everyone in the consortium paid development funds to get into the program depending on what tier level parner they were.

everyone who has queued up as observers and wants to get technical access and stay in the queue also pays an entrants fee for access to less privileged material - Japan, like Israel and Singapore as non consortium members will pay for the queue and first rights to get into the queue.  when they commit to a train of action, the the access level and privilege will go up.  Otherwise we witness what the Indians are doing which is to run as sweeping a procurement requirement as possible in the hope that they can get performance nuggets of info about all capabilities in their region (its transparently so, but everyone is too polite diplomatically to say it outright)

everyone who's paid up isn't trotting off to buy any other asset.  everyone who is non consortia and wants to queue will exercise their procurement choice (as do the consortia members) as they see fit.

there are no bears hiding in the cupboard.  every one knows what the deal is.

Sunday, Oct. 4, 2009

Kyodo News

all of the consortia have provided money and development into the platform.  the manuf cannot provide details on some developments that have been made by partner nations.

eg australia is not going to provide non partner nations with material science research, thermal mgt breakthroughs, connectivity breakthroughs to anyone wanting to view capability.  the manuf doesn't have the IP rights to do so.  Similarly its why UK has veto rights.  The same tech sharing issues apply to countries like denmark and UK.

the author seems oblivious to this and either has misrepresented the situation - or you have done your usual and made things up to promote your view of the world again.

considering that the author makes the approp punch line in the first half, then I suspect that its the latter happening here.

japan, (israel and sth korea for that matter), are not "special" they have to play by the same rules as the singaporeans.

again, you trot out rubbish about the JSF prog which points to your lack of awareness.  Your continuing sophistry barely veiled as inciteful commentary has the usual holes in it.

It's somewhat petty, yes.  However, I think the JASDF would be better off with the Typhoon anyway.  Their F-4s are approaching the ancient stage, and the F-35 won't be ready until 2014 for them.  (They will have to buy F-35s sooner or later, for service off their light carriers.) 

 

Is this the US government pushing this or is it LockMart?  If it's the latter, they're making a marketing mistake, but it won't hurt them.  The F-35's already going to do great.  If it's the government, I suspect one or all of the following:

 

1) Hatoyama has been a royal prick towards the US since taking office.  This might be known as "payback."  I know if I was the President or the SecDef, and someone starts bitching and griping about how rotten we are, I might be tempted to give him a large middle finger when his people start asking for tech.  Is it good politics? No.  Is it worse diplomacy? Yep.  But I have to admit I'd be at least tempted to tell Hatoyama, "You don't like it? Guess you shouldn't have said all those things about us, huh?"

 

2) This is typical ineptitude from Gates' office, who has shown a remarkable propensity for screwing everything up.

Well, Japan is not looking to become a JSF partner, doing so is prohibited under Japan's peace constitution. Japan's making the inquiry as a prospective customer, and then was told that they must pay $10 million to even see the "real" spec, excluding stealth capability. This is not a nice way to treat your "customer". Compare US DoD's actions to BAE's, which is bending over to accomodate every Japanese request regarding Typhoon sales.

and for goodness sake, what ferking bit do you not comprehend about JSF, everyone is paying into it for development issues, thats why there is so much foreign IP because well benefit.

you're nothing but a liar and a troll - and you repeatedly make claims about things that you are obviously unfamiliar with.  look at the damn consortium conditions and how we all pariticpate.

and for ferks sake, UK is the only Tier 1 partner  - thats why as a senior partner she gets greater access into development of the platform,.

stop making things up - its tiresome

Hatoyama just calling it as it is

By HIROAKI SATO

NEW YORK — I was startled to receive a letter from a friend in Tokyo earlier this month accompanied by a Sankei Shimbun article by Yukio Okamoto sharply upbraiding Yukio Hatoyama.

The then next prime minister's sin was to let The New York Times carry his article that "astonished the world." According to Okamoto, Hatoyama must be faulted, among other things, for:

? Arguing that since the Cold War, U.S.-led market fundamentalism has buffeted Japan. As a result, human dignity has been lost.

? Holding that globalization has damaged Japan's traditional economic activities and destroyed its local communities.

? Making "radical" comments about national security. Even as Hatoyama repeatedly criticizes the United States, he seems to reject the foundation on which Japan has lived all these years.

As soon as Hatoyama's article came out, an American "shikisha" (knowledgeable person) told Okamoto: "Hatoyama is no different from (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez. Rabid Anti-Americanist." The term shikisha is amorphous. Did Okamoto mean a friend of his who knows a few things? An official at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo? A fellow at a conservative American think tank?

As a "commentator on foreign affairs," Okamoto wondered, "Why did no one check this English version that hurts Hatoyama-san?"

What did Okamoto mean by that? That Hatoyama should have proscribed the publication? Or that Hatoyama should have proofread the English translation? Either is unlikely, though Hatoyama has a Ph.D. from Stanford. But one can still ask: Is the New York Times version, "A New Path for Japan" (Aug. 26), accurate?

I have looked at the original and say, yes, it is. It is a condensed version of slightly rearranged excerpts from the original. Dropped was much of Hatoyama's "political philosophy" that lies behind the explanation of policies he hopes to pursue. (The original is posted on Hatoyama's homepage along with full English and Korean translations. The Japan Times printed the English version Sept. 9 under the title "In Hatoyama's 'fraternity,' people the end, not means.")

By "check," then, Okamoto meant, perhaps without meaning it, that Hatoyama should not have allowed what he wrote in Japanese to appear in English. Hatoyama, in other words, should have practiced the old-fashioned uchi-soto or diplomatic duplicity.

Is Hatoyama all wrong in his core assessments and suggestions for policy change?

"The recent economic crisis resulted from a way of thinking based on the idea that American-style, free-market economics represents a universal and ideal economic order," Hatoyama writes, "and that all countries should modify the traditions and regulations governing their economies in line with global (or rather American) standards."

This is fact. To dismiss it, as Okamoto does, by saying that it is "close to the argument of European and American NGOs that repeatedly try to block G8 summits," is to dismiss Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Samuelson, Paul Krugman, Alan Blinder, and other U.S. economists. They are all free-trade advocates, but they have recently pointed to the distortions created by the U.S.-style, free-market theology.

Still, Hatoyama's argument, even in its abbreviated form, is as nuanced as those of these economic thinkers.

Hatoyama's reasons for reassessing Japan's position in the shifting global power relations also strike me as legitimate. "How should Japan maintain its political and economic independence and protect its national interest," he asks, "when caught between the United States, which is fighting to retain its position as the world's dominant power, and China, which is seeking ways to become dominant?"

If this is not common-sensical wonderment among those who think about such matters, I don't know what is.

Somehow, though, Okamoto went ballistic on this. The only alternative to the status quo is for Japan to achieve "dokuryoku boei" (national defense on its own), he asserts. That would mean increasing the Self-Defense Forces five- to sixfold and acquiring nuclear armaments, he insists. Okamoto abruptly quit the foreign servic