By: Y-20 Bacon
- 13th December 2013 at 22:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's SOFA?
I literally have no idea where you are pulling the idea that the US controls the islands and that they are used for US bombing practice.
They are like three uninhabited rocks, if the US did practice bombing them at all they would not be there anymore... which would actually solve the problems quite handily.
of course you have no idea, you don't even bother looking up the facts, especially after I told you what to google. the fact that you don't even know SOFA shows that you hardly know anything about the history of the islands.
no surprise the others here don't know about US control of the islands because they're only focused on China's claims and lack substantial history on the dispute or the other perspectives.
By: Y-20 Bacon
- 13th December 2013 at 22:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Dude, being yourself an infamous culinary-bot, u may wish to be reminded that the island yanks used to bombing practice is in South China sea, and now in Chinese control, and US never drill on the island in dispute in east China sea
not my fault you don't know much about Senkaku, Diaoyu whatever island.
I've already instructed how blitzo can go educate himself, you should follow suit.
google "US target practice senkaku"
duh
is that too hard?
By: Roovialk
- 13th December 2013 at 22:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whoa, slow down there cowboy, i thought latenlazy and I wrote off everything in that article should be effectively ignored? Fact? Come on...
Some facts to support the opinions expressed would seal the deal. Until that time it must be considered random opinion.
The PLA aren't stupid. Datalinking is far superior to mere voice commands. One is simply obsolete.
Its not a matter of stupidity. It could be a matter of they are just not as advanced as other countries. And handled properly voice commands to fighters under AWACS control can be highly effective. The best way to settle this is for some reference that shows that the PLAAF is a modern networked force which is the peer to western models of networked forces. I say that there is no shame in voice control. The Chinese have shown a policy of "If it ain't broke then don't fix it."
An excellent example would how the MiG-25 used advanced vacuum tubes for its radar even though vacuum tubes were considered at the time of solid state obsolete. The vacuum tube radar proved highly effective for its period of use and was a surprise to the west.
Anyone familiar with the PLAs AEWC development know they have data links, it's not exactly a new technology. Hell, the Pakistani wanted a chinese AEWC for their JF-17s expressly for the fact that their erieyes couldn't datalink with them.
And the article, I'll repeat, is simply paraphrasing he contents of a japanese military magazine. From what I've read about Japanese military assessments of PLA developments, they're even worse off than US military appendages like ONI, and for an auxiliary of the government, that's saying something.
Can you provide a name for this Chinese datalink system? I would like to learn more about it and its capabilities. We know about Link16 and its use in western forces. How does the Chinese system compare?
Now, before we continue I want to completely challenge the assumption that the japanese magazine is anywhere near a credible source.
The hierarchy is generally about this, from my own experience:
Highest:
-Official and explicit official PLA statements (however this often isn't wholly accurate and even state media gets it wrong more often than not -- the trick is to separate the BS from the gold)
-Big shrimp/PLA insider forum posts on chinese BBS
-Mainland chinese military magazines with connections with the military to produce decently accurate articles and data
-Various "prominent" individuals such as huitong, tphuang (who basically repackage news from the two above sources into a more recognizable form for western audiences)
-A few select western specialists, with Andrew Erickson being one of them, who know what they're talking about
-Western military official statements (think ONI, US DoD reports to congress on PLA)
-Andrei Chang and his Kanwa site
-Various publication sites and analysts from abroad: these include random news sites such as washington post, to war is boring, and yes, Japanese media sites as well strategy page, David axe, richard fisher to an extent.
Lowest
The final group usually have no idea what they are talking about or deliberately miscontrue or outright lie about some mind bogglingly obvious facts.
In this case, the idea that the PLAAF's AEWCs don't have datalinks are just near incomprehensible given how much of the modern PLA's air force and navy relies on tactical datalinks to achieve missions.
Its not a matter of stupidity. It could be a matter of they are just not as advanced as other countries. And handled properly voice commands to fighters under AWACS control can be highly effective. The best way to settle this is for some reference that shows that the PLAAF is a modern networked force which is the peer to western models of networked forces. I say that there is no shame in voice control.
