what's the big deal? Retired UK Pilots took jobs in China

[jhungary]

in my view recruiting these retired UK pilots for insight about NATO pilot flying is an admission its inferior. I doubt if NATO has any desire to learn about Chinese secret air tactics.
instead of hating those UK pilots on the social media they should be applauded for impressing Chinese that these are the ways these NATO pilots been flying few years back.

I don't know how much exposure PLAAF has beyond some limited training with Pakistani and Thai air force to get a sense of Western style of training keeping in view that PAF F-16s are strictly excluded from exercising with Chinese on request from USA (although for some humbling experience for the Chinese the Americans should reverse that decision and ask the PAF to specially include the F-16s).
but then again these are my uninformed comments and I haven't graduated from Internet warrior school of Top Gun Rants on PDF/ Youtube so what do I know?

Well, the thing is. I don't know about the Brits. But for the US, even if you have Chinese national being invite to study in one of our academies (West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Spring) that didn't mean they were taught NATO doctrine.

I can't say for sure for other branch, but I am pretty sure Naval and Army is in this case, because we don't teach cadet NATO playbook until they graduate, for the Army, you will need to attend a course after you graduate from Westpoint called Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) there are 2 phases of BOLC, one you do when you are in academy, that's Phase A, which is more or less like Basic Training, Phase B will start when you get your commission, if you are West Pointer or ROTC (Like me) then you will do BOLC-B directly in one of the army School (For me, I did my BOLC-B at Benning at Armor School) , you will do both phase in OCS if you went for direct entry.

You start touching NATO doctrine and tactics in BOLC-B, which almost all of its content is classified, and you have to be commissioned before you can go for it, otherwise you won't have the necessary clearance to even touch the menu.. That is why you see a lot of articles, post or even video on Basic Training or West Point course, but you won't see BOLC-B or AIT being put online, because that is a big no-no. Which mean you will need someone who went thru that phase to teach you how NATO doctrine work, if they just did Basic or even West Point, they wouldn't know shit but basic soldiering.

As for the value of such move. Well, it's depends. but I will agree with you, if you have to resort to this, you are showing your weak hand here, that open door to be manipulated, because you cant be sure that is going to be the right way to go, as I said, there are no way you can vet people for their knowledge, they either know or don't know, either willing to tell you or not willing to tell you, which mean there are always going to be a giant question mark on the info you get from said person, which mean that piece of information is tainted. It's no good

Investigative interviewing 101

1. Isolate your candidates and have them provide information individually so they cannot cook up misinformation.

2. Use standardized set of questions and check for common themes.

3. Test and experiment

Really, it wasn't that hard to get former NATO pilots to spill, especially for the right money. The very first group of carrier-based PLAN pilots were reportedly trained by a retired US Navy CAG in the early 2000's, when he was flying civilian airlines for China.

dude, this is not how investigation work, I can tell you as a cop and as someone who interview or interrogate people for a living.

Also, nobody, I will say again, NOBODY will tell you stuff that can get them 20 years in Federal Pen for free. It didn't matter if you don't offer any money in return, the moment you divulge that secret, regardless how small or insignificant it was, you are committing a Class A Federal Felony,

You want info but no money down?? Probably it would happen in your dream.....

 

[huanghong]

in my view recruiting these retired UK pilots for insight about NATO pilot flying is an admission its inferior. I doubt if NATO has any desire to learn about Chinese secret air tactics.
instead of hating those UK pilots on the social media they should be applauded for impressing Chinese that these are the ways these NATO pilots been flying few years back.

I don't know how much exposure PLAAF has beyond some limited training with Pakistani and Thai air force to get a sense of Western style of training keeping in view that PAF F-16s are strictly excluded from exercising with Chinese on request from USA (although for some humbling experience for the Chinese the Americans should reverse that decision and ask the PAF to specially include the F-16s).
but then again these are my uninformed comments and I haven't graduated from Internet warrior school of Top Gun Rants on PDF/ Youtube so what do I know?

Indeed, training with Pakistan's old aircraft is of little significance. In cctv-7's report on China-Pakistan Eagle Exercise and the like, only 2 J-8s beat 4 Mirages, and 2 J-11s beat Meaningless training like 4 J-7s.
Such maneuvers do not seem to make much sense.

