U.S. Sends Second Carrier to Asia Amid Tensions with China

[gambit]

@LeveragedBuyout
I think the US and many americans are overreacted in this particularly case. let me ask u what were the objectives of the P8 plane in the coast of Hainan island? several possibilities.
1. to show the american audience and politicians that the Obama is tough on china, he is not a clown.
2. to send a signal to US allies that daddy is here to protects u, no worries.
3. to test China's red line.
4. the most practical one: to collects datas of our newest nuclear sub.

Whatever the objectives were, that particularly mission has failed. u sent ur P8 anti sub plane near our nuclear sub base, we had to response, we had to assume u were here to really undermine our national security, u may say it's just a regular recon mission, no it's not, it was a anti sub plane near our sub base, u don't do that regularly, it's very unusual, otherwise our J11 fighter would not perform such aggressive manoeuvre. u do regularly send ur plane near our coast and we unusually just intercept and shadowed ur plane, and this kinds of normal encounter never got published, agree?
we did what we had to, barrel roll or whatever, clearly ur mission was disturbed, if we just shadowed ur plane, u can just continue ur spying, i don't know whether the P8 returned to base right after the barrel roll ( l think so, otherwise the news would say how brave and tough the US was, continued its glorious mission despite the ‘dangerous’ behaviour from chinese pilot.
I think our pilot have done a great job.

That is a bad line of reasoning. You clearly do not know anything about military flying.

If our P-8 left, it was not because we got caught doing something illegal, as far border trespass goes. If the aircraft commander wanted, he could have continued flying the current course regardless of what the PLAAF pilot may do, other than actually shooting.

In flying, when we have a smaller and more agile aircraft doing maneuvers in the vicinity of a larger aircraft, unexpected and unpredictable things can happened. Go back to the Hainan Incident when a Chinese pilot lost his life in the collision. Was the Chinese pilot inadequately trained in the basics of flight maneuvers ? No.

Let us take a look at an extreme example...

Aviation History - Air Refueling the C-5, Part 2

The extreme size of the C-5 and the large, blunt nose cause a huge bow wave of air to be pushed in front of the plane. As the C-5 got closer to the tanker, the bow wave would push the tail of the tanker up, forcing the autopilot to trim to maintain altitude.

Air refueling involves basic formation flying skills with the exception of flying much closer than usual formation flying for the need of getting fuel. The only other need for such tight formation flying is aerobatics, like the USAF Thunderbirds and many other countries does it. When the C-5 meet up with the air refueler, its size created such an aerodynamic effects in front of it -- the bow wave -- that if the C-5 does any kind of sudden maneuver, it can send the refueler aircraft tumbling out of control without physically colliding with the the refueler.

The reverse probably -- high probability -- occurred in the Hainan Incident. In that event, even though the EP-3 was flying a straight and steady heading, it still created a wake of aerodynamic forces that caught the smaller J-8 and sent the smaller fighter into uncontrolled flight, which ended in a collision that killed the Chinese pilot.

In this incident, the J-11's maneuvers were not because of the sensitivity of the mission but because the Chinese pilot was unprofessional, just like his dead J-8 predecessor. Was the J-11 pilot inadequately trained in basic flight maneuvers ? No. There are no guarantees that he will live or die just because he intercepted the American aircraft. But given the laws of physics and aerodynamic forces in play when two or more flying bodies are close to each other, the Chinese pilot have increased his risk of getting killed by his own recklessness. May be other intercepts have more disciplined pilots. Who knows ? But for this event, if the Chinese pilot was ordered by someone higher up to do something to 'scare' the Americans, it was a foolish order and whoever gave it should be demoted and exiled to the outer provinces.

 

[55100864]

@gambit
I believe our pilot was gave order by high rankings to physically redirects the P8, what kinds of manoeuvre is up to him, and i believe that event was exaggerated by the US media, like only 50 feet between two aircraft etc......he knew the aerodynamic very well, so yes, he was willing risk his life consider the sensitivity of our sub base, i'm not sure the american pilots have such commitment to continue their mission. it's not the first case in history, i'm sure u know the SU27 and Norway P3 incident in 1987, did the su27 pilot deliberately cut the outboard starboard engine of the P3, or it's just a accident? who knows.

so my assumption: our pilot did actually just shadowed the P8 and kept a safe distance, sent some warning, expects that P8 plane to leave but didn't happen, and he did what he had to.

In the EP3 and J8 Incident, the fact is that J8 as a delta wing fighter suppose to be a high speed intercepter, and has poor controllability in low speed, so yes, plus the aerodynamic effects the EP3 created, led to the mid air collision.

 

[BoQ77]

No carrier has a pure 90 F-18 fighter loadout, as you need room for Prowler, Hawkeye, Seahawk and other assortment of utility & support aircrafts. Normally 24-36 strike fighter is the max you'll find in a carrier air wing. And you don't attach SSBN to your carrier groups but rather SSN for escort purpose. SSBN & SSGN patrols independently for attaching any surface ship would defeat the whole purpose of their mission.

