Blitzoof course you have no idea, you don’t even bother looking up the facts, especially after I told you what to google. the fact that you don’t even know SOFA shows that you hardly know anything about the history of the islands.
no surprise the others here don’t know about US control of the islands because they’re only focused on China’s claims and lack substantial history on the dispute or the other perspectives.since you’re so lazy
you can easily wiki it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands#Japanese_and_US_control
http://www.hnn.us/article/133059
etc
Whoa, if you actually read my following posts, I actually did google it and asked why SOFA was relevant because it doesn’t back up your claims about the US controlling the islands and that they haven’t been “returned” to Japan.
From what I’ve read, the US does indeed rent one of the islands for bombing practice (although I’ve not uncovered how extensively that right is used) and certainly not “all” the islands as you suggested like they retain absolute control. Whether you interpret that as the US willing to side with Japan to retain one of those islands for target practice is another matter. But the US don’t own the islands. That doesn’t preclude US desire to side with Japan against china’s claims, but the islands aren’t US controlled, period.
Btw, if you google “SOFA” it comes up with page after page of furniture chains.
BlitzoSome facts to support the opinions expressed would seal the deal. Until that time it must be considered random opinion.
I assume you are familiar with the way PLA “facts” are discharged, but a good place to start would be huitong’s site.
http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com is an excellent place to start
http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/surveillance-aircraft-i.html for AEWC aircraft in particular.
Now, before we continue I want to completely challenge the assumption that the japanese magazine is anywhere near a credible source.
The hierarchy is generally about this, from my own experience:
Highest:
-Official and explicit official PLA statements (however this often isn’t wholly accurate and even state media gets it wrong more often than not — the trick is to separate the BS from the gold)
-Big shrimp/PLA insider forum posts on chinese BBS
-Mainland chinese military magazines with connections with the military to produce decently accurate articles and data
-Various “prominent” individuals such as huitong, tphuang (who basically repackage news from the two above sources into a more recognizable form for western audiences)
-A few select western specialists, with Andrew Erickson being one of them, who know what they’re talking about
-Western military official statements (think ONI, US DoD reports to congress on PLA)
-Andrei Chang and his Kanwa site
-Various publication sites and analysts from abroad: these include random news sites such as washington post, to war is boring, and yes, Japanese media sites as well strategy page, David axe, richard fisher to an extent.
Lowest
The final group usually have no idea what they are talking about or deliberately miscontrue or outright lie about some mind bogglingly obvious facts.
In this case, the idea that the PLAAF’s AEWCs don’t have datalinks are just near incomprehensible given how much of the modern PLA’s air force and navy relies on tactical datalinks to achieve missions.
Its not a matter of stupidity. It could be a matter of they are just not as advanced as other countries. And handled properly voice commands to fighters under AWACS control can be highly effective. The best way to settle this is for some reference that shows that the PLAAF is a modern networked force which is the peer to western models of networked forces. I say that there is no shame in voice control.
Your statement isn’t incorrect logically, but it’s been an accepted fact in virtually all PLA military observers for years that they’ve had datalinking ability between AEWC and fighters.
The entire reason the Pakistani Air Force wanted Chinese built ZDK-03s was so they could datalink them with JF-17s, because their Erieye AEWCs could only datalink with their F-16s. Otherwise they’d have to rely on voice commands via the Erieyes instead.
The Chinese have shown a policy of “If it ain’t broke then don’t fix it.”
That’s a bit of a generalization, and I’d say it applies for development of all new technologies not just military.
But for the PLA for instance, they have indeed retained some rather old technologies — for instance the old Type 517 yagi style radar antennae on their 052C/D destroyers look like something from the middle of last century, alongside the SPY-1 sized active phased array radars. Type 517 despite its old design is still a relevant capability in anti stealth detection.
But at the same time, the rapid development of AESAs are just another indication of how willing the PLA are to make their own unique procurement decisions and understand the benefits which various technologies will confer.
this merely serves as an example of course, of how the PLA are both willing to consider revamping old technologies as well as developing new ones.
Stating that they follow a policy of “if it ain’t then don’t fix it” is rather off target because they’ve shown in the last few years just how willing they are to improve their own capabilities.
Can you provide a name for this Chinese datalink system? I would like to learn more about it and its capabilities. We know about Link16 and its use in western forces. How does the Chinese system compare?