Your statement isn't incorrect logically, but it's been an accepted fact in virtually all PLA military observers for years that they've had datalinking ability between AEWC and fighters.
The entire reason the Pakistani Air Force wanted Chinese built ZDK-03s was so they could datalink them with JF-17s, because their Erieye AEWCs could only datalink with their F-16s. Otherwise they'd have to rely on voice commands via the Erieyes instead.
The Chinese have shown a policy of "If it ain't broke then don't fix it."
That's a bit of a generalization, and I'd say it applies for development of all new technologies not just military.
But for the PLA for instance, they have indeed retained some rather old technologies -- for instance the old Type 517 yagi style radar antennae on their 052C/D destroyers look like something from the middle of last century, alongside the SPY-1 sized active phased array radars. Type 517 despite its old design is still a relevant capability in anti stealth detection.
But at the same time, the rapid development of AESAs are just another indication of how willing the PLA are to make their own unique procurement decisions and understand the benefits which various technologies will confer.
this merely serves as an example of course, of how the PLA are both willing to consider revamping old technologies as well as developing new ones.
Stating that they follow a policy of "if it ain't then don't fix it" is rather off target because they've shown in the last few years just how willing they are to improve their own capabilities.
Can you provide a name for this Chinese datalink system? I would like to learn more about it and its capabilities. We know about Link16 and its use in western forces. How does the Chinese system compare?
Well 052D is supposed to feature a Link 16 equivalent coined in english as JSILDS (Joint Service Integrated Datalink System), and a similar system probably includes the KJ-2000 and KJ-200 as well as other PLAAF aircraft.
However how unified the various services datalinks are, their names, and definitely how they perform in terms of specifications, are definitely unknown (and will probably be unknown for a long time).
By: Blitzo
- 13th December 2013 at 23:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
of course you have no idea, you don't even bother looking up the facts, especially after I told you what to google. the fact that you don't even know SOFA shows that you hardly know anything about the history of the islands.
no surprise the others here don't know about US control of the islands because they're only focused on China's claims and lack substantial history on the dispute or the other perspectives.
Whoa, if you actually read my following posts, I actually did google it and asked why SOFA was relevant because it doesn't back up your claims about the US controlling the islands and that they haven't been "returned" to Japan.
From what I've read, the US does indeed rent one of the islands for bombing practice (although I've not uncovered how extensively that right is used) and certainly not "all" the islands as you suggested like they retain absolute control. Whether you interpret that as the US willing to side with Japan to retain one of those islands for target practice is another matter. But the US don't own the islands. That doesn't preclude US desire to side with Japan against china's claims, but the islands aren't US controlled, period.
Btw, if you google "SOFA" it comes up with page after page of furniture chains.
By: Roovialk
- 14th December 2013 at 00:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well 052D is supposed to feature a Link 16 equivalent coined in english as JSILDS (Joint Service Integrated Datalink System), and a similar system probably includes the KJ-2000 and KJ-200 as well as other PLAAF aircraft.
However how unified the various services datalinks are, their names, and definitely how they perform in terms of specifications, are definitely unknown (and will probably be unknown for a long time).
So at he very least these datalink systems like JSILDS are not fully deployed and are in the process of being adopted by Chinese forces. This lends credibility that some form of voice based command and control might be in use as reported by the article I referred to.
And thanks for the sources and links. I was aware of most of them.
By: latenlazy
- 14th December 2013 at 00:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I saw it as a PLAAF scenario to ambush a high value target, in this case an Japanese E-767 AWACS.
The way the scenario is constructed in the original source (since the xinhua article is basically rehashing the Japanese Defence magazine), with the JASDF taking a very conservative approach filled with political confusion and the PLAAF taking a very aggressive approach (sortieing 30 J-10s...really?) is not only highly unrealistic, but very typical of an ultra nationalist perspective in Japan. It's a typical scare tactic meant to build popular support for a more aggressive security posture.
of course you have no idea, you don't even bother looking up the facts, especially after I told you what to google. the fact that you don't even know SOFA shows that you hardly know anything about the history of the islands.
no surprise the others here don't know about US control of the islands because they're only focused on China's claims and lack substantial history on the dispute or the other perspectives.
