Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Radar

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

luhai said:

Not in the event of a real military conflict, but paving the way for one. Remember how both 9.18.31 and 7.7.37 got started

Click to expand...

I think some of us need to cool our jets a little. Nobody, not even the most hardcore China haters want a war between China and Japan, least of all the Japanese. This isn't 1931 any more, and the Japanese will get no benefit and receive a hell of a beating if they attacked China, and even the US would be doubtful to take their side if they fired the first shot.

The Japanese have no real 'hard evidence', this isn't like America loosing a drone in someone else's back yard which could be paraded in front of TV cameras and leave no doubt. Whatever evidence the Japanese can provide can be discredited with very little difficulty, because whatever evidence they could provide could have been fabricated just as easily. It's pretty much the same with all the China hacking claims. It always amuses me how western hackers operating out of their mom's garage can never be traced, yet Chinese hackers who are supposed to be military trained, and who can break into all sorts of secure networks no one else can penetrate can be traced to specific computers in China.

Now, on the one hand, it could be the Japanese are thinking, hey look, the west is taking this equally ridiculous hacker story bait, line and tackle, so they will swallow this radar lock story just as easily. Plus, it would be all but impossible for the Chinese to disprove such a accusation.

On the other, it is also possible that the Chinese government are thinking, radar locks are almost impossible to prove with hard evidence and it will just be a case of 'he says, she says', so what can they really prove?

But I think both extremes unsatisfactory because it always has to be one government or the other lying to the world on purpose. Even if we rule out the morality issue, I just don't think it's smart policy to go on record with a big fat lie no matter how improbably it would be to get caught out.

Government hate either telling the truth or a blatant lie, but they love the grey area in between. As such, I think the specific wording of the Chinese press release is worth examining in detail, since the Chinese at least, are very conscious of choosing their words with great care and deliberations, which goes some way to explaining why they take so long to issue any sort of official statement.

I think the Chinese focus on mentioning fire control radar by name might be more nuanced than being specific.

But first, I think we need to be clear what a radar lock on means. This might seem obvious to most of us here, but a ship or planes radar warning receiver goes off when it detects radar waves operating in bands typically used in fire control radars (x-band) illuminating the receiver over a certain power threshold (btw, LPI radars work by keeping their emissions individually below this power threshold, but scan lots of times using many slightly different frequencies and then piecing all the weak returns together to forms big return, but I digress).

However, not all x-band radars are fire control radars. It is worth noting that many marine navigational radars and radar range fingers also operate on the x-band, but to name a few things. I remember a story from a reliable source, where the RAF were scratching their heads when the self defence suit on Typhoons stationed at a certain RAF base would suddenly activate and give the pilot firing solutions to a spot on a nearby motorway. There was nothing wrong with any of the ECM suits, and after much investigating, it was discovered that a couple of patrol cops were using their radar speed guns to clock the speeds of passing Typhoons when they were on traffic watch, and that was similar enough to fire control radars that had they been doing this in a war zone, they would have eaten an ALARM missile for their troubles.

I think the general public has a somewhat distorted idea of what a radar lock-on means, probably from watching too much Top Gun. There is no real-time synchronised beeping and flashing of little red lights. RWR are set to go off when radars operating within a wide range of frequencies hit the RWR with a high enough amount of energy. The RWR by its very nature need to err on the side of caution, as it needs to cover all sorts of threats from many countries and systems, and a false positive is better than missing a lock.

Frankly, it would not be hard to imagine how Chinese range finding or even navigational radars could have set off the Japanese RWRs, especially when you consider just how close they were operating to Chinese ships at the time of these 'lock-ons', because the closer you are to the emitter, the stronger the signal, especially in the case of high frequency radars that loose their energy very quickly, like x-band radars.

What more, fire control radar wartime operating frequencies are some of the most closely guarded secrets of any military, because if an enemy found that out, they can potentially develop tailored countermeasures to make your weapons useless. And I personally do not believe the Japanese or Americans have a record of the wartime frequencies of modern Chinese fire control radars. If anything, it would have been a big intelligence coup if the Japanese did manage to record such frequencies from this incident. In which case I hardly doubt the Japanese would be complaining and making such a big deal out of it. Looking at it from the other side, I find it hard to believe that a Chinese commander would order the use of his fire control radars because of the valuable intel he would be giving away.

