More China unsafe intercepts

[Tony Stark]

Not everything can (or should be) encapsulated in 140 characters

Edited May 21, 2016 by Tony Stark

[Darius at home]

Not everything can (or should be) encapsulated in 140 characters

Have you ever actually built a model aircraft or even taken an interest in aircraft modelling? Or do you just spend your day cut and pasting vast tracts of turgid text onto websites like ARC whilst hiding behind the persona of a fictional movie character.

Not really that curious.

Darius

[MoFo]

And the Academy award for longest post goes to....

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/world/asia/what-china-has-been-building-in-the-south-china-sea.html

Edited May 21, 2016 by MoFo

[TaiidanTomcat]

Have you ever actually built a model aircraft or even taken an interest in aircraft modelling? Or do you just spend your day cut and pasting vast tracts of turgid text onto websites like ARC whilst hiding behind the persona of a fictional movie character.

Not really that curious.

Darius

Why are we upset that someone took the time to gave an informative post?

[DarkKnight]

i actually enjoyed the post, the only part I thought was wasteful was a picture of filipino "protestors", I find that photo annoying because it looks like 10 paid numskulls, similar to what we have in the US where there are often "protestors" bussed in, otherwise the post was informative and interesting. The video with Chinese Navy personnel yelling "you go" was quite interesting. Although seemingly insignificant, I can see how that little place can blow up into WW III, I also wonder with secrecy issues if Chinese model makers will have access to the J-20 to create an accurate model, look how long its taken us to get decent Flankers. I also wonder do they really think the J-20 is a viable competitor? it looks like a cross between the Raptor and the Clint Eastwood Firefox

[john53]

Surprised that the high tech world hasn't come up with force fields

that emit a shield around U S intelligence aircraft. Kirk out!

[DarkKnight]

^^^ your photos arent loading for me, anyone else?

[Don]

^^^ your photos arent loading for me, anyone else?

Same same here FWIW.

[Tony Stark]

the only part I thought was wasteful was a picture of filipino "protestors", I find that photo annoying because it looks like 10 paid numskulls, similar to what we have in the US where there are often "protestors" bussed in

Are you sure? There's a presumptive nominee for one of our two political parties who's rallies are well known for their nationalistic rhetoric. And while it's possible that you are correct that they're plants, that doesn't mean that there aren't regional animosities that go back decades.

The 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff was a big deal both in the Philippines and the region. The governments of Australia, India, Vietnam and the UK released statements urging calm and restraint, Russia urged compliance with UNCLOS (they didn't take openly sides, they're only interested in freedom of navigation in the South China Sea), Malaysia signaled their support for the Philippines' call for a "peaceful resolution" and a "multilateral solution" to the conflict. Pakistan stood firmly by China, the US sided with the Philippines and Taiwan called for a peaceful resolution while upholding their own sovereign claims over the South China Sea.

As i said, these disputes go back decades. Beijing says its right to the area goes back centuries to when the Paracel and Spratly island chains were regarded as integral parts of the Chinese nation, and in 1947 it issued a map detailing its claims. It showed the two island groups falling entirely within its territory. Those claims are mirrored by Taiwan.

Both the Philippines and China lay claim to the Scarborough Shoal (known as Huangyan Island in China) - a little more than 100 miles (160km) from the Philippines and 500 miles from China. The Philippines invokes its geographical proximity to the Spratly Islands as the main basis of its claim for part of the grouping.

Vietnam hotly disputes China's historical account, saying China had never claimed sovereignty over the islands before the 1940s. Vietnam says it has actively ruled over both the Paracels and the Spratlys since the 17th Century - and has the documents to prove it. In 1974, China seized islands that Vietnam claimed, in 1979, China briefly invaded Vietnam (that lasted all of about 3 weeks) but border clashes continued until 1990. March 14, 1988, a naval battle that took place between Chinese and Vietnamese forces over Johnson South Reef in the Spratly Islands which became known as the Johnson South Reef Skirmish here in the West. 64 Vietnamese sailors were killed and 9 captured by the Chinese (the weren't repatriated until 1991). Only 1 Chinese sailor was wounded. More recently, in 2014 there was another standoff when the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation moving its Haiyang Shiyou 981 oil platform to waters near the disputed Paracel Islands in South China Sea, and the resulting Vietnamese efforts to prevent the platform from establishing a fixed position.

There's a reason why the Vietnam People's Air Force operates 11 Su-27s and 36 Su-30MK2s, and it's not because of the United States.

Last summer, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and his counterpart in Vietnam, Defense Minister Phung Quang Thanh, inked a Joint Vision Statement on Defense Relations. It builds on a 2011 memorandum of understanding that set out the five areas of defense cooperation: high-level dialogues; maritime security; search and rescue; humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and peacekeeping. And the statement also clearly notes that existing mechanisms – chiefly the annual Defense Policy Dialogue initiated in 2010 – would continue to serve as the means to review and guide the relationship.

