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

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 1,299

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... you are assuming the PLA haven't flown AEWC or fighters outside of internal airspace before?

I never made any claim about tankers btw.

I think I need to ask you to clarify as to what you believe the PLAAF/NAF are capable of doing, because from what I'm hearing you make it sound like the PLA has never even flown or trained outside of internal airspace.

So the deployment patterns in COMMAND are based upon the best known evidence of PLAAF doctrine and operational standards.

The problem is we know next to nothing about 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."

Like I said, I never made a claim about tankers -- however PLAAF J-10s deploy with H-6U tankers over the south china sea on a fairly regular basis.
I can't find the original pla website report, unfortunately, but the pictures are nice. A few years old I think, but nice.

http://chinesemil.blogspot.co.nz/2009/08/photos-of-chinas-j-10-fighter-jet.html

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 1,299

If you want to see confusion, wait until civilian aircraft are introduced into the scenario editor and then lets talk confusion.

I meant confusing as in "the PLA doesn't even operate the H-5 anymore".

The addition of civilian aircraft shouldn't complicate matters very much. Virtually all civilian airliners are following the rules of both sides ADIZ, filing flight plans, with transponders etc. The Japanese have operated their ADIZ for ages and I've read Chinese airliners actually haven't followed their ADIZ rules either. But either way, there's no reason to believe civilian aircraft will complicate the ADIZ handling of either the JSDF or PLA. Most "unidentified" contacts can easily be IDed by AEWC as civilian airliners based on their heading, speed, altitude etc, so it's not like PLAAF will be sending a J-11 to check out every single JAL airliner.

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.

Hmm, are KC-767s routinely based there to support F-15Js? It's not that I don't believe you, I'd just like confirmation.

Also, like my previous post illustrated, H-6Us also support J-10s for extended endurance patrols. Of course, an H-6U only has a third of the fuel offload capacity of a KC-767, but then again, the PLA has about five times as many H-6Us as the JASDF has KC-767s, and fortunately the theater in which the aircraft need to refuel isn't very far from PLA bases so they won't end up expending most of their fuel simply getting over there and back.

While I agree that air refuelling may be a significant factor, flankers have formidable range and endurance, and J-10s with air refuelling aren't small fish either, despite the fact that each H-6U can only refuel four J-10s or something.

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]

Yes, but I wasn't talking about distance, I was talking about the number of airbases within range of the airzone.

For instance, in my link it shows, there is one PLA airbase 380km from the disputed islands (using that as a bench mark), and another which is 580km away, compared to Naha, which is 420km away. However, if we look at how wide the overlapping ADIZ is rather than distances from airbases to the disputed islands, then the other two more distant airbases also come into play, however the JASDF (from my curosry google search of their airbases) will still only be able to rely on Naha. Feel free to correct me if there are other JASDF bases in Japan's southwest which I'm unaware of.

http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/slide_8_35313_19310.html#p=7

Air refuelling won't play as big a part as I think you expect, simply because both sides only have a limited number of air refuelling assets in the first place. With maintenance, the small number on both sides will have low availability.

Also, is it standard for countries that maintain ADIZs to have constant standing patrols 24/7, or do they only scramble fighters with detection of a potentially unfriendly contact? I'm not talking about territorial standing air patrols, but rather having a constant fighter presence some 100-200km from one's borders.

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

I see.
Are the weapons and sensor specifications fixed or adjustable? I'm sure you'll understand there is much potential debate on the specs of various PLA equipment.

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.

Even if a civilian aircraft is shot down by accident (massive "if"), I don't see how that will instantly lead to an air war.

Hell, the civilian aircraft shot down might not even be chinese or japanese, are patrolling fighters really going to immediately start lobbing missiles at each other because of that?

I agree there are buckets of bad blood to go around, but that doesn't mean both sides will purposefully start shooting each other without a better reason like that article describes.

Member for

11 years 2 months

Posts: 1,059

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.

