DSEI Japan: Showcasing Innovation Amid Rising Threats
The 2025 event was the largest to date, featuring 471 exhibitors from 33 countries. Japanese companies comprised roughly 40% of all participants, reflecting the nation's growing interest in the defense industry.
On May 22, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba became the first sitting Japanese leader to attend the exhibition. He delivered a speech stressing his commitment to defense equipment collaboration with allies and partner nations.
"Advancing collaboration in equipment transfer, joint development, and joint production is crucial for promoting peace and stability in Japan and the region," he said.
Ishiba highlighted China's "unilateral attempts to change the status quo" in the East and South China Seas, North Korea's ballistic missile launches, and expanding military cooperation between Russia and North Korea. "The security environment is becoming increasingly severe," he said. Kawasaki Heavy Industries' unmanned helicopter can carry 200 kg of cargo. (©Hidemitsu Kaito)
Ishiba added, "Equipment cooperation will help strengthen deterrence not only for our country but also for our allies and partners."
The Prime Minister also mentioned the significance of Japan, the UK, and Italy collaborating on the next-generation fighter jet, the Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP). "This will lay the foundation for broad coordination with the UK and Italy for generations to come," he said.
After his speech, Ishiba toured the venue, observing the latest defense technology.
The exhibition featured cutting-edge technologies, including gears, small arms, large ships, unmanned vehicles, and cybersecurity systems. Japan's Ministry of Defense drew particular attention with its "railgun" (electromagnetic cannon) designed to intercept hypersonic missiles. Japan's Ministry of Defense unveils "rail gun" at the DSEI exhibit (left) on May 21. (©Hidemitsu Kaito)
Rising geopolitical tensions are boosting demand for unmanned aircraft and automated, labor-saving technologies. They are also accelerating innovation to enhance soldier safety.
Sweden's SAAB showcased a training system for anti-tank recoilless rifles. Meanwhile, Turkish firm OTOKAR displayed an armored vehicle designed for countering anti-tank mines. A Ukrainian company unveiled a drone-based precision strike system, gaining attention for its technology honed through real combat experience. SAAB showcases a training system for firing anti-tank recoilless rifles. (©Hidemitsu Kaito)
On May 21, United States Ambassador to Japan George Glass attended the opening ceremony at the US Pavilion. In his remarks, the ambassador emphasized the need for regional stability and stronger deterrence."Coordination among allies in the Indo-Pacific, joint development, and joint production are essential. Collaboration between American and Japanese defense industries is indispensable," he said. Ambassador George Glass speaks at the opening ceremony of the US Pavilion. (©Hidemitsu Kaito)
Kawasaki Heavy Industries presented an unmanned helicopter capable of carrying up to 200 kilograms of supplies for potential use in island defense. Meanwhile, Rakuten Group emphasized its support for Ukrainian startups through partnerships with Ukrainian government agencies. The Rakuten and Ukrainian agencies' booth showcases support for startups. (©Hidemitsu Kaito) Defense Minister Gen Nakatani tours the exhibition on May 21. (©Hidemitsu Kaito)
Defense Minister Gen Nakatani, who toured the venue on the first day, said, "The number of enlistments in the Self-Defense Forces (SDF) is declining, making the introduction of drones and labor-saving equipment essential." The SDF has a capacity of around 247,000 personnel, but is projected to face a shortfall of 23,000 by the end of 2024.
Japan's defense system continues to evolve. The FY2025 defense budget is set at ¥8.4748 trillion JPY ($58.8 billion USD). This level represents a 9.7% increase from the previous year and reaches 1.8% of GDP.
In 2020, the Air Self-Defense Force established a Space Operations Squadron to focus on outer space. Space surveillance has become increasingly vital, as evidenced by foreign firms capturing real-time satellite images of a North Korean destroyer grounding during its launch ceremony. A model of the next-generation fighter jet being jointly developed by Japan, the UK, and Italy. (©Hidemitsu Kaito)
The next-generation fighter jet under development, GCAP, mentioned by Ishiba, is expected to outperform the American stealth fighter F-35. However, as China and Russia rapidly expand their military power, Japan must further strengthen its defense capabilities.
