Japan, Britain to launch joint missile research

In b4 Chinese disapproval.

Under the new rules, weapon sales are still banned to conflict-plagued countries or nations that could undermine international peace and security, and they must contribute to international peace and boost pacifist Japan’s security.

Pull the other one.

Under the new rules, weapon sales are still banned to conflict-plagued countries or nations that could undermine international peace and security, and they must contribute to international peace and boost pacifist Japans security?? Wouldn't the US (by definition) come under the category of a conflict nation? How many decades have they been in conflict or war? Also, how is the practice of drone assassinations, (in countries we are NOT at war with,) contribute to peace and stability?

26 years ago Japan developed the world's first next generation active phased array radar for their ships and still possesses what is arguably the world's most advanced models. 19 years ago they made the world's first fighter aircraft AESA radar in the F-2 10 years ahead of the Raptor. 2 years ago they made the world's first AESA air-to-air missile in AAM-4B and are one of only a few nations with ramjet missiles in the test missile AAM-4 TDR and anti-ship XASM-3 and are still ahead of both the Meteor and the Russian K-77M. Forget joint developed just buy Japanese radars and missiles already.

I used to work for a British missile developer. They were as advanced as British television sets, and the only reason why the company could make a buck is because the Japanese, under their old constitution, did not compete. Mitsubishi missiles will kill lots more people more accurately, cheaply and with a much smaller form factor.

I was rather surprised on the other news it said Japan will join with Germany to develop next generation MBT. Considering what tanks we had in Japan and what they had in Germany during WW2, quite a different age even though Japan still has a lot to learn from German tanks technology.

"Under the new rules, weapon sales are still banned to conflict-plagued countries or nations that could undermine international peace and security, and they must contribute to international peace and boost pacifist Japan’s security"

They could have just said "China".

On the other hand Japan should be careful what equipments of SDF are made in China!

Jj1067. Do you actually believe that Japan would buy those things from China? Not even coffe for sdf

きよしさん >kiyoshiMurai But can we be sure about that? PCs and Internet equipments,and parts of them...I'm worried. Besides, even some of US Army uniform, hat or something, was found made in China a few years ago. I think Defense Ministry should keep checking.

In b4 Chinese disapproval.

alol

I understand. Maybe some weird equipment. But not a single chip of main equipment

The Japanese corporate state is now eagerly moving to become another merchant of death and is already putting in place the rhetoric to justify the export of violence for profit. If and when this violence is returned in kind, will people here remember where it emanated from?

warispeaceJul. 18, 2014 - 06:25AM JST The Japanese corporate state is now eagerly moving to become another merchant of death

While I feel that you choice of labels is silly, Japan has already been an active participant on a component level for decades. It is all simply becoming overt, legal and legitimized now on a larger scale, much to the benefit of not just Japan but it's allies,

It appears that many supporters of (the peace loving military industrial complex) can give a thumbs down but can any of you debate my comments?

@Stuart Hayward: On the issue of conflict-plagued countries, what that means is countries in which wars/conflicts are being fought. So Japan cannot export to Egypt or Isreal for example, nor Iraq. US may be engaged in hostilities, but the country itself is not a battleground, which is why Japan can export to it. It's a legal loophole that I expect many countries also exploit. As for your comments about the Drone strikes, I can only speculate as to why they are necessary, but either way, I have no real opinion on the matter.

This is a good move for Japan. Their military tech is something to be marvelled at. Having them working jointly with Britain will be beneficial for both countries, and will likely form closer ties between the two (as a British resident and a fan of Japan, this is something I like the sound of), at least on an economic and defence level. Having them finally start exporting hardware will also likely boost their economy, and the recipients can almost certainly benefit greatly from the tech. I see no downside here, other than that the anti-military and anti-Japan crowds will flock to sites like this one to protest profusely.

Fox Sora Winters: Thank you for your reply and thank you for clarification, "conflict-plagued" countries. I'm glad you recognize the often exploited legal loophole being used here. As for drone assassinations in countries we are NOT at war with, it's my opinion that for every innocent human being that becomes collateral damage, we create ten fold, more extremist. As for the legality and moral issues, it's my view that in history, these practices will be proven illegal and morally indefensible. While I agree that selling technology to other countries can help the economy I don't feel promoting military industrial complex is the best way. You know, just similar to promoting gambling as a savor for the economy, it didn't work. Typically, the only real financial gains from the military industrial complex, are for only those who are a part of it.

timtak

I used to work for a British missile developer. They were as advanced as British television sets, and the only reason why the company could make a buck is because the Japanese, under their old constitution, did not compete. Mitsubishi missiles will kill lots more people more accurately, cheaply and with a much smaller form factor.

So did I timtak. Our missiles were at the forefront of technology: high-speed, unjammable. Some sold well, others not. Mitsubishi's technology is no guarantee of making a 'killing' in the arms market. The price has to be right, and the limited sales Japanese companies make in the home market drive prices up. Working with the UK will hopefully remedy that, but this is a paring of equals.

I think anything to do with missiles, especially surface-to-air missiles, should be reconsidered in light of the recent tragedy.

There certainly be a discussion of a certain government's support for Ukrainian Seperarists, but as for the missiles themselves, they are necessary for some countries to have. Japan, facing the threat from NK is one such country.

Star-viking, are you implying that you know the Ukranian seperitsts are responsible for the downed airliner? NK has been a threat for quite sometime, do you have evidence stating we are under an eminate threat of attack now? Japan has had an amazing span of peace, a military arms race will only threaten that record.

It certainly looks that way Stuart: rebels crow about liberating a Buk SAM launcher, claim another Ukranian transport shot down, then see it's a civilian airliner and shut up and begin deleting tweets.

As for Japan's threats - we need to not only guard against agression, but deter it. Having advanced SAMs is necessary when you have agressive neighbours with balistic missiles. We could dump them, and develop our own balistic missiles, but personally I think shooting down an incoming balistic missile is preferable to just lobbing one back.

Also, defensive systems do not usually trigger arms races.

StarViking: Today the US is directly pointing their finger at the seperitsts, yesterday seemed a bit early for you to be so sure. As for defending ones self, IF attacked, I have no problem with that. Nor do I have a problem with TRUELY defensive weapons, like the original Patriot missile but the new upgrade is now designed to attack. Lastly, you say defensive systems do not usually trigger arms races. Agreed, but advanced offensive technology in Tanks, subs and missiles are just the beginning of so called "defensive weapons"

Stuart,

I have a little bit of experience in that area, you are free to think that my conclusions were premature though. I am unsure as to what new Patriot upgrade you are referring to with 'attack' capability.

Tanks and subs were originally designed for attack, though depending on the circumstances thay can be used for defence. Missiles' designations as for attack or defence depends on what they are designed to do: cruise missiles and ballistic missiles are definitely on the attack side of things.