P-1 was touted to the UK, but lost to the P-8.
【別表】自衛隊の部隊や装備などの整備計画：朝日新聞デジタル
岸田政権が閣議決定した安保関連３文書に盛り込まれた、部隊や装備などの整備計画は以下の通り。 ３文書は、外交や防衛などの指針である「国家安全保障戦略」のほか、防衛の目標や達成する方法を示した「国家防衛…www.asahi.com
Not only UK but Germany as well. SK is already replacing their P-3s with P-8. Also there is no chance in hell that either SK or Japan procures one another's weapons system.
Add to that there is the problem of P-1 LCC, which has risen, is rising and will continue to rise in the near future. Recent doctrinal shift and alterations to P-1 procurement is not helping at all as well.
No, these article and document tells you everything. It is mentioned in the article that JSDF will procure 19 P-1s in the next 5 years. Now add that number to the P-1s already procured (45) and subtract that number from the planned total procurement of P-1 by JMSDF (70). It's simple arithmetics.
Oh I've made a small mistake there. It's 42 not 45 in total.
Also here are the MoD procurement budgets for those years which P-1 was procured. Note that for Reiwa 3 (2021) a supplementary budget was added for 3 more P-1s. Good luck and have fun with looking for an article if this doesn't satisfy you.
The key line here is
It talks about how to derive a mounting method based on the radar's size and aerodynamic characteristics. Specifically noting altering the aircrafts aerodynamic characteristics. The implications point towards an external array that would alter aerodynamics of the aircraft to a significant extent and based on previous talks of a potential AEW variant makes the remarks noteworthy. Such considerations would typically not be considered if it was simply a drop in replacement for the HPS-106.
They already considered a P-1 based AEW&C for the E-2C replacement and tbh I'm not sure if they'll opt for their own design this time around instead of buying E-7s. If anything the E-2C replacement was a better opportunity numberwise I feel. Of course since they were very eager to get CEC maybe there wasn't any other choice than E-2D.
grandfleet.info
theaviationist.com
www.navalnews.com
A smart weapon integration, not too big and not too small while still allowing some decent standoff range.
aviationweek.com
I could see this happening in exchange of Japan licensing a localised version of M-346 to replace T-4. I also think that a GCAP-optimized ETS co-development is within the realms of possibility. Anyways, if that does happen, it wouldn't be a bad choice for Italy. They could greatly expand the M-346 fleet-size, in exchange for a capable MPA.
M-346 likely isn't happening. Japan and America announced intentions to jointly develop a trainer for the T-4 replacement and potentially for America's ATT program. It's unknown if it's a clean sheet design or a modification of the T-7A or other ATT candidate, but nothing about 3rd party participation has been announced.
I'm aware of that, but was thinking there's a possibility since the joint US-Japanese trainer is still nothing more than a discussion at this point. We've already seen how Japan has pivoted from the US to UK for the F-X cooperation. I don't think it's impoosible that same thing would happen for the next T-X
