Japan F-18 Super Super Hornet?

[gf0012-aust]

That makes you wonder why some countries choose equipment from different sources...

as an example, in Malaysias case its because they see a mixed procurement from east and west as a way of not making them beholden or vulnerable to either. it also means that their logistics train is a mess.

in indias case its because they also have service "alliances" towards some countries and its based on what any country is prepared to let go in ToT

in romanias case its because they made decisions on how to financially achieve NATO compliance without breaking the country treasury.

etc etc.......

 

[Eeshaan]

in indias case its because they also have service "alliances" towards some countries and its based on what any country is prepared to let go in ToT

It's as political as it's economic or logistical in India's case IMO. India has an old alliance with Russia, and has been a buyer of Russian-made arms for decades.

But now, simply replacing it's entire inventory with more high-tech western equipment will be very expensive and might cause logistical issues.

India is still interested in Western equipment, and is looking to integrate both Western & Russian technology to get the best out of both, while avoiding the logistical & economic issues that might be caused.

I think the same can be said for Japan & USA ?

 

[fretburner]

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...

In your opinion... do the Japanese think of the Super Hornet as the inferior but more ready airplane?

Or do they think of it as a good-enough plane with superior potential for local work (future upgrades and development as per Boeing's "international roadmap")?

Or perhaps... they thinking of it the way the Aussies thinking: a good-enough stop gap before the F-35 purchase?

Because AESA radar aside and ignoring for a moment the maritime attack role, the Eurofighter seems a LOT more capable.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Do you think the Japanese think of the Super Hornet as the inferior but more ready airplane?

Or do they think of it as a good-enough plane with superior potential for local work (future upgrades and development as per Boeing's "international roadmap")?

Or... are they thinking the way the Aussies thinking: a good-enough stop gap before the F-35 purchase?

I think they probably had these reasons in mind when selecting these particular aircraft:

1. Super Hornet - good all round capability. Available quickly in-service with "full" multi-role capability if need be. Some development opportunity and industrial workshare possibilities.

2. Typhoon - strong A2A capability, good development opportunity and industrial potential. Available reasonably quickly for A2A and some multi-role capability. Some significant development needed for maritime strike role (appropriate radar modes, weapon integration etc).

3. F-35 - strong future "all round" capability. Only LO aircraft our of 3 chosen and may stand F-35 in good stead if a Japanese need to politically counter "other" LO aircraft introduced into the North Asia regionis identified. Some development and industrial workshare possibilities, maybe...

Or hell, maybe they just picked these aircraft to give the appearance of a competition to suit domestic political purposes and they've known for a long time which aircraft they want...

Anything's possible...

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's as political as it's economic or logistical in India's case IMO. India has an old alliance with Russia, and has been a buyer of Russian-made arms for decades.

thats true, and when 4 years ago I pointed out that India was indicating that she wanted to buy more western weapons and military systems, some of the local indian members got more than a little excited at me as they thought that the indo-russian relationship was almost sacred and unimpeachable. the reality is that india decided that her foray into acquiring more western systems was essential if she wanted to expand her capabilities, and its why she insists on hi-levels of ToT - something that was not necessary with the rissians as the IP issues and potential onsell of those capabilities was not seen by the russians in the same vein as a far more "commercial" focused and driven "western" sale is

But now, simply replacing it's entire inventory with more high-tech western equipment with be very expensive and might cause logistical issues.

they're going to western systems as the sustainment tail is more cost effective as well - it more than balances out

India is still interested in Western equipment, and is loking to integrate both Western & Russian technology to get the best out of both, while avoiding the logistical & economic issues that might be caused.

India is still trying to get used to western sale IP management and ToT realities

I think the same can be said for Japan & USA ?

No, the socio/politico conditions are different.

 

[Arthicrex]

Guess what? Japan has bought European helicopters for both its navy (oops! maritime self-defence force) & coast guard. Assembled by Kawasaki, two types purchased & currently being delivered, further orders thought likely.

And they don't seem too happy with those Euro helos. As JSDF is limited in the number of aricrafts they can operate by the law, traditionally they have required very high operational rate in each of their aircraft. Euro helos are simply not achieving that. Several years ago, JMSDF's next ASW helo that will replace SH60 were rumored to be NH90 and no other helos were even considered, but with MH-101s operational rate not satisfying JMSDF, they are now said to be reconsidering.

