Japan Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

[AndrewS]

With all due respect, I would argue that a narrow focus on purely military matters is not as useful as a holistic approach which looks at the overall effects.

Plus Janiz and SB misunderstood the actual situation that exists ref China,Japan,Senkaku/Diaoyu - so that requires an explanation.

 

[PanAsian]

I think what taxiya want from you is the information of this specific event not the general procedure of JASDF. Frankly speak the video only give us an general idea of how the japanese fighter might behave (which is some years ago and we don't know if there is a policy change) but offer no detail about this incident.

The militaries of both sides are probably being instructed to behave around/near/over the disputed area as if they are in their own territory, likely short of actually shooting the other side. However the political leadership of both sides have final say on the respective official story regardless of what actually happened.

 

[Blitzo]

Here is a vid giving a detailed explanation on how JASDF carries out a scramble launch intercepting a incoming.

Basically they were given plenty of warning before making further maneuver to fly beside.

Okay, I just watched that, and holy cow, is it normal for the intercept missions of most nations to fire tracer rounds as a warning?

Also, something which isn't under dispute in this incident is that the JASDF jets eventually tried to close behind the Su-30s on their 6 o'clock -- I imagine doing so when intercepting a plane like an MPA is relatively low risk because there's no way for an MPA to out maneuvre a jet... but trying to close in on a fighter jet's 6 o'clock during an air interception mission seems like it has a rather easy way of turning a tense situation worse, so again I'm not exactly sure if it's normal for nations to instruct their fighters to try and close on the 6 o'clock of any fighter aircraft that they have intercepted...


As for the fire control radar claim, it'll be interesting to see if the JASDF strongly denies it or not. We may end up never knowing, or the Chinese Air Force might decide to throw caution to the wind and actually release data if they actually have it.

 

[Janiz]

Okay, I just watched that, and holy cow, is it normal for the intercept missions of most nations to fire tracer rounds as a warning?

Yes, it happened in the past.

As for the fire control radar claim, it'll be interesting to see if the JASDF strongly denies it or not. We may end up never knowing, or the Chinese Air Force might decide to throw caution to the wind and actually release data if they actually have it.

It seems like PLAAF sent some rookies who shouldn't be there (or acted on their own accord) in the first place so they escalated the situation (because JSDF can't open fire first and everyone knows it - aside from them it seems)...

At least it looks like that. That's probably how it went. Both countries got that in a diplomatic way away from the press to keep it quiet until retired JASDF general mentioned it in his article.

 

[taxiya]

Okay, I just watched that, and holy cow, is it normal for the intercept missions of most nations to fire tracer rounds as a warning?

Also, something which isn't under dispute in this incident is that the JASDF jets eventually tried to close behind the Su-30s on their 6 o'clock -- I imagine doing so when intercepting a plane like an MPA is relatively low risk because there's no way for an MPA to out maneuvre a jet... but trying to close in on a fighter jet's 6 o'clock during an air interception mission seems like it has a rather easy way of turning a tense situation worse, so again I'm not exactly sure if it's normal for nations to instruct their fighters to try and close on the 6 o'clock of any fighter aircraft that they have intercepted...


As for the fire control radar claim, it'll be interesting to see if the JASDF strongly denies it or not. We may end up never knowing, or the Chinese Air Force might decide to throw caution to the wind and actually release data if they actually have it.

Unfortunately, SB has never bothered to answer the "tracer round" and "6 o'clock" account in this specific incident which is clearly aggressive/escalating, whatever words chosen. This is the very center of the incident because it happened before the "radar locking on JASDF jet" according to the Japanese source, the retired general.

This Vid of his actually serve as an indirect evidence that JASDF pilot intended and probably tried to do "6 o'clock" according to what he was instructed to do in this incident. So a direct reply to the matter is not needed any more.

Regardless tracer round or not, it can punch holes on the target, that is the same as attack. Nobody with a clear mind would think "oh, it is just a tracer round, it won't kill me." If tracer is fired, a missile in return is qualified.

 

[taxiya]

Yes, it happened in the past.It seems like PLAAF sent some rookies who shouldn't be there (or acted on their own accord) in the first place so they escalated the situation (because JSDF can't open fire first and everyone knows it - aside from them it seems)...

