PLA Air Force news, pics and videos

Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
vesicles said:
"Survey"... that is actually THE diplomatic term for spying. Let's call it what it is.

And what's wrong with spying? It is a normal activity for any country. The official term is intelligence gathering. And country being "surveyed" has counterintelligence to counter it.

It's a game played by professionals. Sometimes, some of the things done by these professionals may look "unprofessional" by us amateurs. But it's still part of the game.

Why do I insist that the crazy flying by the Chinese pilots is part of the game? Have you ever seen the Chinese pilots fly like that anywhere else. Many of the PLAAF's bases are in or near big cities. Has anyone on the internet mentioned any crazy fly-by's by Chinese fighter pilots? Has any of the Chinese netizens complained about Chinese fighter pilots "buzzing the tower" in their cities and towns? They are doing these things under orders.

And why does the PLA issue orders like that? Some PLA commanding officers are becoming crazy? Hardly. They are doing it for a reason. That's why I think it's part of a game.

We have members questioning the individuality of Chinese soldiers and their ability to finish missions independently. Then all of a sudden, we start believing stories about Chinese pilots losing control and acting unprofessionally. So which one is it?
Click to expand...
There's no question international laws and norms allow any and all countries to spy outside 12 miles territorial waters, and as long as it's in US interests to do so, it should continue unabated. Least we forget, China has the same right to spy off US coasts anytime it wants- as its spy ship did during RimPac 2016.

The flip side of the issue is just because US has the right to spy off China's shores, does it make sense to do more than it needs for intelligence collection purposes. My view is US high command should determine what it wants to do, and how much resource it needs to get it done, with some buffers. Anything beyond that doesn't serve long-term US interests, because the benefits might not be worth the costs.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
vesicles said:
As I've mentioned a little earlier, why isn't the USN sending in the escorts. If they know full well, when they send their "surveying" planes to the vicinity of Chinese seas, they face tremendous danger, why are they not doing more to protect their sailors? Why are they still sending in a single slow flying plane unprotected, leaving their sailors fully exposed?

Would this also be a type of being unprofessional? Knowingly sending your men into danger without protection? Should we demand the USN to tell us why they are sending our brave men and women to dangerous missions without protection? We know the USN is more professional than that. But why are they still doing this? It's a strategic game that the US and China are playing.
Click to expand...
Other than unexpected natural conditions or mechanical problems, there shouldn't be any danger to crews of spy assets in international waters and airspace. Unlawful, unprofessional, and unsafe actions by PRC pilots and sailors are what make spy missions dangerous.
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Blackstone said:
There's no question international laws and norms allow any and all countries to spy outside 12 miles territorial waters, and as long as it's in US interests to do so, it should continue unabated. Least we forget, China has the same right to spy off US coasts anytime it wants- as its spy ship did during RimPac 2016.

The flip side of the issue is just because US has the right to spy off China's shores, does it make sense to do more than it needs for intelligence collection purposes. My view is US high command should determine what it wants to do, and how much resource it needs to get it done, with some buffers. Anything beyond that doesn't serve long-term US interests, because the benefits might not be worth the costs.
Click to expand...

Well, my guess is someone with the USN has made the decision that they still need to do it. And this guy should be more informed than us. There must be valuable information that they can gather despite Chinese efforts to counter it. So with spying off China's shores, the benefit still outweighs the danger.
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Let's remember the breaking of international law thus illegal seizure and pirating of a Chinese ship headed for Iran back in 90s. The US believed China was shipping industrial equipment to make chemical weapons for Iran. The US Navy found only farming tools. Embarrassed, the US charged they were tricked by China thus acquitted themselves of any crime. Why not spin that some chemical weapons have their basic ingredients coming from plants thus they did seize equipment for making chemical weapons?

If people were professional they would own up to making a mistake instead of acting like a child trying to blame what they did wrong on others.
 
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Blackstone said:
Other than unexpected natural conditions or mechanical problems, there shouldn't be any danger to crews of spy assets in international waters and airspace. Unlawful, unprofessional, and unsafe actions by PRC pilots and sailors are what make spy missions dangerous.
Click to expand...

