East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Bltizo said:

Give me a break, if China ever had the capability to seriously threaten the US the way the US threatens China, you will end up seeing a response similar to the cuban missile crisis.

As I've repeatedly stated, the issue isn't US surveillance, it is US surveillance + military capability.

Click to expand...

"Threat capabilities" are abstract and meaningless to the issue at hand; which is is the United States breaking international laws and/or norms in her spying off China's coat? If the former, then she needs to cease and desist, and if the latter, then she should consider stopping, or not. I don't believe US has broken any international laws by spying in China's EEZ, and her actions aligns with current international norms.

A.Man said:

I don't think Admiral Kirby telling the truth. The PLAN J-11BH fighter in the photos, released by Pentagon, is far away than Admiral Kirby suggested 30 feet to the US Navy P-8 plane.

Click to expand...

I do not think the Admiral is lieing in the east. He is protesting...and there is nothing wrong with that.

But this thread is not about those kind of allegations on either side, nor should it be.

I have no doubt the PRC pilot was aggressive, arguing over a few dozen additional feet is not the issue.

If you read the reports closely, they say approximately 20-30 feet in straight flight, and 45 feet in the roll. I would presume this means 45 feet over the vertical stabilizer.

If the US felt they were hazarded, they should protest..and they are. If they are really upset, they will send a message back to the PRC just as the intercept sent one to the US.

Another carrier group, and potential aircraft escorts for a while may be that message, we will have to wait and see.

Just as I said that these types of surveillance missions are not risk free, if there are aggressive responses to it, and they are felt to be unsafe and hazarding...those actions are also not consequence free.

We will all have to see what happens and all hope things cool off.

Brumby said:

In my mind, there are two ways to read this incident.

1) It is a single act of a pilot operating outside of SOP and so if the facts bear it out then it is an issue of discipline and professionalism.

2) A more problematic one is tacit change in attitude at policy level to be more assertive. This coupled with the Cowpen incident may suggest a progressive shift in testing US resolved and a new envelope.

Click to expand...

It is almost definitely the second, and the pattern has existed since mid last decade. Certainly if behaviours akin to what led to the EP-3 downing were not fully supported by the civilian government, then you wouldn't have seen anymore like this.

While I don't think the PLA are growing more aggressive in frequency in the sense of incidents of this type, there has been and will be an inevitable, implicit challenge to US military dominance and freedom of movement in the region, especially closer to Chinese shores.
This will be a result of more capable and more vigorous PLA training, exercises, and deployments at and outside its borders (especially navy, but also air force), which due to the more frequent occurrence and more capable assets being deployed, will be seen as more assertive.

Of course, more PLA exercises will also mean more US surveillance, and the balance of power is not at a point where the PLA can exercise comfortably with US survellance assets around.

Blackstone said:

"Threat capabilities" are abstract and meaningless to the issue at hand; which is is the United States breaking international laws and/or norms in her spying off China's coat? If the former, then she needs to cease and desist, and if the latter, then she should consider stopping, or not. I don't believe US has broken any international laws by spying in China's EEZ, and her actions aligns with current international norms.

Click to expand...

I never said what the US is doing is breaking international norms.

I was replying to you saying that China is out of line and should stop whining or stop their aggressive intercepts of US surveillance assets because China can and has also done its own surveillance missions before. As said by a previous poster, that is missing the forest for the trees. (The forest here being the strategic disposition of forces, the trees in this case, being surveillance missions and responses to such missions)


--

And I'm not sure why you think threat capability is abstract. It can absolutely be measured by the quantity and quality of offensive assets within varying degrees of proximity to one's homeland/mainland/country/important cities/strategic centres.
And it isn't meaningless either, because your last post suggested that simply having mutual ability to perform surveillance missions on each other is somehow a reasonable situation, when it is the capability to actually act and strike on surveillance intelligence which is the key indicator.


Now I'm not saying the US should stop its surveillance capabilities or withdraw its forces. All nations act in their own self interest of course. But in that same vein I'm also saying that the PLA response to this kind of surveillance is also within its own rights.

Bltizo said:

I never said what the US is doing is breaking international norms.

I was replying to you saying that China is out of line and should stop whining or stop their aggressive intercepts of US surveillance assets because China can and has also done its own surveillance missions before. As said by a previous poster, that is missing the forest for the trees. (The forest here being the strategic disposition of forces, the trees in this case, being surveillance missions and responses to such missions)

Click to expand...

Fair enough, we see it differently and I respect your position, even if I disagree with it.

And I'm not sure why you think threat capability is abstract. It can absolutely be measured by the quantity and quality of offensive assets within varying degrees of proximity to one's homeland/mainland/country/important cities/strategic centres.
And it isn't meaningless either, because your last post suggested that simply having mutual ability to perform surveillance missions on each other is somehow a reasonable situation, when it is the capability to actually act and strike on surveillance intelligence which is the key indicator.

