Command the realistic war game used to model China vs Japan in the ADIZ

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 343

Command has had a scenario created modeling the interaction of Japanese and Chinese aircraft in the skies of the Chinese ADIZ. More below China vs Japan over the new ADIZ, using Command DECEMBER 4, 2013 · POSTED IN COMMAND · COMMENT Tim Robinson at the Royal Aeronautical Society used Command to simulate a potential AAW conflict between Japan and China over the latter’s declaration of a new ADIZ over the East China Sea: For this test, I elected to create a simple test. What would the result of two overlapping air combat patrol zones (representing the Chinese and Japanese ADIZs) be? Would forces automatically engage? Who is likely to come out on top? Can I command my forces to minimize losses? In the game I was able to set up reference points for both China and Japan, which would give the computer-controlled AI aircraft the boundaries to patrol. For China I gave the Chinese Air Force four J-11 (Su-27) Flanker Bs, an AEW aircraft (Y-8W/KJ-200 Balance Beam) and a reconnaissance aircraft (HZ-5 Beagle). Meanwhile the Japanese Air Self Defense Forces (JASDF) would get four F-15J+s, and a E-767 AEW aircraft for support. Each side was set to see the other as ‘unfriendly’ and would be allowed to fire on unidentified contacts breaching their ADIZ. No civilian air traffic was included in the scenario this time and the patrolling CAPs would not be allowed to investigate contacts outside their ADIZ. I would be taking the role of JASDF commander. The scenario takes place in early evening, but all times are in Zulu(GMT). Read the comprehensive AAR-style article HERE. http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2013/11/29/a-hypothetical-east-china-sea-air-combat-clash/8848/
Original post
Profile picture for user jbritchford

Member for

15 years

Posts: 1,518

Interesting, but I really don't think we actually get anything useful from this. The article itself mentions quite a lot of flaws in the simulation, and the very fact that's entirely virtual with no consequences, no political input etc render it a bit useless.

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 343

I don't think you are understanding how COMMAND it is being used to game out various scenarios regarding the Chinese ADIZ. Here is a new one just out of Japan. Simulations of hot clashes in the Chinese ADIZ are the talk of the web as people customize COMMAND for use as a powerful analytic tool. "....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. China plans to ambush one of Japan’s air patrols—a P-3C Orion maritime surveillance aircraft and an accompanying pair of F-15J Eagle fighters—as it makes its daily flight through the Ryukyu and Senkaku islands, hundreds of miles south of mainland Japan. […] If the attack on the Orion is successful and the opportunity presents itself, the Chinese could also shoot down an E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft orbiting southwest of Okinawa. The destruction of four planes and the deaths of as many as 21 aircrew would be a great loss for Japan. The Chinese air force plans to send up three groups of planes. The first, with four J-11B fighters, will try to take out Japan’s F-15 escorts, leaving the Orion patrol plane defenseless. The second Chinese group, composed of four J-10 multi-role fighters, will then dart in and shoot down the Orion—and potentially also the Hawkeye. Providing radar coverage and command and control will be the third group, with a KJ-2000 airborne early warning aircraft flanked by fighter escorts. The early warning group will stay out of the battle zone, instead holding off the coast of China."

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 343

Scenario set-up in God’s Eye viewing mode. Yellow reference points show ADIZs. [ATTACH=CONFIG]223469[/ATTACH]
Attachment Size
China-ADIZ-set-up.jpg 235.37 KB

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 2,114

Here we go, more sinophobe pathetic warmongering rubbish.
Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

6 years 5 months

Posts: 2,040

Here we go, more sinophobe pathetic warmongering rubbish.
relax westernphobe. I'm quite sure there are many chinabots staying up all night playing the game having orgasms blowing up the Japanese.

