Posted on 01/03/2011 10:15:57 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Japan-U.S. missile project canceled
BY KUNIICHI TANIDA SENIOR STAFF WRITER
A joint U.S.-Japan research program to develop software for a ship-borne ballistic missile defense system has collapsed after the two sides failed to agree on conditions for exporting the technology, sources said.
Tokyo's insistence that the United States obtain prior consent from the Japanese government before selling the software to a third country caused the breakdown, the sources said. The United States has decided to continue with the project alone.
The software on which the two countries were working is meant to improve the ship-board Aegis guided missile system, which is supposed to intercept ballistic missiles, by improving onboard computer displays and providing a backup system in case of system failure.
It was being developed jointly by the governments and private sectors of the two countries under the Ballistic Missile Defense Open Architecture Research (BMDOAR) program.
While cooperation on the system was just the second in a series of planned joint ballistic missile defense projects between the two countries, its collapse could have implications for other programs.
In negotiations over the joint development of a new surface-to-air intercept missile, known as the SM-3 Block 2A, which was started before the software development project, the Japanese government has also insisted that it must consent to exports to third countries.
Japan-U.S. cooperation on the ballistic missile defense project began in 2004 under the administration of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.
Joint research has been ongoing from 2006 through 2009, and actual development was supposed to start in fiscal 2010 and last about six years. Total costs were scheduled to reach 9.2 billion yen ($113.3 million), with 1.6 billion yen in outlays for fiscal 2010.
According to multiple Japanese Defense Ministry sources, negotiations started last spring. Talks fell through last autumn after the two sides failed to narrow differences over Japan's insistence on prior consent.
Then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda issued a statement in 2004 which stated that if Japan engaged "in joint development and production of ballistic missile defense systems with the United States ... the Three Principles (on Arms Exports) will not be applied, under the condition that strict control is maintained."
The three principles are that exports will not be permitted to: communist-bloc countries, countries subject to arms export embargoes by the United Nations Security Council, and countries involved in or likely to be involved in international conflicts.
Fukuda's statement, issued upon signing of a memorandum of understanding by the two sides, loosened those principles. However, in line with Fukuda's insistence on "strict control," the memorandum of understanding included a clause which prohibited the use of jointly developed systems for purposes other than those initially intended or the transfer of the systems to third countries without prior consent from the Japanese government.
Under the agreement, the Japanese foreign minister and U.S. ambassador to Japan would have to sign official documents prior to the actual export of a specific item. The Japanese side would have to gain Cabinet approval for suspending the three principles.
The U.S. side subsequently asked through various channels for the procedures to be revised.
In October 2009, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates informally asked Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa to revise the three principles to allow the export of newly developed missiles to Europe.
The United States, which had announced in September 2009 that it would deploy the ballistic missile defense system in Europe, has been signaling its intention to sell the systems, including those developed under BMDOAR, to Europe and others.
A senior Japanese Defense Ministry official said it was likely that the United States "did not want to be bound by complicated procedures brought about by the terms of prior consent set by Japan."
"While we cannot disclose details on negotiations, there were several reasons for the failure. In the end, we have to say we lacked tenacity," said another senior official in charge of the technical aspects of the project.
Hmmph. They look like fountain pens!
I’m not sure about that illustrator. When I was in that booster first stage had fins on it. At least the birds that the gunners mates kept sliding in and out on the rails certainly did.
Block IIA “advanced Discrimination Seeker”
My, Jesse Jackson has gotten rather thin....and pale
lol
Well, that’s interesting. Uncle Sugar would insist (and does) on the same agreement and consent when e situation is reversed. It’s as if they were just looking for an excuse to scuttle the deal...which wouldn’t surprise me. Missile defense is not exactly a welcome and booming business in the US these days...
Rhetorical Question: Who might the US wish to sell the Block IIA System that Japan might object to? I mean Bill Clinton left office over 10 years ago.
Israelis or Saudis, most likely.
Rails? I assume you were in quite a long time ago; the VLS Standards don't have fins on the boosters because the boosters are thrust-vectoring.
OK. And Japan would object to Israel or Saudi Arabia as potential customers?
The only one that I could come up with was (maybe) South Korea or Taiwan, figuring that even Obama would attempt a sale to the PRC (China). Maybe Indonesia or India might present problems. But I’m guessing that India would develop their own system.
Still China or, with Obama in charge, maybe North Korea.
Japan was right to insist on joint and mutual approval of military technology produced by a joint and mutual project; and as things are going now they have a right to be concerned about export of American technology, as they watch General Electric entering a joint venture to develop next generation jet engines WITH CHINA.
I don’t think the issue is of specific customers at the moment. Japan still has an effective ban on sale of military technology to pretty much everyone (except the US).
Yep...note from the article that one of their three principles is not to export to countries in a potential conflict; obviously, Israel is always in a potential conflict, and the Saudis want BMD against Iran.
They don't want to see any defense items they have any involvement with, actually used.
What are DAC’s and TDAC’s?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.