A Japanese government audit has exposed persistent problems in Tokyo’s rush to buy U.S. military equipment: significant delivery delays, lengthy repairs for defective items and rising billings through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) channel. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has campaigned on strengthening defence, and procurement spending on U.S. gear has climbed sharply — but the Board of Audit’s review of contracts signed between fiscal 2018 and 2023 shows a growing gap between purchase orders and operational capability.
The Board of Audit found that of 519 FMS contracts signed by the end of fiscal 2018, 118 remained undelivered as of the end of fiscal 2023, with those outstanding items valued at roughly ¥1.14 trillion. Separately, aircraft acquired for the Maritime Self-Defense Force — six second‑hand C-130R transports delivered around 2014–2016 — were found to have “serious problems” requiring major maintenance, with repairs taking more than 14 months in several cases. Those problems underscore that paying large sums does not guarantee timely or usable capability.
Spending through the FMS channel surged to about ¥1.3867 trillion in fiscal 2023, more than triple the ¥407.8 billion recorded in fiscal 2018. Over the five years under review, Japan signed roughly ¥3.55 trillion in FMS contracts, including ¥1.0035 trillion linked to F‑35s and ¥265.1 billion for maintenance of Aegis system components. Tokyo’s 2022 security documents committed to a vast ¥43 trillion defence envelope for 2023–27, creating strong political momentum to keep purchasing despite quality and delivery questions.
The government defends FMS purchases on grounds of interoperability and access to high‑end equipment, but the audit highlights the transactional limits of that logic. Under FMS, procurement often follows U.S. pricing and scheduling, reducing Japan’s leverage over delivery timetables and occasionally leaving Tokyo to absorb delays or retrofit flawed systems. Analysts and some journalists point to a political calculus as well: buying U.S. materiel can be a tool to smooth trade relations with Washington and sustain the alliance, even when the purchases offer poor value for money.
The audit arrives at a sensitive moment: the lower‑house election looms and parties across the spectrum are competing to show resolve on defence. Debate over cost‑effectiveness and procurement transparency has been muted in campaign rhetoric, and the Board of Audit’s findings suggest that parliament and the public have not yet engaged at the level the sums involved demand. With finite budgets and ambitious capability goals, Tokyo faces hard choices about whether to continue large FMS buying, invest more in domestic production, or seek diversified suppliers.
Strategically, the problems flagged by the audit have immediate and longer‑term consequences. Delayed or non‑operational systems weaken Japan’s near‑term deterrence posture and complicate alliance planning with Washington. Politically, continued high‑profile purchases that fail to deliver risk eroding public trust and could push domestic policymakers toward procurement reform, greater transparency, or closer coordination with Japanese industry to reduce dependence on U.S. supply chains. The audit is a clear prompt for Tokyo to reconcile alliance imperatives with effectiveness and fiscal discipline.