Yes people who sit behind desks and play war but have never been on a battle field watching their brothers die or go home horribly crippled.
The R. Strange McNamara type warriors that get people killed out of arrogance and ignorance.

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 655


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.

Most people who don't watch Asian security developments on a regular basis seem to have an inflated notion of how much the situation has escalated. Despite the heated rhetoric neither side is anywhere near pulling a trigger.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 970

Taiwan

I want to see a scenario with Taiwan's Mirage 2000-5 fighters supported by E-2K engaging the PLAAF and JASDF in a three way battle royal over the worthless piece of rocks.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 343

? So... you are assuming the PLA haven't flown AEWC or fighters outside of internal airspace before?

I never made any claim about tankers btw.

The only known example of China flying its fighters outside of internal airspace is the Turkish exercise I mentioned. If you have something to add to this then please do so by all means. And on that example no tanker or AWACS was deployed to support the PLAAF side.

I think I need to ask you to clarify as to what you believe the PLAAF/NAF are capable of doing, because from what I'm hearing you make it sound like the PLA has never even flown or trained outside of internal airspace.

Other than the Turkish example one is hard pressed to find an example of PLAAF doing anything beyond their own borders. This lack of exposure to the outside world is what makes it difficult to obtain objective assessment on Chinese capabilities. Don't you agree?

The problem is we know next to nothing about PLAAF doctrine and operational standards.

True. Everything is guesstimation. And that is what makes designing a game like COMMAND such a challenge

Like I said, I never made a claim about tankers -- however PLAAF J-10s deploy with H-6U tankers over the south china sea on a fairly regular basis.
I can't find the original pla website report, unfortunately, but the pictures are nice. A few years old I think, but nice.

http://chinesemil.blogspot.co.nz/2009/08/photos-of-chinas-j-10-fighter-jet.html

My understanding is that the PLAAF would like to adopt the boom type method practiced by the American airforce.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 343

I meant confusing as in "the PLA doesn't even operate the H-5 anymore".

The addition of civilian aircraft shouldn't complicate matters very much. Virtually all civilian airliners are following the rules of both sides ADIZ, filing flight plans, with transponders etc. The Japanese have operated their ADIZ for ages and I've read Chinese airliners actually haven't followed their ADIZ rules either. But either way, there's no reason to believe civilian aircraft will complicate the ADIZ handling of either the JSDF or PLA. Most "unidentified" contacts can easily be IDed by AEWC as civilian airliners based on their heading, speed, altitude etc, so it's not like PLAAF will be sending a J-11 to check out every single JAL airliner.

Hmm, are KC-767s routinely based there to support F-15Js? It's not that I don't believe you, I'd just like confirmation.

I will obtain confirmation and get back to you. And you are aware aren't you that some airlines, the Japanese owned ones at least are refusing to cooperate with the Chinese ADIZ. Also do recall that the Korean flight 007 WAS giving proper civilian transponder codes but was shot down anyway because the Russians thought that the codes were coming from a RC-135 seen lurking in the area. Giving proper transponder codes is no guarantee of protection from shoot down

Also, like my previous post illustrated, H-6Us also support J-10s for extended endurance patrols. Of course, an H-6U only has a third of the fuel offload capacity of a KC-767, but then again, the PLA has about five times as many H-6Us as the JASDF has KC-767s, and fortunately the theater in which the aircraft need to refuel isn't very far from PLA bases so they won't end up expending most of their fuel simply getting over there and back.

While I agree that air refuelling may be a significant factor, flankers have formidable range and endurance, and J-10s with air refuelling aren't small fish either, despite the fact that each H-6U can only refuel four J-10s or something.

Do you have any examples of Chinese H-6Us participating in the patrolling of the Chinese ADIZ?

Yes, but I wasn't talking about distance, I was talking about the number of airbases within range of the airzone.