If anything, I think the Japanese have made a blunder and gifted China some valuable data because obviously their RWR went off, and depending on how modern their self defence suits are and their settings, they might have also actively broadcasted jamming signals automatically. These jamming signals are also very useful for CECM, and given the high tensions and how much of a deal the Japanese are trying to make of this, I doubted their pilots and ship captain were using training mode if and when they did start jamming.

I do wonder if all the fuss the Japanese are making is supposed to try and compensate themselves for, and justifying they potentially giving away very valuable signals and frequency characteristics to the Chinese so cheaply. After all, if the Chinese did use their fire control radars, its not so much of a screw up since the signals and frequencies the Japanese recorded would be useful to them if things did turn hot. And/or they are thinking we might as well try and make some political hay out of this and make the most of a bad situation.

So, to sum up, I have little doubt that the Japanese RWR went off, and that the pilots and Japanese captain thought at the time that they had been targeted. However, I also believe the Chinese government when they specifically denied that fire control radars were used on the Japanese ship and helo. I think another type of radar was the cause of the Japanese thinking they had been locked on, maybe making them think that was deliberate, where range finding or navigational radars were being used in an atypical fashion designed to give the impression off a lock on without actually using the ships fire control radars to avoid giving away sensitive signals.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

plawolf said:

I think some of us need to cool our jets a little. Nobody, not even the most hardcore China haters want a war between China and Japan, least of all the Japanese. This isn't 1931 any more, and the Japanese will get no benefit and receive a hell of a beating if they attacked China, and even the US would be doubtful to take their side if they fired the first shot.

The Japanese have no real 'hard evidence', this isn't like America loosing a drone in someone else's back yard which could be paraded in front of TV cameras and leave no doubt. Whatever evidence the Japanese can provide can be discredited with very little difficulty, because whatever evidence they could provide could have been fabricated just as easily. It's pretty much the same with all the China hacking claims. It always amuses me how western hackers operating out of their mom's garage can never be traced, yet Chinese hackers who are supposed to be military trained, and who can break into all sorts of secure networks no one else can penetrate can be traced to specific computers in China.

Now, on the one hand, it could be the Japanese are thinking, hey look, the west is taking this equally ridiculous hacker story bait, line and tackle, so they will swallow this radar lock story just as easily. Plus, it would be all but impossible for the Chinese to disprove such a accusation.

On the other, it is also possible that the Chinese government are thinking, radar locks are almost impossible to prove with hard evidence and it will just be a case of 'he says, she says', so what can they really prove?

But I think both extremes unsatisfactory because it always has to be one government or the other lying to the world on purpose. Even if we rule out the morality issue, I just don't think it's smart policy to go on record with a big fat lie no matter how improbably it would be to get caught out.

Government hate either telling the truth or a blatant lie, but they love the grey area in between. As such, I think the specific wording of the Chinese press release is worth examining in detail, since the Chinese at least, are very conscious of choosing their words with great care and deliberations, which goes some way to explaining why they take so long to issue any sort of official statement.

I think the Chinese focus on mentioning fire control radar by name might be more nuanced than being specific.

But first, I think we need to be clear what a radar lock on means. This might seem obvious to most of us here, but a ship or planes radar warning receiver goes off when it detects radar waves operating in bands typically used in fire control radars (x-band) illuminating the receiver over a certain power threshold (btw, LPI radars work by keeping their emissions individually below this power threshold, but scan lots of times using many slightly different frequencies and then piecing all the weak returns together to forms big return, but I digress).

However, not all x-band radars are fire control radars. It is worth noting that many marine navigational radars and radar range fingers also operate on the x-band, but to name a few things. I remember a story from a reliable source, where the RAF were scratching their heads when the self defence suit on Typhoons stationed at a certain RAF base would suddenly activate and give the pilot firing solutions to a spot on a nearby motorway. There was nothing wrong with any of the ECM suits, and after much investigating, it was discovered that a couple of patrol cops were using their radar speed guns to clock the speeds of passing Typhoons when they were on traffic watch, and that was similar enough to fire control radars that had they been doing this in a war zone, they would have eaten an ALARM missile for their troubles.

I think the general public has a somewhat distorted idea of what a radar lock-on means, probably from watching too much Top Gun. There is no real-time synchronised beeping and flashing of little red lights. RWR are set to go off when radars operating within a wide range of frequencies hit the RWR with a high enough amount of energy. The RWR by its very nature need to err on the side of caution, as it needs to cover all sorts of threats from many countries and systems, and a false positive is better than missing a lock.