"The islands came under US government occupation in 1945 after the surrender of Japan ended World War II.[29] In 1969, the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) identified potential oil and gas reserves in the vicinity of the Senkaku Islands.[33] In 1971, the Okinawa Reversion Treaty passed the U.S. Senate, returning the islands to Japanese control in 1972.[34] Also in 1972, the Taiwanese and Chinese governments officially began to declare ownership of the islands.[35]"
You're welcome.
So at he very least these datalink systems like JSILDS are not fully deployed and are in the process of being adopted by Chinese forces. This lends credibility that some form of voice based command and control might be in use as reported by the article I referred to.
And thanks for the sources and links. I was aware of most of them.
We don't know the extent of their deployment, but we do know they have the technology. Logically speaking, given how long we've known they've had it, and given that they bothered to develop it, it follows that they would be working to integrate the technology to their maximum effect. After all, when we're talking about the KJ-200 and KJ-2000 we're talking about technology that has only emerged within the last half decade.
The PLA is not so conservative about their development that they would delay modernization of doctrine, tactics, and equipment. In fact, in the last decade or so the PLA has been incredibly aggressive about their modernization efforts, which makes sense when we begin to understand that their conservatism over development in the 80s and 90s was far more about depending on indigenous development to catch up than a general rule of thumb.
By: Roovialk
- 14th December 2013 at 00:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The way the scenario is constructed in the original source (since the xinhua article is basically rehashing the Japanese Defence magazine), with the JASDF taking a very conservative approach filled with political confusion and the PLAAF taking a very aggressive approach (sortieing 30 J-10s...really?) is not only highly unrealistic, but very typical of an ultra nationalist perspective in Japan. It's a typical scare tactic meant to build popular support for a more aggressive security posture.
The scenario referred to is not as unrealistic as you may first believe. A new scenario has been constructed regarding the Chinese ADIZ and played out in Command. This time F-22s got into the fray as PLAAF aircraft did attempt to down a JSDF AWACS. The results have been criticized due to the improper use the F-22s
"....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...."
By: Blitzo
- 14th December 2013 at 00:41Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So at he very least these datalink systems like JSILDS are not fully deployed and are in the process of being adopted by Chinese forces.
Well, 052D obviously has yet to enter service, but other aspects of the "joint" datalink system would be expected to be operational given they've had years to test, develop and ultimately deploy a number of advanced AEWC, support aircraft, and advanced frigates and destroyers.
This lends credibility that some form of voice based command and control might be in use as reported by the article I referred to.
That's relying on a few false assumptions, namely that this "JSILDS" is the only datalink that the PLA have deployed and developed, or that other parts of it are not yet operational, etc, which are all hefty assumptions given the number of assets they've depoyed in the past decade years that would rely on datalinking.
And of course, the sheer idea of giving a Japanese military magazine anything near credibility on the PLA is eyebrow raising to begin with, and even more so considering the actual claim they make.
And thanks for the sources and links. I was aware of most of them.
No problem.
Unfortunately, there is nothing like hard evidence for many of what would otherwise be rightly called "claims" or "opinions" regarding the PLA. Their opacity means generating anything near a basic picture of their capability with "proof" is immensely difficult.
By: Blitzo
- 14th December 2013 at 00:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The scenario referred to is not as unrealistic as you may first believe. A new scenario has been constructed regarding the Chinese ADIZ and played out in Command. This time F-22s got into the fray as PLAAF aircraft did attempt to down a JSDF AWACS. The results have been criticized due to the improper use the F-22s
"....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...."
I don't see how creating a scenario on Command makes the Japanese magazine's scenario any less unrealistic.
All the "scenarios" we've described thus far, including those on Command, have presumed deliberate, knowing military action by a party (the PLA in all cases). It's not the technical realism of the scenarios described, but rather the political and military motivation for conducting such an operation in the first place.
