Japanese ships disrupted Chinese naval exercises

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I don't know about that Jeff, since the discussion has moved on to Japan's ridiculous identification zones at that point. But let's have the original posters make their positions clear before we put more words in their mouthes.

But even in that context those drones still won't be flying in Japanese airspace as far as China as concerned, since that is the core of the entire dispute.

But in all honesty, I think that if China was going to go down the route of flying planes through disputed airspace to prove a point they won't be doing it with drones as that gives Japan an easy escalation step of shooting them down with relatively little consequence and little room for China to respond that won't run a serious risk of starting a full scale shooting war.

If China wants to make a point, they will do so with manned, unarmed civilian planes like they had before. That takes the easy option off the table for Japan, because if they want to shoot, they will have to kill unarmed civilians and then it will be all but impossible for even the most biased media to spin China as the aggressor.

However, contrary to Japanese and American propaganda, China is not the one making waves on this dispute. China's robust response to the current Japanese moves to purchase the islands and the Japanese breaking with protocol and arresting Chinese fishermen in disputed waters is a direct result of past Western bias and shortsightness.

If the Americans honestly think China wasn't going to chance things up after they used China's maturity and restraint on the islands dispute in the past as 'evidence' that China somehow acquiesced to Japanese claims, then that is just plain silly.

The message America sent to China was that if you don't make serious noise, we are just going to assume you are ok with what we are doing. Well, message received.

However, all China has done thus far was a measured and proportionate response to counter Japanese moves. There has been no real attempt by Beijing to actively provoke Japan and escalate tensions.

Thus far every single flare up of tensions have followed the exact same pattern of Japan doing something to up the anti and then China pushing back. Weeks and months go by without incident and then Japan does something else and China responds. Every Chinese move has been made shortly after a provocative move by Japan first. There has never been any instances where China was the one to start something new after a period of relative calm.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
I don't know about that Jeff, since the discussion has moved on to Japan's ridiculous identification zones at that point. But let's have the original posters make their positions clear before we put more words in their mouthes.
I'm fine with that, in fact asked Blackstone in my last post to do just that.

But in all honesty, I think that if China was going to go down the route of flying planes through disputed airspace to prove a point they won't be doing it with drones as that gives Japan an easy escalation step of shooting them down with relatively little consequence and little room for China to respond that won't run a serious risk of starting a full scale shooting war.
I tend to agree.

If China wants to make a point, they will do so with manned, unarmed civilian planes like they had before. That takes the easy option off the table for Japan, because if they want to shoot, they will have to kill unarmed civilians and then it will be all but impossible for even the most biased media to spin China as the aggressor.
I do not believe Japan would shoot in such an instance. At any rate a civilian aircraft however would have a very established transit from point A to point B, which would not likely cause such an issue. If the PRC began intentionally routing civilian airlines through such zones in an effort to illicit a response from Japan, it would make the PRC look fairly bad, and carelessly risking the lives of its citizens in a brinksmanship game. So I do not believe that will happen in any case.

However, contrary to Japanese and American propaganda, China is not the one making waves on this dispute.
The thing about using the term propaganda is that is a term that so easily cuts both ways.

If the Americans honestly think China wasn't going to chance things up after they used China's maturity and restraint on the islands dispute in the past as 'evidence' that China somehow acquiesced to Japanese claims, then that is just plain silly.
I am not sure I would interpret what happened that way...but we are both interpreting things here through our own set of "looking glasses," so if that's the way you see it, so be it.

However, all China has done thus far was a measured and proportionate response to counter Japanese moves. There has been no real attempt by Beijing to actively provoke Japan and escalate tensions.
See above.

I think at this point, things are probably going to continue as they have. Short of someone really doing something obtuse and very seriously provocative, which the other side is will to show for what it is, then I see more of a kind of cold war mentality settling in. It will continue like that until:

1)Both sides either seriously sit at a table and start talking, or

2)Until someone seriously miscalculates.

I am hoping for the former.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I do not believe Japan would shoot in such an instance. At any rate a civilian aircraft however would have a very established transit from point A to point B, which would not likely cause such an issue. If the PRC began intentionally routing civilian airlines through such zones in an effort to illicit a response from Japan, it would make the PRC look fairly bad, and carelessly risking the lives of its citizens in a brinksmanship game. So I do not believe that will happen in any case.

Not commercial flights, but manned flights from the maritime enforcement agency.
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
I believe these statements were given in the context of the warning the Japanese defense Forces issued, which was that they would shoot a Chinese UAV down if it violated Japanese air space and did not respond to warnings and instructions to turn back.

So, with that in mind...because that was the basis for the discussion...I believe Blackstone correctly presumed that the "hundreds of drones," that the other poster indicated could solve the problem were meant to violate Japan's airspace so the Japanese would waste expensive missile shooting them down (except if the scenario were actually carried out, with "hundreds" of them, the Japanese would probably shoot them down with the guns on their fighters instead). Otherwise, if they did not violate Japanese airspcae, Japan has not threatened to shoot them down.

Therefore, Blackstone was indicating that if hundreds of drones, were sent by China to violate Japanese airspace, then that would be an "express train to war."

Anyhow, Blackstone, if I have it wrong, please correct me.

Got it in one, Jeff.
 

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Not commercial flights, but manned flights from the maritime enforcement agency.
I see. Thanks for that clarification. I expect this is what Plawolf meant then.

Even then, if it is an official Maritime Surveillance governmantal agency doing the flying over those islands, then the PRC would need to make sure in each instance that they announced, beforehand, that that particular non-military agency, was making the flights.

