(My recent story for JDW) Lockheed Martin F-35A wins Japan's F-X competition

Lockheed Martin F-35A wins Japan's F-X competition

Kosuke Takahashi JDW Correspondent
   Tokyo

Gareth Jennings Jane's Aviation Desk Editor
   London

Japan has officially selected the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) as its next-generation mainstay fighter aircraft.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) aims to deploy four F-35s by Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16), with plans to eventually acquire 42 aircraft, officials said. The total cost over 20 years, including purchasing, maintenance and repairs, is estimated at JPY1.6 trillion (USD20.5 billion), making it Japan's most expensive fighter procurement and one of the largest military contracts of 2011.

"We have focused most on performance criteria," Defence Minister Yasuo Ichikawa told reporters in Tokyo after a Security Council meeting chaired by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda.

"The security environment surrounding fighter aircraft is transforming. We wanted to choose an aircraft that is able to respond to these changes," Ichikawa said about the decision, which was confirmed on 20 December.

The F-35 overcame competition from the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block II and the Eurofighter Typhoon after scoring highest according to four criteria: the performance of the aircraft and its weapons, price, local industrial participation, plus repairs and after-sales maintenance. The MoD's definition of performance criteria included stealth capability, kinematic performance and information-processing capabilities.

The MoD added that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, IHI Corporation and Mitsubishi Electric would manufacture about 40 per cent of the F-35, with involvement in about 300 components.

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries will manufacture parts of the airframe, IHI will assemble the engine and Mitsubishi Electric is engaged in electronics, the MoD said, adding that the US government and Lockheed Martin had also agreed to allow the three companies to manufacture and complete final assembly and checkout of the main wing, tail surface and aft fuselage.

Tokyo's desire for a stealth fighter is well known. It spent years lobbying - unsuccessfully - for the US to sell it the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air-superiority fighter. The importance of stealth to Japan has been thrown into sharp focus by China and Russia's development of the Chengdu J-20 and Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA prototypes respectively.

The potential threat from these platforms was rammed home by MoD figures published in October showing that Japan Air Self-Defence Force (JASDF) intercepts of Chinese military aircraft entering national airspace had more than tripled to 83 from April to September. Japan also scrambled fighters 106 times against Russia - 43 times fewer than the same period in 2010 but still the most by nationality.

Lockheed Martin argues that the F-35 is the best platform to counter the emerging threat from Japan's much-larger neighbours.

"The F-35 has exceptional air-to-air capabilities based on its stealth, full-fighter aerodynamic performance, advanced sensors, sensor fusion and advanced datalinks," Lockheed Martin spokesman John Giese told Jane's . "US government analytical models show that, when flying against an advanced-threat aircraft, the F-35 is six times better than fourth-generation F-16, F/A-18 and Eurofighter aircraft."

Giese said that in terms of its modelled loss exchange ratio (LER), which measures effectiveness by dividing the number of enemy aircraft destroyed by the number of friendly aircraft destroyed, "the F-35 is six times better than fourth-generation aircraft."

Military analyst Toshiyuki Shikata told Jane's that, regardless of performance, the MoD had to choose a US platform. "Japan had no choice but to buy US aircraft if you consider the importance of interoperability with US military equipment and systems. This excludes the Eurofighter, while the stealth capabilities of the Super Hornet are weaker than those of the F-35."