Sure it's interesting for considering how each side's fighters, missiles and AEWC may perform (even if some of the chinese specs are a little bit off), but they've all felt immensely unrealistic when we start to consider what the PRC actually wants to do in its ADIZ.
By: Roovialk
- 14th December 2013 at 00:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Unfortunately, there is nothing like hard evidence for many of what would otherwise be rightly called "claims" or "opinions" regarding the PLA. Their opacity means generating anything near a basic picture of their capability with "proof" is immensely difficult.
The hardest part of this whole exercise is obtaining solid information on the 'soft' capabilities of Chinese forces. Things like pilot skills and warfighting culture are hard to obtain creditable information on as China has limited exposure to other military forces outside of China and that China has not fought a war since the incursion into Vietnam in 1979
By: latenlazy
- 14th December 2013 at 00:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The scenario referred to is not as unrealistic as you may first believe. A new scenario has been constructed regarding the Chinese ADIZ and played out in Command. This time F-22s got into the fray as PLAAF aircraft did attempt to down a JSDF AWACS. The results have been criticized due to the improper use the F-22s
"....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...."
The unrealistic aspects of the scenario are as follows:
1) That China would sortie a full regiment+ of J-10s (J-11s would make more sense, but 30 is over kill)
2) That in the event of weapons fire the JASDF wouldn't be authorized to return fire
3) That an entire regiment of fighters would pursue an E-767 clear into Japanese air space and then go for all the other E-767s stationed around the Japanese mainland
4) That Japan's political leadership would dither on making a decision WHILE allowing all the other E-767s to fly (either a)they see 30 regiments of J-10s as an act of war and sortie the rest of their F-15s, or b) they would ground their E-767s to dare China to look like the aggressor and hit ground targets in the Japanese Mainland), WHILE an entire regiment of J-10s would be aiming to shoot down EVERY E-767
5) That China would try to pursue air superiority over Japan's mainland.
In a real fire fight China aiming at the E-767s isn't what's unrealistic about the scenario painted in the magazine. It's all the other bits of hyperbole.
By: Blitzo
- 14th December 2013 at 00:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The hardest part of this whole exercise is obtaining solid information on the 'soft' capabilities of Chinese forces. Things like pilot skills and warfighting culture are hard to obtain creditable information on as China has limited exposure to other military forces outside of China and that China has not fought a war since the incursion into Vietnam in 1979
Yes, and that was discussed in great detail with Thobbes in a thread dedicated to that exact subject a few months ago.
Unfortunately the only thing we could agree on was how difficult it was to measure such an abstract and multi faceted factor.
By: Roovialk
- 14th December 2013 at 01:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't see how creating a scenario on Command makes the Japanese magazine's scenario any less unrealistic.
All the "scenarios" we've described thus far, including those on Command, have presumed deliberate, knowing military action by a party (the PLA in all cases). That's simply what's so realistic about it -- it's not the technicaly feasibility per se, but rather the political and military motivation for conducting such an operation in the first place.
Sure it's interesting for considering how each side's fighters, missiles and AEWC may perform (even if some of the chinese specs are a little bit off), but they've all felt immensely unrealistic when we start to consider what the PRC actually wants to do in its ADIZ.
In these COMMAND scenarios outside factors such as political and military motivations are not factored into the equation. It is basically a "the fights on" type of thing just like Red Flag does not take into account as to how the Aggressors and Allied aircraft have gotten into a position to exchange blows. The Chinese ADIZ is not the only fight being modeled in COMMAND. Various historical sea-air-land battles are capable of being modeled.
For instance there are many cold war clashes that are capable of being played. There is the capability of modeling the airwar over North Vietnam and various battles in the Middle East. Many people are playing the Falklands. Playing these historical scenarios are an excellent way to calibrate COMMAND for realism in hypothetical future clashes
In other words if you play a historical scenario and obtain a results that matches what really went down in the real world then there is a good chance that a hypothetical scenario may have a solid basis in a reality that may yet occur.