 

[gambit]

You may need to learn to be respectful, after all PLA was the army that forced "the longest retreat in US military history" in their only war with US. Back then they were nothing more than a poorly equipped peasant army, starving and facing the most powerful army that had all around superiority in every conceivable way.

Am USAF. You can boast how 'awesome' was the Parade Line Army (PLA) in Korea and there are plenty of arguments against that, but in the air, you fight pretty much mana-a-mano and you guys ain't got the experience we do. After all, we are not trying to hire former PLA pilots, are we?

 

[jhungary]

You may need to learn to be respectful, after all PLA was the army that forced "the longest retreat in US military history" in their only war with US. Back then they were nothing more than a poorly equipped peasant army, starving and facing the most powerful army that had all around superiority in every conceivable way.

Actually, most military analyst consensus is that it was the UN supply line and line of communication that forced the UN force to retreat. The same is the reason why Russian retreat from Kyiv and North Korea retreat from the South.

The problem is you cannot advance that quick and expand the line of communication that fast, it took UN force approximately 5 months to go from Busan to Chosan (The high water mark of UN force) is 415 miles. There are no way you can expand the supply line that far in just 5 months (June-Nov 1950)

A very simple example is, if PLA troop really can change the battlefield for North Korea, they would not have been stopped just north of 38 parallel, which considered worse outcome than the original North Korean invasion.

 

[Dungeness]

Am USAF. You can boast how 'awesome' was the Parade Line Army (PLA) in Korea and there are plenty of arguments against that, but in the air, you fight pretty much mana-a-mano and you guys ain't got the experience we do. After all, we are not trying to hire former PLA pilots, are we?

Don't be so arrogant, you ae acting like a spokesperson of US armed force. The last war ended where USAF and US Army started, and no one knows the outcome of the next. Showing some respect to your enamy is not going to demilish the strength of the military of the world only superpower. After all PLA is not the one that is crying out loud about "threat" nonstop.

Actually, most military analyst consensus is that it was the UN supply line and line of communication that forced the UN force to retreat. The same is the reason why Russian retreat from Kyiv and North Korea retreat from the South.

The problem is you cannot advance that quick and expand the line of communication that fast, it took UN force approximately 5 months to go from Busan to Chosan (The high water mark of UN force) is 415 miles. There are no way you can expand the supply line that far in just 5 months (June-Nov 1950)

A very simple example is, if PLA troop really can change the battlefield for North Korea, they would not have been stopped just north of 38 parallel, which considered worse outcome than the original North Korean invasion.

Agree.

 

[applesauce]

Actually, most military analyst consensus is that it was the UN supply line and line of communication that forced the UN force to retreat. The same is the reason why Russian retreat from Kyiv and North Korea retreat from the South.

The problem is you cannot advance that quick and expand the line of communication that fast, it took UN force approximately 5 months to go from Busan to Chosan (The high water mark of UN force) is 415 miles. There are no way you can expand the supply line that far in just 5 months (June-Nov 1950)

A very simple example is, if PLA troop really can change the battlefield for North Korea, they would not have been stopped just north of 38 parallel, which considered worse outcome than the original North Korean invasion.

by the time they entered NK, UN supplies weren't coming from Busan though. the US had uncontested dominance of the seas so supplies came through incheon which is roughly the same distance to chosan as is from busan to the 38th parallel. about 230 miles

so if the us with air superiority and total naval dominance "cannot advance that quick and expand the line of communication that fast" how was china able to fight with far worse logistic to the 38th? the same 230 miles in even less time.
the chinese intervention started on 25 October and by December 23, the fighting was at the 38th again. (2 months time)

 

[jhungary]

by the time they entered NK, UN supplies weren't coming from Busan though. the US had uncontested dominance of the seas so supplies came through incheon which is roughly the same distance to chosan as is from busan to the 38th parallel. about 230 miles

so if the us with air superiority and total naval dominance "cannot advance that quick and expand the line of communication that fast" how was china able to fight with far worse logistic to the 38th? the same 230 miles in even less time.
the chinese intervention started on 25 October and by December 23, the fighting was at the 38th again. (2 months time)

There are no suitable port above Inchon, and don't forget supply from the UN is not brought in from Japan or Korea, which itself has been depleted and still has not recovered since 1945 defeat. UN troop, including those SK fought under the UN banner has to come from Europe and America, with the closest allies in the region is Philippine and Australia. If you compare the end to end LOC between UN troop and Chinese Troop, you are talking about a few Hundred mile and A few Thousand miles difference.