Well 052D is supposed to feature a Link 16 equivalent coined in english as JSILDS (Joint Service Integrated Datalink System), and a similar system probably includes the KJ-2000 and KJ-200 as well as other PLAAF aircraft.
However how unified the various services datalinks are, their names, and definitely how they perform in terms of specifications, are definitely unknown (and will probably be unknown for a long time).
BlitzoThe Russians used the practice of quoting ‘foreign sources’ to introduce information that was sensitive to military sources. This could be an example of the same practice by the Chinese
In my experience of reading many and more PLA disclosures in a similar vein, this article doesn’t do that.
The fact that the PLAAF uses human operators onboard their AWACS to command and control their fighters seems to reflect an updated version of the Combloc practice of ground control of airborne operations. Perhaps this is a continuation of earlier PLAAF doctrine. It should be recalled that ground control of airborne forces was very effective by the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam air war over the north.
Whoa, slow down there cowboy, i thought latenlazy and I wrote off everything in that article should be effectively ignored? Fact? Come on…
The PLA aren’t stupid. Datalinking is far superior to mere voice commands. One is simply obsolete.
Anyone familiar with the PLAs AEWC development know they have data links, it’s not exactly a new technology. Hell, the Pakistani wanted a chinese AEWC for their JF-17s expressly for the fact that their erieyes couldn’t datalink with them.
And the article, I’ll repeat, is simply paraphrasing he contents of a japanese military magazine. From what I’ve read about Japanese military assessments of PLA developments, they’re even worse off than US military appendages like ONI, and for an auxiliary of the government, that’s saying something.
I saw it as a PLAAF scenario to ambush a high value target, in this case an Japanese E-767 AWACS.
That is what the article suggests, yes and it paints china as the aggressor and bemoans how a destruction of a JASDF E-767 would lead to an inability to achieve air superiority and would leave other domains ole to attack, ending the article on a slightly hysterical and theat mongering note.
Regardless of the scenario, it got such blatant facts such as data linking wrong. It’s not a surprise of course, but it did. For any PLA follower they’d instantly tell hogwash like that when they see it, and in this case it certainly looks and smells it.
BlitzoI believe the original article is from here
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2013-06/04/c_124806395.htm
However, if you look at the article, it’s actually quoting a Japanese military magazine.
So what xinhua is doing is merely quoting the “foreign source” the same way state media has quoted various other foreign commentaries as well without critiquing the actual content.
It’s up to the individual to decide whether the quoting of the japanese military magazine reflects an “official” affirmative reflection of the magazine’s claims, but the more weathered PLA and state media watcher may recognize how the xinhua article always makes sure to phrase it as “the [japanese] article says…” before following it with the japanese article’s claim.
If you read the entire thing, it’s actually really a paraphrased rehash of the Japanese article, with no input from xinhua at all, and it actually reflects the military and political biases of the original japanese source which are fairly obvious even if one uses google translate.
Indeed, even if the ridiculous notion that KJ-2000 couldn’t datalink with fighters were true, state media would have no business reporting it given the PLA’s tight grip on what it does want to leak out, and that the capability is potentially extremely relevant.
So this little addition to the discussion gets a lovely “ignored” sticker in the grand scheme.
BlitzoNot to mention neither Russia or China would have any interest in invading Alaska???
[someone’s been watching red dawn]
BlitzoI cannot tell you what is considered ‘regularly’, but if JSDF E2’s are based there it is logical to say that KC-767s could be based there on at least a surge basis. In any event I will continue to search for answers to your questions.
I see, I appreciate it.
Well, from what I read of the most recent Japanese MoD project summary (I can’t remember if it was a white paper or whatever), they were requesting funds/proclaiming that they intended to allow Naha to permanently station E-2s — meaning they are not there presently.
And permanently stationing a few E-2s at an airbase is quite different to permanently stationing a few KC-767s. Very different aircraft, with different logistics.
Maybe if they expanded Naha to station E-767s on a permanent basis they could use the similar infrastructure to support a KC-767 or two as well.
But you’re right, they could definitely surge there for a fixed period — but considering we’re discussing ADIZ patrols, I assumed you were claiming the JASDF had local, near round-the-clock tanker support.