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 2,114

relax westernphobe. I'm quite sure there are many chinabots staying up all night playing the game having orgasms blowing up the Japanese.
I'm not westernphobe, i love western peoples and culture, very kind, very polite, very educated, very humanist (except the few traitors serving certain country's interests of course). But i guess you can call me a "yankeephobe" if you wanna categorize me as a "phobe" of some kind. Big difference.
Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

6 years 5 months

Posts: 2,040

I'm not westernphobe, i love western peoples and culture, very kind, very polite, very educated, very humanist (except the few traitors serving certain country's interests of course). But i guess you can call me a "yankeephobe" if you wanna categorize me as a "phobe" of some kind. Big difference.
thats okay, in the US it seems that the Yankees are the most hated too. your feelings are understood.

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 343

The game is there to use to better understand the issues of the Chinese ADIZ. Nothing more or nothing less

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 655

Wonder what they estimated the KJ-200's radar range to be. It shouldn't be significantly different from the E-767's...
Profile picture for user Y-20 Bacon

Member for

6 years 5 months

Posts: 2,040

Wonder what they estimated the KJ-200's radar range to be. It shouldn't be significantly different from the E-767's...
and you know this because...

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 655

and you know this because...
I don't, hence why I said "shouldn't". Information on the KJ-200 is pretty scarce, but digging around I've found figures from 300-450 km. On the upper end that's similar to figures I've dug up for the E-3 Sentry. It's precisely why I'm wondering what they estimated the KJ-200's range to be. The entire scenario that was posted plays out under the assumption that the Chinese side is limited by the KJ-200's detection range. If we're going to figure out how accurate a simulation is, we'll need to test its assumptions.

Member for

7 years

Posts: 13

I don't, hence why I said "shouldn't". Information on the KJ-200 is pretty scarce, but digging around I've found figures from 300-450 km. On the upper end that's similar to figures I've dug up for the E-3 Sentry. It's precisely why I'm wondering what they estimated the KJ-200's range to be. The entire scenario that was posted plays out under the assumption that the Chinese side is limited by the KJ-200's detection range. If we're going to figure out how accurate a simulation is, we'll need to test its assumptions.
Of all the things to nitpick, you pick the range of China's AEW&C? This simulation is worthless. It seems to be me like a 4v4 video game type simulation. In reality, China is outnumbered and outgunned in the ADZ they set up. China knows this. This is a purely political move.

Member for

8 years 5 months

Posts: 655

Of all the things to nitpick, you pick the range of China's AEW&C? This simulation is worthless. It seems to be me like a 4v4 video game type simulation. In reality, China is outnumbered and outgunned in the ADZ they set up. China knows this. This is a purely political move.
I didn't feel like writing an essay about the assumptions that went into this model. And China is actually not outnumbered and outgunned if we're only talking about Japan.

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 343

Of all the things to nitpick, you pick the range of China's AEW&C? This simulation is worthless. It seems to be me like a 4v4 video game type simulation. In reality, China is outnumbered and outgunned in the ADZ they set up. China knows this. This is a purely political move.
Since you have never played COMMAND, nor understand the level of detail and time invested in this tool your statement about the simulation being "worthless" carries little weight. I will add that several military and civilian think tanks are evaluating COMMAND as a planning aid for modeling future conflicts. It is that good. Perhaps you should do a deeper investigation before you make snap judgments.

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 343

I don't, hence why I said "shouldn't". Information on the KJ-200 is pretty scarce, but digging around I've found figures from 300-450 km. On the upper end that's similar to figures I've dug up for the E-3 Sentry. It's precisely why I'm wondering what they estimated the KJ-200's range to be. The entire scenario that was posted plays out under the assumption that the Chinese side is limited by the KJ-200's detection range. If we're going to figure out how accurate a simulation is, we'll need to test its assumptions.
I will ask the designers of the simulation how they arrived at the range figures on the KJ-200 AWACS and report back here. If they are wrong on their estimates I will suggest that they revise the figures one way or another. New data is being obtained all the time and is being used to create a more accurate picture of the respective pieces of hardware and orders of battle. Many revisions have been made already as people begin to interact with the simulation and add suggestions You should also understand that the deployment of the Chinese AWACS ( KJ_200 ) is a factor in the detection range. In several scenarios the Chinese player has purposely held back their AWACS over Chinese mainland airspace in order to protect their valuable asset. Japan on the other hand deploys their KC-767 AWACS and their E-2D in a much more aggressive manner. These deployments reflect doctrine and the experiences of the respective countries. And that's the value of a simulation such as COMMAND. You can safely explore different tactical setups to see how things play out. Even now materials are being provided that will allow COMMAND to simulate civilian traffic intermixed with military traffic in the Chinese ADIZ. This will complicate the enforcement by the PLAA of the ADIZ. And it will increase the possibility of mistakes in decision making.