ANALYSIS

Japan's decision to buy the F-35 comes as something of a surprise to many as, of all the contenders, it seems the most unlikely fit for the country's performance or timetable requirements. With the Japanese looking to procure an air-superiority fighter to replace its ageing Mitsubishi/McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ Phantom IIs, many have suggested that the emphasis on interdiction and strike in the F-35's design may adversely affect its air-to-air capability. Whereas the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Eurofighter Typhoon were both developed to be fighters first and bombers second (particularly so with the Typhoon), the opposite is true for the F-35. It has been proven in the past that, while it is possible to make a bomber out of a fighter (the F-4 Phantom, F-15 Eagle and F/A-18 Hornet being prime examples), the opposite does not hold true (the fighter variant of the Panavia Tornado did not acquit itself in the same manner as did the original strike variant). For its part, Lockheed Martin dismisses such concerns, telling Jane's that the F-35 "was designed and built to counter the most advanced airborne and ground-based threats - exactly the air-defence environment that Japan faces today and in the future. The F-35 has exceptional air-to-air capabilities based on its stealth, full-fighter aerodynamic performance, advanced sensors, sensor fusion and advanced datalinks". This may be true, but all of the attributes listed above, with the exception of "full-fighter aerodynamic performance", are primarily of importance in the beyond-visual-range (BVR) environment. This BVR environment is not normally encountered outside a full-scale war as pilots are usually required to visually identify potential targets before engaging them. While Lockheed Martin talks up the aircraft's aerodynamic performance, it has been noted that the F-35's relatively small wing area will translate into high wing loadings during a turning dogfight. Such loadings are not good in an air-to-air combat scenario as they severely limit manoeuvrability. As such, questions have been raised over the F-35's ability to match the manoeuvrability of Chinese types such as the J-10 and J-11 during close-in aerial combat. As for the programme's schedule, Japan has said it wants to field the winning fighter by Fiscal Year 2016 (calendar year 2016/17). Lockheed Martin is confident it can meet this deadline, but it has to be noted that the F-35's primary customer, the US Air Force, has already said that delays have meant its 2016 initial-operational-capability (IOC) date is no longer viable. So while Lockheed Martin may be able to deliver aircraft by 2016, it is doubtful whether Japan will be able to begin operating them at that point. With these issues in mind, it has to be asked why Japan has opted to procure the yet-to-be-fielded F-35 over its in-service battle-tested competitors. Over recent years Japan has made no secret of its desire to procure the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor but was continually rebuffed by the US government. Of the F-22's many attributes, it was its low observability that made it so alluring to Japan. While both the Typhoon and the Super Hornet do have stealthy characteristics, the F-35 has been largely marketed on the back of its covert capabilities. Japan is currently in the early stages of developing its own indigenous ATD-X stealth fighter, so any expertise that can be gained from industrial participation in F-35 production will certainly be welcome. In all likelihood it is this, coupled with Japan's long-standing political and industrial allegiance to the US, that secured F-X success for the F-35.

Related Articles

·         Update: Japan sees increase in Chinese air incursions, www.jdw.janes.com, 14-10-2011 ·         Update: Japan has opted for F-35 in F-X contest, say media reports, www.jdw.janes.com, 15-12-2011

(My recent story for JDW) Update: Japan presses ahead with ATD-X programme

Update: Japan presses ahead with ATD-X programme

My most recent stories for Jane's Defence Weekly and International Defence Review

Here are my most recent stories for Jane's Defence Weekly and Jane's International Defence Review.

*Japan presses ahead with ATD-X programme
The Japanese Ministry of Defence (MoD) and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries will begin manufacturing the airframe of the Advanced Technology Demonstrator - X (ATD-X) fighter...
11-Nov-2011

Japan's TRDI reveals details of 'Shinshin'
A senior official at Japan's Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI) has briefed Jane's on new details of Mitsubishi's next-generation Advanced Technology Demonstrator-X (ATD-X) ...
11-Nov-2011

I wrote that Japan is eyeing at developing the sixth-generation fighter, called the F-3, as neighbouring China and Russia are accelerating efforts to deploy their own new fifth-generation multi-purpose fighters.

The Japanese Ministry of Defence (MoD) is about to start manufacturing the airframe of the Mitsubishi Advanced Technology Demonstrator – X (ATD-X) fighter known as ‘Shinshin’ “very soon”, Lt. General Hideyuki Yoshioka told me on November 4.

Rethink U.S. military base plans for Japan

This is one option to solve the Futenma problem, which has reached a deadlock. Hope Panetta-san will read this. Cheers, Kosuke

Rethink U.S. military base plans for Japan

Editor's Note: Mike Mochizuki is Associate Dean, Professor, and Sigur Chair at George Washington University specializing in U.S.-Japan relations; Michael O'Hanlon is senior fellow at Brookings and author of The Wounded Giant: America's Armed Forces in an Age of Austerity.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mike Mochizuki and Michael O'Hanlon.

