RoovialkCowpens came within 45 kilometers (30 miles) of the Chinese squadron….. that is not harassment.
In my opinion I feel that the PLAN is embarrassed for the world to see how little progress they are making in their carrier aviation program and the Cowpens taking pictures would reveal that fact. Going beyond the carefully controlled release of information by Chinese sources is something the PLAN loathes but is going to have to accept as they sail beyond their coastal areas.
RoovialkINS Vikrant CGI
Whoever did this presentation used F-15E’s as a stand in for MiG-29K’s See yourself
RoovialkMore on the incident:
“China paper says US ship harassed China fleet”
Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/china-paper-says-us-ship-harassed-china-fleet-092432088.html
Quote
BEIJING (AP) — An official Chinese newspaper on Monday accused the U.S. Navy of harassing a Chinese squadron earlier this month, shortly before a near collision that marked the two nations’ most serious sea confrontation in years.
There has been no direct comment from China’s Foreign Ministry or defense officials on the Dec. 5 incident in the South China Sea, where the USS Cowpens was operating in international waters. The U.S. ship, a 10,000-ton Ticonderoga-class cruiser, maneuvered to avoid the collision, the U.S. Pacific Fleet has said.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying referred questions to the Defense Ministry, but insisted China “always respects and observes international laws and the freedoms of normal navigation and overflight.”
The Global Times newspaper said the USS Cowpens had been getting too close to a Chinese naval drill involving the country’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, and its support ships.
The paper said the Cowpens came within 45 kilometers (30 miles) of the Chinese squadron, inside what it called its “inner defense layer.”
“The USS Cowpens was tailing after and harassing the Liaoning formation,” the newspaper said, citing an unnamed source it described as being familiar with the confrontation. “It took offensive actions at first toward the Liaoning formation on the day of the confrontation.”
China’s Defense Ministry did not immediately respond to a faxed query and calls to its office rang unanswered. The U.S. State Department said it has raised the matter at a high level with the Chinese government.
The incident comes amid heightened tension over China’s growing assertiveness in the region. Despite strenuous objections from Washington, Beijing recently declared a new air defense zone over parts of the East China Sea requiring foreign aircraft submit flight plans, identify themselves and accept instructions from the Chinese military. The move was widely criticized and the U.S., Japan and others have refused to comply.
The Dec. 5 confrontation was the most serious incident between the two navies since 2009, when Chinese ships and planes repeatedly harassed the U.S. ocean surveillance vessel USNS Impeccable in the South China Sea. China considers such surveillance a violation of its exclusive economic zone, a position not widely supported among experts on international law.
The U.S. Pacific Fleet says it’s not uncommon for navies to operate in close proximity and that’s why it is paramount they all follow international standards for maritime “rules of the road.”
The Chinese navy is operating with increasing frequency in the South China Sea and around Japan. China’s strategy is to boost its navy’s ability to operate far from home ports while denying access to its coastal waters to ships from the U.S. and other potential rivals.
China regards the entire South China Sea and island groups within it as its own and interprets international law as giving it the right to police foreign naval activity there.
The U.S. doesn’t take a position on sovereignty claims but insists on the Navy’s right to transit the area and collect surveillance data.
RoovialkThe unrealistic aspects of the scenario are as follows:
1) That China would sortie a full regiment+ of J-10s (J-11s would make more sense, but 30 is over kill)
2) That in the event of weapons fire the JASDF wouldn’t be authorized to return fire
3) That an entire regiment of fighters would pursue an E-767 clear into Japanese air space and then go for all the other E-767s stationed around the Japanese mainland
4) That Japan’s political leadership would dither on making a decision WHILE allowing all the other E-767s to fly (either a)they see 30 regiments of J-10s as an act of war and sortie the rest of their F-15s, or b) they would ground their E-767s to dare China to look like the aggressor and hit ground targets in the Japanese Mainland), WHILE an entire regiment of J-10s would be aiming to shoot down EVERY E-767
5) That China would try to pursue air superiority over Japan’s mainland.In a real fire fight China aiming at the E-767s isn’t what’s unrealistic about the scenario painted in the magazine. It’s all the other bits of hyperbole.
The major point I disagree with is how the F-22s gave away their stealth advantage by lighting up their radars and revealing their location. Clearly the Allied player was not familiar with how F-22s would be used. In my opinion he used very poor tactics.
Your other points about the scenario are well taken
RoovialkI don’t see how creating a scenario on Command makes the Japanese magazine’s scenario any less unrealistic.
All the “scenarios” we’ve described thus far, including those on Command, have presumed deliberate, knowing military action by a party (the PLA in all cases). That’s simply what’s so realistic about it — it’s not the technicaly feasibility per se, but rather the political and military motivation for conducting such an operation in the first place.