Again, it's a supply line problem that is the issue, not the present of Chinese Troop, but yes, the influx of 300,000 Chinese Troop is the reason that trigger the supply problem, because you can't really switch up supply line with the influx from that far away, there are always going to be lag time, the existing supply issue making North Korean territorial gain untenable. But once that surge was absorbed, you can see the Chinese Troop weren't making any headway past Han River.

Air And Naval Dominance does not mean anything, you still need to have 1 to 10 (Supply code) brough in the field to sustain the fighting, what good can a ship do if they have tons of ammo and blasting inland when the troop on the ground have nothing? Your enemy can still take that position because you can't defend any position without provision. And that Chinese troop surge means whatever merger supply the UN troop had have to be expanded in an increased rate, simply because the fact that they have more enemy to shoot, which mean the supply are going to be used more quickly, which then in turn make the supply situation even more dire.

On the other hand, 5 months is from day 1 of the invasion til UN Troop withdraw from North Korea, the rapid expansion is from after Battle of Inchon (September 19) til Chinese intervention (October 25) which is during a 38 days period, and you are talking about expanding supply line for 415 mile over that 38 days. I don't think that's possible in miltary term. Russia lasted 34 days with the initial invasion of Kyiv. And that's only a 90 miles (150km) advance.

 

[gambit]

Chinese using a 60+ yrs old ground war to defend China hiring retired British pilots to train today's PLAAF. And no one sees anything odd about this.

 

[Dungeness]

Chinese using a 60+ yrs old ground war to defend China hiring retired British pilots to train today's PLAAF. And no one sees anything odd about this.

lol. you are pretending you didn't know the reason why I responded to your post. Now you are more like a Keyboard warrior than ex-USAF member.

 

[gambit]

lol. you are pretending you didn't know the reason why I responded to your post. Now you are more like a Keyboard warrior than ex-USAF member.

The Army guy debunked your argument.

 

[Dungeness]

The Army guy debunked your argument.

It has nothing to do with army or airforce, it's about the "RESPECT". Check out the highlighted part of my reply, just in case your reading glasses are not following the progress of your eyesight.

On topic, there is nothing wrong for Chinese to hire anyone they deem fit. We all know they are good at learning. They might hire you to fix their F-16s if there are anything left after the invasion.

 

[applesauce]

There are no suitable port above Inchon, and don't forget supply from the UN is not brought in from Japan or Korea, which itself has been depleted and still has not recovered since 1945 defeat. UN troop, including those SK fought under the UN banner has to come from Europe and America, with the closest allies in the region is Philippine and Australia. If you compare the end to end LOC between UN troop and Chinese Troop, you are talking about a few Hundred mile and A few Thousand miles difference.

Again, it's a supply line problem that is the issue, not the present of Chinese Troop, but yes, the influx of 300,000 Chinese Troop is the reason that trigger the supply problem, because you can't really switch up supply line with the influx from that far away, there are always going to be lag time, the existing supply issue making North Korean territorial gain untenable. But once that surge was absorbed, you can see the Chinese Troop weren't making any headway past Han River.

Air And Naval Dominance does not mean anything, you still need to have 1 to 10 (Supply code) brough in the field to sustain the fighting, what good can a ship do if they have tons of ammo and blasting inland when the troop on the ground have nothing? Your enemy can still take that position because you can't defend any position without provision. And that Chinese troop surge means whatever merger supply the UN troop had have to be expanded in an increased rate, simply because the fact that they have more enemy to shoot, which mean the supply are going to be used more quickly, which then in turn make the supply situation even more dire.