BlitzoWhy are you ‘casting aside’ these discussions on PLAAF performance in the joint exercise between China and Turkey? Do you have background information not available to others? Please elaborate.
Because every day on the chinese military boards there are hundreds and thousands of wild claims about the PLA in every domain, and only a few of the posts are credible, depending on the individuals who post them.
Most of the time, english speaking chinese defence forums are able to filter out the diamonds from the coal, but obviously taht’s not a hard science. There are a few western PLA watchers as well who read Chinese and are able to directly pilfer out the more credible claims from the BS — however sometimes incorrect or uncredible posts make wide circulation among english speaking sites and forums simply on the basis of its content rather than the credibility of the individual.
I believe the general consensus among the community is that the anatolian eagle claim remains dubious at best.
For a more recent example of how misinformation can spread like hot fire, I believe defensenews.com and warisboring or one of those type of sites reported a post on sina military news as “state media”. It was from a fanboy criticizing how the J-15 was a bad aircraft because it couldnt’ carry anti ship missiles or something (with numerous factual errors), however it was incorrectly interpreted by western defence sites as ‘state media’ criticizing the J-15. Ironically, the defensenews.com article even recognized the SMN post sounded more like a rant than an analysis — and that was exactly it, it was a rant, not an analysis.
There are buckets of wild claims made by fanboys of all kinds of repute, from saying that China is building flying aircraft carriers and orbital superlasers to the opposite of the spectrum. Most of the time their white noise is filtered out, but a few leak through.
BlitzoStatus of Forces Agreement.
TY.
Well I’m not sure how the US-Japan SoFA is relevant to the islands in question though.
Blitzoplease read SOFA, please google them yourself. The results will be on the first page (avoid the ones with .cn). We know chinabots don’t like to dig the details themselves and prefer to let the general media tell them the facts
The islands (not all of them) have been controlled directly by the US right after WWII and has not been returned to Japan.Iedeo is less of an issue because China can’t generate the same WWII victim complex and grande historical dynasty narrative with the Koreans as they do with the Japanese. Although I’m sure the Koreans will think of something.
What’s SOFA?
I literally have no idea where you are pulling the idea that the US controls the islands and that they are used for US bombing practice.
They are like three uninhabited rocks, if the US did practice bombing them at all they would not be there anymore… which would actually solve the problems quite handily.
Blitzoyou must be blind. does it not compute in your brain? the US (that’s the United States) controls several of the Senkaku Islands and always have been, not Japan.
You want the islands, you gotta go through the US first. they are using it for bombing runs and target practice this whole time.
but we know you guys rather make a strawman out of Japan than the US. You think the US wants to give up one of their islands?the ADIZ also involves Korea as China claims one of their islands/rocks/whatever you wanna call it.
The iedeo rock or whatever they’re called is less of an issue between china and Korea than the islands between china and Japan, and certainly less of an issue than the dokdo dispute between Korea and Japan.
Where did you read that the Diaoyu/senkaku islands were controlled by the US, and where did you read that they are used for bombing practise?
BlitzoFor Blitzo: You have mentioned that there might / could be mock air battles in the Chinese ADIZ between forces who do not comply with the ROE the PLAAF has established for this ADIZ. Judging how the PLAAF performed in the exercise they participated in with the Turkish AF could you speculate on the possible outcome of these engagements? You should recall that the Turkish – PLAAF exercise pitted F-4s against J-11s. Something in the Chinese ADIZ would be a horse of a different color.
This comment comes to mind:
“…During the past year, PLAAF has held exercises with Turkey and Pakistan. According to rumours online, PLAAF actually did pretty badly in its exercise with Turkish Air Force, but learnt some lessons in the process…”
What say you?
I say that, having looked into the original source of that rumour from two or so years ago, as well as listening to the anecdotes of others who know more than I, I have cast aside it’s credibility.
BlitzoFor Blitzo. Regarding Japanese AirForce KC-767s basing at Naha I present this tidbit of information. There are others.
28th February visitor,
97-3603 KC-767(B767-2FKER) JASDF,404 Hikotai JF601 from PGUA
This was 28 February 2012. There are many instances of KC-767s flying in and out of Naha. Japan would be foolish to not forward base KC-767s either tankers or AWACS out of this base that is so close to the scene of the action to support air patrols
I see, but do they base out there regularly?