At least it looks like that. That's probably how it went. Both countries got that in a diplomatic way away from the press to keep it quiet until retired JASDF general mentioned it in his article.

You failed to realize that it is this retired general's words being quoted by Japanese media as saying "JASDF pilot was trying to go 6 o'clock of the PLAF jet intending to shoot tracer round at PLAF jet".

You also failed to address Blitzo's comment of the VID that "JASDF instruct their pilots to use tracer rounds when intercepting".

So how could you say that JSDF can't open fire first when their pilot are instructed to fire first (without being fired at first)? I am sure that you know tracer rounds are not rubber bullet, or your don't know?

On your point of "PLAF should not be there in the first place", that is a matter of territorial claim or some sort which is political. We all agree to keep it out of discussion, do you agree?

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, it happened in the past.

Yes, I'm aware of a few incidents in the past where this has occurred (I think the Soviet shootdown of the Korean airline plane was preceded by the Soviet jet firing rounds as warning), and apparently the video shows it is SOP for the JASDF, but I'm wondering whether it is SOP for all other nations air forces as well to use tracer rounds as signal warning.

In particular, how normal is it for fighter aircraft to do interceptions by getting literally behind them on their six and firing tracers.

It seems like PLAAF sent some rookies who shouldn't be there (or acted on their own accord) in the first place so they escalated the situation (because JSDF can't open fire first and everyone knows it - aside from them it seems)...

At least it looks like that. That's probably how it went. Both countries got that in a diplomatic way away from the press to keep it quiet until retired JASDF general mentioned it in his article.

Come on, that's stretching it. If you're in a fighter jet and the other side tries to get on your six, then the pilots need to assess the situation within the security climate, I think the least responsible thing for a fighter pilot to do is to allow the opponent's fighter aircraft to get immediately behind you, even if you believe they are "only" going to fire tracer rounds.
If the F-15s really did light up their fire control radar then that is even more reason for the Su-30s to not allow the F-15s to get behind them.

If anything it seems like the JASDF got a bit eager and tried to get one over the Chinese Su-30s by trying to get on their six, but ended up getting done over themselves in response and had to let out flares to signal their disengagement.

 

[AndrewS]

@Janiz

I think your analysis that China sent in rookie pilots is flawed, because I think this flight group was almost certainly tasked with going further than any previous flight group had gone before.

You would want an experienced and disciplined group doing this. Plus I expect the East China Sea is where the better Chinese pilots are deployed to anyway.

 

[siegecrossbow]

Yes, I'm aware of a few incidents in the past where this has occurred (I think the Soviet shootdown of the Korean airline plane was preceded by the Soviet jet firing rounds as warning), and apparently the video shows it is SOP for the JASDF, but I'm wondering whether it is SOP for all other nations air forces as well to use tracer rounds as signal warning.

In particular, how normal is it for fighter aircraft to do interceptions by getting literally behind them on their six and firing tracers.



Come on, that's stretching it. If you're in a fighter jet and the other side tries to get on your six, then the pilots need to assess the situation within the security climate, I think the least responsible thing for a fighter pilot to do is to allow the opponent's fighter aircraft to get immediately behind you, even if you believe they are "only" going to fire tracer rounds.
If the F-15s really did light up their fire control radar then that is even more reason for the Su-30s to not allow the F-15s to get behind them.

If anything it seems like the JASDF got a bit eager and tried to get one over the Chinese Su-30s by trying to get on their six, but ended up getting done over themselves in response and had to let out flares to signal their disengagement.

If they indeed released flares instead of chaff it would imply that the engagement got quite close. I don't think you need fire-control radar to get off an IR round.

That said, how could the pilot tell whether he/she is locked on in a WVR dogfight?

 

[Janiz]

Regardless tracer round or not, it can punch holes on the target, that is the same as attack. Nobody with a clear mind would think "oh, it is just a tracer round, it won't kill me." If tracer is fired, a missile in return is qualified.

Getting behind an aircraft is necessary for lining up with it to the distance that a pilot can see the other plane's pilot and fire a round of shots into the air without a risk of hiiting the other plane. Or you can come up with any other means of performing this manouver in a plain, easy to understand from the start for everyone and responsible way?