The JVSDR was accompanied by concrete deliverables as well. For instance, Carter announced that the United States would provide $18 million to the Vietnamese Coast Guard to purchase American Metal Shark patrol vessels. This builds on existing U.S. efforts to assist Vietnam’s coast guard in the face of growing Chinese assertiveness in the South China Sea, not just through providing equipment but also training and curriculum development. He also announced that the Pentagon was stationing a peacekeeping expert at the American embassy in Vietnam to help educate and guide Vietnam’s entry into global peacekeeping operations.

The video with Chinese Navy personnel yelling "you go" was quite interesting

Which is why we won't see an end to their aggressive interception tactics anytime soon. They don't have a legal leg to stand on when it comes to ships and aircraft coming within 12 miles of the artificial islands, so they have to reply on intimidation to ward off visitors.

Although seemingly insignificant

The South China Sea is the second most used sea lane in the world. Over 1.6 million m³ (10 million barrels) of crude oil a day are shipped through the Strait of Malacca.

The region has proven oil reserves of around 1.2 km³ (7.7 billion barrels), with an estimate of 4.5 km³ (28 billion barrels) in total. Natural gas reserves are estimated to total around 7,500 km³ (266 trillion cubic feet). A 2013 report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration raised the total estimated oil reserves to 11 billion barrels. That's why China was so eager to drill baby drill so close to Vietnam.

This body of water holds one third of the entire world's marine biodiversity, thereby making it a very important area for the ecosystem. However the fish stocks in the area are depleted, and countries are using fishing bans as a means of asserting their sovereignty claims.

I also wonder do they really think the J-20 is a viable competitor?

Absolutely, and for good reason.

A lot was made of the J-20 looking like a copy of the F-22 (fuselage, canopy, nose), Mikoyan Project 1.44 (wings, canards) and F-35 (tail surfaces). Apologists cry "Similar requirements results in similar designs" (guess they're ignoring the differences between the YA-9 and YA-10, YF-16/YF-17, YF-22/YF-23, X-32/X-35) but theres's a reason why the J-20 borrows so much from the F-22. The F-22 works.

Developing a LO design is neither cheap nor easy and if you can borrow something that you know works, that saves you a LOT of development time and cost. It's why China stole data on the F-35.

Is it a viable competitor? It would appear that the Chinese sat down and very carefully thought about how to get what they wanted out a LO fighter as opposed to a quick-n-dirty pi**ing contest with the F-22. In other words, they didn't make an F-22-killer per say because they don't have to.

The J-20 has a longer fuselage than the F-22. This means it can carry more gas, go further, or loiter longer. The main weapons bays seem deeper than the F-22, perhaps giving them better capability when it comes to heavy A2G ordnance, even if that means giving up a pair of radar-guided AAMs. It also looks like they've taken a unique approach to handling rail-launched IR AAMs (the missile can hang out with the door closed). Overall layout (especially the high-mounted, frameless canopy) indicates prioritization for A2A combat... with a secondary penetration/interdiction role using standoff-type munitions.

Another difference between the F-22 and J-20 is that the F-22's outer mold line (OML) is optimized for all-aspect VLO, whereas the J-20s OML is geared more towards frontal aspect LO.

Given the size of the aircraft and the focus on frontal aspect LO, the J-20 appears to be more of a high altitude/high speed, long-range interceptor than a dedicated air superiority fighter. If China's AAMs are any good, then J-20s would pose a VERY serious threat to tankers, long range bombers such as the B-1 and B-52, AWACs, ISR assets... you get the picture. By the time they've launched their attack and the Raptors can be vectored towards the flight of J-20s, the J-20s have turned around and blasted out of range back to the safety of the HQ-9 umbrella and any additional fighters who've got their back.

And since any F-22s patrolling the South China Sea are operating only at the mercy of their tanker support (any land bases would be hundreds of miles away), they can't give chase or stick around for too long. Sure, they can carry drop tanks, but that'll expose them to radar. So J-20s don't have to go up against F-22s in a battle that's something out of Top Gun, they just have to take out the tankers and AWACs, and that won't be difficult since China will already have a 4:1 advantage when it comes to the number of assets in the theater.

[MoFo]

i actually enjoyed the post

If you enjoyed the article, you should let the author know. He'd probably like to hear it.

[Murph]

The video with Chinese Navy personnel yelling "you go" was quite interesting.

Maybe they're auto enthusiasts.

Regards,

Murph

[SBARC]

Maybe they're auto enthusiasts.