Because I agree it would be foolish of them not to do so, but if you don’t have the infrastructure to support long term forward basing, all the will in the world won’t let you fly out there from an extended amount of time.
I’ve been following JSDF plans for Naha and I hear the most they are going to do in the immediate near term is to base some E2s at Naha permanently, nothing about E-767 or KC-767
BlitzoI will obtain confirmation and get back to you. And you are aware aren’t you that some airlines, the Japanese owned ones at least are refusing to cooperate with the Chinese ADIZ. Also do recall that the Korean flight 007 WAS giving proper civilian transponder codes but was shot down anyway because the Russians thought that the codes were coming from a RC-135 seen lurking in the area. Giving proper transponder codes is no guarantee of protection from shoot down
Yes, I agree, but the KAL incident was in a different time and place to the current overlapping ADIZ of Japan and China.
I doubt either side would willingly fire at an aircraft that could be mistaken for a civilian aircraft even if it were flying towards their territory and if they were in visual range — not in this day and age, not when KAL 007 set the benchmark for the worst military aviation screw ups in history. If anything, all countries with ADIZs and air forces in general would have had more stringent interception policies if they hadn’t already, after the KAL shootdown.
Do you have any examples of Chinese H-6Us participating in the patrolling of the Chinese ADIZ?
Nope, I was making a general statement of potential capability rather than current action.
Considering the Chinese ADIZ has only been up the better side of two weeks, we probably won’t know too much about the routine assets they will use to support it until much later.
I think the duration of the standing PLAAF patrols will depend on how China decides to configure this ADIZ.
Yes there is. And the simulation programmers are working overtime to streamline COMMAND to make it reflect reality. This is why this new Chinese ADIZ and the air and sensor activity associated with it represents an intelligence bonanza for the outside world. China is being forced to reveal aspects and capabilities of its military that were heretofore hidden
That last point is entirely dependent on whether you believe that the PLAAF already conducted missions outside of its airspace or not.
Actually, that’s not even true, because an AEWC operating within Chinese territory would still have its radar reach out for hundreds of kilometers, and any half decent ELINT or SIGINT plane orbiting in international airspace off China’s coast will be able to collect juicy data even if a KJ-2000 or KJ-200 isn’t outside Chinese airspace.
Not to mention Chinese coastal IADS and military air traffic control are always active anyway, meaning US or Japanese ELINT planes could collect all the data they want even without the ADIZ.
JH-7/As train routinely for their primary antishipping mission beyond China’s airspace into the ECS and SCS, J-10s and flankers do air patrols in those same regions as well — join one of the more professional chinese defence forums and look for photos about the PLAAF or threads about those particular aircraft, you’ll find pictoral evidence going back years.
So I have to disagree and say that the ADIZ won’t reveal much to the US or Japan which they don’t already know.
BlitzoThe only known example of China flying its fighters outside of internal airspace is the Turkish exercise I mentioned. If you have something to add to this then please do so by all means. And on that example no tanker or AWACS was deployed to support the PLAAF side.
Actually, PLA aircraft have done long range exercises with Russia in past peace missions, and with Pakistan as well I believe.
In a 2010 peace mission exercise, J-10s and H-6s struck simulated targets in Kazakhstan and they were supported by AEWC and tankers.
http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/Russia-Asia/McDermott-Roger/China-Showcases-Expeditionary-Military-Power-in-Peace-Mission-2010
However all the above are only missions outside of Chinese airspace that is over land, that is to say, in its north and western sides. The PLA regularly operates aircraft over international airspace from its eastern sea borders.
I don’t have “proof” for that last fact, it’s just one of those things that you realize after you watch the PLA for a few years. The constant trickle of business-as-usual photos are very indicative.
Other than the Turkish example one is hard pressed to find an example of PLAAF doing anything beyond their own borders. This lack of exposure to the outside world is what makes it difficult to obtain objective assessment on Chinese capabilities. Don’t you agree?
Like I said, there are a few other examples — however I definitely agree that the lack of exposure to other air forces is disadvantageous to us to assess just where the PLAAF are in specific capability and doctrine.
However there are some more general conclusions which I think we can deduce, from logic and from observation of the force numbers which they have, along with rare tidbits of articles that leak out.