Member for

8 years 9 months

Posts: 1,297

I expect KJ-200 to have similar peformance to E-767s in terms of range and detection, but being a erieye style balance beam array, it will lack some nose and aft coverage. Bringing in an H-5 recon plane is confusing and makes me wonder about the credibility of this particular article's simulation, because the PLA hasn't operated H-5s in years. Furthermore, I wonder if the simulator also considers the airbases both sides have in range of the ADIZ. I believe Japan only has Naha airbase that can deploy F-15Js to the ADIZ ECS region without refuelling, while I think the PLAAF/NAF combined have about 4 airbases fielding flankers and J-10s. Before someone even goes about simulating an ADIZ confrontation, we need to consider how many planes each side can deploy, if they can't even get that balance right, then the rest is effectively redundant. If they can agree on an "average" deployment force for both sides, then they can start talking other assumptions such as AEWC range, weapons range or reliability, and ultimately, how aggressive each side will seek to command their own aircraft. If the assumption is that the PLA will naturally be more timid in this scenario, then we are effectively assuming they will come out worse on every occasion. If we're giving both sides the benefit of the doubt in the human factor (from equal commanding virtuoso and equal piloting skill), then it will be a far more unbiased measurement of simply seeing how the differences in machine quantity and quality play out. Can Command process battles autonomously and give each side a similar "skill"/aggressiveness level, and simply give the user a battle outcome? If so, then we could try simply repeat the scenario, say, a hundred times and see which side wins more, and end up conducting a test to see if their win count is statistically higher than a win count if we expect both sides to be equal (i.e.: each side wins half of the battles). It doesn't say much if we conduct a one off simulation and end up giving one side a handicap of being automatically less willing to deploy assets in advantageous positions, and ignore the real world force balance which local airbase differences will provide. --- Addendum: this entire scenario is basically BS because the article assumes both sides will immediately seek to fire on the other side's breach of their respective ADIZs. That won't happen, neither is going to start a shooting war, there will be some aggressive maneuvering and mock dogfights at most, but probably just fighters on both sides staring each other down before they need to return home. The most realistic chance of conflict is an accidental shootdown or collision between fighters that leads both sides to start shooting at one another, probably within visual range, before the survivors withdraw and regroup, and emergency diplomacy starts talking to mitigate an escalation and expansion of the incident.

Member for

8 years 9 months

Posts: 1,297

Another observation: The article gives JASDF F-15Js with the active guided AAM-4, while PLAAF only gets J-11s with semi active guided R-27s. I'm not sure that's wholly representative fo the likely force encounter, if anything chances are both sides will have ARH missiles, or JASDF's F-15Js will be SARH. I'm more familiar with PLAAF than JASDF, but I know the latter's F-15Js were equipped with AIM-7s as their baseline BVR weapon and only acquired ARH BVR/AAM-4 capability with the recent F-15J "Kai" upgrade -- however I'm not sure how many of their 200 strong F-15J fleet were upgraded to Kai standard, maybe someone more familiar with the JASDF can answer that. OTOH, most of the PLAAF/PLANAF's 300+ flanker fleet are ARH BVR capable. All of the 100+ J-11Bs can fire PL-12, all of the 100 MKKs and MK2s can fire R-77, while very early Su-27SKs and J-11As can only fire R-27, though some J-11As have been upgraded to fire the active radar homing R-77 as well. Of course, the F-2s and J-10s on both sides are ARH BVR capable with AAM-4 and PL-12 respectively. Problem for JASDF is their F-2 bases are stationed too far away from the ADIZ region. Apart from the lone Naha airbase in Okinawa, I think most of JASDF's fighter and AEW assets are deployed far in the home islands. I'm not sure if Command considers the effects of ARH and SARH BVR weapons, because naturally SARH means you dont' have the benefits of evasive maneuvering after firing an ARH fire and forget weapon. If they do, then that's just another assumption of the article that should be challenged, because making PLAAF send out their oldest flankers without even ARH weapons is putting them at a severe and unrealistic disadvantage.
Profile picture for user Pinko