Sure it’s interesting for considering how each side’s fighters, missiles and AEWC may perform (even if some of the chinese specs are a little bit off), but they’ve all felt immensely unrealistic when we start to consider what the PRC actually wants to do in its ADIZ.
In these COMMAND scenarios outside factors such as political and military motivations are not factored into the equation. It is basically a “the fights on” type of thing just like Red Flag does not take into account as to how the Aggressors and Allied aircraft have gotten into a position to exchange blows. The Chinese ADIZ is not the only fight being modeled in COMMAND. Various historical sea-air-land battles are capable of being modeled.
For instance there are many cold war clashes that are capable of being played. There is the capability of modeling the airwar over North Vietnam and various battles in the Middle East. Many people are playing the Falklands. Playing these historical scenarios are an excellent way to calibrate COMMAND for realism in hypothetical future clashes
In other words if you play a historical scenario and obtain a results that matches what really went down in the real world then there is a good chance that a hypothetical scenario may have a solid basis in a reality that may yet occur.
I am looking at modelling this “Offshore Control: Defense of the First Island Chain” in Command when I get the time to do it justice
RoovialkUnfortunately, there is nothing like hard evidence for many of what would otherwise be rightly called “claims” or “opinions” regarding the PLA. Their opacity means generating anything near a basic picture of their capability with “proof” is immensely difficult.
The hardest part of this whole exercise is obtaining solid information on the ‘soft’ capabilities of Chinese forces. Things like pilot skills and warfighting culture are hard to obtain creditable information on as China has limited exposure to other military forces outside of China and that China has not fought a war since the incursion into Vietnam in 1979
RoovialkThe way the scenario is constructed in the original source (since the xinhua article is basically rehashing the Japanese Defence magazine), with the JASDF taking a very conservative approach filled with political confusion and the PLAAF taking a very aggressive approach (sortieing 30 J-10s…really?) is not only highly unrealistic, but very typical of an ultra nationalist perspective in Japan. It’s a typical scare tactic meant to build popular support for a more aggressive security posture.
The scenario referred to is not as unrealistic as you may first believe. A new scenario has been constructed regarding the Chinese ADIZ and played out in Command. This time F-22s got into the fray as PLAAF aircraft did attempt to down a JSDF AWACS. The results have been criticized due to the improper use the F-22s
“….The speculation about the new ADIZ declared by China continues. After Tim Robinson at the RAS, Kyle Mizokami at War Is Boring has also played out a hypothetical hot episode based on this new issue, using Command. But he added a twist: USAF F-22As covertly joining the rumble….”
RoovialkWell 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).
So at he very least these datalink systems like JSILDS are not fully deployed and are in the process of being adopted by Chinese forces. This lends credibility that some form of voice based command and control might be in use as reported by the article I referred to.
And thanks for the sources and links. I was aware of most of them.
RoovialkWhoa, slow down there cowboy, i thought latenlazy and I wrote off everything in that article should be effectively ignored? Fact? Come on…
Some facts to support the opinions expressed would seal the deal. Until that time it must be considered random opinion.
The PLA aren’t stupid. Datalinking is far superior to mere voice commands. One is simply obsolete.
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. The Chinese have shown a policy of “If it ain’t broke then don’t fix it.”
An excellent example would how the MiG-25 used advanced vacuum tubes for its radar even though vacuum tubes were considered at the time of solid state obsolete. The vacuum tube radar proved highly effective for its period of use and was a surprise to the west.
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.
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?
RoovialkAfter reading the entire thing, it felt more like a scare piece to paint China as an aggressor and to try to encourage Japanese militarization.
I saw it as a PLAAF scenario to ambush a high value target, in this case an Japanese E-767 AWACS.
Roovialk“…..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….”
The 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
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.
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.
RoovialkSpotted this tidbit of information regarding the performance of the PLAAF in an article in Xinhua News regarding a hypothetical air clash between Japan and China in the islands dispute
“…文章说，日本空自的E-767预警机与F-15J战斗机之间有数据链联系，可以实时传输中国军机的动向。而中国的“空警”
-2000预警机尚未装备数据链，只能由机上管制人员口头通知战斗机飞行员各种情况，这体现了双方管制能力的差距。”
My understanding roughly makes out this to say that the KJ-2000 AWACS lacks the ability to transmit air defense data to the J-10s and J-11s via datalink. The KJ-2000 must rely on human operators aboard the AWACS to transmit voice commands to the PLAAF fighters for command and control. Meanwhile the E-767 AWACS performs its command and control tasks of JSDF aircraft using its digital datalinks.
If this is true this could represent a significant advantage for the Japanese side.
RoovialkI 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
I 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.
RoovialkI 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.
Why 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.
RoovialkFor 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?
Sign In
