East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

This is a classic case of much ado about nothing and smacks of the now sadly typical spin the US puts on any official government communications.

Firstly, given the track record of past and the current US administration, it seems naive to take their version of events as the undisputed truth. Its telling that the most damning pictures they can produce of the incident isn't all that damning. If the PLANAF J11 really came as close as what they are claiming, where is the money shot? Where's the photo of the PLANAF pilot 'barrel rolling' over the top of the Poseidon while flipping the crew the bird, Top Gun style?

The presentations of the 'facts' also seems either clumsy, or more likely, deliberately design to cause the mind of draw false conclusions.

Even if we assume that the J11 indeed did come within a few dozen feet of the P8, and the J11 did the barrel roll, I somehow doubt the pilot did both at the same time, yet that is the distinct impression you are left with when you read that press release.

The only undisputed facts are that a PLANAF J11 intercepted a US P8. Anything beyond that is just spin.

And before anyone goes pontificating about 'rules of conduct', please find me a set of rules that China has signed up to. If China never signed up to such rules, on what basis could any demand China obey with those rules?

The fact that no western media outlet or commentator wants to get into is that these 'rules of conduction' are bilateral rules the US hammered out with the USSR and later Russia, which it is trying to make China comply with. Is anyone in any doubt what the US reaction would be if Russia and China hammered out a set of bilateral agreements and had the temerity to insist the US follow those rules?

That obserdity is at the very heart of this and other disputes between the US and China, and it is the key to understanding China's reaction and its desires.

Similarly, where is it defined just how close you can get to another military aircraft in international airspace to amount to 'hazarding' it? Is there even a rule of the skies for military aircraft operating in international airspace? Apparently not considering rule abiding US pilots have actually collided with Russian bombers and surveillance planes in international airspace in the past. And as far as I remember, no US pilot was formally disciplined for those incidents, which implies tacit approval on the part of the US high command and civilian government.

This isn't like someone driving down the wrong side of a one way road. From the US prospective, their view is the P8 can fly where if wants how it wants in international airspace and its nobody else's business. Sounds reasonable except China could just as easily flip that argument on its head and say as far as they are concerned, their J11 can fly where it wants how it wants in international airspace and its nobody's business. After pontificating so loudly and for so long about freedom of navigation, what right does the US have to say that a Chinese fighter can't do a barrel roll in international airspace if it so chooses? If the J11 wants to fly in a heading that takes it close to the P8, well why does the J11 have to give way?

This is the other side of the coin, there is no universally accepted set of rules on what happens when military aircraft from different countries meet in international airspace. Even basic stuff like who has the right of way is unclear.

Those are all issues that needs to be cleared up and resolved, but the US isn't interested in clearing anything up never mind sit down with China as equals and hammer out a fair and reasonable set of bilateral rules and agreements to govern how their militarise should behave in close proximity to each other. The US just likes to always get its way, and it wants to bully China into accepting the (blatantly unfair) terms it imposes, such media specticals are just part of the strategy to pressure and attempt to isolate China.

China, for its part, are using American tactics and history against America. First it performs intercepts similar to what the US does to unfriendly aircraft flying in international airspace, and then it adopted an AIDZ just as the US and allies have.

The picture is a complex one full of shades if grey, and not as black and white as the Pentagon and their tamed talking heads would have you believe.

I like the point being made in the media that the pictures taken show how close the fighter was because you can see the pilot so clearly. Yeah, like a surveillance aircraft doesn't have a telephoto lens somewhere on board. Not to argue it wasn't that close but like a surveillance aircraft doesn't have the ability to take zoomed-up pictures?

plawolf said:

This is a classic case of much ado about nothing ...

The only undisputed facts are that a PLANAF J11 intercepted a US P8. Anything beyond that is just spin.

And before anyone goes pontificating about 'rules of conduct', please find me a set of rules that China has signed up to. If China never signed up to such rules, on what basis could any demand China obey with those rules?

China, for its part, are using American tactics and history against America. First it performs intercepts similar to what the US does to unfriendly aircraft flying in international airspace, and then it adopted an AIDZ just as the US and allies have.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree, without any need for dissing either side.

What happened, IMHO, is fairly straight forward.

The U S was conducting surveillance and probably SIGINT on Chinese units and/or exercises on or near Hainan Island apparently.

If they were in international air space, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

The Chinese sent a J-11B fighter to intercept and, in essence, send a message.

There is also nothing wrong with that.

The US believes the Chinese aircraft hazarded the US aircraft, and are protesting it. Fine...no big deal there either.

This is all pretty routine stuff when two powerful nations, with differences and large militaries interact. Anyone who lived through the cold war understands this.

Despite trade relations, other areas where we work together, and exercises we perform together, there are still areas where we differ, and there is still mistrust.

Missions like this are not risk free. Never have been. When you are trying to learn capabilities that the other nation wants to keep to themselves, these type of thing are going to happen.