That's one of the downside of the Eurofighter. When you have to introduce a whole new supply line for the parts, the operational rate will suffer.

The other thing is, if Japan were to license produce Eurofighter, then modify it to accomodate indignous weapon systems such as AAM-4, ASM-2,3 and AESA, they would have to share the technologies with Euro, which is a no no according to Japan's law. Japan does not share military technologies with nations other than U.S.

 

[swerve]

The other thing is, if Japan were to license produce Eurofighter, then modify it to accomodate indignous weapon systems such as AAM-4, ASM-2,3 and AESA, they would have to share the technologies with Euro, which is a no no according to Japan's law. Japan does not share military technologies with nations other than U.S.

Not so. The law allows sharing of technologies. It even allows weapons exports, in theory. It states that permits must be obtained for both. The policy is that the only permit issued is a blanket one allowing exports to, & sharing of technology with, the USA, within certain limits, i.e. in joint ventures & where necessary for the JSDF.

That policy was publicly stated some years ago to have been modified to allow, in principle, similar arrangements with a limited number of other countries.

European (Thales Nederland) technology has been incorporated into Japanese shipboard AESA radars. I'd like to know how its suitability was determined, if no information about the Japanese technology in the radars was shared with Thales. Also, Japan has licence-built & modified European weapons & dual-use equipment, e.g. 155mm artillery & military jet engines for aircraft & ship propulsion (most current & some retired JMSDF destroyers & frigates have or had licence-built RR GTs, & they're being fitted to new ships).

BTW, the AW101 is licence-built in Japan, in a version modified by Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Curious that it has low availability rates. What's the cause? Also, what's the connection between NH90 & AW101? Very different helicopters. Why would a problem with one affect decisions on the other? After all, Eurocopter & AgustaWestland are the two biggest builders of civil helicopters in the world, & that wouldn't be true if their products had general availability or reliability problems. Commercial operators insist on high availability rates, because flying hours are money.

 

[Arthicrex]

BTW, the AW101 is licence-built in Japan, in a version modified by Kawasaki Heavy Industries. Curious that it has low availability rates. What's the cause? Also, what's the connection between NH90 & AW101? Very different helicopters. Why would a problem with one affect decisions on the other? After all, Eurocopter & AgustaWestland are the two biggest builders of civil helicopters in the world, & that wouldn't be true if their products had general availability or reliability problems. Commercial operators insist on high availability rates, because flying hours are money.

I'm not an insider so I don't know the details, but according to the people who talked to the operators, AW101's maintainance is more time consuming than what they are used to with the American helos, although it is still much better than the notorious MH-53Es that were not license built in Japan. The main problem seems to be the availability of some parts. Even though AW101 is license built by Kawasaki, not every part is produced by Kawasaki and some parts still have to be shipped from UK.

There is no real connection between AW101 and NH90. Some people in JMSDF are just worried because NH90 is also an Euro helo, and they might run into the same kind of problems.

 

[swerve]

AgustaWestland signed a contract with Marubeni in mid-2009 to set up a spares depot in Japan. This may have been a response to previous supply problems.

Perhaps the JMSDF has got used to being able to call on US spares stocks, & failed to take into account the need to have enough to cover all eventualities or have to ship them from half-way round the world. I've seen other cases of serviceability problems due to spares shortages, where the supplier had delivered everything asked for, when requested, within contractually specified delivery times. The problem in one case was with lead times within the customers procurement system. In another case, it was due to usage being greater than planned, leading to a need for more spares than expected, & failure to adjust the ordering schedule to fit. In both cases, the supplier was blamed by those at the sharp end.

Your last sentence suggests attitudinal problems within the JMSDF. If true, then they're looking at things in a way more akin to superstition than rational analysis.

 

[Eeshaan]

No, the socio/politico conditions are different.

Can you elaborate on that a bit, please ?

I was always under the impression that Japan, when purchasing arms & equipment, has always considered American-made equipment as the first choice, wether it's sharing of technology or purchase of equipment. Bound by treaty ? or looking simply to buy the best technology avaliable at the time ?