Frankly, it would not be hard to imagine how Chinese range finding or even navigational radars could have set off the Japanese RWRs, especially when you consider just how close they were operating to Chinese ships at the time of these 'lock-ons', because the closer you are to the emitter, the stronger the signal, especially in the case of high frequency radars that loose their energy very quickly, like x-band radars.

What more, fire control radar wartime operating frequencies are some of the most closely guarded secrets of any military, because if an enemy found that out, they can potentially develop tailored countermeasures to make your weapons useless. And I personally do not believe the Japanese or Americans have a record of the wartime frequencies of modern Chinese fire control radars. If anything, it would have been a big intelligence coup if the Japanese did manage to record such frequencies from this incident. In which case I hardly doubt the Japanese would be complaining and making such a big deal out of it. Looking at it from the other side, I find it hard to believe that a Chinese commander would order the use of his fire control radars because of the valuable intel he would be giving away.

If anything, I think the Japanese have made a blunder and gifted China some valuable data because obviously their RWR went off, and depending on how modern their self defence suits are and their settings, they might have also actively broadcasted jamming signals automatically. These jamming signals are also very useful for CECM, and given the high tensions and how much of a deal the Japanese are trying to make of this, I doubted their pilots and ship captain were using training mode if and when they did start jamming.

I do wonder if all the fuss the Japanese are making is supposed to try and compensate themselves for, and justifying they potentially giving away very valuable signals and frequency characteristics to the Chinese so cheaply. After all, if the Chinese did use their fire control radars, its not so much of a screw up since the signals and frequencies the Japanese recorded would be useful to them if things did turn hot. And/or they are thinking we might as well try and make some political hay out of this and make the most of a bad situation.

So, to sum up, I have little doubt that the Japanese RWR went off, and that the pilots and Japanese captain thought at the time that they had been targeted. However, I also believe the Chinese government when they specifically denied that fire control radars were used on the Japanese ship and helo. I think another type of radar was the cause of the Japanese thinking they had been locked on, maybe making them think that was deliberate, where range finding or navigational radars were being used in an atypical fashion designed to give the impression off a lock on without actually using the ships fire control radars to avoid giving away sensitive signals.

Click to expand...

Very agreed. Furthermore, it's sad that many members here are attempting to relate some historical pasts of the Japanese behaviours from couple decades ago to support their biased prejudice that Japan is at it again. Even if they did before, every case at each situation is independent and especially there had been a regime change and this is the first of such major incidents that modern Japan is handling, we should speak less and observe more. We have no evidence that they are at it now, so accusing them and such makes us no different than those who bashes China for tortures simply because of Cultural Revolution. Either way, we should be more rational and avoid anymore bashing.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

joshuatree said:

You don't hear the Japanese mention any more about the supposed Russians entering Japanese airspace. Could it be the Russians simply won't give them the time of day with these accusations?

Click to expand...

joshuatree said:

You don't hear the Japanese mention any more about the supposed Russians entering Japanese airspace. Could it be the Russians simply won't give them the time of day with these accusations?

Click to expand...

On the other hand Russians have killed Japanese fishermen and Japan has not done anything about it, Russia controls Kuril and Sakhalin Islands which belonged to Japan pre-WWII yet Japan has never tried to re-take them using military

But that is Russia-Japanese relations the Sino-Japanese relations are different and so is the threat level, with regards to the Navy China is behind in terms of assets, training and experience, Japanese are in a league of their own when it comes to their navy, very professional and disciplined, although the gap is always closing

With regards to the air force, I would have one concern, China historically has directed its air force pilots using Ground-controlled interception (GCI), a old Soviet tactic which works well for large land area with mass aircraft, and even recent exercise’s with the Pakistan Air Force PLAAF have shown their reliance in ground control intercept, how well are PLAAF pilots as individual’s working on their own far from homeland over conflict territory where there is no GCI? Answer is I don’t know, this may have changed in recent times with the aggressor training but which aircraft are PLAAF simulating in these aggressor training missions and can they even accurately replicate the F15 Eagle?