Gratefully, despite some potential aerobatics on the part of the Chinese pilot, no one was injured.

IMHO, end of story.

Brumby said:

Are you suggesting that flying in international airspace is provocative?

Click to expand...

I'm suggesting flying surveillance missions close to sensitive sites, on top of the rest of the security environment china faces, is provocative, yes. Of course, the USN would also be required to fly such missions just as the PLA would be required to head them off if they get too close


I'm not going to say whether it is fair or not, because of jeff's instructions, but I think one should recognize it is well within the rights of those being spied upon to display a warning. If china had surrounded the US with CSGs, air bases, only a few hundred kms from major US cities, and if china was performing spy flights close to the few SSBN sites the USN had, I would also think it is entirely reasonable for the US to seek and threat or warn off such flights in any means short of firing shots

Every act and response has been within reasonable boundaries so far, despite what the media is trying to spin

I don't know if this is Bill Gertz's spin or this is the US response to this incident. Apperantly the USS Carl Vinsons (CVN-70) is heading towards the South China Sea as a result of the tension from this incident.

Bltizo said:

If china had surrounded the US with CSGs, air bases, only a few hundred kms from major US cities, and if china was performing spy flights close to the few SSBN sites the USN had, I would also think it is entirely reasonable for the US to seek and threat or warn off such flights in any means short of firing shots

Click to expand...

You know what people say about 'if's?

Janiz said:

You know what people say about 'if's?

Click to expand...

Good thing it is just a mental exercise to demonstrate how these actions shouldn't be unexpected

Jeff Head said:

I tend to agree, without any need for dissing either side.

What happened, IMHO, is fairly straight forward.

The U S was conducting surveillance and probably SIGINT on Chinese units and/or exercises on or near Hainan Island apparently.

If they were in international air space, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

The Chinese sent a J-11B fighter to intercept and, in essence, send a message.

There is also nothing wrong with that.

The US believes the Chinese aircraft hazarded the US aircraft, and are protesting it. Fine...no big deal there either.

This is all pretty routine stuff when two powerful nations, with differences and large militaries interact. Anyone who lived through the cold war understands this.

Despite trade relations, other areas where we work together, and exercises we perform together, there are still areas where we differ, and there is still mistrust.

Missions like this are not risk free. Never have been. When you are trying to learn capabilities that the other nation wants to keep to themselves, these type of thing are going to happen.

Gratefully, despite some potential aerobatics on the part of the Chinese pilot, no one was injured.

IMHO, end of story.

Click to expand...

Pentagon Spokesman, Rr. Admiral John Kirby has called it "unsafe and unprofessional" and stated that the intercept was "outside the international standards of an intercept", although I had not heard that when I made my post, the Admiral affirmed every aspect of my own statement..... the Carl Vinson will be sailing into the area to back up that statement. That alone tells us this encounter was well outside the norm, if it had been a standard intercept, even a tense intercept, we would have never heard of it???

Air Force Brat said:

Pentagon Spokesman, Rr. Admiral John Kirby has called it "unsafe and unprofessional" and stated that the intercept was "outside the international standards of an intercept", although I had not heard that when I made my post, the Admiral affirmed every aspect of my own statement..... the Carl Vinson will be sailing into the area to back up that statement. That alone tells us this encounter was well outside the norm, if it had been a standard intercept, even a tense intercept, we would have never heard of it???

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone doubts the particular encounter was outside the norm.

I think if anything, the fact that the US is sending a carrier to the area (if it is related to the intercept) shows just how much more behind the scenes stuff must have gone on. Sending a carrier in response to one hotshot pilot intercepting one of your birds is a needlessly strong response — but it perfectly makes sense if it is to seek and continue the escalation of peaceful show of force between both sides vis a vis US surveillance activities near hainan.


This encounter isn't, as someone else put it earlier, just an example if unprofessional behaviour, but rather one symptom out of many relating to chinas willingness to accept past and present US military posture close to its shores

Bltizo said:

I'm suggesting flying surveillance missions close to sensitive sites, on top of the rest of the security environment china faces, is provocative, yes. Of course, the USN would also be required to fly such missions just as the PLA would be required to head them off if they get too close


I'm not going to say whether it is fair or not, because of jeff's instructions, but I think one should recognize it is well within the rights of those being spied upon to display a warning. If china had surrounded the US with CSGs, air bases, only a few hundred kms from major US cities, and if china was performing spy flights close to the few SSBN sites the USN had, I would also think it is entirely reasonable for the US to seek and threat or warn off such flights in any means short of firing shots

Every act and response has been within reasonable boundaries so far, despite what the media is trying to spin

Click to expand...

The P-8 was 135 miles offshore, that's NOT provocative by any measure, and when Rr. Adm John Kirby calls it "unsafe and unprofessional", and states it is outside the boundaries of a standard intercept, then you are defining a serious incident, just exactly what I warned would happen so many months ago.