Otherwise, they could easily be mistaken for military flights. I expect in each case that the Japanese Defense Forces would intercept them to check them out, ID them, and make sure. As long as they restricted their activities to the disputred Islands, though I am sure Japan would protest loudly, I seriously doubt Japan would shoot one of those down.

Anyhow, as I said, I expect these activities to continue until one of those two conditions I spoke of earlier occurs, and I am still hoping that the two sides will eventually meet together and resolve them through negotiations.
 

jacksprat

New Member
Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

Indeed, even if you don't look at the China vs Japan issue, just looking at what Japan considers its ID zone is absurd with the borders to South Korea and Russia. The western portion of the ID zone near South Korea is closer to Korea than Japan. And you can barely fly out of Russia before running into Japan's ID zone? Turn the tables around and have each other East Asian nation's ID zone be right up at Japan's doorstep so any Japanese ship or plane flying out will invoke military scrambles. I guarantee you the Japanese will be irritated really quickly. :D

Does anyone else but me see a parallel between the Japanese ID zone (ADIZ) and China's claimed 'nine dashed line' in the South China Sea. Both are ludicrous and are/will contribute to high tensions and conflict.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

Does anyone else but me see a parallel between the Japanese ID zone (ADIZ) and China's claimed 'nine dashed line' in the South China Sea. Both are ludicrous and are/will contribute to high tensions and conflict.

The reason those lines are *dashed* is because they do not represent a border. They represent an area of the ocean where the ISLANDS (and reefs, shoals, etc.) belong to China. Under international law, you cannot claim any water, aside from the defined territorial waters, as territory. You can only claim pieces of land.
 

solarz

Brigadier
I see. Thanks for that clarification. I expect this is what Plawolf meant then.

Even then, if it is an official Maritime Surveillance governmantal agency doing the flying over those islands, then the PRC would need to make sure in each instance that they announced, beforehand, that that particular non-military agency, was making the flights.

Otherwise, they could easily be mistaken for military flights. I expect in each case that the Japanese Defense Forces would intercept them to check them out, ID them, and make sure. As long as they restricted their activities to the disputred Islands, though I am sure Japan would protest loudly, I seriously doubt Japan would shoot one of those down.

Anyhow, as I said, I expect these activities to continue until one of those two conditions I spoke of earlier occurs, and I am still hoping that the two sides will eventually meet together and resolve them through negotiations.

Agreed, but I imagine a civilian propeller aircraft is much cheaper to deploy than 2-8 advanced fighter jets. So every time China sends a civilian surveillance plane and Japan reacts by scrambling its fighters, China is getting a good return in the attrition game.
 

jacksprat

New Member
Re: Japanese ships dusrupted chinese naval exercicies

The reason those lines are *dashed* is because they do not represent a border. They represent an area of the ocean where the ISLANDS (and reefs, shoals, etc.) belong to China. Under international law, you cannot claim any water, aside from the defined territorial waters, as territory. You can only claim pieces of land.

An ADIZ does not represent a border either, it stands for "Air Defense Identification Zone" which means the country that established it will intercept unidentified aircraft approaching their borders in order to identify nationality, type of aircraft and intent if possible.

The nine dashed line represents a territorial claim on shoals, islands and rocks claimed by China as territorial possessions even though some of them are hundreds of miles from mainland China and in some case less that 100nm from a sovereign nation other than China.

My point is that they are 'artificial boundaries', each established for different reasons, which are political and military tripwires which generate certain reactions which in turn generate other reactions which increase regional instabilities and can and probably will lead to miscalculations by the opposing sides.

This results in nothing but endless provocations. I am not taking sides, but this consistent testing each other can result in nothing healthy for the regional stability or world peace in the whole. I just wish cooler heads would prevail. I served throughout most of the cold war in the USN, I sort of know that is like...blind man's bluff.....in hindsight it was kind of stupid....but very patriotic on all sides, so it seemed.....

Very respectfully submitted
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I do not believe Japan would shoot in such an instance. At any rate a civilian aircraft however would have a very established transit from point A to point B, which would not likely cause such an issue. If the PRC began intentionally routing civilian airlines through such zones in an effort to illicit a response from Japan, it would make the PRC look fairly bad, and carelessly risking the lives of its citizens in a brinksmanship game. So I do not believe that will happen in any case.

As Solarz already clarified, by civilian aircraft I meant civilian law enforcement, like the maritime surveillance agency Y7s they have sent in in the past.

And I agree with you that the Japanese will not shoot down manned aircraft, which is precisely the reason why China would send them in rather than drones because shooting down a drone is far less of an issue, which is why it is far more likely that the Japanese will be tempted to shoot one down if given the chance. You can almost see the Japanese leaders almost wishing the Chinese would give them an excuse to flex a little military muscle to look tough and not risk a big international backlash.

But going back to the subject of its identification zone. Even without spamming drones, the Japanese Air Force is getting stretched thin trying to maintain that ridiculous zone, I forget the exact numbers, but the Japanese have scrambled fighters more times in the last year than the previous 5 or 10 combined. And that is burning through the airframe lives of their F15s really fast.

Problem with having such a ridiculously big identification zone is that much of it is very far from any air bases, so only the F15s have the legs for most scramble orders. If China really wanted to make a point, it can press the Japanese Air Force to breaking point quite easily with just flights in international airspace without really straining its resources at all.

The thing about using the term propaganda is that is a term that so easily cuts both ways.

That is precisely my point. This is not directed at you specifically, but all too often people from the west has this dreamy eyed fantasy about what western mainstream media is about.

I am not sure I would interpret what happened that way...but we are both interpreting things here through our own set of "looking glasses," so if that's the way you see it, so be it.

Fair point, so let's just agree to disagree and move on.
 
Top