Second point, to establish control over territory at distance for prolonged periods of time needs 2 fundamental requirement’s, first is aerial fuelling and second is AWACS coverage

AWACS I can say is good, with KJ-200 joining the air force and navy in good numbers, added to that the KJ-2000, but they need time to gather the experience to operate these effectively, aerial refuelling, H-6?? How much fuel can they carry and can they do high intensity sortie rates while maintaining all their assets in the air for long periods of time , for example a fully fueled IL-78 tanker can refuel a entire JF17 sqaudron, 16 aircraft, meaning 4 tankers can make 4 sqaudrons giving the sortie rate of 8 sqaudrons a termendous increase in firepower let alone increased CAP missions

If China wants to show muscle it must tackle the above points, more importantly it must do this quickly and with little mistakes, otherwise the advantage goes to Japan

Things may be changing but I would still give it a few years before China can sustain control over a far out territory using air power, this is like a surgical operation which needs high tech stuff, no doubt if a war come China would trump Japan since over all its assets are far greater

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

I think there is too much focus on "who is lying, who is telling the truth". You have to remember, diplomatic actions are carefully calculated moves to produce desired reaction from the audiences (other countries and the general public), truth isn't what motivates the actions of governments. No government on earth has a duty or a natural inclination to tell the world what happened to its navy. If one does release some information, be that information true or false, there must be something that government is aimming to achieve with those information.

Right now, no one here has the hard evidence as to whether the incident took place. But observe: just because incident happened doesn't mean Japan government need to tell the world about it. The key in analyzing the situation is to step around the problem of who is lying but to ask what possible motives could be behind the actions of Japan?

There are a few apparent possibilities:

a. to stop PLAN from locking on to Japanese warships in the future
b. to garner public support for elections or a change of constitution
c. to provide pretext for another action Japan has planned
d. to embarass Chinese government
e. to test U.S. attitude
g. to provoke China into more aggresive behavior

a. is immediately out of the window after plawolf's analysis. If Chinese did lock on to Japan ship with their FCR, why would Japan want to stop it? Why cut down your source of intel while alerting your enemy? It's not like a major surface combatant DDG of JMSDF has a lot to fear from a JiangWei.

b. Sound likely but I wouldn't think one single incident would help that much, a possibility

c. Depends on what action, I don't think Japan right now is ready to move on to having open military combat with China. it's more likely to be another move on Diaoyu island. If it is, it would be seen by the world asa tit-for-tat for this Chinese "aggression".

d. Not likely, Chinese government has a thick skin, I don't think this incident, even proven, could make too much trouble for CCP.

e. This is what I think is the most likely explaination. Japan is very interested to know "if it comes to war, what would americans do?" even more, "would they believe us if we told them Chinese fired first?" This is just too perfect a test for that. This also explained why they gave the radar intel to U.S. (and so fast) I don't think US asked for them. Japan wants to gauge from U.S. reaction that a) if U.S. is really behind Japan's back, b) does U.S. trust what Japan says. Japan likely gave U.S. very limited intel to force some political risk on the part of americans. So, if U.S. back them up even then, they know U.S. would stick with them for better or worse.

g. it's likely if Japan wants to escalate the situation. In this case Japan would like Chinese government to outright deny it with strong words and get into a "he says, she says" situation. That way, the public would recognize Sino-Japan conflict has escalated without placing the blame of escalation on Japan.

There might be other possibilities and truth might be something different entirely. But as for now there are several conclusions I can draw:

1. Japan likely has abandoned working with Chinese government as a way to resolve Diaoyu dispute. If it still sees China a potential partner/negotiator, it would contact Chinese leadership to resolve it privately rather than releasing/fabricating the info to the public.

2. U.S. has "satisfied ourselves" to back Japan up if there is a China-Japan conflict in the near future.

3. Island dispute would intensify because, Chinese leadership would not back down(I explained why that is elsewhere), and, Japan is willing to escalate(otherwise it would remain quiet whether or not the FCS lockon did happen)

4. A true FCS lockon likely did not take place. If there is a true FCS lock, what Japan just did would be extremly stupid, it's giving China two very important intel completely for free: 1, What FCS frequency are watched by JMSDF RWS. 2, Exactly how to make JMSDF believe they've been locked on.


Edit: here's my WIP guesstimate of the event:

- Japan has landed on some Chinese frigate radar signal data that could be interpreted as a FCS lock on. They gathered it either before or on that particular encouter with NSF they claimed to have the incident.