( Read this in Japanese )
Author: Hidemitsu Kaito
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Australia selects Japan's Mitsubishi Heavy Industries for $6.5B warship deal
WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) — Australia said Tuesday it accepted a Japanese company's bid for a lucrative and hotly contested contract to build Australian warships, expected to be worth 10 billion Australian dollars ($6.5 billion). Mitsubishi Heavy Industries' Mogami-class frigate won the deal over rival Germany's MEKO A-200 from Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems. Japan's government lobbied heavily for the deal after missing out on Australia's submarines contract to a French company in 2016. 'This is clearly the biggest defense industry agreement that will ever have been struck between Japan and Australia,' Defense Minister Richard Marles told reporters when he announced the deal Tuesday. 'In fact, it's really one of the biggest defense exports that Japan has ever engaged in.' The fleet of 11 naval vessels will replace Australia's ageing fleet of ANZAC-class ships. Three of the frigates will be built in Japan, with the first scheduled to be operational Australia in 2030, and the remaining eight due for construction in Australia. Australian news outlets reported that the German company's bid had emphasized their vessel's cheaper price and their greater experience building ships abroad. But Pat Conroy, Australia's Minister for Defense Industry, said the Mogami-class frigate was a 'clear winner' when assessed by 'cost, capability and meeting our schedule of delivery.' The vessels have a range of up to 10,000 nautical miles (18,520 kilometers) and 32 vertical launch cells capable of launching long-range missiles. The frigates can operate with a crew of 90, compared to the 170 needed to operate the ANZAC-class ships. Mitsubishi's win was a boon for Japan's defense industry, which has not built naval vessels abroad before. Japan, whose only treaty ally is the United States, considers Australia a semi-ally and has increasingly sought to deepen bilateral military cooperation amid ongoing regional tensions in the disputed South China Sea. 'We welcome the decision by the Australian government as a major step to further elevate Japan's national security cooperation with Australia, which is our special strategic partner,' Japan's Defense Minister Gen Nakatani said Tuesday. Nakatani said co-developing the frigate will allow the two countries to train and operate with the same equipment and further improve operability and efficiency. Japan set up a joint taskforce of government and industry in an effort to win the bid. Australian officials said work on a binding commercial contract with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the government of Japan would now begin, with a finalized agreement expected in 2026. They did not say how much each ship would cost or confirm a total figure for the package, citing ongoing negotiations. But Conroy said the government had allowed AU$10 billion for the project over the next 10 years. It forms part of the AU$55 billion that Australia has budgeted for the navy's entire surface combatant fleet during the same period. —- Associated Press writer Mari Yamaguchi contributed from Tokyo.
Japan Forward
5 hours ago
- Japan Forward
Two Atomic Bombs by America Ended the Asia-Pacific War ー Was There a Third Option?
Every August 6, on the anniversary of the atomic bomb attack against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an argument is remade. It reasons that Harry Truman, president of the United States of America, had two choices to end the Asia-Pacific War. He could force a surrender through the use of nuclear weapons or proceed with an invasion of the Japanese home islands. According to the contention, the option of the atomic bomb attack was the better of the two. It was touted as quicker, with an ultimately lower death toll. This assertion is nonsense, and always has been. There were never two options ー there were three. The third was to do what 99.9% of generals, commanders and statesmen have done throughout the history of warfare: Drop the insistence of unconditional surrender and negotiate. In this year of 2025, the two-option argument is even more nonsensical than usual. There are ongoing wars for which the option of negotiation will inevitably prevail. They include the Israel-Iran War and the war between Russia and Ukraine. Satellite image showing the entrance to a tunnel destroyed in a US airstrike, at a nuclear facility in Isfahan, central Iran, on June 22. (provided by Maxar Technologies, Reuters via Kyodo) Inappropriate Comparisons Curiously, when it comes to Israel-Iran, US President Donald Trump has been doing his best to draw parallels with the Asia-Pacific War and its dual option narrative. On June 17 he announced that he sought the "unconditional surrender" of Iran. In the wake of the US bombing of the Iranian Fordo nuclear facility, he evoked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both the 1945 atomic bombs and his strike on Iran "ended the war," he proclaimed. It is possible that President Trump is trying to pull the rug out from underneath Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu by insisting that the problem of the Iranian nuclear program has been resolved and further military action is not required. A more likely scenario, however, is that he is attempting to magnify the scope of his achievement. In any event, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki parallel is ridiculous. Iran has not been militarily defeated (let alone forced to surrender unconditionally). Moreover, the failure of the US strike against the Iranian nuclear program makes negotiations even more certain. Inevitability of Negotiations Between Russia and Ukraine When it comes to the Russia-Ukraine War, differences between it and the Asia-Pacific War are undeniably stark. There will be no unconditional surrender from either of the combatants. That war has reached a stalemate and will end with a ceasefire, followed by a negotiated agreement. President Trump has famously attempted to effectuate such a deal. Some reports say he suggests allowing the Russians to keep most of what they occupy. Meanwhile, Ukraine gains a measure of security assuredness through the increased presence of American business interests. In particular, that would come within the mining sector. President Trump has portrayed Russian President Vladimir Putin as both reasonable and conciliatory. The initial aim of Putin was to wipe Ukraine off the map but he presently seems content to settle for the eastern regions that he presently holds. It is quite a compromise on the part of Putin, Trump