By Mike Mochizuki and Michael O'Hanlon – Special to CNN

On his inaugural trip to Asia as secretary of defense, Leon Panetta offered reassuring words throughout the region that America’s presence in the Western Pacific will not decline as a result of the ongoing military budget reduction process in the United States.

The current U.S. strength of almost 30,000 soldiers in South Korea, closer to 40,000 in Japan, and several thousand more sailors and Marines typically aboard ships patrolling the area’s huge waters will remain as is, according to the Pentagon’s new leader. At a time when “sequestration” threatens to cut up to one trillion dollars from the Pentagon’s previous ten-year spending plan, such words of resolve and continuity are understandable, and mostly right on.

But they are not completely correct. Mr. Panetta should seek to honor their spirit rather than their letter in the crucial months ahead.

Troop numbers should not be confused with capability or commitment. American officials make a mistake by unnecessarily constraining their options when making such statements. Sustaining, and indeed increasing, American capability should be the leitmotif guiding future defense policy decisions. In some cases that may mean more numbers, and in other cases less.

The specific area where current American basing arrangements should in fact be thoroughly revisited is in regards to the presence of nearly 20,000 U.S. Marines on Okinawa. In fact, due to ongoing war efforts in Afghanistan, the actual number of Marines in this Japanese island prefecture has been typically much less than that figure - which American officials should seize on as an opportunity to downsize without in fact downsizing.

Keeping 5,000 to 10,000 Marines on Okinawa while relocating the rest makes the most strategic sense. Right now, Japanese and American officials in Tokyo and Washington agree; and they have a plan to relocate about 8,000 of the Marines to Guam in the coming years. But a better approach would be to bring those Marines home to California where the inevitable downsizing of the broader U.S. Marine Corps will create space for them at existing bases.

American capabilities in East Asia - the crucial matter - can then be sustained (if not actually enhanced) if Japan and the United States purchase extra equipment for those Marines and place it on maritime prepositioning vessels in Japanese waters where it can be quickly put to sea in the event of conflict and sailed to where forces are needed. Equipment could then be quickly unloaded and the Marines in California could fly over to meet needs even faster than they could currently reach regional hotspots in a place like Korea or Southeast Asia.

The Guam relocation plan is a complex relocation of Marine assets. Not only would almost half the Marines move to American territory about 1,000 miles away, but the remaining Okinawa Marines would use a brand new airfield. The existing site at Futenma Marine Air Station in southern Okinawa, which has over the years become even more surrounded by Japanese urban dwellers than has LaGuardia in New York or National Airport in DC, would close and be replaced by V-shaped airfield constructed on the shore of Henoko Bay near Nago City.

There are however two major problems with the existing plan. First, Okinawan politics will not tolerate it. Not only did voters in Nago City elect in January 2010 a mayor who is adamantly against this new airfield, but also every head of Okinawa’s cities, towns and villages are also opposed. Okinawan Governor Hirokazu Nakaima was re-elected in November 2010 on a platform opposing the current relocation plan; and he is almost certain to reject the upcoming application for a landfill, which is necessary to build the new airfield.

If the Japanese government were to force the construction of proposed Henoko facility, this is likely to provoke a physical clash with anti-base activists and erode the willingness of Okinawans to host more important U.S. bases on Okinawa, such as Kadena Air Force Base.

Second, and just as importantly in the era of American budgetary austerity, the Guam/Henoko plan is way too expensive. Lots of costly construction would be needed to make it happen - about $15 billion for each of the two countries. Keeping U.S. forces at existing bases in Japan is in fact a bargain, since Japan pays most of their local costs and since having Navy and Air Force capabilities in particular in forward-deployed locations is a big net positive for the United States.

They can operate in the region from existing facilities on Okinawa and Japan’s main islands, with aircraft within combat radius of North Korea and the Taiwan Straits and ships within a couple days’ sail of each place. But moving Marines to different places in the region costs big money - money that Washington in particular does not now have.

A better policy would bring much if not most of the Marine combat capability back to America, where the added forces could partly counter what appear to be pending cuts of up to 30,000 in total Marine Corps uniformed strength in the years ahead. If Tokyo and Washington shared in the costs, equipment for the relocating Marines and ships to hold it in Japanese ports until needed could be purchased for around $5 billion, far less than the costs of the new construction projects.