- Japanese strategist thought: what a catch, If we release this data, not only do we throw the spotlight onto China, laid down some pretext for whatever our government want to do with Senkaku next, we get to see how US REALLY feels about its "most important ally in the asia-pacific".

- Japan claimed China had locked on to its ship, in meanwhile, it gave the radar data to US.

- The data alone is not really conclusive, but for US, the political stake of not supporting Japan is just too high. The political imperitive, as per usual, trump the objectivity. So, US "satisfied oursalves"(what an artistic choice of words) that Japan is right.

- Chinese goverment is very suspicious about just what kind of the game is Japan playing this time. It looks too like a trap that just waiting for China to deny the incident. Chinese leaders debated and waited and debated some more.

- After the media strom, China felt it needs to say SOMETHING, just ANYTHING is better than taking the blame by default. So it released a modest statement that is the minimal set of denying but careful not to say anything more.

- Japan achieved it main goal(judge US reaction), there is no more need to open data to everyone because then it would reveal Japan's electronic intelligence capability. If China denies, let it deny. It's not like this accusation is going to nail China anyway.

- Business as usual

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

First, a big thank you to PLA Wolf for his thoughtful analysis and answering my question!

Second, I still think that the biggest benefit Japan has gained in this affair is the pretext to fire first on Chinese vessels in the event of an escalating conflict.

Japan has just weeks ago claimed that they will fire tracer "warning" shots against Chinese jets. Then the Chinese called their bluff and responded by saying that they will retaliate against "warning" shots just as if they were being attacked.

Now why would Japan put forth the "warning" shot statement in the first place? My first thought is that Abe wants to gain political credit at home. Firing warning shots certainly sounds very macho and assertive.

So if we follow this line of thinking, what purpose would the "radar locking" affair serve? The best possibility I can think of is Abe publicly ordering JMSDF captains to return fire if they are radar locked again. This would seem like an extremely bold statement to the domestic audience. Better yet, as long as the Japanese government doesn't claim another radar lock, it would make it seem as if China "backed down" in the face of Abe's threat. That could provide a huge boost to Abe's political longevity.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

asif iqbal said:

With regards to the air force, I would have one concern, China historically has directed its air force pilots using Ground-controlled interception (GCI), a old Soviet tactic which works well for large land area with mass aircraft, and even recent exercise’s with the Pakistan Air Force PLAAF have shown their reliance in ground control intercept, how well are PLAAF pilots as individual’s working on their own far from homeland over conflict territory where there is no GCI? Answer is I don’t know, this may have changed in recent times with the aggressor training but which aircraft are PLAAF simulating in these aggressor training missions and can they even accurately replicate the F15 Eagle?

Click to expand...

All this focus on GCI just seems silly and misguided to me. As if NATO pilots do not make extensive use of AWACS controlled intercepts. Whether you are guided by ground or air based radar, it's all effectively the same thing. Even back in the day, Soviet pilots were not mindless drones who needed a ground controller to tell them which button to push to fire as was the common but quite ridiculous and wrong general impression those in the west had of GCI. The Soviet Air Force was obsessed with control, whereby pilots were not allowed to use their initiative and had to get clearance to do anything. But that was in peace time, and those tiresome regulations were put in place largely to help make sure the peace lasted. It would have been silly to assume that if the fighting started that soviet pilots would have still been bound by such rules.

The reason PLAAF planes have 'historically' relied so much on GCI was because until recently, their fighters all had awful radars. Good luck trying to intercept anything by yourself if your radar can barely see further than your standard issue MK1 eyeball. Furthermore, when your radar can barely detect the enemy before you are in a merge, there really isn't a great deal of tactical trickery you can pull. And indeed, when the PLAAF first got the Su27 and J10, it was quite a revelation and there was a great deal of cultural shock and a lot of adjustments were needed. But that was over two decades ago. Some of the pilots in the PLAAF may not have even been born when the first Su27s arrived, and it would only be a matter of a few short years, if it hasn't happened already, that some of the pilots flying Flankers in the PLAAF are younger than their planes.

All recent PLAAF exercises that has been made public have shown that the crux of the training is on developing pilots' tactical thinking as much as their flying skills, and there is a massive amount of freedom for pilots and squadron leaders to come up with new tactics and stratagems to outthink as well as outfight their opponents.

