Posted on May 19, 2016
3
3
0
Once again we see the difference. If a PLA(AF) aircraft intercepts a US aircraft in a location that is inside the PRC declared ADIZ then you are looking at "aggressive military action in international airspace" whereas if a US aircraft intercepts a PRC aircraft in a location that is inside the US declared ADIZ then you are looking at "a normal operation designed to ensure the safety of all Americans". In the first case the US aircraft would be "carrying out normal operational and training tasks" BUT in the second case the PRC aircraft would be "spying".
Chinese Intercept U.S. Military Spy Plane Over South China Sea
Posted from nbcnews.com
Security
Spying
Intelligence
Geopolitics / International Relations
Politics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
With respect, those are examples are not the same at all. I will grant that US media is less likely to portray American forces in an unfavorable light, but in this case I would agree with that portrayal.
Both flights would be engaged in spying, yes, but there is a qualitative difference. First, the ADIZ areas in the South China Sea are not internationally recognized as there is debate over the sovereignty of the areas concerned, whereas the U.S. ADIZ areas are around internationally recognized territory. Secondly, because of the global reach of U.S. air and sea power, these spy flights ARE routine. Chinese penetration of our airspace is anything but routine. Finally, when intercepts do occur, the actions of the pilots involved are different. I may be missing something, but I have yet to hear, read, or see an instance of a U.S. intercept being conducted that resulted in a collision, the destruction of the aircraft, and the holding of an aircrew hostage. This has happened in the SCS.
Both flights would be engaged in spying, yes, but there is a qualitative difference. First, the ADIZ areas in the South China Sea are not internationally recognized as there is debate over the sovereignty of the areas concerned, whereas the U.S. ADIZ areas are around internationally recognized territory. Secondly, because of the global reach of U.S. air and sea power, these spy flights ARE routine. Chinese penetration of our airspace is anything but routine. Finally, when intercepts do occur, the actions of the pilots involved are different. I may be missing something, but I have yet to hear, read, or see an instance of a U.S. intercept being conducted that resulted in a collision, the destruction of the aircraft, and the holding of an aircrew hostage. This has happened in the SCS.
(2)
(0)
Capt Michael Greene
"when intercepts do occur [near the US], the actions of the pilots involved are different."
Not sure how you could state this with confidence. If the US shot down, sunk, or assassinated a spy plane, ship or person, I doubt we'd hear about it. During the "peacetime" of the Cold War, there were dozens of US and other aircraft shot down, but the public was almost never aware of any of those instances. Imagine if you were the American President: if a Russian spyplane was shot down near NYC--would you advertise it?
Not sure how you could state this with confidence. If the US shot down, sunk, or assassinated a spy plane, ship or person, I doubt we'd hear about it. During the "peacetime" of the Cold War, there were dozens of US and other aircraft shot down, but the public was almost never aware of any of those instances. Imagine if you were the American President: if a Russian spyplane was shot down near NYC--would you advertise it?
(1)
(0)
PO2 (Join to see)
Capt Michael Greene - Agreed. Mostly. There were any number of incidents like this during the Cold War, as you correctly mention, and few became public knowledge. Most never do, unless one side (often the other) tries to use an incident for propaganda purposes for their own populace. Even then they become, at best, a footnote in the public eye (the Vincennes incident comes to mind).
However, in this case and in this area of the world, without getting into opsec or security areas, I do feel confident in making that statement.
However, in this case and in this area of the world, without getting into opsec or security areas, I do feel confident in making that statement.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO2 (Join to see) - PO; There is absolutely no need for "national sovereignty" for a country to declare an ADIZ all that is needed is for the country to do so. Whether or not that country can do anything with that ADIZ is something else again.
I suspect that one of the reasons why you haven't heard about American pilots crashing their aircraft into Russian or Chinese aircraft is that the American pilots are better trained than the Russian and Chinese pilots.
PS - The United States of America has no legal right to demand that any aircraft in the South China Sea "identify itself" since the South China Sea is NOT either "American territory" or part of an "American ADIZ". American military forces DO however have the same legal right to warn off aircraft which are conducting dangerous operations near American military ships - ALL other nations have an equivalent right with respect to THEIR naval vessels.
I suspect that one of the reasons why you haven't heard about American pilots crashing their aircraft into Russian or Chinese aircraft is that the American pilots are better trained than the Russian and Chinese pilots.
PS - The United States of America has no legal right to demand that any aircraft in the South China Sea "identify itself" since the South China Sea is NOT either "American territory" or part of an "American ADIZ". American military forces DO however have the same legal right to warn off aircraft which are conducting dangerous operations near American military ships - ALL other nations have an equivalent right with respect to THEIR naval vessels.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Maybe because China's ADIZ is illegal by international standards, and is little more than a filthy land grab?
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SN Greg Wright - Seaman; Since, at law, there is no such thing as an Air Defence Identification Zone then it is pretty hard for one to be "illegal by international standards".
On the other hand, it IS recognized that an AIDZ can encompass an area over which the "declaring nation" has NO sovereignty. The existence of an ADIZ DOES NOT imply any claim to sovereignty.
ADIZs are purely a creation of the President of the United States of America and is covered by "Regulation" and NOT "Legislation".
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TYPE=TEXT&YEAR=current&TITLE=14&PART=99&SECTION=1
On the other hand, it IS recognized that an AIDZ can encompass an area over which the "declaring nation" has NO sovereignty. The existence of an ADIZ DOES NOT imply any claim to sovereignty.
ADIZs are purely a creation of the President of the United States of America and is covered by "Regulation" and NOT "Legislation".
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TYPE=TEXT&YEAR=current&TITLE=14&PART=99&SECTION=1
(a) This subpart prescribes rules for operating all aircraft (except for Department of Defense and law enforcement aircraft) in a defense area, or into, within, or out of the United States through an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) designated in subpart B.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
We have seen this below. On April 1, 2001, the Hainan Island incident occurred when a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals intelligence aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
Hainan Island incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On April 1, 2001, the Hainan Island incident occurred when a mid-air collision between a United States Navy EP-3E ARIES II signals intelligence aircraft and a People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) J-8II interceptor fighter jet resulted in an international dispute between the United States of America and the People's Republic of China.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google