Regards,

Murph

[DarkKnight]

^^^ not to go too far OT, but didn't we bomb the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia by mistake when we were bombing yugo plants there? I always wondered what the point was. I do enjoy Tony Starks posts whether copied or his own xplanations

[Waco]

I do enjoy Tony Starks posts whether copied or his own xplanations

Well, I mean, he is a genius, billionaire, philanthropist, playboy.

Back on topic...

One interested point raised in the tome above is something nobody can deny: China HAS aspirations. Right now, they're claiming them to be regional and based on historical claims. They could be global, and an attempt to establish themselves as a player on the world stage in a new, multipolar model. But the fact is, the model China is employing looks an awful lot like a desire to return to the Middle Kingdom and it's Tribute State model. Accusations from other nations aside, it is very much and imperialist/colonial model, and not at all in line with the modern state context.

The US pivot to the Pacific was intended to serve as a counter balance to China rising aggression, particularly in ensuring continued access to the global air and maritime commons in a region which supports more 30-40% of the world's commerce (depending on whose estimate you use). That's a big deal, and if China unilaterally controlled that commerce lane, it would definitely alter the economic balance on a global scale. Unfortunately, the Pivot to the Pacific was supposed to be a strategic rebalancing to the region in anticipation of a predicted Asia-Pacific century, predicated on two major assumptions: 1st, that things would wrap up in the Middle East, and US commitments in the region would decline post 2011. 2nd, that Europe would maintain status-quo, and Russia would continue to develop more peaceful economic engagement with the West. Neither of those assumptions are valid any more; the US has effectively stated there are no more forces being flowed to the Pacific for the foreseeable future; and there are few realistic, reasonable strategic actions to counter China's Pacific expansion/maritime fortress building.

It's a serious strategic challenge.

However, some opinions claim we are nearing the apex of China's ability to sustain this strategic push. "The Accidental Superpower" posits China has effectively peaked, and a lopsided economic model with a frail structure is ripe for collapse. Couple that with an impending demographic problem, limited access to sustainable resource bases, and the growing unification of it's neighboring nations, and China could be on the brink of pushing too far.

Either way, it is a very complex scenario, as Mr Stark's cyclic points out.

[Tony Stark]

Yes; on May 7, 1999, 5 JDAMs dropped from a B-2A hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese reporters and injuring 20 other people. The intended target was the Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement.

Former CIA director George Tenet later testified before a Congressional committee that the bombing was the only one in the campaign organized and directed by his agency, and that the CIA had identified the wrong coordinates for a Yugoslav military target on the same street.

As to if the strike was deliberate or not is an entirely different - and very politically charged - subject altogether.

A more relevant subject would be the 2001 Hainan Island incident, where an EP-3E Ares II SIGINT aircraft was intercepted by a J-8II Interceptor. The pilot made two close passes to the Ares II but on the third pass he collided with the Ares II. The J-8 broke into two and the EP-3's radome was lost and one of it's engines damaged. Airspeed and altitude data were lost, the aircraft depressurized, and an antenna became wrapped around the tailplane. The J-8's tail fin struck the EP-3's left aileron forcing it fully upright, and causing the U.S. aircraft to roll to the left at 3-4 times its normal maximum rate.

The impact sent the EP-3 into a 30° dive at a bank angle of 130°, almost inverted. It dropped 8,000 feet (2,400 m) in 30 seconds, and fell another 6,000 feet (1,800 m) before the pilot, Lt. Shane Osborn, got the EP-3's wings level and the nose up. In a September 2003 article in Naval Aviation News, Osborn said that once he regained control of the aircraft he "called for the crew to prepare to bail out." He then managed to control the aircraft's descent by using emergency power on the working engines, such that an emergency landing on Hainan became a possibility.

For the next 26 minutes the crew of the EP-3 carried out an emergency plan which included destroying sensitive items on board the aircraft, such as electronic equipment related to intelligence gathering, documents and data. Part of this plan involved pouring freshly brewed hot coffee into disk drives and motherboards.

The EP-3 made an unauthorized emergency landing at Lingshui airfield, after at least 15 distress signals had gone unanswered, with the emergency code selected on the transponder. It landed at 170 knots (200 mph), with no flaps, no trim, and a damaged left elevator, weighing 108,000 pounds (49,000 kg). Following the collision, the failure of the nose cone had disabled the No. 3 (inner right) engine, and the No. 1 propeller could not be feathered, leading to increased drag on that side. There was no working airspeed indicator or altimeter, and Osborn used full right aileron during the landing. The surviving Chinese interceptor had landed there 10 minutes earlier.

The EP-3 was damaged and made an emergency landing on Hainan Island in the South China Sea, where the crew was detained and later released. The EP-3 was disassembled by the Chinese and shipped back in crates via an An-124.