Indeed, one of the first publicised instances where Flankers got the better of J10s before the J11B, when J10s were really dominating, was when an attacking formation sacrificed all but one of their planes by flying them straight into the intercepting J10s and prompty all out shot down, but that distracted and occupied the J10s long enough that a single MKK coming in from a different vector managed to bomb their target and win the Flankers the engagement.

Another important reason why the PLAAF likes to use their ground based radars and AWACS is because of the realities of air combat. The kind of much celebrated and overly popularised accounts of thrilling air duels are really the exception rather than the norm. I was very heartened to hear it when a PLAAF pilot said in an interview that in something like 90% of the time, you are killed in exercises without seeing your attacker or even know you were in a dogfight. Because that is represents what real air combat is like, and the fact that this happens so much in PLAAF DACT exercises is a good indication that they are using realistic scenarios, and are putting great stock in air combat tactical development instead of focusing only on one-on-one dogfighting skills.

If the west and the Japanese wants to keep believing the fair tail that PLAAF pilots can barely fly their planes without a ground controller telling them which way to move the throttle to speed up, they are more than welcome a far as I am concerned as such ignorance and arrogance will cost them dearly if there is an actual war.

Oh, and PLAAF pilots do DACT between J10s and J11s all the time. J11 pilots also fight other J11s all the time. The basic Su27SKs are extremely similar to the bulk of the Japanese F15J fleet in terms of tech level and weapons capability as well as handling, and PL12 capable J11As are also pretty similar to the upgraded F15Js. There are no batter stand ins to train against F15Js without actually training with an F15J.

Second point, to establish control over territory at distance for prolonged periods of time needs 2 fundamental requirement’s, first is aerial fuelling and second is AWACS coverage

Click to expand...

Please have a look at a map. The Diaoyu Islands are only 230nm from the Chinese coast, and there is a major new PLAAF air base very very close to them.

PLAAF fighters can very easily do combat missions over the Diaoyu Islands without any need for tankers. That is only a couple score km further than the range of Chinese coastal missile batteries of YJ62 missiles. Add a detachable booster to the YJ62 and they keep all surface ships out of Diaoyu waters from the Chinese coast.

There is quite simply no need for any tankers, and even without AWACS, Chinese ground based radars can see everything that is happening over those islands.

Tankers will be useful to top up any fighters that were in particularly intense dogfights and had to cut into their fuel reserves, and AWACS can obviously give a better overall picture, especially of low altitude developments than ground based radars, so they are both useful assets to have, but neither are indefensible for the Chinese.

For the Japanese, their closest air base is at least twice as far away, which means only their F15Js have the legs to perform missions over the islands without overtaxing their tiny tanker fleet.

Those F15s, and especially the few upgraded ones must be clocking up a hell of a lot of hours on their already old airframes. The WSJ mentioned something like 91 incidents where the Japanese have scrambled fighters in the last quarter of 2012, always involving multiple fighters.

It is perhaps an indications of how taxed the Japanese F15J fleet is that they sent up F2s to intercept the Russian Su27s that allegedly entered their airspace a few days back.

I do wonder of the Japanese are now considering pulling some of their upgraded F15Js from the south to the north, and if that was one of the reasons for the Russians to prod them (the other being a not too subtle snub at the Japanese 'Northern Day').

But anyways, this is getting into speculation territory and a little OT, so beat to stop here.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

airsuperiority said:

Very agreed. Furthermore, it's sad that many members here are attempting to relate some historical pasts of the Japanese behaviours from couple decades ago to support their biased prejudice that Japan is at it again. Even if they did before, every case at each situation is independent and especially there had been a regime change and this is the first of such major incidents that modern Japan is handling, we should speak less and observe more. We have no evidence that they are at it now, so accusing them and such makes us no different than those who bashes China for tortures simply because of Cultural Revolution. Either way, we should be more rational and avoid anymore bashing.

Click to expand...

Why would it be sad to put the situation into context with past behaviors of Japan? Abe is a right wing revisionist and he does want to unwind the current restrictions in the Japanese constitution. If Japan is fabricating this incident, it doesn't have to mean it is staging an attack but rather to advance domestic agendas. People discussing this shouldn't get riled up but shouldn't avoid turning over every stone and viewing it from all angles, including historical contexts.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

solarz said:

First, a big thank you to PLA Wolf for his thoughtful analysis and answering my question!