The incorrect perception that the United States was weakening its commitment to the Western Pacific with such a move could be countered in several ways. First, more attack submarines could be located on Guam, as could more unmanned aerial vehicles and various other assets. Second, the capabilities of the maritime prepositioned ships could be widely advertised. Third, America’s potential access to Japanese military and civilian facilities on Okinawa and other Japanese prefectures, already legally permitted, could be beefed up with pre-stationing of more supplies and with a gradual hardening of fuel depots and the like in such places. Fourth, U.S. Marine units could fly from California to Japan on a regular basis to participate in exercises - and many of them could be conducted jointly with Japanese Self-Defense Forces. Other steps are surely possible as well.

It is time that Tokyo and Washington break out of the Okinawa Marine Corps policy swamp, where they have been enmeshed and entrapped far too long. And there is a better way that can save each side around $10 billion in the process. That would make for a meaningful dent in the coming budget reduction process, and make for good strategy and good alliance politics as well.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Mike Mochizuki and Michael O'Hanlon.

My latest story for Jane's Defence Weekly

 

Japan, China re-establish military exchanges
  Japan and China have resumed military exchanges after they were suspended for a year over a territorial dispute. Japanese Defence Minister Yasuo Ichikawa met ...
21-Oct-2011

My recent stories for Jane's Defence Weekly

Lockheed Martin emphasises industrial support in Japan F-X bid

Japan agrees to air refuelling of US forces

New Japanese PM appoints Ichikawa as defence minister

Analysts link China's Senkaku intrusions to Japan's political travails

Japanese White Paper denounces 'assertive' China

Cracks may delay deployment of Japan's P-1s

Japanese F-15 crashes in training

(My latest story for Asia Times) Fighters duel for Japan air defense contract

Here is my latest story for Asia Times. I wrote about Japan's multibillion dollar contract on its next fighter jets. If you have time, please go over this. Cheers, Kosuke

Fighters duel for Japan air defense contractBy Kosuke Takahashi

TOKYO - Across the globe, defense industry players, military experts and potential adversaries are eagerly watching Japan's decision on its next mainstay fighter jet.

While Japan is still in the final selection process for a state-of-the-art combat plane for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF), United States defense contractor Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is already seen as a clear front-runner, mainly due to its high-tech stealth capabilities.

Aiming to strengthen its efforts to win the multibillion-dollar contract, Lockheed Martin last week made a strong public appeal in Tokyo, saying it would license Japanese companies to perform engine assembly and manufacture major components if the F-35 were to be selected.

The F-35 has been developed jointly by nine nations: the US, Britain, the Netherlands, Italy, Canada, Norway, Denmark, Australia and Turkey. Potential buyers of this stealth fighter currently include Israel, Singapore, Japan and South Korea.

"We received US government approval to offer Japan, the first country outside the partnership, a very robust industrial opportunity," John Balderston, the director for Lockheed's Japan F-35 Campaign, told reporters on October 6 in a Tokyo hotel where the company was displaying a one-seater flight simulator of the warplane for media.

Asked about what the company could offer Japanese firms, Balderston said, "Final assembly and checkout of the airplane, manufacture of major components, engine assembly, integration and test, depot-level sustain, modification, repair and overhaul, and upgrade capabilities."

Japan has been worried that delays in the F-35's development would jeopardize its planned 2016 introduction. But company officials were upbeat. "We are confident that we will meet Japan's requirements, including delivery," Lockheed's Balderston said.

Tokyo could get the F-35 fighter jets at an average cost of US$65 million each, he added.

Japan's delayed F-X procurement
Japan's Ministry of Defense (MoD) aims to procure its first jet as early as fiscal year 2016, with plans to acquire a total of 40-50 aircraft at a cost of around US$4 billion.

It will choose the next mainstay fighter jet for the JASDF by the end of next month. This procurement will replace JASDF's aging fleet of 67 Mitsubishi/McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ fighters, which entered service in the early 1970s during the Vietnam War and are scheduled to be retired from 2013.

The MoD originally scheduled replacement of its F-4 fleet for fiscal year 2009. Tokyo had long made clear its preference for Lockheed's F-22 Raptor.