Member for

14 years 11 months

Posts: 1,291

... You should also understand that the deployment of the Chinese AWACS ( KJ_200 ) is a factor in the detection range. In several scenarios the Chinese player has purposely held back their AWACS over Chinese mainland airspace in order to protect their valuable asset. Japan on the other hand deploys their KC-767 AWACS and their E-2D in a much more aggressive manner. These deployments reflect doctrine and the experiences of the respective countries. And that's the value of a simulation such as COMMAND. You can safely explore different tactical setups to see how things play out. Even now materials are being provided that will allow COMMAND to simulate civilian traffic intermixed with military traffic in the Chinese ADIZ. This will complicate the enforcement by the PLAA of the ADIZ. And it will increase the possibility of mistakes in decision making.
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "the Chinese player has purposely held back their AWACS over Chinese mainland airspace in order to protect their valuable asset."? If your input is subjective, no wonder any simulation outcome is subjective. The fact is on 28 Nov, 2013, PLAAF speaker has declared several Su30MK & J11 Fighters, led by a KJ-2000 AWACS, patrolled the airspace within Chinese ADIZ, and KJ-2000 is considered a higher value asset than KJ-200. The other Chinese geographic advantage is: the disputed airspace overlaying between Chinese & Japanese ADIZs, is much closer to Chinese mainland, where, the HQ-9/S-300 PMU1,2 can extend the air defense far beyond the coast, allowing Chinese AWACSs comfortably operates within the Air defense shield, while still providing sufficient situational awareness coverage over Daoyu islands airspace, why would them venture out to show "experience or braveness", in order to please you? On the other hands, Japanese AWACSs have to venture out far from its mainland airbases or SAM defenses. it's obviously a significant nature disadvantage to Japanese yet you arrived the conclusion that" such deployment reflects doctrine and the experiences of Japanese?". Any blind braveness is suicidal. venturing out so far, facing the biggest 4th G fleet outside US, based in East China, reinforced by hundreds strong H-6s JH-7s, which can strike those outer island military bases or sea targets, let along land based cruise missile sites , SRBMs or MRBMs. Therefore, such "simulation" is useless due to it's just a pre-determined ,reflective results of the mindset who operating the computing.

