East China Sea Air Defense ID Zone

[joshuatree]

Re: First US incursion in new chinese ADIZ: no reaction from china

How large/where is the US ADIZ? (I'm basing this off the maps I've posted)

Looks like the ADIZ for

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

is as big as the state itself.

The rest of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

ADIZ for

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

ADIZ for

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. 250 nm out eh? Even bigger than its EEZ.


Thanks for the FAA link. Quite a few items in there look identical to what China announced, almost as if China actually patterned their ADIZ rules on the FAAs.

c. Operational requirements for aircraft operations associated with an ADIZ are as follows:

1. Flight Plan. Except as specified in subparagraphs d and e below, an IFR or DVFR flight plan must be filed with an appropriate aeronautical facility as follows:

(a) Generally, for all operations that enter an ADIZ.

(b) For operations that will enter or exit the U.S. and which will operate into, within or across the Contiguous U.S. ADIZ regardless of true airspeed.

(c) The flight plan must be filed before departure except for operations associated with the Alaskan ADIZ when the airport of departure has no facility for filing a flight plan, in which case the flight plan may be filed immediately after takeoff or when within range of the aeronautical facility.

2. Two-way Radio. For the majority of operations associated with an ADIZ, an operating two-way radio is required. See 14 CFR Section 99.1 for exceptions.

3. Transponder Requirements. Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each aircraft conducting operations into, within, or across the Contiguous U.S. ADIZ must be equipped with an operable radar beacon transponder having altitude reporting capability (Mode C), and that transponder must be turned on and set to reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.

4. Position Reporting.

(a) For IFR flight. Normal IFR position reporting.

(b) For DVFR flights. The estimated time of ADIZ penetration must be filed with the aeronautical facility at least 15 minutes prior to penetration except for flight in the Alaskan ADIZ, in which case report prior to penetration.

(c) For inbound aircraft of foreign registry. The pilot must report to the aeronautical facility at least one hour prior to ADIZ penetration.

5. Aircraft Position Tolerances.

(a) Over land, the tolerance is within plus or minus five minutes from the estimated time over a reporting point or point of penetration and within 10 NM from the centerline of an intended track over an estimated reporting point or penetration point.

(b) Over water, the tolerance is plus or minus five minutes from the estimated time over a reporting point or point of penetration and within 20 NM from the centerline of the intended track over an estimated reporting point or point of penetration (to include the Aleutian Islands).

6. Land-Based ADIZ. Land-Based ADIZ are activated and deactivated over U.S. metropolitan areas as needed, with dimensions, activation dates and other relevant information disseminated via NOTAM.

(a) In addition to requirements outlined in subparagraphs c1 through c3, pilots operating within a Land-Based ADIZ must report landing or leaving the Land-Based ADIZ if flying too low for radar coverage.

(b) Pilots unable to comply with all requirements must remain clear of Land-Based ADIZ. Pilots entering a Land-Based ADIZ without authorization or who fail to follow all requirements risk interception by military fighter aircraft.

5-6-2. Interception Procedures

a. General.

1. In conjunction with the FAA, Air Defense Sectors monitor air traffic and could order an intercept in the interest of national security or defense. Intercepts during peacetime operations are vastly different than those conducted under increased states of readiness. The interceptors may be fighters or rotary wing aircraft. The reasons for aircraft intercept include, but are not limited to:

(a) Identify an aircraft;

(b) Track an aircraft;

(c) Inspect an aircraft;

(d) Divert an aircraft;

(e) Establish communications with an aircraft.

2. When specific information is required (i.e., markings, serial numbers, etc.) the interceptor pilot(s) will respond only if, in their judgment, the request can be conducted in a safe manner. Intercept procedures are described in some detail in the paragraphs below. In all situations, the interceptor pilot will consider safety of flight for all concerned throughout the intercept procedure. The interceptor pilot(s) will use caution to avoid startling the intercepted crew or passengers and understand that maneuvers considered normal for interceptor aircraft may be considered hazardous to other aircraft.

3. All aircraft operating in US national airspace are highly encouraged to maintain a listening watch on VHF/UHF guard frequencies (121.5 or 243.0 MHz). If subjected to a military intercept, it is incumbent on civilian aviators to understand their responsibilities and to comply with ICAO standard signals relayed from the intercepting aircraft. Specifically, aviators are expected to contact air traffic control without delay (if able) on the local operating frequency or on VHF/UHF guard. Noncompliance may result in the use of force.

 

[Schumacher]

Re: US incursion in new Chinese ADIZ: no reaction from China

Anyone have details about the actual MoD interview/press statement?


--

Anyway I find it interesting how various media outlets (not BBC in this case) are shortening the Air Defense Identification Zone to simply Air Defense Zone. Funny how omission of a single word can change the entire meaning of a name.

Maybe they should shorten it to Air Identification Zone instead.


---

Edit: here we go:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China Says Monitored Defiant US Bomber Flights
BEIJING November 26, 2013 (AP)
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN Associated Press

China says it monitored two unarmed U.S. bombers that flew over the East China Sea just days after Beijing declared it was asserting greater military control over the area.