I was thinking of the F-2 at the time

 

[gf0012-aust]

Can you elaborate on that a bit, please ?

I was always under the impression that Japan, when purchasing arms & equipment, has always considered American-made equipment as the first choice, wether it's sharing of technology or purchase of equipment. Bound by treaty ? or looking simply to buy the best technology avaliable at the time ?

I was thinking of the F-2 at the time

I think we're on the same page here as your second sentence holds true. I doubt that the japanese have a serious interest in the typhoon as they look at weapons procurement beyond the basic concepts of "weapon for requirement", sustainment costs etc... in the case of japan they also have the reality of having a fractious relationship with china, and a possibility that it could go pear shaped as china becomes more and more confident and flexes her muscles. for the japanese they're going to consider whether any country they buy gear from is going to be subject to soft power leverage in times of conflict. the brutal reality is that do the japanese think that they can rely on the US or euro suppliers to continue to deliver if the chinese flex political and diplomatic muscle - for an example looks at the issue of tiananmen and the weapons embargoes.

more to the point, if japan ends up with a potential military stoush, who has demonstrated military committment to date? who has bases and facilities in japan, who provides japan with INT etc....

logically, if you were japan, what considerations would you have when buying gear?

its not just about the platform.

In the AirSeasBattle scenarios for the PACRIM there are no european countries factored in the fight. Something that Japan would be palpably aware of.

 

[Eeshaan]

I think we're on the same page here as your second sentence holds true. I doubt that the japanese have a serious interest in the typhoon as they look at weapons procurement beyond the basic concepts of "weapon for requirement", sustainment costs etc... in the case of japan they also have the reality of having a fractious relationship with china, and a possibility that it could go pear shaped as china becomes more and more confident and flexes her muscles. for the japanese they're going to consider whether any country they buy gear from is going to be subject to soft power leverage in times of conflict. the brutal reality is that do the japanese think that they can rely on the US or euro suppliers to continue to deliver if the chinese flex political and diplomatic muscle - for an example looks at the issue of tiananmen and the weapons embargoes.

more to the point, if japan ends up with a potential military stoush, who has demonstrated military committment to date? who has bases and facilities in japan, who provides japan with INT etc....

logically, if you were japan, what considerations would you have when buying gear?

its not just about the platform.

In the AirSeasBattle scenarios for the PACRIM there are no european countries factored in the fight. Something that Japan would be palpably aware of.

Ah thanks for the info. How stupid of me , I didn't consider these factors when looking at Japan's foreign policy towards the U.S.

Those military bases, sharing of Intel, technology, arms storages ( which are something similar to what Israel has ? ) and the threat of China does clearly indicate that Japan's first choice of equipment purchase has to be USA.

A similar relation between USA & Japan as that of USA & Israel ? Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Which brings me to the question, Japan has the economic & technological capabilities to manufacture, maintain & ( maybe ) further modify an LO aircraft such as F-35 for it's self-defense requirements.

So why consider something half a generation behind ? Are they considering the F-18 Super Hornet to quickly replace the 18 F-2s lost in the tsunami this march ? Or is it due to the development ( financial ) issues that the F-35 programme is having ?

Would be interesting to see what Japan can do with the F/A-18 & F-35 after looking at the F2 ....

 

[AegisFC]

Any Super Hornet buy would be to replace the F-4 Phantoms which are rather old (they entered service with the Japanese in the early 70's) and will need to be replaced before the F-35 could enter service so that isn't really an option for Japan at this time.

 

[swerve]

A similar relation between USA & Japan as that of USA & Israel ? Please correct me if I'm wrong..

Very different.

There are no US bases in Israel, & never have been. Nor does Israel have any formal military alliance with the USA, though there is close co-operation. It is a recipient of vast quantities of US military (& until recently economic) aid, & a has a de facto US security guarantee.

Japan has many, & large, US military bases on its territory. Japan pays large sums towards the costs of maintaining these bases. Japan receives no US military or economic aid, but pays in full for all military equipment it receives from the USA. Japan & the USA have been in a full, formal, military alliance for over 50 years.

Which brings me to the question, Japan has the economic & technological capabilities to manufacture, maintain & ( maybe ) further modify an LO aircraft such as F-35 for it's self-defense requirements. ...