For instance, in my link it shows, there is one PLA airbase 380km from the disputed islands (using that as a bench mark), and another which is 580km away, compared to Naha, which is 420km away. However, if we look at how wide the overlapping ADIZ is rather than distances from airbases to the disputed islands, then the other two more distant airbases also come into play, however the JASDF (from my curosry google search of their airbases) will still only be able to rely on Naha. Feel free to correct me if there are other JASDF bases in Japan's southwest which I'm unaware of.

http://slide.mil.news.sina.com.cn/slide_8_35313_19310.html#p=7

Air refuelling won't play as big a part as I think you expect, simply because both sides only have a limited number of air refuelling assets in the first place. With maintenance, the small number on both sides will have low availability.

Also, is it standard for countries that maintain ADIZs to have constant standing patrols 24/7, or do they only scramble fighters with detection of a potentially unfriendly contact? I'm not talking about territorial standing air patrols, but rather having a constant fighter presence some 100-200km from one's borders.

I think the duration of the standing PLAAF patrols will depend on how China decides to configure this ADIZ.

I see.
Are the weapons and sensor specifications fixed or adjustable? I'm sure you'll understand there is much potential debate on the specs of various PLA equipment.

Yes there is. And the simulation programmers are working overtime to streamline COMMAND to make it reflect reality. This is why this new Chinese ADIZ and the air and sensor activity associated with it represents an intelligence bonanza for the outside world. China is being forced to reveal aspects and capabilities of its military that were heretofore hidden

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 343

Yes people who sit behind desks and play war but have never been on a battle field watching their brothers die or go home horribly crippled.
The R. Strange McNamara type warriors that get people killed out of arrogance and ignorance.

Simulations attempt to clear the fog of ignorance. Ever hear the saying: Forewarned is forearmed? Ever hear of RedFlag?

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 5,905

Simulations attempt to clear the fog of ignorance. Ever hear the saying: Forewarned is forearmed? Ever hear of RedFlag?

C'mon guys. Stay focused. This debate is intersting. Sad the other one was closed :apologetic:

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 1,299

The only known example of China flying its fighters outside of internal airspace is the Turkish exercise I mentioned. If you have something to add to this then please do so by all means. And on that example no tanker or AWACS was deployed to support the PLAAF side.

Actually, PLA aircraft have done long range exercises with Russia in past peace missions, and with Pakistan as well I believe.
In a 2010 peace mission exercise, J-10s and H-6s struck simulated targets in Kazakhstan and they were supported by AEWC and tankers.
http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/Russia-Asia/McDermott-Roger/China-Showcases-Expeditionary-Military-Power-in-Peace-Mission-2010

However all the above are only missions outside of Chinese airspace that is over land, that is to say, in its north and western sides. The PLA regularly operates aircraft over international airspace from its eastern sea borders.

I don't have "proof" for that last fact, it's just one of those things that you realize after you watch the PLA for a few years. The constant trickle of business-as-usual photos are very indicative.

Other than the Turkish example one is hard pressed to find an example of PLAAF doing anything beyond their own borders. This lack of exposure to the outside world is what makes it difficult to obtain objective assessment on Chinese capabilities. Don't you agree?

Like I said, there are a few other examples -- however I definitely agree that the lack of exposure to other air forces is disadvantageous to us to assess just where the PLAAF are in specific capability and doctrine.

However there are some more general conclusions which I think we can deduce, from logic and from observation of the force numbers which they have, along with rare tidbits of articles that leak out.

True. Everything is guesstimation. And that is what makes designing a game like COMMAND such a challenge

My understanding is that the PLAAF would like to adopt the boom type method practiced by the American airforce.

That is a rumour that's gone around, but we have yet to see any aircraft being trialled with such a boom.
there are many benefits and disadvantages of probe/drogue versus boom, but I expect PLAAF are more interested in building a decent sized tanker fleet with the knowledge they have first.