But the October 2009 decision by US President Barack Obama to halt F-22 production due to budgetary constraints officially ended any Japanese hopes of obtaining the aircraft, which while costly is seen as the world's most advanced air-superiority fighter.

Critics say the MoD's obsession with the F-22 caused years of delay in the next-generation fighter program, called the F-X in Japan.

The MoD will buy 12 fighters in the next five years, according to the new mid-term defense program for fiscal 2011-2015. The MoD on September 30 requested 55.1 billion yen (US$718 million) in fiscal 2012 budget appropriations to acquire four new fighter jets to replace the F-4.

Four selection criteria
Lockheed, Boeing and BAE Systems have met a September 26 deadline to submit bids for Japan's F-X fighter competition.

BAE Systems is leading the Typhoon bid for the Eurofighter consortium, with support from the British government and Japan's Sumitomo Corporation, while Boeing is offering its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block II in conjunction with the US Navy.

The MoD has identified four selection criteria: the performance of the aircraft and its weapons, maintenance costs, level of participation of domestic firms and after-sales support. Regarding performance criteria, the MoD is focusing on stealth, kinematic performance and information-processing capabilities.

On October 5, Japanese Defense Minister Yasuo Ichikawa stressed the need to protect the domestic fighter-jet-related industry.

All three bidders have pledged to allow fighters to be built under license in Japan. The question is how much production they will allow. Boeing says 70-80% could be done in Japan.

The JASDF has 202 Mitsubishi-Boeing F-15Js, 93 Mitsubishi F-2s and 67 Mitsubishi-McDonnell Douglas F-4EJ Kai Phantoms, according to the MoD's 2011 White Paper.

Aside from domestic production, other factors loom large. Firstly, the March 11 tsunami damaged 18 F-2s at the JASDF Matsushima Air Base in Miyagi prefecture, forcing the MoD to scrap 12 of them. The F-2 cost about 12 billion yen, or US$156 million, per unit.

While the F-4s have been in service since the early 1970s, the F-15Js have been a part of the fleet since the early 1980s, making both difficult and expensive for the JASDF to maintain.

In addition, on September 27, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd handed over its last F-2 fighter to the MoD at the Komaki Minami plant in Aichi prefecture, ending more than five decades of fighter-jet production since 1956. The Japanese media reported about two dozen parts suppliers and manufacturers had exited from the fighter-jet market.

As if to illustrate Japan's strains in air defense, a F-15J Eagle based at Naha Air Base in Okinawa prefecture crashed in the East China Sea on July 5 during combat training. More recently, an F-15 fighter lost an empty auxiliary fuel tank and part of a mock missile on October 7 during a training flight over Ishikawa prefecture.

Russia and China appear to have exploited the weaknesses in Japan's air defense. The number of scrambles the JASDF had to launch increased dramatically in recent years to intercept intruders, as Russian and Chinese military aircraft toyed with Japanese airspace. Japan scrambled fighters 386 times in fiscal year 2010, the highest number since 1991.

Russia is jointly developing a fifth-generation fighter T-50 (PAK FA) with India, while China is developing its own new fifth-generation multi-purpose fighter, the J-20. For Japan, the threat from the air is increasing.

Japan has never procured European fighters. More than a few experts have pointed out the Eurofighter may lack full interoperability with US military equipment, which Japan relies on. However, British ambassador David Warren has stressed that this is not the case.

Maintenance and repair is another worry for the Eurofighter since Japan is accustomed to US equipment.

As for Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, it is little more than the F-2, or Japan's most advanced 4th-generation multirole fighter based on the F-16. The stealth capabilities of the Eurofighter and Super Hornet are weaker than the F-35.

"Considering all the various factors together such as the state of the domestic fighter-jet-related defense industry, the interoperability with US equipment and China's air capabilities, which Japan needs to be most aware of, the F-35 is the most likely winner," said Hideshi Takesada, a professor at Yonsei University of South Korea.

Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based Japanese journalist. His twitter is @TakahashiKosuke

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Japan's largest mega-solar debuted in the heart of the Tokyo metropolitan area

I visited Japan's largest mega-solar power plant in Kawasaki City, adjoining Tokyo. 

 I also visited the first urban-type biomass power plant in Japan.