Again, as I have stressed, these are not unprofessional activities. Dangerous, yes. But not unprofessional. Certainly not unlawful. We don't the USN suing the PLAN, do we?

The decision to fly like this has most likely been made after careful calculation. It must have been determined to be the most effective way to counter the USN. This is not civilian flying. This is military mission. Thus, casualty is part of the equation.

If it is unacceptable, the USN should have done something about it, like sending in escorts or changing the mission, etc. Has the USN done anything to counter it? They keep coming back without escort. They keep doing the same mission. So apparently the USN has also accepted the danger involved in it.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
vesicles said:
Again, as I have stressed, these are not unprofessional activities. Dangerous, yes. But not unprofessional. Certainly not unlawful. We don't the USN suing the PLAN, do we?

The decision to fly like this has most likely been made after careful calculation. It must have been determined to be the most effective way to counter the USN. This is not civilian flying. This is military mission. Thus, casualty is part of the equation.

If it is unacceptable, the USN should have done something about it, like sending in escorts or changing the mission, etc. Has the USN done anything to counter it? They keep coming back without escort. They keep doing the same mission. So apparently the USN has also accepted the danger involved in it.
Click to expand...
Man, you're wasting your time. These people just want to complain. They don't even know what unprofessional means. If the Chinese pilot were truly unprofessional, he'd fly up, fail to control his speed, then issue curse words in Mandarin over the radio as he went back and forth trying to get near the American jet without zooming past it or being overtaken LOL. This was an intricate and difficult maneuver performed by a highly skilled professional that achieved its intent. Doesn't get more professional than this. When Luke Skywalker out-flew TIE fighters while navigating the DeathStar's turret-defended channels and aimed a missile precisely into its vent even with his missile guidance systems fried, that is the definition of "unprofessional" if the Empire were to adopt America's current use of the word LOL. The definition of "professional" in this case is "does not hinder or unsettle the USN pilot who was conducting blatant hostile spying activities so that he can complete his mission comfortably." Anything that China would to do thwart their mission is, by definition, "unprofessional" hence my earlier mockery of the word.
 
Last edited:
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Unprofessional means lack of training and lack of discipline. This should be reflected in every aspect of the organization. I challenge anyone find evidence of the PLA lacking discipline. If the PLA emphasizes discipline, then it is unlikely for them to allow their pilots to act unprofessionally consistently as we have seen.
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Richard Santos said:
It is. Any unusual flight maneuver in close proximity with a third party is highly dangerous and therefore unprofessional piloting behavior.
Click to expand...

Exactly, you don't roll fighter aircraft around the target aircraft on a professional, safe intercept, look what happened in the past, its is very dangerous, for both aircrews, but particularly for those on the surveillance aircraft, so yes this was a very "low brow" approach to conducting a legitimate intercept. Maybe "thuggish" is the word that best describes this type of behavior, the US aircraft always maintain course and altitude when being intercepted.

I can assure you that US aircrew do not "krap" their pants as Mangi has suggested on more than one occasion, but that's rather unprofessional as well, to denigrate others and call them names.

I can assure you, that we will conduct to conduct air ops of all types in international airspace, international law, and most nuclear treaties allow that type of surveillance in order to verify that those whom are parties to those treaties keep the terms of those treaties....

Anyway, both China and US have an agreement to conduct flight operations with-in a very specific set of guidelines, target aircraft are to maintain course and heading when being "joined" by the intercepting aircraft. Military traffic follow those protocols to the letter, when someone breaches those guideline, a formal complaint is logged with the offending party, and both sides will negotiate in order to bring everyone back into compliance. We'll see how this plays out, while some think that "bullying" is acceptable, we of course do not practice bullying, nor do we appreciate bullying, whether its ourselves or others who are the recipients.