I am looking at modelling this "Offshore Control: Defense of the First Island Chain" in Command when I get the time to do it justice
By: Roovialk
- 14th December 2013 at 01:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The unrealistic aspects of the scenario are as follows:
1) That China would sortie a full regiment+ of J-10s (J-11s would make more sense, but 30 is over kill)
2) That in the event of weapons fire the JASDF wouldn't be authorized to return fire
3) That an entire regiment of fighters would pursue an E-767 clear into Japanese air space and then go for all the other E-767s stationed around the Japanese mainland
4) That Japan's political leadership would dither on making a decision WHILE allowing all the other E-767s to fly (either a)they see 30 regiments of J-10s as an act of war and sortie the rest of their F-15s, or b) they would ground their E-767s to dare China to look like the aggressor and hit ground targets in the Japanese Mainland), WHILE an entire regiment of J-10s would be aiming to shoot down EVERY E-767
5) That China would try to pursue air superiority over Japan's mainland.
In a real fire fight China aiming at the E-767s isn't what's unrealistic about the scenario painted in the magazine. It's all the other bits of hyperbole.
The major point I disagree with is how the F-22s gave away their stealth advantage by lighting up their radars and revealing their location. Clearly the Allied player was not familiar with how F-22s would be used. In my opinion he used very poor tactics.
Your other points about the scenario are well taken
By: latenlazy
- 14th December 2013 at 01:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In other words if you play a historical scenario and obtain a results that matches what really went down in the real world then there is a good chance that a hypothetical scenario may have a solid basis in a reality that may yet occur.
I think then the better question is how consistent are historical scenarios to each other? It makes little sense to suggest a model has predictive power if there's no consistency between the scenarios the model pulls its projections from.
These confrontations are actually nothing new, and will be sure to increase in future.
The soviets had their fair share of stare downs and maneuvers with the USN, and I'd expect to see it more as the USN continues to operate in what china considers its backyard.
If anything we should consider it was an LST that had intercepted a 10,000 ton cruiser. A calculated move no doubt, to both send a message while not escalating the situation too much which a frigate or destroyer would lead to.
By: TomcatViP
- 15th December 2013 at 00:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually it's less stupid than one may think.
[...]
That's why I wrote "a deliberate act of.... behavior". It was a reference of another post I made (and deleted afterward).
Nothing in my mind makes me think that at this level of command somebody is really stupid. But acting, well that's another question.
The prob for the USN/USAF is that they are the one at disadvantage having years of experiences. No fail will be excused. Meanwhile, in the opposite team...
@Halloweene: IMOHO, the Liao Ning is at the very center of the story. Reading that article, it seems the US are playing the Navy card (more time to think, more death to assume). As I wrote before, it might be that anchoring an AEGIS would deny any advantage the PLAAF might want to gains.
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 13th December 2013 at 22:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
of course you have no idea, you don't even bother looking up the facts, especially after I told you what to google. the fact that you don't even know SOFA shows that you hardly know anything about the history of the islands.
no surprise the others here don't know about US control of the islands because they're only focused on China's claims and lack substantial history on the dispute or the other perspectives.
since you're so lazy
you can easily wiki it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands#Japanese_and_US_control
http://www.hnn.us/article/133059
etc
Posts: 2,040
By: Y-20 Bacon - 13th December 2013 at 22:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
not my fault you don't know much about Senkaku, Diaoyu whatever island.
I've already instructed how blitzo can go educate himself, you should follow suit.
google "US target practice senkaku"
duh
is that too hard?
Posts: 343
By: Roovialk - 13th December 2013 at 22:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Some facts to support the opinions expressed would seal the deal. Until that time it must be considered random opinion.
Its not a matter of stupidity. It could be a matter of they are just not as advanced as other countries. And handled properly voice commands to fighters under AWACS control can be highly effective. The best way to settle this is for some reference that shows that the PLAAF is a modern networked force which is the peer to western models of networked forces. I say that there is no shame in voice control. The Chinese have shown a policy of "If it ain't broke then don't fix it."