J-8 81192, the Chinese interceptor lost on 1 April 2001

Edited May 22, 2016 by Tony Stark

[TaiidanTomcat]

Well, I mean, he is a genius, billionaire, philanthropist, playboy.

Back on topic...

One interested point raised in the tome above is something nobody can deny: China HAS aspirations. Right now, they're claiming them to be regional and based on historical claims. They could be global, and an attempt to establish themselves as a player on the world stage in a new, multipolar model. But the fact is, the model China is employing looks an awful lot like a desire to return to the Middle Kingdom and it's Tribute State model. Accusations from other nations aside, it is very much and imperialist/colonial model, and not at all in line with the modern state context.

The US pivot to the Pacific was intended to serve as a counter balance to China rising aggression, particularly in ensuring continued access to the global air and maritime commons in a region which supports more 30-40% of the world's commerce (depending on whose estimate you use). That's a big deal, and if China unilaterally controlled that commerce lane, it would definitely alter the economic balance on a global scale. Unfortunately, the Pivot to the Pacific was supposed to be a strategic rebalancing to the region in anticipation of a predicted Asia-Pacific century, predicated on two major assumptions: 1st, that things would wrap up in the Middle East, and US commitments in the region would decline post 2011. 2nd, that Europe would maintain status-quo, and Russia would continue to develop more peaceful economic engagement with the West. Neither of those assumptions are valid any more; the US has effectively stated there are no more forces being flowed to the Pacific for the foreseeable future; and there are few realistic, reasonable strategic actions to counter China's Pacific expansion/maritime fortress building.

It's a serious strategic challenge.

However, some opinions claim we are nearing the apex of China's ability to sustain this strategic push. "The Accidental Superpower" posits China has effectively peaked, and a lopsided economic model with a frail structure is ripe for collapse. Couple that with an impending demographic problem, limited access to sustainable resource bases, and the growing unification of it's neighboring nations, and China could be on the brink of pushing too far.

Either way, it is a very complex scenario, as Mr Stark's cyclic points out.

I'll just a big "yep!"

[11bee]

^^^ not to go too far OT, but didn't we bomb the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia by mistake when we were bombing yugo plants there?

Some believe that the embassy was intentionally hit, due to some very non-diplomatic activities it was conducting.

Mock the bombings if you wish but I'm pretty sure that at the end of the day, NATO accomplished their objectives and the bad guys folded.

Edited May 22, 2016 by 11bee

[DarkKnight]

as for the J-8 vs. EP-3 unsafe intercept, it sounds like a display of great airmanship to get that plane down in one piece, I always wondered if military people thought that landing and getting captured was best , or perhaps bailing out might have been a better plan for the mission, Im certainly in position to know/judge. I thought i read the J-8 pilot was known for his antics and would apparently display an email address and if you wrote him would taunt you and use foul language. It certainly seems that we need more than a handful of Raptors to project power these days.

[Vaildog]

For what it's worth, The J-8 has to be one of the uglier planes ever built.

[TaiidanTomcat]

It certainly seems that we need more than a handful of Raptors to project power these days.

Remember, It's not just raptors that project power.

[Tony Stark]

Due to China's expansionist aims, as of an hour ago, the White House has lifted the arms sales ban to Vietnam.

"Sales will need to still meet strict requirements, including those related to human rights, but this change will ensure that Vietnam has access to the equipment it needs to defend itself,"

While Vietnam was an ally of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, Hanoi would certainly like to diversify its sources, and is looking at a number of potential alternative suppliers. But it won't be rushing into the arms of US manufacturers just yet.

One reason is that a lot of US technology may be too sophisticated and expensive for Vietnam's needs and Hanoi will not want to antagonize Beijing by seeking state-of-the-art US weapons that might alter the military balance. The greatest potential for US arms sales most likely lies in ISR and coastal defense systems. Vietnam would welcome technology that helps it track Chinese naval forces. I wouldn't expect to see F-35s flying with Vietnamese roundels. For the DoD, this could facilitate the Navy's ships getting access to Cam Ranh Bay.

Congress would still have to approve arms sales to Vietnam.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Tony Stark

[TaiidanTomcat]

Speak of the devil

[11bee]

Speak of the devil

They just bought $11 billion worth of Boeing 737's today. Lots of mutual advantages in this rekindled relationship.

[TaiidanTomcat]

They just bought $11 billion worth of Boeing 737's today. Lots of mutual advantages in this rekindled relationship.

I'm not complaining. Hoping for some F-16 sales too

Edited May 23, 2016 by TaiidanTomcat

[Don]

This is very interesting and opens up a ton of potential "what if" builds (perhaps not so "what if" in the near future).

What about Vietnamese A-10's, Apaches or Cobras... ...