East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Status
Not open for further replies.
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Air Force Brat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, you are seeing the single surveillance flight itself as provocative, rather than seeing the larger pattern of continued surveillance flights and the regional disposition of US forces in the compared with the strategic importance of hainan Island as one of a few nuclear submarine bases
 
A

antiterror13

Brigadier
Air Force Brat said:
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.
Click to expand...

so, it wouldn't a provocation if it was 135 miles offshore of the US .... carried out by the Chinese or Russian surveillance plane ?
 
Equation

Equation

Lieutenant General
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...

That's Rr. Admiral John Kirby's opinion and his opinion is not law written in stone.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
so, it wouldn't a provocation if it was 135 miles offshore of the US .... carried out by the Chinese or Russian surveillance plane ?
Click to expand...

Actually, it wouldn't be.

But if that surveillance plane was also backed up by forward deployed CSGs and air bases in the region, then I could understand how it could be seen as provocative.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
plawolf said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's more likely the US being proactive to prevent another hotdogging CCP AF fighter jock from losing control and flying his airplane into a US surveillance craft. Sounds familiar?
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
It's more likely the US being proactive to prevent another hotdogging CCP AF fighter jock from losing control and flying his airplane into a US surveillance craft. Sounds familiar?
Click to expand...

Come on blackstone, you know better than to flame bait... :p
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Air Force Brat said:
NO, if the flights are conducted within the law, of course not.
Click to expand...

But what if the east and west coasts were also swimming with Chinese and Russian SSNs and SSBNs, CSGs, and cuba was host to air bases with stealth fighters and nuclear capable bombers, and if the USN only had two or three nuclear sub bases and four or five SSBNs between them?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top