An excellent example would how the MiG-25 used advanced vacuum tubes for its radar even though vacuum tubes were considered at the time of solid state obsolete. The vacuum tube radar proved highly effective for its period of use and was a surprise to the west.
Can you provide a name for this Chinese datalink system? I would like to learn more about it and its capabilities. We know about Link16 and its use in western forces. How does the Chinese system compare?
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 13th December 2013 at 23:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I assume you are familiar with the way PLA "facts" are discharged, but a good place to start would be huitong's site.
http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com is an excellent place to start
http://chinese-military-aviation.blogspot.com/p/surveillance-aircraft-i.html for AEWC aircraft in particular.
Now, before we continue I want to completely challenge the assumption that the japanese magazine is anywhere near a credible source.
The hierarchy is generally about this, from my own experience:
Highest:
-Official and explicit official PLA statements (however this often isn't wholly accurate and even state media gets it wrong more often than not -- the trick is to separate the BS from the gold)
-Big shrimp/PLA insider forum posts on chinese BBS
-Mainland chinese military magazines with connections with the military to produce decently accurate articles and data
-Various "prominent" individuals such as huitong, tphuang (who basically repackage news from the two above sources into a more recognizable form for western audiences)
-A few select western specialists, with Andrew Erickson being one of them, who know what they're talking about
-Western military official statements (think ONI, US DoD reports to congress on PLA)
-Andrei Chang and his Kanwa site
-Various publication sites and analysts from abroad: these include random news sites such as washington post, to war is boring, and yes, Japanese media sites as well strategy page, David axe, richard fisher to an extent.
Lowest
The final group usually have no idea what they are talking about or deliberately miscontrue or outright lie about some mind bogglingly obvious facts.
In this case, the idea that the PLAAF's AEWCs don't have datalinks are just near incomprehensible given how much of the modern PLA's air force and navy relies on tactical datalinks to achieve missions.
Your statement isn't incorrect logically, but it's been an accepted fact in virtually all PLA military observers for years that they've had datalinking ability between AEWC and fighters.
The entire reason the Pakistani Air Force wanted Chinese built ZDK-03s was so they could datalink them with JF-17s, because their Erieye AEWCs could only datalink with their F-16s. Otherwise they'd have to rely on voice commands via the Erieyes instead.
That's a bit of a generalization, and I'd say it applies for development of all new technologies not just military.
But for the PLA for instance, they have indeed retained some rather old technologies -- for instance the old Type 517 yagi style radar antennae on their 052C/D destroyers look like something from the middle of last century, alongside the SPY-1 sized active phased array radars. Type 517 despite its old design is still a relevant capability in anti stealth detection.
But at the same time, the rapid development of AESAs are just another indication of how willing the PLA are to make their own unique procurement decisions and understand the benefits which various technologies will confer.
this merely serves as an example of course, of how the PLA are both willing to consider revamping old technologies as well as developing new ones.
Stating that they follow a policy of "if it ain't then don't fix it" is rather off target because they've shown in the last few years just how willing they are to improve their own capabilities.
Well 052D is supposed to feature a Link 16 equivalent coined in english as JSILDS (Joint Service Integrated Datalink System), and a similar system probably includes the KJ-2000 and KJ-200 as well as other PLAAF aircraft.
However how unified the various services datalinks are, their names, and definitely how they perform in terms of specifications, are definitely unknown (and will probably be unknown for a long time).
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 13th December 2013 at 23:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Whoa, if you actually read my following posts, I actually did google it and asked why SOFA was relevant because it doesn't back up your claims about the US controlling the islands and that they haven't been "returned" to Japan.
From what I've read, the US does indeed rent one of the islands for bombing practice (although I've not uncovered how extensively that right is used) and certainly not "all" the islands as you suggested like they retain absolute control. Whether you interpret that as the US willing to side with Japan to retain one of those islands for target practice is another matter. But the US don't own the islands. That doesn't preclude US desire to side with Japan against china's claims, but the islands aren't US controlled, period.
Btw, if you google "SOFA" it comes up with page after page of furniture chains.