(My latest stories for Jane's Defence Weekly)

Briefing: Big birds

Japanese F-15 crashes in training

Japan, US delay Futenma move, choose new site for 7th Fleet landing training

Here are more photos of my favorite Kawasaki XC-2 aircraft.
Photo Credit: Technical Research and Development Institute, Ministry of Defense, Japan

(My latest story for Asia Times) Japan-South Korea ties hit turbulence

Japan-South Korea ties hit turbulence
Japan has banned diplomats from using South Korea's Korean Air after the airline directed the maiden flight of an Airbus A380 service over disputed islands called Takeshima by Japanese and Dokdo by Koreans. The flare-up of the long-simmering East Asian island feud impacts on the nations' united front against North Korea's military ambitions and benefits China's muscle-flexing in the Pacific. - Kosuke Takahashi (Jul 15, '11)

Japan-South Korea ties hit turbulence
By Kosuke Takahashi

TOKYO - The flaring up of a long-simmering territorial dispute between Japan and South Korea over a group of small rocky islets threatens to roll back recent rapprochement between the neighbors seen in economic deals and cross-cultural exchanges.

The Japanese Foreign Ministry on July 11 instructed ministry officials to boycott Korean Air flights for one month in protest at the airline's demonstration flight last month above disputed islets called Takeshima by Japanese and Dokdo by Koreans that are located in the Sea of Japan (known in Korea as the East Sea).

The controversy could damage a culture boom in Tokyo called the Han-Ryu (Korean wave). Young Korean idol groups such as Girls' Generation and KARA are very popular in Japan. More importantly it could cause a significant geopolitical split.

The united front Tokyo and Seoul present against North Korea's nuclear and missile ambitions could be impacted, with China muscle-flexing in both the East China Sea and the South China Sea also benefiting from the East Asian feud.

This was Japan's first-ever step against a private airline in connection with the territorial dispute. The islets are claimed by both Japan and South Korea, but have been occupied by South Korea since 1954.

Korean Air was testing its new Airbus A380 - the world's largest passenger plane - and entered airspace above the contested islets on June 16, or a day before it went into service between Seoul Incheon International Airport and Tokyo Narita International Airport. The jet carried executives of the airline as well as South Korean and foreign reporters and photographers such as Reuters.

On Thursday, Japan's State Foreign Secretary Chiaki Takahashi said at a press conference that the ministry would not invite Korean Air officials to events it will host. He described the June 16 test flight as "a violation of Japan's airspace".

Ukeru Magosaki, the former chief of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's international intelligence bureau, criticized the ministry's sanctions against Korean Air.

"The boycott makes it more difficult to solve the territorial dispute," Magosaki, the former diplomat told Asia Times Online on Friday. "For the ministry, reducing tensions is more important than any other. The ministry is, in an opposite manner, escalating the problem."

The Asahi Shimbun, which first reported this issue on Wednesday, said Japan's conservative opposition had pressured the ministry to take further action, resulting in the move to boycott the airline.

This ministry has confirmed the boycott does not violate the Agreement on Government Procurement of the World Trade Organization, commonly known as the GPA, focusing on the subject of government procurement.

The gesture is purely symbolic, as Japanese diplomats use domestic airlines such as All Nippon Airways and Japan Airlines.

South Korea's reaction
As expected, the harshest reaction has come from the South Korean government.

"The Japanese measure, regarded as a sort of sanction against a private company, can hardly be understood," Foreign Ministry spokesman Cho Byung Jae on Thursday told reporters, demanding an immediate withdrawal of the Japanese foreign ministry's measure.

Cho said the South Korean government will take "stern" measures regarding the issue, but did not specify what measures it would take. "We will watch what measures Japan will take," the spokesman said.

Seoul also sent a message of protest against the measure on Tuesday to Kanehara Nobukatsu, minister for general affairs at the Japanese Embassy in Seoul and urged its cancelation.

The prelude of the recent flare-up first occurred in March when Seoul strongly protested against Tokyo's approval of history textbooks containing territorial claims to South Korean-controlled islets.

Then, in early April, South Korea's Yonhap News Agency reported construction work on a 2,700-square-meter maritime science facility on the disputed islets was expected to start later that month and set to be complete by December next year. Tokyo on April 5 lodged a protest with South Korea over Seoul's plans to build the facility.