has suggested. Trump has also focused on the loss of life extracted by the war, implying that loss of territory is preferable to continued Ukrainian casualties. The Japan of 1945 was asking for considerably less than President Trump is prepared to concede to the Russians. And far more lives were in the balance. On the eve of the Hiroshima attack, the Japanese were merely seeking to preserve the integrity of the imperial system via assurances that the Emperor would not be put on trial. The Allies were also fully aware of this reality as they had broken the Japanese codes. Yet, the demand for unconditional surrender was maintained. Atomic bombing of Hiroshima (©US Army via Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, HO) The Belligerent Mindset of Unconditional Surrender Unconditional surrender is a rarely exercised option, not a default setting. Having demanded unconditional surrender, a belligerent power does not acquire justification in resorting to war crimes when the price of total victory becomes too steep. Moreover, perceived or real, the war crimes of one's adversary do not legitimize one's own. Many nonetheless claim that the Japanese militarist regime was so abhorrent that the ends justify the means. Even when those means constitute an unconditional surrender obtained via nuclear attack. This is an argument that could perhaps be made by an Asian whose country had been subjected to colonization. When forwarded by a member of the West, as it generally is, a measure of ignorance or hypocrisy is more than often present. There are two ways of interpreting the Asia-Pacific War. The first is as a war between Asia in tandem with the West, against the Japanese aggressor. The second is as an imperial war for control over imperial possessions, conducted by combatants universally devoid of clean hands. Unsurprisingly, the West prefers the first of these scenarios. The second scenario is accurate. In earlier articles for JAPAN Forward, I have suggested that those prepared to justify the nuclear attacks on the basis of their success in comprehensively destroying the culture of Japanese imperialism should also recognize the impact of Japan in bringing down the ethos that buttressed the Western imperial presence in Asia. The Western empires, the British Empire in particular, were sustained by the myth of white supremacy. The ritualized humiliation that the Japanese wrought upon the white imperialists captured in Asia destroyed this myth, and brought forward the timetable for Asian self-determination by a generation at least. A Clean Break with the Past A case could further be made that it was precipitous for Japan to lose its empire at a stroke. Under that perception, it was bad both for the colonized people of Asia and for Japan itself. Asia was not freed by the fall of Japan. Subhas Chandra Bosesits in the distinguished visitor's box of the Japanese parliament listening to Japanese Prime Minister Tojo declare support for Indian Independence, 16th June 1943. (©Netaji Museum and Centre for Studies in Himalayan Languages Society & Culture, Giddha Pahar, Darjeeling district, West Bengal) Following surrender, the Western colonial powers attempted reassert control, often with the assistance of Japanese troops kept at arms. These efforts, however, were ultimately for nought. The carefully crafted myth of white superiority that had allowed so few to control so many was a casualty of the war. Colonial presence within high density Asia could not be reclaimed. The slow and painful colony disbursement that the Western powers endured over the next 30 years was an ordeal that the Japanese might be glad to have avoided. Complimentary Aims Arguments against the demand for unconditional surrender are just as strong. The most compelling can be found in the manner in which the US and Japan coordinated their aims after the Japanese surrender. One of the principal concerns of the Japanese throughout the 1920s and 30s was the direction in which China would ultimately go. Nineteenth-century exploitation by the imperial West had left the Chinese government impotent, leading to its fall in 1912. From 1912 until 1949, China was fractured. Two regimes emerged as potential unifying forces: the right wing Kuomintang (KMT) of Chiang Kai-shek, and the Communist Party under Mao Zedong. A scene from a painting of Chiang Kai-Shek in the Kinmen museum (©Robert D Eldridge) The Japanese were no less adamant than the United States of America that the Communists should not prevail. As with America, they sought to be the voice that a governing rightwing Chinese administration could not ignore. In short, America and Japan had the same fundamental aim when it came to China. They both sought to be the dominant influence over a ruling rightwing regime. Unsurprisingly, after Japan's surrender, the Japanese forces based within China eagerly cooperated with America by acting in the interests of the KMT. In occupied Japan itself, after a brief period, the US concluded that its fundamental aims and those of Japan within Asia were largely complementary. Many lives would have been saved if this reality had been acted upon prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Showa Emperor and General Douglas MacArthur. Japan's postwar constitution was drafted on General MacArthur's orders. Three Options, Not Two Arguments for and against the morality and merit of the atomic attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki exist in abundance and will continue to be advanced for generations to come. However, the US had more than a duality of options. It could have ended the war through negotiation - the manner in which the vast majority of wars are concluded. This is the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima attack. With negotiations inevitable in the Russia-Ukraine War, one hopes that the nonsense of the two-option argument has finally become clear. Moving forward, that debate should be directed towards the legitimate arguments that exist — both for and against those attacks. RELATED: Author: Paul de Vries Find other reviews and articles by the author on Asia Pacific history on JAPAN Forward.
Toronto Star
5 hours ago
- Toronto Star
Japan's aging atomic bomb survivors speak out against nuclear weapons
HIROSHIMA, Japan (AP) — Eighty years after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a dwindling number of the aging Japanese survivors are increasingly frustrated by growing nuclear threats and the acceptance of nuclear weapons by global leaders. The U.S. attack on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, and three days later on Nagasaki killed more than 200,000 people by the end of that year. Others survived but with radiation illness.