Posts: 343
By: Roovialk - 14th December 2013 at 00:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So at he very least these datalink systems like JSILDS are not fully deployed and are in the process of being adopted by Chinese forces. This lends credibility that some form of voice based command and control might be in use as reported by the article I referred to.
And thanks for the sources and links. I was aware of most of them.
Posts: 655
By: latenlazy - 14th December 2013 at 00:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The way the scenario is constructed in the original source (since the xinhua article is basically rehashing the Japanese Defence magazine), with the JASDF taking a very conservative approach filled with political confusion and the PLAAF taking a very aggressive approach (sortieing 30 J-10s...really?) is not only highly unrealistic, but very typical of an ultra nationalist perspective in Japan. It's a typical scare tactic meant to build popular support for a more aggressive security posture.
"The islands came under US government occupation in 1945 after the surrender of Japan ended World War II.[29] In 1969, the United Nations Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) identified potential oil and gas reserves in the vicinity of the Senkaku Islands.[33] In 1971, the Okinawa Reversion Treaty passed the U.S. Senate, returning the islands to Japanese control in 1972.[34] Also in 1972, the Taiwanese and Chinese governments officially began to declare ownership of the islands.[35]"
You're welcome.
We don't know the extent of their deployment, but we do know they have the technology. Logically speaking, given how long we've known they've had it, and given that they bothered to develop it, it follows that they would be working to integrate the technology to their maximum effect. After all, when we're talking about the KJ-200 and KJ-2000 we're talking about technology that has only emerged within the last half decade.
The PLA is not so conservative about their development that they would delay modernization of doctrine, tactics, and equipment. In fact, in the last decade or so the PLA has been incredibly aggressive about their modernization efforts, which makes sense when we begin to understand that their conservatism over development in the 80s and 90s was far more about depending on indigenous development to catch up than a general rule of thumb.
Posts: 343
By: Roovialk - 14th December 2013 at 00:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The scenario referred to is not as unrealistic as you may first believe. A new scenario has been constructed regarding the Chinese ADIZ and played out in Command. This time F-22s got into the fray as PLAAF aircraft did attempt to down a JSDF AWACS. The results have been criticized due to the improper use the F-22s
"....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...."
More here: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/e52ee5f73616
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 14th December 2013 at 00:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well, 052D obviously has yet to enter service, but other aspects of the "joint" datalink system would be expected to be operational given they've had years to test, develop and ultimately deploy a number of advanced AEWC, support aircraft, and advanced frigates and destroyers.
That's relying on a few false assumptions, namely that this "JSILDS" is the only datalink that the PLA have deployed and developed, or that other parts of it are not yet operational, etc, which are all hefty assumptions given the number of assets they've depoyed in the past decade years that would rely on datalinking.
And of course, the sheer idea of giving a Japanese military magazine anything near credibility on the PLA is eyebrow raising to begin with, and even more so considering the actual claim they make.
No problem.
Unfortunately, there is nothing like hard evidence for many of what would otherwise be rightly called "claims" or "opinions" regarding the PLA. Their opacity means generating anything near a basic picture of their capability with "proof" is immensely difficult.
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 14th December 2013 at 00:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I don't see how creating a scenario on Command makes the Japanese magazine's scenario any less unrealistic.
All the "scenarios" we've described thus far, including those on Command, have presumed deliberate, knowing military action by a party (the PLA in all cases). It's not the technical realism of the scenarios described, but rather the political and military motivation for conducting such an operation in the first place.
Sure it's interesting for considering how each side's fighters, missiles and AEWC may perform (even if some of the chinese specs are a little bit off), but they've all felt immensely unrealistic when we start to consider what the PRC actually wants to do in its ADIZ.