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 1,299

I will obtain confirmation and get back to you. And you are aware aren't you that some airlines, the Japanese owned ones at least are refusing to cooperate with the Chinese ADIZ. Also do recall that the Korean flight 007 WAS giving proper civilian transponder codes but was shot down anyway because the Russians thought that the codes were coming from a RC-135 seen lurking in the area. Giving proper transponder codes is no guarantee of protection from shoot down

Yes, I agree, but the KAL incident was in a different time and place to the current overlapping ADIZ of Japan and China.

I doubt either side would willingly fire at an aircraft that could be mistaken for a civilian aircraft even if it were flying towards their territory and if they were in visual range -- not in this day and age, not when KAL 007 set the benchmark for the worst military aviation screw ups in history. If anything, all countries with ADIZs and air forces in general would have had more stringent interception policies if they hadn't already, after the KAL shootdown.

Do you have any examples of Chinese H-6Us participating in the patrolling of the Chinese ADIZ?

Nope, I was making a general statement of potential capability rather than current action.

Considering the Chinese ADIZ has only been up the better side of two weeks, we probably won't know too much about the routine assets they will use to support it until much later.

I think the duration of the standing PLAAF patrols will depend on how China decides to configure this ADIZ.

Yes there is. And the simulation programmers are working overtime to streamline COMMAND to make it reflect reality. This is why this new Chinese ADIZ and the air and sensor activity associated with it represents an intelligence bonanza for the outside world. China is being forced to reveal aspects and capabilities of its military that were heretofore hidden

That last point is entirely dependent on whether you believe that the PLAAF already conducted missions outside of its airspace or not.
Actually, that's not even true, because an AEWC operating within Chinese territory would still have its radar reach out for hundreds of kilometers, and any half decent ELINT or SIGINT plane orbiting in international airspace off China's coast will be able to collect juicy data even if a KJ-2000 or KJ-200 isn't outside Chinese airspace.
Not to mention Chinese coastal IADS and military air traffic control are always active anyway, meaning US or Japanese ELINT planes could collect all the data they want even without the ADIZ.

JH-7/As train routinely for their primary antishipping mission beyond China's airspace into the ECS and SCS, J-10s and flankers do air patrols in those same regions as well -- join one of the more professional chinese defence forums and look for photos about the PLAAF or threads about those particular aircraft, you'll find pictoral evidence going back years.

So I have to disagree and say that the ADIZ won't reveal much to the US or Japan which they don't already know.

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 655

I will obtain confirmation and get back to you. And you are aware aren't you that some airlines, the Japanese owned ones at least are refusing to cooperate with the Chinese ADIZ. Also do recall that the Korean flight 007 WAS giving proper civilian transponder codes but was shot down anyway because the Russians thought that the codes were coming from a RC-135 seen lurking in the area. Giving proper transponder codes is no guarantee of protection from shoot down

Technically, if I remember correctly, China has also for the longest time refused to cooperate with Japan's ADIZ. Anyways, I'm rather confident that China would seek visual confirmation as a step in its procedure before making a decision on whether to fire.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 343

For Blitzo. Regarding Japanese AirForce KC-767s basing at Naha I present this tidbit of information. There are others.

28th February visitor,

97-3603 KC-767(B767-2FKER) JASDF,404 Hikotai JF601 from PGUA

This was 28 February 2012. There are many instances of KC-767s flying in and out of Naha. Japan would be foolish to not forward base KC-767s either tankers or AWACS out of this base that is so close to the scene of the action to support air patrols

http://www.scramblemagazine.nl/

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 343

For Blitzo: You have mentioned that there might / could be mock air battles in the Chinese ADIZ between forces who do not comply with the ROE the PLAAF has established for this ADIZ. Judging how the PLAAF performed in the exercise they participated in with the Turkish AF could you speculate on the possible outcome of these engagements? You should recall that the Turkish - PLAAF exercise pitted F-4s against J-11s. Something in the Chinese ADIZ would be a horse of a different color.