It's called "innocent passage" vesicles, and that is also spelled out under treaty, you are unarmed and observing, gathering intelligence and conducting your survey, so no, that is the very definition of professionalism, the Russians conducting intelligence gather have been following those very specific protocols, and as long as they do, there's "no harm, no foul".

for posters on the SDF who don't understand the terms and conditions of these protocols, I would suggest you do a little research before casting judgement on others... end off topic, this is the "Chinese purchase of the SU-35 thread, and while I agree that possibly the SU-35s, (there are 4 aircraft in China at this time), will eventually conduct some of these details, its most unlikely that those 4 Flankers are a real factor in any intercepts for some time.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Air Force Brat said:
Exactly, you don't roll fighter aircraft around the target aircraft on a professional, safe intercept, look what happened in the past, its is very dangerous, for both aircrews, but particularly for those on the surveillance aircraft, so yes this was a very "low brow" approach to conducting a legitimate intercept. Maybe "thuggish" is the word that best describes this type of behavior, the US aircraft always maintain course and altitude when being intercepted.

I can assure you that US aircrew do not "krap" their pants as Mangi has suggested on more than one occasion, but that's rather unprofessional as well, to denigrate others and call them names.

I can assure you, that we will conduct to conduct air ops of all types in international airspace, international law, and most nuclear treaties allow that type of surveillance in order to verify that those whom are parties to those treaties keep the terms of those treaties....

Anyway, both China and US have an agreement to conduct flight operations with-in a very specific set of guidelines, target aircraft are to maintain course and heading when being "joined" by the intercepting aircraft. Military traffic follow those protocols to the letter, when someone breaches those guideline, a formal complaint is logged with the offending party, and both sides will negotiate in order to bring everyone back into compliance. We'll see how this plays out, while some think that "bullying" is acceptable, we of course do not practice bullying, nor do we appreciate bullying, whether its ourselves or others who are the recipients.

It's called "innocent passage" vesicles, and that is also spelled out under treaty, you are unarmed and observing, gathering intelligence and conducting your survey, so no, that is the very definition of professionalism, the Russians conducting intelligence gather have been following those very specific protocols, and as long as they do, there's "no harm, no foul".

for posters on the SDF who don't understand the terms and conditions of these protocols, I would suggest you do a little research before casting judgement on others... end off topic, this is the "Chinese purchase of the SU-35 thread, and while I agree that possibly the SU-35s, (there are 4 aircraft in China at this time), will eventually conduct some of these details, its most unlikely that those 4 Flankers are a real factor in any intercepts for some time.
Click to expand...
And I can assure you, when the US does this near China, they will be met again and again by professional Chinese pilots flying professional Chinese maneuvers as they were this time.

But your complaint about "unprofessional" and "low-brow" is very funny, Brat. When the British redcoats marched in highly professional traditional combat columns, maintaining speed and direction thus getting them picked off and out-maneuvered by American minutemen, I'm sure the British General complained as much and as elegantly as you are now about protocol, professionalism, low-brow thuggish guerrilla tactics, what-not. LOL

BTW, Americans consider blatant hostile spying by military aircraft as innocent passage?? LOL I guess then it's all innocent unless the ammo fly then. Funny Americans...
 
Last edited:
vesicles

vesicles

Colonel
Air Force Brat said:
It's called "innocent passage" vesicles, and that is also spelled out under treaty, you are unarmed and observing, gathering intelligence and conducting your survey, so no, that is the very definition of professionalism, the Russians conducting intelligence gather have been following those very specific protocols, and as long as they do, there's "no harm, no foul".
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I said in one of my earlier posts.

I have absolutely no problem with the USN doing surveillance. I actually specifically said "it's a normal part of any country's operations". I don't even have any problems with the US going to China to gather intelligence. It's as normal as day and night. Everyone does it.

I was simply attempting to find an explanation for why the PLAN pilots do the crazy flying. As a pilot yourself, you should know pilots with that much training to allow them to fly these high tech planes should have the discipline to know what to do and what not to do. I'm simply giving the pilots some benefit of the doubt.

These are masters of their craft. They become successful because they are disciplined and because they have tremendous mental maturity. Especially with the fighter pilots, they maintain calm at all times, no matter how dangerous it becomes. Being able to control these planes means amazing mental control. So it doesn't make any sense to me that they all of sudden lost control and began to do crazy stuff. Like I said before, I'm simply giving these pilots some benefit of the doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top