Second, I still think that the biggest benefit Japan has gained in this affair is the pretext to fire first on Chinese vessels in the event of an escalating conflict.

Japan has just weeks ago claimed that they will fire tracer "warning" shots against Chinese jets. Then the Chinese called their bluff and responded by saying that they will retaliate against "warning" shots just as if they were being attacked.

Now why would Japan put forth the "warning" shot statement in the first place? My first thought is that Abe wants to gain political credit at home. Firing warning shots certainly sounds very macho and assertive.

So if we follow this line of thinking, what purpose would the "radar locking" affair serve? The best possibility I can think of is Abe publicly ordering JMSDF captains to return fire if they are radar locked again. This would seem like an extremely bold statement to the domestic audience. Better yet, as long as the Japanese government doesn't claim another radar lock, it would make it seem as if China "backed down" in the face of Abe's threat. That could provide a huge boost to Abe's political longevity.

Click to expand...

First, thanks for your kind words, but no need to be so polite.

I can see the merit of the political gains, but it would be an extremely dangerous stunt to pull, and I am not sure the popularity boost Abe can expect from this stunt would offset the fallout from Washington as a result of such a massive escalation as the Americans have been working hard behind the scenes to make sure a real shooting war does not break out and would be most displeased at the Japanese if they made such an extreme overreaction.

In practical terms, I also think you are giving the Abe regime a little too much credit. The much hyped tracer story seemed to have been said by someone junior in government, and was never mentioned again (I even heard on at least one HK report that a Japanese spokesman had publicly rubbished the idea, but I haven't heard that repeated anywhere else, so am not sure how reliable that story is). I would call it an example of the immaturity of some members of the new government and just how chaotic of a transition it has been rather than being part of some secret master plan.

What more, the Chinese as good as killed the tracer idea when unofficial sources suggested the PLAAF will consider the use of tracers as the Japanese firing the first shot and respond accordingly.

A bluff only works if you have the muscle to back it up. If you are so weak that there is little doubt that it is just a bluff, all you do by issuing the bluff is invite the other side to call you on it, and thus diminish your position further when you back down.

If the Japanese said publicly that they will open fire if they are locked by fire control radars, well I think China's most likely response is to ready their Air Force but not launch anything, have a Sov lock its fire control radar and Sunburns on one of the pride of the Japanese fleet at 20km, with a film crew on a civilian ship within visual range of both ships when they do it, filming and broadcasting live and daring the Japanese to fire the first shot. Ha, I found a use for the PLAN's Sovs at last!

No, with all due respect, but I cannot agree with your thinking that the Japanese are somehow trying to get a green card to fire first. You only want a pretext to use force if you got the upper hand militarily, which the Japanese most certainly do not vis-a-vis China. I can see them pulling such a stunt against the North Koreans, or the Americans doing it to the Iranians. But China is neither Iran or North Korea.

If you look at the Japanese response and their language, you can almost see the worry between the lines of them fearing that China might want to start something.

All this talk of reducing tensions and avoiding misunderstanding would most certainly be an odd choice of words if the goal was to give themselves justification to play one-upsy on the escalation ladder.

If the Japanese were indeed planning what you suggested, I would have expected less urgings to reduce tensions and more tough talk, maybe even threats. You know, all the fanboy favourites like 'threat to region security', 'we reserve the right to take appropriate action if repeated' etc.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

plawolf said:

I find it hard to believe that a Chinese commander would order the use of his fire control radars because of the valuable intel he would be giving away.

Click to expand...

it all boils down to how disciplined/trained are PLAN sailors/commanders. It was only recently that they have possesion of oceanic warships. I wouldnt be surprised if a emotional captain would do just that. Remember that chinese pilot who killed himself flying too close to that orion plane? Having equipment is one thing, but you need training/discipline to use it properly.

Re: Japanese Defence Minister: Helicopter & DDG "locked on" by Chinese Frigates' Ra

kroko said:

it all boils down to how disciplined/trained are PLAN sailors/commanders. It was only recently that they have possesion of oceanic warships. I wouldnt be surprised if a emotional captain would do just that. Remember that chinese pilot who killed himself flying too close to that orion plane? Having equipment is one thing, but you need training/discipline to use it properly.

Click to expand...

I am sure that pilot knew how to handle his J-8II fine and wasn't planning on dying. It was simply a game of chicken with the accompanying risks which went too far regardless of whose fault it might have been.