This comment comes to mind:

"...During the past year, PLAAF has held exercises with Turkey and Pakistan. According to rumours online, PLAAF actually did pretty badly in its exercise with Turkish Air Force, but learnt some lessons in the process..."

What say you?

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 1,299

For Blitzo. Regarding Japanese AirForce KC-767s basing at Naha I present this tidbit of information. There are others.

28th February visitor,

97-3603 KC-767(B767-2FKER) JASDF,404 Hikotai JF601 from PGUA

This was 28 February 2012. There are many instances of KC-767s flying in and out of Naha. Japan would be foolish to not forward base KC-767s either tankers or AWACS out of this base that is so close to the scene of the action to support air patrols

http://www.scramblemagazine.nl/

I see, but do they base out there regularly?

Because I agree it would be foolish of them not to do so, but if you don't have the infrastructure to support long term forward basing, all the will in the world won't let you fly out there from an extended amount of time.

I've been following JSDF plans for Naha and I hear the most they are going to do in the immediate near term is to base some E2s at Naha permanently, nothing about E-767 or KC-767

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 1,299

For Blitzo: You have mentioned that there might / could be mock air battles in the Chinese ADIZ between forces who do not comply with the ROE the PLAAF has established for this ADIZ. Judging how the PLAAF performed in the exercise they participated in with the Turkish AF could you speculate on the possible outcome of these engagements? You should recall that the Turkish - PLAAF exercise pitted F-4s against J-11s. Something in the Chinese ADIZ would be a horse of a different color.

This comment comes to mind:

"...During the past year, PLAAF has held exercises with Turkey and Pakistan. According to rumours online, PLAAF actually did pretty badly in its exercise with Turkish Air Force, but learnt some lessons in the process..."

What say you?

I say that, having looked into the original source of that rumour from two or so years ago, as well as listening to the anecdotes of others who know more than I, I have cast aside it's credibility.

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

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.

and if you want to talk about realism.. then you are also talking about the US.
chinabots forget, the US not Japan directly controls a number of the islands. They use it for bombing practice.
thats why China hasn't pushed their way in and have their way like they do with the Philippines

Member for

12 years 10 months

Posts: 655

and if you want to talk about realism.. then you are also talking about the US.
chinabots forget, the US not Japan directly controls a number of the islands. They use it for bombing practice.
thats why China hasn't pushed their way in and have their way like they do with the Philippines

If we're talking realism...China's interest is really only over the Senkakus in the East China Seas, which really only directly involves Japan. This particular dispute is something the US would rather not get sucked into.

Member for

10 years 11 months

Posts: 2,040

If we're talking realism...China's interest is really only over the Senkakus in the East China Seas, which really only directly involves Japan. This particular dispute is something the US would rather not get sucked into.

you must be blind. does it not compute in your brain? the US (that's the United States) controls several of the Senkaku Islands and always have been, not Japan.
You want the islands, you gotta go through the US first. they are using it for bombing runs and target practice this whole time.
but we know you guys rather make a strawman out of Japan than the US. You think the US wants to give up one of their islands?

the ADIZ also involves Korea as China claims one of their islands/rocks/whatever you wanna call it.

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 1,299

you must be blind. does it not compute in your brain? the US (that's the United States) controls several of the Senkaku Islands and always have been, not Japan.
You want the islands, you gotta go through the US first. they are using it for bombing runs and target practice this whole time.
but we know you guys rather make a strawman out of Japan than the US. You think the US wants to give up one of their islands?

the ADIZ also involves Korea as China claims one of their islands/rocks/whatever you wanna call it.

The iedeo rock or whatever they're called is less of an issue between china and Korea than the islands between china and Japan, and certainly less of an issue than the dokdo dispute between Korea and Japan.

Where did you read that the Diaoyu/senkaku islands were controlled by the US, and where did you read that they are used for bombing practise?