Posts: 343
By: Roovialk - 14th December 2013 at 00:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The hardest part of this whole exercise is obtaining solid information on the 'soft' capabilities of Chinese forces. Things like pilot skills and warfighting culture are hard to obtain creditable information on as China has limited exposure to other military forces outside of China and that China has not fought a war since the incursion into Vietnam in 1979
Posts: 655
By: latenlazy - 14th December 2013 at 00:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The unrealistic aspects of the scenario are as follows:
1) That China would sortie a full regiment+ of J-10s (J-11s would make more sense, but 30 is over kill)
2) That in the event of weapons fire the JASDF wouldn't be authorized to return fire
3) That an entire regiment of fighters would pursue an E-767 clear into Japanese air space and then go for all the other E-767s stationed around the Japanese mainland
4) That Japan's political leadership would dither on making a decision WHILE allowing all the other E-767s to fly (either a)they see 30 regiments of J-10s as an act of war and sortie the rest of their F-15s, or b) they would ground their E-767s to dare China to look like the aggressor and hit ground targets in the Japanese Mainland), WHILE an entire regiment of J-10s would be aiming to shoot down EVERY E-767
5) That China would try to pursue air superiority over Japan's mainland.
In a real fire fight China aiming at the E-767s isn't what's unrealistic about the scenario painted in the magazine. It's all the other bits of hyperbole.
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 14th December 2013 at 00:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, and that was discussed in great detail with Thobbes in a thread dedicated to that exact subject a few months ago.
Unfortunately the only thing we could agree on was how difficult it was to measure such an abstract and multi faceted factor.
Posts: 343
By: Roovialk - 14th December 2013 at 01:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In these COMMAND scenarios outside factors such as political and military motivations are not factored into the equation. It is basically a "the fights on" type of thing just like Red Flag does not take into account as to how the Aggressors and Allied aircraft have gotten into a position to exchange blows. The Chinese ADIZ is not the only fight being modeled in COMMAND. Various historical sea-air-land battles are capable of being modeled.
For instance there are many cold war clashes that are capable of being played. There is the capability of modeling the airwar over North Vietnam and various battles in the Middle East. Many people are playing the Falklands. Playing these historical scenarios are an excellent way to calibrate COMMAND for realism in hypothetical future clashes
In other words if you play a historical scenario and obtain a results that matches what really went down in the real world then there is a good chance that a hypothetical scenario may have a solid basis in a reality that may yet occur.
I am looking at modelling this "Offshore Control: Defense of the First Island Chain" in Command when I get the time to do it justice
Posts: 343
By: Roovialk - 14th December 2013 at 01:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The major point I disagree with is how the F-22s gave away their stealth advantage by lighting up their radars and revealing their location. Clearly the Allied player was not familiar with how F-22s would be used. In my opinion he used very poor tactics.
Your other points about the scenario are well taken
Posts: 655
By: latenlazy - 14th December 2013 at 01:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think then the better question is how consistent are historical scenarios to each other? It makes little sense to suggest a model has predictive power if there's no consistency between the scenarios the model pulls its projections from.
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 14th December 2013 at 02:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
An act of deliberate stupid behaviour
Here we are....
Source:
CNN.COM
Posts: 1,299
By: Blitzo - 14th December 2013 at 03:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Actually it's less stupid than one may think.
These confrontations are actually nothing new, and will be sure to increase in future.
The soviets had their fair share of stare downs and maneuvers with the USN, and I'd expect to see it more as the USN continues to operate in what china considers its backyard.
If anything we should consider it was an LST that had intercepted a 10,000 ton cruiser. A calculated move no doubt, to both send a message while not escalating the situation too much which a frigate or destroyer would lead to.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 14th December 2013 at 10:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
One should notice that the US ship was quite close to Liao Ning?
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 15th December 2013 at 00:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's why I wrote "a deliberate act of.... behavior". It was a reference of another post I made (and deleted afterward).
Nothing in my mind makes me think that at this level of command somebody is really stupid. But acting, well that's another question.
The prob for the USN/USAF is that they are the one at disadvantage having years of experiences. No fail will be excused. Meanwhile, in the opposite team...
@Halloweene: IMOHO, the Liao Ning is at the very center of the story. Reading that article, it seems the US are playing the Navy card (more time to think, more death to assume). As I wrote before, it might be that anchoring an AEGIS would deny any advantage the PLAAF might want to gains.