True. Everything is guesstimation. And that is what makes designing a game like COMMAND such a challenge
My understanding is that the PLAAF would like to adopt the boom type method practiced by the American airforce.
That is a rumour that’s gone around, but we have yet to see any aircraft being trialled with such a boom.
there are many benefits and disadvantages of probe/drogue versus boom, but I expect PLAAF are more interested in building a decent sized tanker fleet with the knowledge they have first.
BlitzoIf you want to see confusion, wait until civilian aircraft are introduced into the scenario editor and then lets talk confusion.
I meant confusing as in “the PLA doesn’t even operate the H-5 anymore”.
The addition of civilian aircraft shouldn’t complicate matters very much. Virtually all civilian airliners are following the rules of both sides ADIZ, filing flight plans, with transponders etc. The Japanese have operated their ADIZ for ages and I’ve read Chinese airliners actually haven’t followed their ADIZ rules either. But either way, there’s no reason to believe civilian aircraft will complicate the ADIZ handling of either the JSDF or PLA. Most “unidentified” contacts can easily be IDed by AEWC as civilian airliners based on their heading, speed, altitude etc, so it’s not like PLAAF will be sending a J-11 to check out every single JAL airliner.
And regarding Naha airbase tanker support is routinely based there to support F-15 patrols. Can you provide examples of PLAAF tankers supporting patrols of J-11s or J-10s? Its seems that a lack of organic tanker support is the Achilles heel of the PLAAF mounting standing patrols over water. Notice I said standing patrols.
Hmm, are KC-767s routinely based there to support F-15Js? It’s not that I don’t believe you, I’d just like confirmation.
Also, like my previous post illustrated, H-6Us also support J-10s for extended endurance patrols. Of course, an H-6U only has a third of the fuel offload capacity of a KC-767, but then again, the PLA has about five times as many H-6Us as the JASDF has KC-767s, and fortunately the theater in which the aircraft need to refuel isn’t very far from PLA bases so they won’t end up expending most of their fuel simply getting over there and back.
While I agree that air refuelling may be a significant factor, flankers have formidable range and endurance, and J-10s with air refuelling aren’t small fish either, despite the fact that each H-6U can only refuel four J-10s or something.
A simple check of Google maps shows that Naha airbase where these F-15s are based is roughly the same distance from these disputed islands as they are from the Chinese mainland. Neither side has a distance advantage over the other.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223514[/ATTACH]
Yes, but I wasn’t talking about distance, I was talking about the number of airbases within range of the airzone.
For instance, in my link it shows, there is one PLA airbase 380km from the disputed islands (using that as a bench mark), and another which is 580km away, compared to Naha, which is 420km away. However, if we look at how wide the overlapping ADIZ is rather than distances from airbases to the disputed islands, then the other two more distant airbases also come into play, however the JASDF (from my curosry google search of their airbases) will still only be able to rely on Naha. Feel free to correct me if there are other JASDF bases in Japan’s southwest which I’m unaware of.
http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/slide_8_35313_19310.html#p=7
Air refuelling won’t play as big a part as I think you expect, simply because both sides only have a limited number of air refuelling assets in the first place. With maintenance, the small number on both sides will have low availability.
Also, is it standard for countries that maintain ADIZs to have constant standing patrols 24/7, or do they only scramble fighters with detection of a potentially unfriendly contact? I’m not talking about territorial standing air patrols, but rather having a constant fighter presence some 100-200km from one’s borders.
The answer to that question is a resounding yes. Certain factors can be taken into account as to training, pilot skill etc and adjusted accordingly. The player can play the same scenario over and switch sides to see the outcome
I see.
Are the weapons and sensor specifications fixed or adjustable? I’m sure you’ll understand there is much potential debate on the specs of various PLA equipment.
Not necessarily. There is too much bad blood expressed to easily solve these problems. I mean suppose a civilian aircraft is shot down by accident. The outcome of something like that would make the Korean Air 747 shoot down look like a picnic.
Even if a civilian aircraft is shot down by accident (massive “if”), I don’t see how that will instantly lead to an air war.
Hell, the civilian aircraft shot down might not even be chinese or japanese, are patrolling fighters really going to immediately start lobbing missiles at each other because of that?
I agree there are buckets of bad blood to go around, but that doesn’t mean both sides will purposefully start shooting each other without a better reason like that article describes.
Sign In