But the USA's closest military ally, with which the USA has shared secrets & technology which no other US ally has ever been granted access to, is not allowed to modify, or even fully maintain, the F-35. Japan isn't even a member of the F-35 consortium. It can't be granted that sort of access without the consent of the other members (F-35 includes their technology, not only US), even if the USA would agree, which it won't.

 

[rip]

Very different.

There are no US bases in Israel, & never have been. Nor does Israel have any formal military alliance with the USA, though there is close co-operation. It is a recipient of vast quantities of US military (& until recently economic) aid, & a has a de facto US security guarantee.

Japan has many, & large, US military bases on its territory. Japan pays large sums towards the costs of maintaining these bases. Japan receives no US military or economic aid, but pays in full for all military equipment it receives from the USA. Japan & the USA have been in a full, formal, military alliance for over 50 years.

But the USA's closest military ally, with which the USA has shared secrets & technology which no other US ally has ever been granted access to, is not allowed to modify, or even fully maintain, the F-35. Japan isn't even a member of the F-35 consortium. It can't be granted that sort of access without the consent of the other members (F-35 includes their technology, not only US), even if the USA would agree, which it won't.

I believe the statement which has been made “that no other nation than the USA has the right or can modify future F-35 platforms without its approval” is incorrect. The most important requirement for doing any major modification to the F-35 in the future is in having access to the F-35’s computer operating source code because of the highly integrated nature of this platform. Great Britten as the second largest stake holder in this project has been given this access and the right to modify the code as necessary in the future.

Remember because of the high degree of integration, a change in the source code to modify one part of the system can have disastrous effects in a completely different part of the platform. Not something to be undertaken by the faint hearted in millions of line of code. If something fails who will then be held responsible? Let the finger pointing begin.

This decision was very controversial for another reason and it was not the loss of control by the US government as it has been assumed. Because much of the source code in question is in fact proprietary vender code and reveals a great deal about the technologies of the equipment the vender provides it is covered under both patent and copy right laws as their property and giving it away to a third parties is the same as giving proprietary information to your competitors. That said Great Britten was given access.

 

[swerve]

I believe the statement which has been made “that no other nation than the USA has the right or can modify future F-35 platforms without its approval” is incorrect. The most important requirement for doing any major modification to the F-35 in the future is in having access to the F-35’s computer operating source code because of the highly integrated nature of this platform. Great Britten as the second largest stake holder in this project has been given this access and the right to modify the code as necessary in the future. .

Nope. That's what the UK ('Great Britain' hasn't been a political entity since 31st December 1800), asked for, not what it was given. What access the UK has been granted has not been fully revealed, but since 2006 British politicians have avoided answering the question "Has the UK been given the access it requested?", which suggests the answer is "No". What has been officially stated is that the UK has been given 'operational sovereignty'. This has never been clearly defined.

In November 2009 the head of international affairs for the JSF programme said that nobody (and that includes the UK) outside the USA would have source code access.
Reuters link

His statement implies (but does not say explicitly) that the US may supply software interfaces to allow weapons integration without source code access.

 

[rip]

Nope. That's what the UK ('Great Britain' hasn't been a political entity since 31st December 1800), asked for, not what it was given. What access the UK has been granted has not been fully revealed, but since 2006 British politicians have avoided answering the question "Has the UK been given the access it requested?", which suggests the answer is "No". What has been officially stated is that the UK has been given 'operational sovereignty'. This has never been clearly defined.

In November 2009 the head of international affairs for the JSF programme said that nobody (and that includes the UK) outside the USA would have source code access.
Reuters link

His statement implies (but does not say explicitly) that the US may supply software interfaces to allow weapons integration without source code access.

My apologies, for getting the official name of the United Kingdom so very wrong.

As to the other matter, regardless if the politicians in parliament or anywhere else for that matter, are satisfied or not. For when are they ever really satisfied? We are truly in unknown territory here with real issues never before seen and encountered and I do not have any easy answers.

The nature of these complexes highly integrated weapon systems present new challenges for cooperation and co-development that we have never had to be dealt with before in several areas and not just within their Interoperational issues. This is true both in the various issues of national sovereignty and just as importantly in the protection of what is in fact the privet property of and the security of hundreds of other people , organizations and countries.