On the other hand, 5 months is from day 1 of the invasion til UN Troop withdraw from North Korea, the rapid expansion is from after Battle of Inchon (September 19) til Chinese intervention (October 25) which is during a 38 days period, and you are talking about expanding supply line for 415 mile over that 38 days. I don't think that's possible in miltary term. Russia lasted 34 days with the initial invasion of Kyiv. And that's only a 90 miles (150km) advance.

sure, the ocean distance, but its not like the war ended the second china pushed the UN to the 38th.
the us had two years to sort out the supply lines when the war stalemated around the 38th, and with no naval threat or air threat outside mig valley, they had an easy time transporting the goods to japan and korea, if they were low on supplies initially, they shouldn't be later on. and we know for a fact the us is capable of this, they literally did it on a bigger scale for ww2 just a handful of year prior and we know for a fact the UN supplies were far greater than chinese supplies on the front lines. yet the war still stalemated around the 38th. this tells us the opposite of what you suggest, that somehow the UN only retreated due to supply issue, when in reality the chinese had worse supplies across the board compared to the UN and fought to the 38 despite those problems(but could not go past it).

 

[Inception-06]

I know a few Pakistani guys who were part of the program that was setup along with a few Brits, South Africans, Canadians and Germans. They said the Chinese have a long way to go on how to fight as an air force. The ranking system when compared to Pakistani pilots was that in the PAF syllabus what would be considered below average in a fighter conversion unit, is considered close to high average in PLAAF training standards.

Ok what are the reasons? Difficult to believe.

 

[gambit]

It has nothing to do with army or airforce, it's about the "RESPECT". Check out the highlighted part of my reply, just in case your reading glasses are not following the progress of your eyesight.

I understand about 'respect'. You guys are not here for 'respect'. We found that out a long time ago.

On topic, there is nothing wrong for Chinese to hire anyone they deem fit. We all know they are good at learning. They might hire you to fix their F-16s if there are anything left after the invasion.

Did I said it was wrong? The stupidity here is that you guys thought that China would be the only one that gains something.

 

[jhungary]

sure, the ocean distance, but its not like the war ended the second china pushed the UN to the 38th.
the us had two years to sort out the supply lines when the war stalemated around the 38th, and with no naval threat or air threat outside mig valley, they had an easy time transporting the goods to japan and korea, if they were low on supplies initially, they shouldn't be later on. and we know for a fact the us is capable of this, they literally did it on a bigger scale for ww2 just a handful of year prior and we know for a fact the UN supplies were far greater than chinese supplies on the front lines. yet the war still stalemated around the 38th. this tells us the opposite of what you suggest, that somehow the UN only retreated due to supply issue, when in reality the chinese had worse supplies across the board compared to the UN and fought to the 38 despite those problems(but could not go past it).

I am not talking about what happened during stalemate between 51-53. I am talking about expanding operation from South Korea to North Korea, that period is between Sept 23 to Oct 25.

You don't just "Re-task" a war when you feel like it, when you set off for a war, you have a set of goal you want to do, and that goal for UN force before they went to war is to liberate the South. Which mean everything, from troop strength to supply are assigned accordingly. Same with the Russian War in Ukraine, there are not enough troop for a 300,000 UN Force to fight 415 mile and occupy the entire length of the Korean Peninsular, that mean from the point when UN troop cross into the North, that already doomed their entire operation.

War did not win or lose solely because you have Air or Naval Superiority, as I said, it does not matter if you have 100 ship bombarding target all the way, once your ground troop goes without supply, no ammo, no food, no fuel, no medicine. You will have to surrender regardless even if you have 100 ships at the gate. The supply line dictates war, because you can only fight as long as you have supply, I can probably fight on for a month if I run without food, probably a week if I run without water, probably days without fuel, but I can't fight at all if I don't have ammo, and it doesn't take a military genius to understand the further you go, the further you expanded the supply line and LOC, the more demand are going to be put on them. And that line, is at the 38 Parallel. You can't bring in anything further than that, not with a multi-years campaign. That is just to build up their supply capability.

On the other hand, you discounted the end-to-end distant completely, that distance play a very important role in war, because you won't have supply on hand immediately and you cannot adjust to the need immediately if you have thousands of mile of supply line between you and where you are fighting, Which mean you can cope better for battlefield changes if your supply line run shorter, like China do, then the UN. Because anything you need to change you can't change it on the tail end of the supply chain, you have to change it at the front, which mean by the time that changes made to the head has piped down to the end user point of view, you are already seriously delay.

UN is fighting an expedition war, China is fighting a local war. That is very much a major different between the two in term of supplies.