military procurement suffers from a lot of wishful thinking & bad politics. The JASDF is facing a big cut in aircraft numbers due to failure to buy replacements in time, but there's no apparent will to do anything.

See the F-22 fiasco, where a lot of time & effort was wasted trying to persuade the US to export it, & the early end of F-2 production.

I think the logical thing to do right now would be to keep the F-2 in production, adding upgrades (e.g. the JAPG-1kai radar) on the production line & retrofitting them to already built aircraft.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I guess there's not going to be a Super Super Hornet?

Boeing, Lockheed, BAE To Vie for Japan's F-X

TOKYO - Following an April 11 request for proposals, Japan's lengthy search for a replacement next-generation fighter, dubbed F-X, has been whittled down to three candidates: Boeing, with its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; Lockheed Martin, with its F-35 Joint Strike Fighter; and BAE Systems, representing the Eurofighter consortium. The results were announced at an April 13 bidders meeting at the Japanese Ministry of Defense...

No F-15SE neither. Seems like the F-35A is going to win this contest.

There could be a 'super super' Hornet. It has a 1 in 3 chance in this competition from all reports and if an urgent in-service capability is a requirement, then the Super Hornet has the clear advantage in this role as it is the only aircraft of these 3 that can fulfill the full range of roles conducted by the current F-4EJ today (admittedly with different weapons) but it requires no development to provide a massive capability enhancement over the F-4EJ...

It also has the plus that there is considerable potential for enhancement of the basic platform, should Japan wish the local work. The recently advertised "International roadmap" provides a pointer to the types of capability enhancements posssible if so desired...