Does it not seem to be very similar in many ways to the people who want to break into their cell phone operating system and to customize it for themselves but the owners of those systems flatly forbids it. Not just because they will lose control of their own handiwork and be ripped off but because they are still on the hook if it works correctly with the other parts of the system and are still liable for damages for things that they did not do but are still liable for it anyway because the loss of control is perceived as negligence?

I do not know where you stand on that debate. If you do not want to own an I-phone or Black Barry or some other interactive whizz bang devise you do not have to buy one but the choices for cutting edge aircraft are far fewer.

I understand your concerns and they are very real, both about losing control of your own weapons platforms and what that means about keeping your full and unblemished independence. An independence that only comes with haveing such control and also the possible commercial factors of being cut out of probable work that will come later in the upgrade market that will come someday.

Next time, and I am sure there will be a next time, because of all of the financial costs these issues will be negotiated first up front before anything else but to tell the truth I cannot think of a workable system that will satisfy everyone. If you have one please pass it on I would like to study it.

If the United States ever wants to do such an international cooperative endeavor again it is in its interest to treat its partners fairly and I am sure that it will try but that does not mean everyone will get everything that they want nor will the United States for that matter. The question is what kind of system will be seen as fair by everyone?

 

[StingrayOZ]

The frustration of the UK government is well known. Australia had simular problems with the F-18.
Kim Beazley: Final address to the House of Representatives. Full speech.

I went to the United States and, for five years, it was up hill, down dale and one knock-down drag-out after another with Cap Weinberger, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. I tried to get the codes of that blasted radar out of them. In the end, we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves—and we got another radar that can actually identify them, otherwise I would not be talking about it now. We got a radar that was capable of doing the shoot-down and the rest of what we wanted. I see there is an agreement signed by the defence minister—mate, I will believe it when I see it! I will believe it when I see it from that particular agreement that you have signed with them. That is not to say that I do not love the Americans and think that they are our most important ally, but they are a bunch of people you have got to have a fight with every now and then to get what you need out of them.

So the US has to weigh up if it wants to bring partners in to the fold, or have them working day and night to break systems and codes. The US seems to have allowed them to hook into their code and know enough about it to do what they want. Rather than free access for all.

 

[Todjaeger]

So the US has to weigh up if it wants to bring partners in to the fold, or have them working day and night to break systems and codes. The US seems to have allowed them to hook into their code and know enough about it to do what they want. Rather than free access for all.

Getting a bit far afield from potential Japanese F/A-18 SHornets, but felt this needed to commented on.

Possessing the 'original source code' is not required to integrate new weapons and modules. In point of fact, having the source code in place of information about how various systems interact and handle input/output data streams would likely make it more difficult to integrate new weapons and pieces of kit.

Secondly, there are many different proprietary modules which have been (or are) used aboard US equipment. In many cases the manufacturer will not know how a piece of equipment nn functions, apart from the power and cooling required, and where the inputs and outputs need to connect. Any internal software for the module is an unknown/black box, apart from the manufacturer of that specific device and possibly the US Gov't.

Therefore, IMO it is really not worthwhile to get so preoccupied with the 'source code' as that only really becomes relevant if one wishes to re-write the instruction sets for the actual aircraft computer(s).

-Cheers

 

[Vivendi]

Possessing the 'original source code' is not required to integrate new weapons and modules. In point of fact, having the source code in place of information about how various systems interact and handle input/output data streams would likely make it more difficult to integrate new weapons and pieces of kit.

The radar of our Hornet could not identify most of the aircraft in this region as hostile—in other words, our front-line fighter could not shoot down people who would be the enemies in this region.

I agree I don't think one should get too focused on the "source codes" as such; it's rather the capability to adapt the equipment according to the needs that is important. Whether this is done by access to source code or through some other means is in a way irrelevant.

As hinted at above, the IFF system of the Hornets did not identify other a/c in the region as hostile. And it seems the US was very reluctant to change that for Australia.

Has the SH similar restrictions?

Would the Typhoon come with similar restrictions should Japan buy it?

As for weapons integration: is Australia free to integrate any weapon on their SH? Don't they need US support to integrate weapons?