East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

Is there an universal definition of what 'safe distance' is? Does someone need to dig out pictures of American and other NATO nations fighters flying extremely close to Soviet/Russian aircraft? Its a pure judgement call, and as such, its largely meaningless.

The only thing that separates this intercept from countless others is the added 'kinda like a barrel row' comment.

Again, what does that mean? If it was a proper full on barrel roll, the DoD spokesman (his rank is largely irrelevant here in terms of the message he was conveying, as he would have just been reading from a prepared press pack, and was more to give the message a measure of the respectability of his rank, just more media mind games) would have said as much without all the 'I can only describe as'.

The most obvious manoeuvre I can think of that might fit that description would be if the J11 was approaching from above and behind the P8, and the PLANAF pilot inverted before overflying the P8 to keep his eyes on the aircraft throughout, he then inverted back to normal after he passed the P8.

Fits the description, makes sense, and is actually more sensible and safe than overflying the P8 while maintaining level flight throughout.

As I said before, much ado about noting.

I'd agree with 'much ado about nothing'. China, in the air as in the sea, is setting the standard for how they will respond to Surveillance by nations having the potential to be hostile towards it in the future. The next operation by the US/Japan will account for this and either be adjusted to compensate or scale back. Many factors will play into that decision, but it's all a tit-for-tat.

The decision on how aggressive to be with the intercept is case by case I would imagine. Depending on location, range and the platform being intercepted. It should come as no surprise that this incident, occurring so close to Yulin Naval Base and the Second Strike assets housed there, warranted an unambiguous response in China's view.

Every country put's their National Security first and acts accordingly, even in the face of established International Law. When has that ever not been the case.

plawolf said:

Is there an universal definition of what 'safe distance' is?

Click to expand...

Probably the distance which won't create any disturbance (turbulence) to the flight of intercepted aircraft. Nope, coming from behind, quickly getting above intercepted aircraft and later on flying directly in front of it isn't the safe way to do that and is fairy risky as one mistake could result in loss of life. Any fighter pilot who would perform stunts like that should be immediately grounded and the man who assigned him to the task should be seriously questioned and get some disciplinary as that only shows his lack of leadership abilities.

Jeff Head said:

Actually, unless he was ordered to do so...he most certainly will not.

Any professional military organization would severely reprimand such a pilot and probably ground him.

Despite what Hollywood and Tom Cruise may portray, military service is not about hot dogging with a multi-million dollar aircraft and risking life, equipment, and international relations when they are not ordered to do so.

Discipline is critical for that very reason.

Click to expand...

trust me, seven years in the military, i know exactly how things work.

judging by the emerging pattern of aggressive reaction to american and japanese incursions, this particular pilot was prolly given a bit of freedom to decide how to accomplish a specific task (which is how military is supposed to be anyways). now when he gets back his boss will either say "good work we sure showed them" or "that was sick but not exactly what i had in mind". but either way i can guarantee that he will not be reprimanded, and this guy will be passed around as somewhat of a legend in the unit. i know at my unit there are a few guys who are known to have broken rules in a "badass way" and actually earned respect of their peers and superior. that's just the military culture man. maybe the air force is a lil more by the book because they are wusses compared to the army, but the general atmosphere should be the same.

o and btw, when i say reward i dont mean some big ceremony with medals and stuff. army guys hate that, there are more subtle ways to reward and punish ppl in the armed forces that works waaay better, especially punish LMAO.

pla101prc said:

o and btw, when i say reward i dont mean some big ceremony with medals and stuff. army guys hate that, there are more subtle ways to reward and punish ppl in the armed forces that works waaay better, especially punish LMAO.

Click to expand...

Well, my guess is that the US aircraft was intercepted as we know while it flew its mission. The pilot had his orders and ROEs.

If the pilot came in at a certain angle and wanted to get a more full or different view, he may have rolled to do so.

I have no doubts, as I say, that he was aggressive, and probably did cross the aircraft's path and show his weapons.

Again the US has to determine if it was hazarded and then protest. They are doing so.

The PLAN will look at the orders and ROEs and determine if the pilot followed them. If he did not, then the chain of command will deal with it, including stifling the natural inclination amongst pilots to slap backs...because they will not allow an atmosphere that encourages not following orders and ROEs.

No one was hurt. The mission itself did not appear to be aborted.

This is all a part of how these thing work out.

Janiz said:

Probably the distance which won't create any disturbance (turbulence) to the flight of intercepted aircraft. Nope, coming from behind, quickly getting above intercepted aircraft and later on flying directly in front of it isn't the safe way to do that and is fairy risky as one mistake could result in loss of life. Any fighter pilot who would perform stunts like that should be immediately grounded and the man who assigned him to the task should be seriously questioned and get some disciplinary as that only shows his lack of leadership abilities.

Click to expand...

But how do you know for sure that's the exact flight path taken by the Chinese fighter pilot intercepting the P-8? Is there an exact film on this recorded? It's the DOD words against China. It's like you're blaming the cop (China fighter plane) for intercepting the intruder (P-8) in a different way. Just because it's not the norm doesn't mean the cop is at fault or even in the wrong. Blame the intruder for instigating the matter in the first place.

Brumby said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yeah but when the Japanese are hypocrites about such things and you see no protests from the US and others who point the finger at China, that's becomes moot. The US was quiet about Japanese stunts so China isn't going to much listen.

pla101prc said:

laws and morality aside, you gotta admit those were some pretty cool stunts the PLAAF pilot pulled off. clearly the PLAAF pilots' skills have vastly improved

Click to expand...

Actually this would lead us to believe the exact opposite, NO responsible airman would endanger another aircrew, in a transport type aircraft, full of technicians and console operators, who would all die if this aircraft lost control. and the idea in some later posts that he did that to keep the P-8 in sight, show a further lack of understanding of the physics involved. We could equate the action to a cop wearing his gun, and a gangbanger waving his gun around and pointing it at people, two distinctly different actions, by two distinctly type of individuals. One under complete control, and another about to loose control?

Air Force Brat said:

Actually this would lead us to believe the exact opposite, NO responsible airman would endanger another aircrew, in a transport type aircraft, full of technicians and console operators, who would all die if this aircraft lost control. and the idea in some later posts that he did that to keep the P-8 in sight, show a further lack of understanding of the physics involved. We could equate the action to a cop wearing his gun, and a gangbanger waving his gun around and pointing it at people, two distinctly different actions, by two distinctly type of individuals. One under complete control, and another about to loose control?

Click to expand...

You'd think after losing a pilot in the EP-3 incident, PLA air services would be especially careful about getting dangerously close to larger, slower, and less maneuverable aircrafts. That fact alone lends credence to China's narrative on the J-11/P-8 incident. However, it's entirely possible the Chinese pilot in question hotdogged a bit and got closer to the P-8 than his commanding officer preferred.

Blackstone said:

You'd think after losing a pilot in the EP-3 incident, PLA air services would be especially careful about getting dangerously close to larger, slower, and less maneuverable aircrafts. That fact alone lends credence to China's narrative on the J-11/P-8 incident. However, it's entirely possible the Chinese pilot in question hotdogged a bit and got closer to the P-8 than his commanding officer preferred.

Click to expand...

I thought we've established that the most probable explanation is that these kind of intercepts are still sanctioned.

In that sense, in a way these aggressive maneuvers do show some skill on the side of the pilot. One can quibble about it being unsafe and aggressive but that clearly was the point; to scare the P-8 a little. Either wayit was still a piece of nice flying.