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 343

I expect KJ-200 to have similar peformance to E-767s in terms of range and detection, but being a erieye style balance beam array, it will lack some nose and aft coverage. Bringing in an H-5 recon plane is confusing and makes me wonder about the credibility of this particular article's simulation, because the PLA hasn't operated H-5s in years. Furthermore, I wonder if the simulator also considers the airbases both sides have in range of the ADIZ. I believe Japan only has Naha airbase that can deploy F-15Js to the ADIZ ECS region without refuelling, while I think the PLAAF/NAF combined have about 4 airbases fielding flankers and J-10s.
If you want to see confusion, wait until civilian aircraft are introduced into the scenario editor and then lets talk confusion. And regarding Naha airbase tanker support is routinely based there to support F-15 patrols. Can you provide examples of PLAAF tankers supporting patrols of J-11s or J-10s? Its seems that a lack of organic tanker support is the Achilles heel of the PLAAF mounting standing patrols over water. Notice I said standing patrols. A simple check of Google maps shows that Naha airbase where these F-15s are based is roughly the same distance from these disputed islands as they are from the Chinese mainland. Neither side has a distance advantage over the other. [ATTACH=CONFIG]223514[/ATTACH]
Before someone even goes about simulating an ADIZ confrontation, we need to consider how many planes each side can deploy, if they can't even get that balance right, then the rest is effectively redundant. If they can agree on an "average" deployment force for both sides, then they can start talking other assumptions such as AEWC range, weapons range or reliability, and ultimately, how aggressive each side will seek to command their own aircraft. If the assumption is that the PLA will naturally be more timid in this scenario, then we are effectively assuming they will come out worse on every occasion.
The simulation allows much flexibility in how forces are presented and deployed
If we're giving both sides the benefit of the doubt in the human factor (from equal commanding virtuoso and equal piloting skill), then it will be a far more unbiased measurement of simply seeing how the differences in machine quantity and quality play out. Can Command process battles autonomously and give each side a similar "skill"/aggressiveness level, and simply give the user a battle outcome? If so, then we could try simply repeat the scenario, say, a hundred times and see which side wins more, and end up conducting a test to see if their win count is statistically higher than a win count if we expect both sides to be equal (i.e.: each side wins half of the battles). It doesn't say much if we conduct a one off simulation and end up giving one side a handicap of being automatically less willing to deploy assets in advantageous positions, and ignore the real world force balance which local airbase differences will provide.
The answer to that question is a resounding yes. Certain factors can be taken into account as to training, pilot skill etc and adjusted accordingly. The player can play the same scenario over and switch sides to see the outcome
Addendum: this entire scenario is basically BS because the article assumes both sides will immediately seek to fire on the other side's breach of their respective ADIZs. That won't happen, neither is going to start a shooting war, there will be some aggressive maneuvering and mock dogfights at most, but probably just fighters on both sides staring each other down before they need to return home. The most realistic chance of conflict is an accidental shootdown or collision between fighters that leads both sides to start shooting at one another, probably within visual range, before the survivors withdraw and regroup, and emergency diplomacy starts talking to mitigate an escalation and expansion of the incident.
Not necessarily. There is too much bad blood expressed to easily solve these problems. I mean suppose a civilian aircraft is shot down by accident. The outcome of something like that would make the Korean Air 747 shoot down look like a picnic.
Attachment Size
Naha Airbase distance.jpg 55.25 KB

Member for

6 years 10 months

Posts: 343

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that "the Chinese player has purposely held back their AWACS over Chinese mainland airspace in order to protect their valuable asset."? If your input is subjective, no wonder any simulation outcome is subjective. The fact is on 28 Nov, 2013, PLAAF speaker has declared several Su30MK & J11 Fighters, led by a KJ-2000 AWACS, patrolled the airspace within Chinese ADIZ, and KJ-2000 is considered a higher value asset than KJ-200. The other Chinese geographic advantage is: the disputed airspace overlaying between Chinese & Japanese ADIZs, is much closer to Chinese mainland, where, the HQ-9/S-300 PMU1,2 can extend the air defense far beyond the coast, allowing Chinese AWACSs comfortably operates within the Air defense shield, while still providing sufficient situational awareness coverage over Daoyu islands airspace, why would them venture out to show "experience or braveness", in order to please you? On the other hands, Japanese AWACSs have to venture out far from its mainland airbases or SAM defenses. it's obviously a significant nature disadvantage to Japanese yet you arrived the conclusion that" such deployment reflects doctrine and the experiences of Japanese?". Any blind braveness is suicidal. venturing out so far, facing the biggest 4th G fleet outside US, based in East China, reinforced by hundreds strong H-6s JH-7s, which can strike those outer island military bases or sea targets, let along land based cruise missile sites , SRBMs or MRBMs. Therefore, such "simulation" is useless due to it's just a pre-determined ,reflective results of the mindset who operating the computing.
The hold back of the PLAAF AWACS happened during a scenario or scenarios where the Chinese side took a conservative stance to protect assets. You should understand that this Chinese ADIZ is breaking new ground in the deployment of Chinese assets. There are no previous examples of PLAAF use of their tankers or AWACS any distance from the Chinese mainland. So the deployment patterns in COMMAND are based upon the best known evidence of PLAAF doctrine and operational standards. If you know of a better example of PLAAF operations then please refer me to this information. The longest distance the PLAAF has deployed was that joint exercise with the Turkish airforce in 2010. No tanker support was used to support the PLAAF in that example. "In mid-September, a fleet of Chinese Su-27 and Mig-29 fighter aircraft flew through Pakistan, refueled in Iran and reached Turkish airspace for joint military exercises with the Turkish Air Force."