Tuesday's flight of the two B-52 bombers underscored that the U.S. will not comply with China's demand that aircraft flying through its newly declared maritime air defense zone identify themselves and accept Chinese instructions.

A Chinese Defense Ministry statement released Wednesday said the planes were detected and monitored as they flew through the zone for two hours and 22 minutes. It said all aircraft flying through the zone would be monitored and asserted that China had the ability to control the airspace.

It didn't mention its threat to take action against noncompliant aircraft included in Saturday's announcement.


So the precise time meant they were clearly detected and tracked. Now we just need proof of the bombers distance from the disputed islands and the claim of their skipping in and out of the ADIZ to confirm what I had hypothesized a few pages back: that the US may have sent the bombers not very far into the ADIZ and could skip back out of the islands as well.

no mention of the 200km as well which was in the Chinese statement. I wonder why ?
apparently US saw the need to burn those jet fuel for propaganda. I'm no Chinese taxpayer, but is glad plaaf didn't see the need to 'intercept' out there for some photo op.

 

[Blitzo]

Re: US incursion in new Chinese ADIZ: no reaction from China

(Really think everyone's looking at this wrong if they think this is about US vs China...)

It's not, but if what xiabonan said is true and there is a link, then any notion of the "loss of face" can be dismissed. Jumping in and out of an ADIZ, 200km from the disputed islands, hardly necessitates interception.



If it's true, then I wonder what the radar operators thought, seeing two massive RCS returns circling in and out of the ADIZ distance.
Probably sarcastically asked themselves, "hmm now I wonder who this could be..."

 

[latenlazy]

Re: US incursion in new Chinese ADIZ: no reaction from China

It's not, but if what xiabonan said is true and there is a link, then any notion of the "loss of face" can be dismissed. Jumping in and out of an ADIZ, 200km from the disputed islands, hardly necessitates interception.



If it's true, then I wonder what the radar operators thought, seeing two massive RCS returns circling in and out of the ADIZ distance.
Probably sarcastically asked themselves, "hmm now I wonder who this could be..."

Well, I go back to the point about other incidents over the air between China and the US (that was my primary point of reference when I heard the news) from the "save face" standpoint (that said I don't think this had anything to do with "face" either). I'm still under the impression that the US doing this was not a surprise, given China's very slow and undramatic reaction.

 

[Blackstone]

Re: US incursion in new Chinese ADIZ: no reaction from China

To us, US's action was a sign of weakness more than strength, because it was all they can do.

The mild response of two B-52s might look weak to some Chinese and PLA war hawks, but CCP leaders have more sense. It's clear US statecraft was in full swing as she reacted with as little provocation towards China as possible, while preventing Japan from doing stupid things to make a bad situation worse. The bottom line is Xi Jinping and the Central Military Commission know very well the US is giving China room to not lose face, that's why the world didn't see three B2s, escorted by six F-22s over Diaoyu dao.

 

[joshuatree]

Re: US incursion in new Chinese ADIZ: no reaction from China

Old news but clearly proof of double standards.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The official said Tokyo had no intention of communicating with Taipei on the matter either before the decision was made by the administration of then-Japanese prime minister Yukio Hatoyama, nor after the ministry issued a statement on May 29 expressing “regret” over Japan’s unilateral move.

 

[Blitzo]

Re: US incursion in new Chinese ADIZ: no reaction from China

Well, I go back to the point about other incidents over the air between China and the US (that was my primary point of reference when I heard the news) from the "save face" standpoint (that said I don't think this had anything to do with "face" either). I'm still under the impression that the US doing this was not a surprise, given China's very slow and undramatic reaction.

I definitely think the US move was definitely expected. That is to say, China obviously didn't expect the USAF, USN and JASDF to notify China about their military flight paths, activate transponders, or have constant two way radio open.


I'd still like a link to the MoD statement where they mention the 200km and the B-52s bouncing in and out of the ADIZ if it's true.

 

[xiabonan]

Re: US incursion in new Chinese ADIZ: no reaction from China

Okay guys so I still can't post any links or pictures so I'll just do a translation of what the MoD spokesperson said.

'The U.S. military aircrafts flew back and forth in the north-south direction by the eastern edge of China's East Sea ADIZ, active at about 200km east of Diaoyu islands, between Beijing time November 26th 1100 to 1322. The Chinese military had closely kept an eye for the full duration, and identified the U.S. military aircrafts.'

 

[Blitzo]

Re: US incursion in new Chinese ADIZ: no reaction from China

Can you possibly tell us which site wrote it, even if it's a chinese one? Or just tell us the key words that we can put into a search engine to gain the result?

 

[Blackstone]

Re: US incursion in new Chinese ADIZ: no reaction from China

(Really think everyone's looking at this wrong if they think this is about US vs China...)

Absolutely correct! The ADIZ is about keeping tension on Japan, and serving notice to Vietnam and the Philippines.