The dozens of Type 90, or Kyumaru, tanks rumbling through shooting drills on Japan’s northern island of Hokkaido exemplify the challenge its arms manufacturers face at home and overseas as the country fortifies its defenses against strategic threats.
The Japan Self-Defense Forces need the more advanced aircraft and weaponry sold by US arms manufacturers, as Japan’s strategic focus shifts from Russia in the north to regions in the south, where it faces incursions by Chinese fighter jets and naval vessels, along with North Korean missile launches.
Big Japanese defense manufacturers such as Mitsubishi, IHI Corp and Kawasaki Heavy Industries are struggling to sell 20th century tanks, aircraft and warships. They need to develop better technology to serve a military in the market for unmanned aircraft such as Tritons made by Northrop Grumman and Boeing’s undersea Echo Voyager.
Likewise, Japan’s international arms sales have never really taken off. Uncompetitive, with high prices, aging technology and scant government support, arms manufacturers in Japan increasingly are just withdrawing from the business.
The hefty Kyumaru tanks built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries debuted 30 years ago and are being replaced with lighter, more mobile armored vehicles that can travel on public roads or have amphibious capabilities, including US assault vehicles.
“People may think Japan has advanced technology and it can quickly catch up with others, and start selling equipment if it only gets serious, but I think that’s wrong,” said Heigo Sato, an expert on defense issues and professor at Hokkaido’s Takushoku University.
“The problem is, Japan’s defense products are not first grade. Nobody is interested in buying second or third-grade products at higher prices,” he said.
Japan created its own Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency in 2015 to energize the sluggish domestic defense industry, and to promote joint technology research, development and sales with friendly nations.
However, profits have dwindled at home, as the government, instead of promoting sales, increased big-ticket purchases from the US.
Japan is the world’s 12th-largest arms importer, with a 2.2 percent global share. Most purchases are from its ally the US, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said.
A large and growing share of the ￥2 trillion (US$17.4 billion) annually in equipment purchases by the Japanese Ministry of Defense are made through the US Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. They more than tripled from ￥190.6 billion in 2014 to ￥701.3 billion in 2019, when Japan placed orders for F-35 stealth jets, missile interceptors and other expensive equipment to reinforce its defenses against China and North Korea.
Haggling over expensive US jets and other equipment has slowed progress on revamping the nation’s defenses, ministry officials said.
Japan has negotiated the cost of upgrading dozens of F-15 jets, which had doubled from the initial US estimate, down to ￥397 billion from ￥552 billion, they said. To cut costs, Japan switched to domestic-made shorter-range air-to-surface standoff missiles from the initial plan to use US long-range anti-ship cruise missiles, among other revisions, they said.
Army officials at the Hokkaido drills said they would take whatever equipment they can get. One official joked that his camouflage uniforms were surely still Japanese made.
Japan’s total defeat in World War II, when it tried to conquer much of Asia, has left many Japanese wary of military buildups. The post-war constitution limits use of force to self-defense, and a ban on arms exports was only lifted in 2014.
Moreover, Japanese scientists tend to be reluctant to engage in research and development of technologies that can be used for military purposes.
Since the Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency was launched, Japan has sold just one finished product — a surveillance radar — to the Philippines. It first gave away five used TC-90 training aircraft, along with pilot training and 40,000 parts for UH-1H multipurpose helicopters.
In 2016, a possible breakthrough sale of Soryu-class submarine technology fell through when Australia chose France to develop 12 diesel submarines. That US$65 billion contract was scuttled when Australia switched to nuclear submarines under the AUKUS pact with the UK and the US.
Negotiations to sell about a dozen US-2 ShinMaywa Industries sea planes to India have been held up by pricing disagreements. Japan’s attempts to export a radar to Thailand and frigates to Indonesia also ended unsuccessfully.
As a latecomer, Japan lacks the marketing and technology transfer expertise of the US, with its FMS program, and other major exporters.
“Japan needs to be more competitive, more assertive and also be more willing to engage with customers in the marketing and promotion of defense platforms,” Jon Grevatt, principal of Indo-Pacific research and analysis at the Janes defense intelligence agency, said at an online event.
The government and the industry have not entirely given up. Japan is developing its own long-range surface-to-air cruise missile, and as China’s military buildup extends to cyberspace and outer space, the Ministry of Defense has begun pushing for research and development of artificial intelligence-operated autonomous vehicles, supersonic flight and other “game-changing” technologies.
Experts say that Japan should accelerate work on drones, satellite constellations and technology against electronic attacks. To fund such research, the ministry requested a record ￥291 billion budget for the year beginning in April, up 38 percent from this year.
Japan is also pursuing joint development of its next-generation F-X jet with the US and the UK to replace its aging fleet of F-2s by 2035. Japan and the UK have announced plans to jointly develop a future fighter aircraft engine demonstrator, and to explore work on other air combat technologies and subsystems. The project includes Japan’s Mitsubishi and IHI, and Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems in the UK.
It is a race against time as defense contractors drop out.
Yu Yamada, a Japan Business Federation senior manager for the defense industry, said it has 60-plus member companies with defense-related operations, down by about 10 in the past few years.
Komatsu Ltd, a leading construction equipment manufacturer, stopped developing and making armored vehicles after upgrades failed to meet Japanese Ministry of Defense requirements. Komatsu, once the seventh-largest supplier, only maintains existing fleets it supplied. It still makes ammunition.
In March, Mitsui E&S Shipbuilding Co sold its warship unit to Japan’s top contractor, Mitsubishi. Daicel Corp, a major electronics and chemical material maker, and supplier of warplane ejection seats, is dropping its unprofitable defense business to put resources elsewhere.
Sumitomo Heavy Industries stopped making 5.56mm machine guns, citing a bleak long-term outlook.
If the trend continues, the military and the defense industry could face supply problems, higher costs or quality concerns, Yamada said.
“Supply chains cannot be reconstructed in just one to two years. The industry is facing a rather difficult situation,” Yamada added.
In an e-mailed statement, the Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency said that keeping a domestic defense industry base was “a challenge” as companies withdraw.
“We must ensure businesses are succeeded smoothly so that the technology of key suppliers won’t be lost in case of withdrawals,” it said.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS