East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

[Blitzo]

I've posted this over in the Japanese military thread because this one was closed. Details on PLA fighter interceptions, from the Taiwanese ministry of defence out of all places:

The Taiwanese MoD statement says they detected PLAAF aircraft shadowing US and Japanese aircraft at about a kilometer away, but in some cases the radar signatures were so close they could almost not be identified (but that might be reflective of Taiwanese radar capabilities and the distance from which the PLA And Japanese/US aircraft were from the Taiwanese radars rather than an indication of any aggressive maneuvering)

【环球网综合报道】据台湾地区“中央社”2日报道，台军“防长”严明2日表示，大陆方面公布东海防空识别区 后，大陆军机在26、27、29日曾拦截进入识别区内的美、日军机。

　　报道称，严明强调，在台方设立的防空识别区内，“没有任何大陆的飞机”。 在26、27、29日中国大陆有拦截动作，“飞的距离很近”。

　　台军“情报次长”柯文安补充表示，11月23日后美国进入东海防空识别区有13次、日本有85次、大陆 55次，但不确定是否是进到识别区拦截；根据监控系统，接近1海里、光点重迭部分有3次，分别在26、27 和29日。

　　另据央视12月1日《新闻直播间》节目报道，11月29号，中国国防部表示中国空军飞机于当天紧急起飞 ，识别查证进入东海防空识别区的十架日本自卫队飞机。而11月30号日本防卫相小野寺五典却说没有发生双方 飞机紧急接近的特殊事态。

　　日本防卫相小野寺五典30号上午称，昨日在航空自卫队战斗机进入中国东海防空识别区时，确实有中国空军 的战斗机起飞，但是中国战斗机并没有接近自卫队的战斗机。

　　小野寺五典当时宣称：“据我们了解，中方昨天宣称的飞机紧急接近的特殊事态并未发生。”

(原标题：台称大陆军机三度拦截美日飞机 日防相不承认)



So I'd say we have confirmation that PLAAF fighters were sent into the ADIZ and at least "intercepted" at 1km or less, various US or Japanese aircraft, but possibly not all.

I'd say a 1km shadowing distance is both close enough to send a message, while also not significantly spooking the other side out and increasing the chances of accident.
The Japanese said they encountered "no different situations" or whatever, implying that they weren't "intercepted" and even went as far as to claim no Chinese fighters were scrambled, which I believe they later redacted.

However the first part regarding "no different situations" can still be valid if a 1km distance between their aircraft and PLA fighters was maintained.

 

[Equation]

Japan is consistantly sticking with its policy that the islands are theirs.

They believe that since the islands were not physically taken from them after Wolrd War II by the victorious Allies as represented by the US (while many other islands they "owned" before and during the war were taken away, that they retained those islands as a part of Japan. They have operated under that understanding (from their perspective) for 68 years.

In the US we say they have "administered" the islands and disputes should be settled through negotiations. Japan's perspective has always been, in their eyes that they "owned," the islands, and as owners, of course they administered them.

That is their position. The do not intend to budge from it from what I can see.

Once something is established and operating for this long...it is hard to reverse it, especially when there are no grieved parties/citizens/nationals who atre impacted by it staying that way.

I understand Jeff, but from my perspective it doesn't matter what the Japanese see, thinks, or felt, those islands belongs to China...historically...and they know it. It's there sad excuse and foot dragging this issue that has become a contention that Japan does not even want to sit down and negotiate about it. Beside who ever says that the end of WWII and whatever the Allies says means it is the final border boundary that both sides needs to respect? Without clarification of border issue it could lead to a serious situation like right now.

 

[Jeff Head]

I've posted this over in the Japanese military thread because this one was closed. Details on PLA fighter interceptions, from the Taiwanese ministry of defence out of all places:

The Taiwanese MoD statement says they detected PLAAF aircraft shadowing US and Japanese aircraft at about a kilometer away, but in some cases the radar signatures were so close they could almost not be identified (but that might be reflective of Taiwanese radar capabilities and the distance from which the PLA And Japanese/US aircraft were from the Taiwanese radars rather than an indication of any aggressive maneuvering)

So I'd say we have confirmation that PLAAF fighters were sent into the ADIZ and at least "intercepted" at 1km or less, various US or Japanese aircraft, but possibly not all.

I'd say a 1km shadowing distance is both close enough to send a message, while also not significantly spooking the other side out and increasing the chances of accident.

The Japanese said they encountered "no different situations" or whatever, implying that they weren't "intercepted" and even went as far as to claim no Chinese fighters were scrambled, which I believe they later redacted.

However the first part regarding "no different situations" can still be valid if a 1km distance between their aircraft and PLA fighters was maintained.

Sorry, Bltizo, I cannot call that a confirmation. It's a 3rd party saying what his sensors told him.

Did he provide offical copies of the electronic data?

Even then, the PRC, the US, or the Japanese...the ones involved...are the ones who would have to confirm it. None of them have...and in their official statements the word "intercept," has not even been used. A 1 km distance is close. it is not dangerous, but it is nonetheless close way out there anywhere near those islands.

During US and Russian cat and mouse games like this, we had photos all the time of the aircraft...and they were published.

I'm afraid I would have to see it from one of those sources, with their sensor readings or photos to view it as any kind of confirmation.

 

[AssassinsMace]

I saw on Fareed Zakaria's show on CNN that Japan was supposed to return all territory back to China as agreed upon by the Allied nations of WWII during the Cairo Conference. But of course China turned communist so that's probably why the US isn't going to abide by what was agreed upon at the Cairo conference. Now there are articles talking about how with Biden's trip to China the US stopped short of asking China to rescind the zone. If China is in the wrong why stop short? Because maybe both Japan and the US have set up these types of zones "without consulting" anyone like what they're charging China? To push it further might affect their zones they have established. They just have to publicly say China has done something as if no one else has done before and people will believe it. To carry legal action against China would expose hypocrisy and affect their zones.

 

[Jeff Head]

I understand Jeff, but from my perspective it doesn't matter what the Japanese see, thinks, or felt, those islands belongs to China...historically...and they know it.

And if the Chinese government takes that hard line..."it doesn't matter what you think," then it just underscores the futility of negotiations.

The Japanese have their perspective on this...whether we agree with it or not. I cannot say that they "know," that they are wrong. Clearly, they do not think they are wrong and feel they have claim. And it goes beyond just what they think of feel...they have been doing it for the last 68 years.

It's there sad excuse and foot dragging this issue that has become a contention that Japan does not even want to sit down and negotiate about it. Beside who ever says that the end of WWII and whatever the Allies says means it is the final border boundary that both sides needs to respect?

That's the point. It is not really "foot dragging," by the Japanese. It is just them standing on what they feel is the precedent. From their perspective is is a de-facto established fact, because they have been living it for 68 years.

Again, this does not mean there is no dispute. Clearly China feels that there is. But there is also, right now, no compelling reason for the Japanese to sit down. "Just because we say so," from the PRC is no mre compelling to the Japanese than, "Just becasue we say so," is to the Chinese from Japan.

The difference is that Japan has been doing so since before any of us were born. Like I said earlier, until a group of nations or the US pushes Japan hard over this, they are not going to relent. There is, frankly, no practical reason for them to do so. There are no Chinese citizens who were removed from the island, or who have been living there under Japanese control.

Anyhow...we are not going to resolve it here, and that is not what the thread is about anyway. Time will tell.

As to the ADIZ...which is really what this thread is about and what we should be discussing...my guess is that the ADIZ will stand and will become a part of the international way of doing business in the future in that part of the China Sea...just like Japan's and South Korea's ADIZs have become.

In that case, the Jpanese will not be able to do anything about that...nor should they IMHO.

 

[Blitzo]

Sorry, Bltizo, I cannot call that a confirmation. It's a 3rd party saying what his sensors told him.

Did he provide offical copies of the electronic data?

Even then, the PRC, the US, or the Japanese...the ones involved...are the ones who would have to confirm it. None of them have...and in their official statements the word "intercept," has not even been used. A 1 km distance is close. it is not dangerous, but it is nonetheless close way out there anywhere near those islands.

During US and Russian cat and mouse games like this, we had photos all the time of the aircraft...and they were published.

I'm afraid I would have to see it from one of those sources, with their sensor readings or photos to view it as any kind of confirmation.

I think asking for electronic readings are a little unrealistic, and in most situations the information we have would be enough I think, to effectively confirm that the chinese have been flying fighters out and at the very least, shadowing, US and Japanese aircraft.

The question I have, is why would we doubt a third party's testimony? Of anything, in this case, shouldn't the taiwanese third party claim be more reliable than what china, the US, or Japan says (or indeed, what they don't say?)


We know china more than has the capability to police that air zone, and the chinese mod has made statements that they've deployed fighters to ID aircraft, and the Taiwanese mod have made given some fairly detailed rundowns of the flights of aircraft on both sides for late November.

So what motives does china, the US, or Japan have for not publicising any PLA "interceptions" — lack of photo evidence seems to be the main argument for why china has not done "intercepts".
Well it's fairly simple
For the US and Japan, they have made some fairly strong claims early on in the ADIZ saga that china couldn't police the air zone and that is the story the media bought when the two B-52s skirted on the far side of the ADIZ. If china did shadow their aircraft, it would be a little embarrassing to admit that the PLA now did have the ability to police the air zone. Indeed, the lack of military disclosures on events in the ADIZ over the last week or so may be more telling than most.
For china, they have a desire to not publicise interceptions because publicising it would probably heighten emotions on both sides, and they've taken moves in the last week to make all parties accept the new status quo by acting as if this is the new normal. They've been defusing tensions by pretending tensions didn't exist.
Furthermore, there might not even be interception photos to publish — like the Taiwanese mod said, they very well might have monitored the US and Japanese aircraft from a kilometer away, quite far for a camera to snap pics (but again, good for not spooking the Japanese or US pilots and potentially heightening the chance of an incident). There is also a chance that the PLA simply aren't very media savvy and their inherent secretiveness means they won't publish photos even if they had them.

So what does this mean for the Taiwanese mod claim? Well I personally think it makes their testimony all the more stronger, exactly because of the fact that they are a third party in thighs in event.
China, America, Japan all have various vested interests in not disclosing various events that could be going on in the ADIZ (namely, potential interceptions), and the silence that has blanketed the subject over the past week makes one wonder just why things are suddenly so quiet.
[Indeed, there are probably many military activities conducted by all nations that are not reported upon, but it doesn't mean they don't happen.]

So that just leaves the issue of the Taiwanese electronic sensor accuracy.
In this case, I think there is no reason to doubt their veracity. Like I said, Taiwan is a third party and have no interests to lie or forge observations.


Given what we know about PLAAF and PLANAF capabilities in the area adjacent to the ADIZ, as well as PLA mod statements that they have sortied fighters, alongside the now current Japanese and US military silence on the "china-enforcing-ADIZ" issue, I see no reason to doubt the Taiwanese readings.


As for photos, again I believe the various sides have vested interests in not publishing photos (if they have snapped them) at this time.

 

[i.e.]

In recent days, China has made efforts to ease tensions over the zone. On the eve of Biden's arrival, the Defense Ministry released a statement stressing the area is not a no-fly zone nor is it a sign that China is expanding its territorial airspace. The statement said surveillance in the area remains necessary, but the use of fighter jets would not be necessary in most cases.
[/center]

Chinese gov't merely reiterated something they said before. Its the media and the spin doctors at Foggy Bottom spun this whole mess about "no-fly-zone" and "expanding airspace".

 

[i.e.]

I saw on Fareed Zakaria's show on CNN that Japan was supposed to return all territory back to China as agreed upon by the Allied nations of WWII during the Cairo Conference. But of course China turned communist so that's probably why the US isn't going to abide by what was agreed upon at the Cairo conference.

ah...I see, International Law is just some thing you abide by when you feel like it. If not, oh well.

The oh slippery slope to pre-Treaty of Westphalia.

Wait... Even during the middle age kings and sovereigns respect treaties...

 

[volleyballer]

ah...I see, International Law is just some thing you abide by when you feel like it. If not, oh well.

The oh slippery slope to pre-Treaty of Westphalia.

Wait... Even during the middle age kings and sovereigns respect treaties...

The sarcasm is strong with this one.

 

[i.e.]

The sarcasm is strong with this one.

If the whole post wwII (should really be WWI, but sadly that attempt failed and millions of lives later they had to try again) experiment is all about setting up a rule based international system, really an American sort of progressive Idealism driven, born out of NorthEastern Ivy league Princeton/John Hopkins/Cornell sort of system,
then, Americans should really stick with it. even it is against their short term interest.

They thing I really don't like about the current administration's foreign policy is that it really favors expedient, naked and narrow national self interest over long term interest of whole rule based international system.