More than 10 South Korean lawmakers, including several ministers, have visited the disputed territories since April.

Furthermore, three South Korean lawmakers on May 24 visited Kunashiri island, one of four islands off the coast of Hokkaido controlled by Russia but claimed by Japan - to the fury of Tokyo. It was the first time members of the South Korean National Assembly had set foot on the islands, which are known as the Northern Territories, called the Southern Kurils by Russians.

Given the saga that erupted from Japan's arrest of a Chinese fishing captain last year, Tokyo's reaction to the Korean Air flight may reflect internal wrangling over foreign policy. South Korean politicians also cannot make major concessions to Japan ahead of upcoming key elections in 2012 for parliament and the presidency.

Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based Japanese journalist. His twitter is @TakahashiKosuke

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

(Jane's Defence Weekly) North Korea could be preparing the site for a third nuclear test

ASIA PACIFIC


Date Posted: 23-Jun-2011

Jane's Defence Weekly
________________________________________

Satellite images show continued activity at North Korea's nuclear test site

Allison Puccioni Jane's Image Analyst

California

James Hardy JDW Asia-Pacific Editor

London

Key Points

• Images taken of North Korea's nuclear test site on 10 June 2011 show significant excavation since October 2010

• The images suggest that North Korea could be preparing the site for a third nuclear test following similar tests in 2006 and 2009

Satellite images provided by GeoEye show continued activity at the site of North Korea's 2006 and 2009 underground nuclear tests.

A comparison of 10 June 2011 images with those taken by DigitalGlobe on 16 October 2010 shows significantly more excavation at two sites: one just south of the test site operations base and one about 900 m east of the main base. The latter site also has three new buildings.

The 10 June GeoEye image shows 25-30 per cent more excavation extending far closer to the adjacent road. This may suggest that a tunnel is being excavated in preparation for a nuclear test.

North Korea tested nuclear devices in 2006 and 2009 in tunnels at the site, which is on the slopes of Mount Mantap-san about 42 km northwest of Kilchu, North Hamgyong province. Ahead of the 2006 test, it was reported that the North Koreans had excavated a 700 m-long horizontal tunnel under Mantap-san.

ANALYSIS

Jane's analysis of the site comes after diplomatic sources reported rumours of nuclear weapon-related activity in the past three months. Jane's reported on 10 June that satellite imagery showed no activity at two known missile test sites in North Korea; the imagery of the Kilchu site illustrates that, if there is activity, it is taking place at the nuclear test site.

Scott Snyder, director of the Center for US-Korea Policy in Washington, DC, said it was unclear what Pyongyang would gain from holding a test now.

"A new nuclear test would result in a drive to ratchet up UN sanctions and would test China's strategic commitment to North Korea," Snyder said.

"Given the poor prospects for inter-Korean relations for the foreseeable future, it is possible that the North Koreans might see heightened tensions as a vehicle for getting around South Korea and drawing new attention from the US, but this sort of strategy has proven increasingly ineffective in drawing the sort of attention that North Korea wants."

A diplomatic source told Jane's that recent weeks had seen no major changes in North Korean rhetoric, most of which referred to retaliation for propaganda balloon releases into the North by South Korean political groups and demands for the return of nine North Korean refugees who sailed into South Korean waters in mid-June.

(My latest story) Asia Times Online : Mage Island another tinderbox for Japan

Asia Times Online :: Mage Island another tinderbox for Japan

A Japanese-United States plan to use a small island in Kagoshima prefecture for carrier-borne landing practice suggests the allies have learnt little from the US presence on Okinawa. While entrenched local opposition to the militarization of Mage Island is mobilizing in earnest, there are good military reasons - such as the island's vulnerability - to find a better realignment strategy for US forces. - Kosuke Takahashi (Jun 24, '11)

Mage Island another tinderbox for Japan

By Kosuke Takahashi

TOKYO - Across the globe, bureaucrats tend to make up fascinating armchair plans. But without regard to local input, that's just a castle in the air - however ingeniously conceived. Without regard for the environment or consideration of local people, no mere desk plan will do.