 

[Aepsilons]

USS Carl Vinson Strike Group Departing
August 2014

 

[Vassnti]

Anyone know the total number of fighter aircrafts in service in Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines against the total number of fighter aircrafts in service in China?

Not exctly what you were after but gives you an idea

2013 data from Center for Strategic and International Studies

RankCountryFighters
1United States (USAF, US Navy)3304[
2Russia (Russian Air Force, Russian Naval Aviation)780
3China768
9South Korea64


http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/060626_asia_balance.pdf

 

[BoQ77]

total Quantity China has less than quantity US Navy deployed on their aircraft carriers.

 

[gambit]

@gambit
I believe our pilot was gave order by high rankings to physically redirects the P8, what kinds of manoeuvre is up to him, and i believe that event was exaggerated by the US media, like only 50 feet between two aircraft etc......he knew the aerodynamic very well, so yes, he was willing risk his life consider the sensitivity of our sub base, i'm not sure the american pilots have such commitment to continue their mission. it's not the first case in history, i'm sure u know the SU27 and Norway P3 incident in 1987, did the su27 pilot deliberately cut the outboard starboard engine of the P3, or it's just a accident? who knows.

so my assumption: our pilot did actually just shadowed the P8 and kept a safe distance, sent some warning, expects that P8 plane to leave but didn't happen, and he did what he had to.

There is nothing a sovereign power can do -- legally -- if a recon flight is in international airspace. The order should have been to ensure the spy plane remains in international airspace, not to force him to turn away. But if the order was to compel the spy plane to turn away, then it was a bad order.

Do not try to imply that somehow US pilots are less committed to their missions. For starter, we have been at this far longer than your PLAAF have. We know the limits of what we can legally do and what kind of orders to give to our pilots. If there is a need to resort to force, that would be a separate order AFTER the interceptors reported that all non-lethal means have been futile. In other words, we are a much more discipline and professional air force than your PLAAF over situations like this.

 

[BoQ77]

the act of showing its weapons actually cause more dangerous than using its weapon.
as we know, rarely Chinese or US using their weapons but once before, a close approach of Chinese J-8 caused a mid-air collision.

Chinese thought that US would be afraid of their weapons, but actually US is afraid of a collision.
Chinese used to approach too close with records in the past.

 

[xunzi]

True, but China also has a tremendous spying apparatus directed at us as well. If China wants the US to stop spying from international waters (which is legal based on the treaties China has signed), perhaps it can build goodwill towards such a request by ceasing it's hacking activities and constant stealing of IP first (which is illegal based on the treaties China has signed).

In other words, China is not pure in this regard, so the "righteous indignation" routine will not move anyone.

Almost all mistrust start by the US. Trust us on this. You start the hacking first. We are not part of the Open Skies Treaty. We don't send surveillance plane to spy on your coast. This, we assure you.

 

[BoQ77]

Almost all mistrust start by the US. Trust us on this. You start the hacking first. We are not part of the Open Skies Treaty. We don't send surveillance plane to spy on your coast. This, we assure you.

Which plane you would send to spy US coast? If any

 

[Aepsilons]

There is nothing a sovereign power can do -- legally -- if a recon flight is in international airspace. The order should have been to ensure the spy plane remains in international airspace, not to force him to turn away. But if the order was to compel the spy plane to turn away, then it was a bad order.

Do not try to imply that somehow US pilots are less committed to their missions. For starter, we have been at this far longer than your PLAAF have. We know the limits of what we can legally do and what kind of orders to give to our pilots. If there is a need to resort to force, that would be a separate order AFTER the interceptors reported that all non-lethal means have been futile. In other words, we are a much more discipline and professional air force than your PLAAF over situations like this.

@gambit ,

I have a question for you since you actually served in the United States Air Force. This is regarding maneuvering of spy planes. Is it normal for US spy planes to travel alone as in the case of this week's Hainan Incident ? Normally, aren't they supposed to be escorted by a lead in fighter ?

The only reason why I say this is because whenever the JASDF conducts recon operations in the Sea of Japan , especially when they conduct flights near the Republic of Korea Air Space, Russian Federation Air Space or near Chinese Air Space, the P-3 Orions that serve in the JASDF are usually escorted by a squadron of Mitsubishi F-15J Kais , or Mitsubishi F-2 Fighters.

 

[xunzi]

Which plane you would send to spy US coast? If any

Chinese Military Aviation: Surveillance Aircraft I

 

[BoQ77]

Chinese Military Aviation: Surveillance Aircraft I

You should find an oversea base for that.

 

[xunzi]

You should find an oversea base for that.

We have a non-interference policy. Let us remind you of that.

 

[Aepsilons]

United States Aircraft Carriers are one of the most beautiful military vessels in the world. They have 10 Nimitz Class Carriers and now building their 2nd Gerald Ford Class Carriers.

Such an impressive piece of Human Engineering. Literally a floating city.

The USS Carl Vinson,
Haiti