broadsword
Brigadier
It is not the about legal issue. It's about respect. I don't think the US fleet will suck it up if a 054 do to Eisenhower what Cowpen did to Liaoning.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
It is not the about legal issue. It's about respect. I don't think the US fleet will suck it up if a 054 do to Eisenhower what Cowpen did to Liaoning.
Sorry but I doubt it. I'd rather be perplexed that US Navy knew beforehand where when and by what means Liaoning has been there considering you can't find that in Chinese press
It surely didn't look like 'oh, by accident our radar showed Liaoning so we went there coming by the way'.
Last edited:
These are all questions I'd like to see an answer to as well.
But we should clarify the 35 mile perimeter zone.
I believe what was meant in the article, was the carrier's "perimeter zone" that is to say, the "danger zone". In the post USS cole age, having a wide vigilance is natural. Whether that distance is fair or not in this case is another matter entirely, and I certainly don't think the PLAN used that distance in any legal sense rather than a military safety sense.
Note, I don't think the PLAN tried to invoke any laws to make the Cowpens move or leave the area, rather it was on the basis of military "safety".
The other "zone" of note is the exclusion zone imposed for the Liaoning's exercise -- again, this is merely an exclusion zone and there's no legal basis for it and as far as I see, the PLAN weren't using it as a legal means to discharge orders. It served merely as an indicator for other ships to be ware of.
---
To look at the legality (or rather, the "morality") of this incident, let's pretend it was a Chinese destroyer that had meandered in the midst of a RIMPAC exercise without invitation and without warning. It had conducted similar maneuvers proportional to what cowpens had done, and had been similarly responsive or non responsive (as the case may be).
Would the USN legally be able to send a ship (let's just say an LCS) to intercept the Chinese destroyer?
Would the USN (and I think this is the big question) need to?
Because I think we've already established that the Cowpens incident falls well in the grey zone of law.
So now naturally we're seeking to establish who's right and who's wrong, so the question comes down to whether the PLAN was justified in intercepting the Cowpens at the distance we are talking about, relative to a hypothetical sister scenario where it is a PLAN ship making similar maneuvers in a USN or allied exercise.
This justification will inevitably make us consider the overall force balance between two sides.
Indeed, the stronger side will be more open about their capabilities and be more confident, while the weaker side will be more interested in preserving its capabilities and be more wary.
Personally I don't think there is a right or wrong side in this incident, especially if we view this in the larger scheme of geopolitics and the massive disparity in military balance.
Yes, the PLAN LST maneuvered "aggressively," but if we agree neither side acted "unlawfully" then we should consider the big picture of the overall military balance to establish who is "right" and who is "wrong" if there even is a right or wrong side.
IF we want to play semantics, we could say the act certainly wasn't illegal.
I agree that it was potentially dangerous maneuvering, but we could twist the situation to state the Cowpens presence in the exercise zone also made the exercise zone more dangerous and in more danger of miscalculation too.
If we really want to properly see how the Us would respond in a "similar situation," we'd have to consider other factors such as switching the PLAN and USN's naval capability (literally giving the PLAN 10 aircraft carriers, 70 aegis ships, dozens of modern SSNs etc), switching the geography so that the USN is surrounded by a host of PLA bases, switching the geopolitics so the USN is surrounded by PRC military allies, and of course making the USN only having start with its single, precious aircraft carrier commissioned only a year ago.
In that scenario, do we think the USN (remember, the US here is surrounded by a host of highly capable potential threats) would happily allow a 10,000 ton PLAN cruiser (a class which incidentally is arguably the most capable commissioned surface combatant on the face of the earth) whose intents are unclear, to meander in the exercise zone of the USN's lone aircraft carrier, and not seek to keep the PLAN cruiser at arms length to prevent any potential miscalculation if the PLAN cruiser came in even closer?
---
Moral of the story -- this isn't about seamanship people, this is about military force disparity.
Once the PLAN has five aircraft carrier battlegroups in service I'm sure they'll be far more open to USN observation missions and "freedom of navigation" than they are now. Until then, they're going to be very cautious -- perhaps even "aggressively cautious" -- about letting potentially dangerous USN ships in closer than they need to be, as safely within the bounds of the law as they can make it.
In that scenario, do we think the USN (remember, the US here is surrounded by a host of highly capable potential threats) would happily allow a 10,000 ton PLAN cruiser (a class which incidentally is arguably the most capable commissioned surface combatant on the face of the earth) whose intents are unclear, to meander in the exercise zone of the USN's lone aircraft carrier, and not seek to keep the PLAN cruiser at arms length to prevent any potential miscalculation if the PLAN cruiser came in even closer?
---
Moral of the story -- this isn't about seamanship people, this is about military force disparity.
Once the PLAN has five aircraft carrier battlegroups in service I'm sure they'll be far more open to USN observation missions and "freedom of navigation" than they are now. Until then, they're going to be very cautious -- perhaps even "aggressively cautious" -- about letting potentially dangerous USN ships in closer than they need to be, as safely within the bounds of the law as they can make it.
Blackstone
Brigadier
What exactly did the USS Cowpen do that's so upsetting? Many nations send ships, submarines, airplanes, and drones to spy on other nation's fleets. If what happened with USS Cowpen really bothers the PLAN, then for Pete's sake send a 052C to tail an American carrier task force the next time an opportunity comes up. Send two!
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not what the USS Cowpens did, it's what people are accusing the PLAN of doing as unlawful and aggressive while being blind to the larger geopolitical and military disparity and claiming it's "fair game".
Personally I think the USS Cowpens wasn't in error at all. However I am truly surprised by others seeking to portray the PLAN actions as excessively aggressive or even illegal, in the context of the western pacific military balance and the overall military disparity between the PRC and USA.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soviet and NATO warships use to do this to each other's ship all the time. I think both sides learned sucking it up is better for their own international image then throwing tantrums over "respect".
Blackstone
Brigadier
You're right journalists don't always live up to their professional ideals, but hypocrisy is the tribute from vice to virtue, and the notion of "if it bleeds, it leads" is pretty common in media all over the world.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brumby
Major
You are making a statements without warrant in my opinion that the USN asset acted aggressively and dangerously. Can you please outline what action that the US vessel took that constitute such a behaviour. Conducting surveillance is presumably a routine undertaken by every navy that has the capacity to do so in its own national interest. The question is whether it is done within international waters and in accordance with normal international practice. China might not like it and may even want to set a standard which is different but it is a different conversation.
That statement of mine was half facetious, but if you want to seriously examine my position, you can read the last few posts I made prior to this one.
Basically, I am saying that this encounter is not a demonstration of poor seamanship or a single act of disproportionate aggression by the PLAN LSTs commander, but is a symptom systematic military pressure that the US is exerting in the western pacific against china, as well as the dissimilar military power imbalance between the US and china, and the military intents of both sides.
Just for the record I do not believe the USS cowpens acted aggressively or dangerously per se.
- Status