Click to expand...

Let's be blunt, China's complaints have nothing to do with "threat capability," and everything to do with eroding US military supremacy in Asia, especially the USN. It was the US side that upset the status quo, by increasing frequency of surveillance missions with leftover resources from the collapse of the Soviet Union, but bad policy and illegal ones are not one and the same. The US has the right under international law to perform her surveillance missions, and she chose to exercise that right.

Now I'm not saying the US should stop its surveillance capabilities or withdraw its forces. All nations act in their own self interest of course. But in that same vein I'm also saying that the PLA response to this kind of surveillance is also within its own rights.

Click to expand...

Agreed, and for whatever it's worth, I think the US is unnecessarily provoking China for marginal gains that may not justify the ill will and political costs.

Blackstone said:

Fair enough, we see it differently and I respect your position, even if I disagree with it.

Click to expand...

Likewise.

Let's be blunt, China's complaints have nothing to do with "threat capability," and everything to do with eroding US military supremacy in Asia, especially the USN. It was the US side that upset the status quo, by increasing frequency of surveillance missions with leftover resources from the collapse of the Soviet Union, but bad policy and illegal ones are not one and the same. The US has the right under international law to perform her surveillance missions, and she chose to exercise that right.

Click to expand...

I would argue the two are almost mutually inclusive. US military supremacy in Asia is what allows for the US ability to threaten the Chinese mainland.

From China's point of view, just a few hundred kms off its highly developed east coast is basically a couple of task forces worth of very powerful US naval ships and strike aircraft, all with the newest precision strike weapons, EW, LACMs, and heavily defended by cutting edge aegis. Combined with the less than amicable recent history of US-PRC military incidents and geopolitical/territorial disagreements, with US devastation of previous foes like Iraq, and even Vietnam, along with mutual lack of trust, and the omnipotent uneasiness of not knowing what another independent power might choose to do, I think you can understand why the forward deployed US forces may be considered a serious threat.

Simply doing an inventory of the forces the US forward deploys in the western pacific, it is quite frightening for any person who may be down that barrel's sights. Of course, that's the entire point, in the eyes of the US it is a deterring force to prevent China from doing anything that directly goes against US interests.

The surveillance missions just adds another enabling factor for US military capability to breach Chinese defences and target strategic and sensitive sites like nuclear submarine bases, and I imagine the PRC and PLA see that as the cherry on the cake.

Agreed, and for whatever it's worth, I think the US is unnecessarily provoking China for marginal gains that may not justify the ill will and political costs.

Click to expand...

I actually can understand US actions, they are made in what they perceive to be their own national security.

De ja vu - we have already seen this one. A “Flanker” manoeuvring dangerously while intercepting an ”Orion”.

On 13 September 1987 a Soviet Su 27 with the pilot V. Tsymbal at the controls had a collision with a Norwegian P 3 – more precisely the Su 27 flew under the P 3 and one the later propellers clipped one of the vertical stabiliser of the former. Apart from some material damage the incident mentioned had no other serious consequences but this is one reason one should be careful with such “games” in the air.

Of course on this occasion i.e. Chinese Flanker intercepting USN P 8 nothing really happened that is no damage or other serious stuff. Let us hope things stay that way.

Last but not least gentlemen – this was just a historic remainder and I shall abstain from entering a “China wrong – USA right” or the other way round argument.

Let's not forget that the same things were said of the EP-3 incident where the Chinese pilot was accused of doing high speed stunts very similar to what's being said here. And it turns out the J-8 pilot lost control because he was flying at a slow speed trying to keep pace with the EP-3.

Really, do we have to go through this again about who has the right of way? Over international waters means nothing when the US and Japan complain about Chinese ships and aircraft traveling through international space. And like with the hypocrisy of the Japanese complaining about flying too close, that's a case where if China didn't release their video and pictures, guess whose one-sided story and lie would've been the record? The Japanese hid the truth they were doing dangerous stunts themselves and they dared to hypocritically complain about China? That's because they could with the media on their side and willing to keep the story on one side. So what other facts and other incidents are being hidden to make it a one-sided affair? Chinese ships spying at RIMPAC was wrong but what the Cowpens was doing was all right? That's why they're so afraid of China rising and not in their control. Because the truth is whoever has the power can write the rules and then bend them anyway they want?

From the Chinese Ministry of national Defense press release, there were actually two U.S planes. One P-3 and one P-8 intercepted by the J-11.

AssassinsMace said:

Let's not forget that the same things were said of the EP-3 incident where the Chinese pilot was accused of doing high speed stunts very similar to what's being said here. And it turns out the J-8 pilot lost control because he was flying at a slow speed trying to keep pace with the EP-3.

Click to expand...

That is why there is such a thing as maintaining a safe distance for the simple reason that if you get too close then there is no margin for error. There will always be a reason for accidents. Keeping a safe distance is to minimise accidents.