China ADIZ

[jcj]

So with all the talk about closing Commisaries & avoiding DUI's did we not not not seem to notice that China declared a hugely expanded ADIZ and, of course, our first response is to fly right through it with a 2-ship cell of B-52's.

In all fairness, apparently the B-52 mission had been planned before the ADIZ had been announced but still:

America: FUCK YEAH!

My apologies if this is a repost. Y'all know I've been very busy plotting the dismantling of all commissaries in CONUS and the firing of anyone who takes more than a singke drink outside their own living room.

http://behindthewall.nbcnews.com/_n...ted-island-chain-without-informing-china?lite

 

[Flash]

.......In all fairness, apparently the B-52 mission had been planned before the ADIZ had been announced but still.....

While the mission may have been planned beforehand I am not so sure it included a flyby of those islands before the ADIZ announcement by the Chinese. We have been pretty careful about avoiding overt involvement in the Pinnacle/Senekaku/Daioyu Islands dispute along with a few others in the region other than publicly calling for moderation on the part of the involved parties. The whole ADIZ thing kicked it up a notch since it involves more than just the two parties and especially since China has a tendancy to see things like EEZ's and ADIZ's as territorial waters and airspace. The flight near the islands was just in keeping with our longstanding tradition of 'Freedom of Navigation' ops, especially when a country starts going a bit overboard in an area that has significant interest for the US. The bonus in this case is ensuring our Japanese allies, and by association other allies in the region, that we still have their back if China gets a little bit big in the britches.

All of that with a pair of 50 year-old bombers on a single flight. So yes......

America: FUCK YEAH!

 

[Renegade One]

Freedom of Navigation missions…surface or aerial…have long been a part of America's responses to territorial claims that have no basis in international law.

Yes…there are about 6 American flags up on the moon…doesn't make it ours.

 

[picklesuit]

Just watch out for F-8's; they're a bitch to buff out if one runs into you...

 

[xj220]

Just hope you have props so you can break it up into a manageable piece first.

 

[BusyBee604]

Just watch out for F-8's; they're a bitch to buff out if one runs into you...

On the other hand, they are 0-1, when tangling with the Mighty WarPig!

You meant this: CAF Jian F-8



And I thought you meant this: USN F-8J Crusader



Obviously, I'm gonna have to brush up on foreign fighters...
BzB

 

[lowflier03]

I still find it funny that all this Chinese propaganda and claims started at the end of 1969. Strangely enough 1969 was also when reports indicated potential oil resources in the area. Up until that point all maps and documents, including official Chinese maps, showed them as being decidedly Japanese territory.

 

[Renegade One]

I still find it funny that all this Chinese propaganda and claims started at the end of 1969. Strangely enough 1969 was also when reports indicated potential oil resources in the area. Up until that point all maps and documents, including official Chinese maps, showed them as being decidedly Japanese territory.

Ta-Da! Give the man a cigar!

 

[IRfly]

Freedom of Navigation missions…surface or aerial…have long been a part of America's responses to territorial claims that have no basis in international law.

Yes…there are about 6 American flags up on the moon…doesn't make it ours.

Er...Are you talking about the international law that the U.S. constantly goes on about but refuses to ratify?

 

[wink]

Er...Are you talking about the international law that the U.S. constantly goes on about but refuses to ratify?

I think he isn't, as there was international law regarding the maritime environs way before the Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which I am thinking you refer. International law, for what it is worth, still governs the actions of China and our response even in the absence of the UN treaty they call the Law of the Sea. Not that either existing international law or the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea mean anything to countries like China when it doesn't serve them. That is why they are quick to ratify any number of conventions, treaties and agreements while we debate them endlessly.

 

[Renegade One]

Er...Are you talking about the international law that the U.S. constantly goes on about but refuses to ratify?

Not talking about INCLOS, if that's what you're referring to. Talking about the long-accepted notion of a country's sovereign airspace corresponding with the maritime definition of territorial waters as being 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) out from a nation's coastline. Airspace not within any country's territorial limit is considered international, analogous to the "high seas" in maritime law. ADIZs are not really codified in international law, but are constructs which allow a sovereign nation to establish airspace extensions in which the ready identification, location, and control of civil aircraft over land or water is required in the interest of national security. I think I've got that right, but I'm sure there's a JAG or two on the forum who will correct me if needed.

 

[bruinmedic]

Here you can see how far the new ADIZ sticks out.

 

[Renegade One]

Here you can see how far the new ADIZ sticks out.

Perhaps weirdly, I'm okay with any ADIZ a nation chooses to establish and can conduct "identification" procedures within. Just so long as all parties understand and agree that it isn't: [1] sovereign airspace; nor is it [2] a free-fire zone.

The ADIZs established around CONUS, Canada, Alaska, and Hawaii, all of which are sizeable…none of them represent "sovereign airspace claims"…just ID zones, wherein an aircraft entering is required to radio its planned course, destination, and any additional details about its trip through the ADIZ to a higher authority, typically an air traffic controller. The aircraft must also be equipped with a radar transponder. Pretty sure all U.S. aircraft comply…with "recorders on".

 

[Flash]

Perhaps weirdly, I'm okay with any ADIZ a nation chooses to establish and can conduct "identification" procedures within. Just so long as all parties understand and agree that it isn't: [1] sovereign airspace; nor is it [2] a free-fire zone.......

Like I said in my earlier post China seems to consider things like EEZs and ADIZs as more 'sovereign' than advisory. The irony is that this and their response to the typhoon that hit the Philippines has hurt them more with their neighbors than helped, they really have to learn the meaning of 'soft power' sooner or later if they want to get ahead in the region.

 

[Renegade One]

Like I said in my earlier post China seems to consider things like EEZs and ADIZs as more 'sovereign' than advisory. The irony is that this and their response to the typhoon that hit the Philippines has hurt them more with their neighbors than helped, they really have to learn the meaning of 'soft power' sooner or later if they want to get ahead in the region.

My thoughts exactly…they say "we're the Big Dog in the area"…unless you need help, of course, in which case call on the US of A. We're too busy not enforcing our ADIZ claims...