A very good example is the long-standing controversial relocation issue of the United States Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) at Futenma in Okinawa prefecture in Japan's south.

But now, foreign and defense policymakers of the US and Japan are about to repeat the same failure, as they have caused another friction with local governments over a small island of western Japan called Mage Island.

Although it's hard to spot in news headlines, the US and Japan on June 21 for the first time named Mage Island - or an uninhabited island in Nishinoomote City of Kagoshima prefecture - as the candidate site for US carrier-borne aircraft landing drills.

The joint statement, issued by four foreign and defense ministers of the US and Japan after the so-called two-plus-two security meeting in Washington, for the first time specifically mentioned the name of Mage Island for the "use by US forces as a permanent field carrier landing practice site".

Yet another Futenma?
"Mage Island could be yet another Futenma," Japanese military analyst Toshiyuki Shikata told Asia Times Online. "The government, led by the ruling Democratic Party of Japan, has made no serious efforts to convince local people of the plan. They ignored democratic process."

Mage Island covers about 800 hectares and is located around 12 kilometers west of Tanegashima between Kyushu and Okinawa. It was picked as the permanent site for the so-called Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) of the US Navy's Carrier Air Wing 5 (CVW-5) based at Naval Air Facility Atsugi of Kanagawa prefecture, southwest of Tokyo, or the largest US Naval Air Facility in the Pacific. Most of the island is privately owned by a land developer headquartered in Tokyo. Permission from this company is required to land on the island as a general rule.

Under the 2006 bilateral road map agreement on the realignment of US forces in Japan, CVW-5 squadrons, together with their 59 US carrier-borne jet fighters such as the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, are set to be transferred from the Atsugi naval base to the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi prefecture.

The two nations plan to replace Iwo Island, under the jurisdiction of Tokyo, where the FCLP by CVW-5 is provisionally conducted, with Mage Island. The 2006 bilateral realignment road map said that a permanent location would be picked by 2009 - a delay that Japanese officials can catch a lot of heat for, as they face strong pressure from the US.

Mage Island is only about 400 kilometers from MCAS Iwakuni, while Iwo Island is around 1,200 kilometers away from the Atsugi naval base, thus making flight drills on Mage Island more convenient for the US Navy.

Local opposition
Just as Okinawans have opposed the relocation of the Futenma base to a new helicopter base scheduled for construction off the shores of the beautiful Henoko bay, local officials and residents in Nishinoomote City are beginning to protest the plan to transfer the drills to Mage Island in earnest.

Chikara Nagano, mayor of Nishinoomote City, has said, "We harbor strong resentment against the government's high-handed tactics ignoring local communities' will, and we will never permit it."

Kagoshima governor Yuichiro Ito also voiced his opposition, by saying "it's needed to protest against the plan, together with local people".

Eleven groups such as civic, tourist and medical associations in Nishinoomote City on June 22 jointly issued a letter of protest, under which they pledged to remain adamantly against the plan.

Under the plan, the Japanese Ministry of Defense plans to build a Self-Defense Forces (SDF) facility on Mage Island and conduct the landing practice as part of its efforts to boost security around the Nansei Islands in Okinawa prefecture, and in the East China Sea near China and Taiwan, a move that is apparently aimed at countering China's growing naval power.

In the meantime, the US also plans to conduct the field carrier landing practice there.

Talk of Mage Island as a candidate site for the envisaged flight drill facility arose in 2007 under the administration of the Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner the New Komeito party.

But it disappeared soon due to strong local opposition from the Nishinoomote and nearby municipalities. Then, in December 2009 under the former Yukio Hatoyama administration, the island was even considered as a candidate for the Futenma transfer. But again this idea was scrapped because of strong local protest.

Japanese military analyst Shikata said it is militarily nonsense to build the drill site on an uninhabited island such as Mage Island.

"Small islands are vulnerable to external attacks," Shikata said. "Terrorists can easily attack them. Moreover, the US needs the SDF troops for their own safety, just as the US forces in Okinawa are protected by the SDF troops there. You cannot easily build the drill site for the US in such an uninhabited island without SDF personnel."

Kosuke Takahashi is a Tokyo-based Japanese journalist. His twitter is @TakahashiKosuke

(Copyright 2011 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)