WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The Japanese and U.S. governments have begun arranging for Japan to develop a rocket engine and the United States a warhead for the joint sea-based missile defense system, diplomatic sources said Tuesday.
The missile shield system is scheduled to reach the development phase in fiscal 2006.
The two countries will conclude a new pact on the project after Japan’s Security Council endorses the plan around the end of this year.
To fund the project to develop the enhanced Standard Missile-3 interceptor, the Defense Agency is expected to request billons of yen for fiscal 2006 in its annual budgetary request at the end of this month.
The U.S. has already completed preparations for moving into the development stage to mass produce and deploy the missile, and the development-sharing arrangement is expected to accelerate cooperation getting the overall missile defense system up and running.
The project involves four key components of the enhanced SM-3 system — the nose cone, infrared sensor, rocket engine and kinetic warhead.
Japan eased its ban on arms exports last December and exempted the export of missile defense-related arms components to the U.S. to allow the project to move into the development stage.
The two countries launched the joint missile defense project in 1999, after North Korea fired a long-range missile in August 1998 whose warhead flew over Japan into the Pacific. North Korea claims it was a rocket intended to put a satellite into orbit.
Under the system, Japan would intercept an incoming ballistic missile outside the atmosphere using the SM-3 missile, fired from an Aegis-equipped destroyer.
North Korea’s Nodong ballistic missile is believed to have a range of about 1,300 km, which would make it capable of targeting any part of Japan.
There is concern that stepping up Japan-U.S. cooperation on missile defense could antagonize North Korea and China at a time when the six-party talks on Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons threat are set to resume next week.
China strongly protested when the U.S. Defense Department, in an annual report on Chinese military activities, noted that Beijing has sharply increased the number of its short-range missiles capable of hitting Taiwan and parts of Japan.
Beijing was also irked when Japan and the U.S. issued a statement in February citing Taiwan as a “common security objective” of the two countries. Japan-China relations have since gone downhill over other issues, including Tokyo’s approval of a contentious school history textbook and its bid for a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.
China is now engaged in large-scale joint war games with Russia, which some experts say are intended as a warning signal against Washington’s deeper security involvement in Northeast Asia.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050825a3.htm
By: Raygun - 26th August 2005 at 20:11
well if you think about it ICBM or IRBM are proven and battle tested systems that will definately work.
No one has ever came close to building an ABM system. How many analysts have been warning that this project could turn into a massive blackhole for funds and no guarentee that it’s going to work at all… Look at how strong the US have been lobbying parters to share its burden… They are pratically forcing Canada to join in as well.
To develope a ABM infostructure you need a lot of R&D and a lot of money. This money is used in the american economy and thus stimulation it’s growth. I can understand why US would want to develope such a system but why anyone else would be suckered into paying is anyones guess.
they not going to shoot ICBM to japan because they are not that far away if ever china go nukes they going be firing a massive of amout of cruise and tactical missles liked WS1-b they very cheap to produce and mobile too a ABM system don’t address this.go ahead build your abm force
By: hallo84 - 26th August 2005 at 19:49
yes, Japan should go ahead and make some ICBMs, at least IRBMs, instead.
well if you think about it ICBM or IRBM are proven and battle tested systems that will definately work.
No one has ever came close to building an ABM system. How many analysts have been warning that this project could turn into a massive blackhole for funds and no guarentee that it’s going to work at all… Look at how strong the US have been lobbying parters to share its burden… They are pratically forcing Canada to join in as well.
To develope a ABM infostructure you need a lot of R&D and a lot of money. This money is used in the american economy and thus stimulation it’s growth. I can understand why US would want to develope such a system but why anyone else would be suckered into paying is anyones guess.
By: Arabella-Cox - 26th August 2005 at 19:15
yes, Japan should go ahead and make some ICBMs, at least IRBMs, instead.
By: Goldmember - 26th August 2005 at 14:24
Didn’t you know? It goes hand-in-hand that big expensive military toys can be defeated by less expensive means.
Still big questions on the reliablity of any kind of missile defense. The Patriot has so many holes in it that the defenders are in denial. Like people who want to forget a Seersucker got past multilayers of sensors without being seen to hit Kuwait City. It’s the “If people just ignore it , it must’ve not have happen,” defense. Doesn’t bode well for ship-bourne missile defense.
If the US needs partners it’s because they don’t want to suffer fully when they discover it doesn’t work.
Haha you got a point there, man. Well said. 🙂
By: Nemesis - 25th August 2005 at 21:25
*shakes head*
Your point is ? (other than spark a flame war)
Flame wars are your specialty.
Didn’t you know? It goes hand-in-hand that big expensive military toys can be defeated by less expensive means.
Still big questions on the reliablity of any kind of missile defense. The Patriot has so many holes in it that the defenders are in denial. Like people who want to forget a Seersucker got past multilayers of sensors without being seen to hit Kuwait City. It’s the “If people just ignore it , it must’ve not have happen,” defense. Doesn’t bode well for ship-bourne missile defense.
If the US needs partners it’s because they don’t want to suffer fully when they discover it doesn’t work.
By: Stealth Spy - 25th August 2005 at 21:13
Too bad it won’t work!
*shakes head*
Your point is ? (other than spark a flame war)
By: Nemesis - 25th August 2005 at 20:17
Too bad it won’t work!
Sign In
August 25, 2005 at 6:51 pm