US sends bombers into China ADIZ

polaris

polaris

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
132
Display Name
Display name:
polaris
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...er-disputed-china-air-zone-official-says.html

China declares an ADIZ over disputed islands.

Japan tells JAL and ANA they don't have to file a flight plan to go through ADIZ. JAL/ANA keep filing flight plans with China. Japanese government gets ****ed and urges them that they don't have to.

US sends B-52 bombers into ADIZ without telling China.

Epic. Glad to see the US has Japan's back.
 
"We will send fighter jets to intercept!"
"Come on up."

:thumbsup:
 
We did something like that with Libya when they tried to claim more territorial waters to include the Gulf of Sidra. I believe we had aircraft up 24/7 and sailed a whole dang battle group through the waters. The Libyans sent up a couple of MiGs (23s I think) to attack our F-14s. It did not end well for the MiGs...

http://fly.historicwings.com/2013/01/splash-two-migs/

Jim
 
Ahhh, another War for Oil coming. (All of this is about oil and gas reserves under the South China Sea and historic claims vs 200nm EEZ claims to the mineral rights)
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
We did something like that with Libya when they tried to claim more territorial waters to include the Gulf of Sidra. I believe we had aircraft up 24/7 and sailed a whole dang battle group through the waters. The Libyans sent up a couple of MiGs (23s I think) to attack our F-14s. It did not end well for the MiGs...

http://fly.historicwings.com/2013/01/splash-two-migs/

Jim
Click to expand...

Do you think we could take on China and win?
 
Henning said:
Do you think we could take on China and win?
Click to expand...

Nope, apples and oranges.

While I think we still have better trained pilots & POSSIBLY better aircraft, They have home field advantage and a HUGE air force. It would be a painful win for them, but they would win if just by attrition.

It would not be pretty. Probably why they are sending B-52s. Better not to risk an aircraft carrier.

Jim
 
Henning said:
Do you think we could take on China and win?
Click to expand...
While they can keep our carriers and large ships far enough off shore to protect the mainland, I believe we could project air power and submarine assets into the surrounding waters.
 
Pi1otguy said:
While they can keep our carriers and large ships far enough off shore to protect the mainland, I believe we could project air power and submarine assets into the surrounding waters.
Click to expand...

There is no protecting anyone from anything, we are talking two major superpowers with ICBMs, there is no level of escalation by one side that cannot be matched by the other.
 
Pi1otguy said:
While they can keep our carriers and large ships far enough off shore to protect the mainland, I believe we could project air power and submarine assets into the surrounding waters.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what a freedom of navigation exercise is supposed to accomplish. If we were to run a battle group through there you could spark WWIII.

We are taking a measured response and running non-fighter aircraft through there. They are still offensive weapons, but would not be as provocative as running fighters through there.

It is MORE of a response than running a P-3 through there. That did not work so well for us last time. They forced it down and it was a big political mess.

Jim
 
Geico266 said:
Nope. Even if we did win, we would lose when they raised the interest rate on our debt. :lol:
Click to expand...

They cannot raise that interest rate, that's not how bonds work. They can however stop shipping goods and out bid us on the global market for resources.
 
ScottM said:
Because of our long friendly history of being allies right? :D
Click to expand...

This really has little to do with Japan, it's Filipino and Malay EEZs that the Chinese want. Please note the similarities to the late 20s /early 30s in the same region. Pearl Harbor happened to keep our fleet from being able to respond there and the Java Sea.
 
also, they could walk the edge of confrontation while taking steps to devalue the dollar over time. that would effectively take us out of the fight in all phases.
 
Kiddo's Driver said:
It is MORE of a response than running a P-3 through there. That did not work so well for us last time. They forced it down and it was a big political mess.
Click to expand...

Well, it was forced down, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't intentional.
 
I'm very surprised we didn't just write a strongly worded letter.
 
Henning said:
Do you think we could take on China and win?
Click to expand...
With the right rules of engagement and steadfast leadership at home, abso-freakin'-lutely.

China is in no way ready for a full-on with us, and if we went it would not only be us - the entire region is ready for China's hegemony to be better contained.

But given the situation that exists stateside today, I would not recommend it.

I have utmost faith in the miltary's ability to execute, but without steadfast and principled leadership at home there is no point in endangering our men and women in uniform and the excellent toys they get to play with.

'Gimp
 
AcroGimp said:
With the right rules of engagement and steadfast leadership at home, abso-freakin'-lutely.

China is in no way ready for a full-on with us, and if we went it would not only be us - the entire region is ready for China's hegemony to be better contained.
Click to expand...
My casual understanding of the last century (post WWII) is that we always create ROE that negate key advantages of systems we've designed. Korean war ROE often required visual ID thereby negating the F4 long range advantage and the current wars (OCOs *sigh*) have all sorts of ROEs that make things difficult too.
 
ScottM said:
Because of our long friendly history of being allies right? :D
Click to expand...

I would say Japan is one of America's strongest allies. The U.S. State Department still refers to the American-Japanese relationship as "the cornerstone of U.S. security interests in Asia and . . . fundamental to regional stability and prosperity."


Post-WWII, Japan does not have a military other than their Self Defense Force (which is basically the National Guard).

Japan has a security agreement with the US. The US has the obligation to protect Japan against foreign invasion. This includes those islands, said Leon Panetta.

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/asia/china/AJ201209210061

http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/asia/a/The-United-States-And-Japan-After-World-War-Ii.htm
 
Last edited:
Have to be careful in taking on china with all the technology they have stolen from us.
 
The Chinese clandestinely had hacked the Obamacare website causing the registration debacle. But recent documents released by Edward Snowden in Russia uncovered the plot and this really irritated the White House who had planned to show how it was the Republicans that were the true cause. That's the real reason the B-52's were launched. Just a diversion. :yes:

Meanwhile, Sec of State Kerry promises the Chinese will suffer sanctions like those recently negotiated with Iran unless they send a delegation to Tierra del Fuego for talks with the EU about this claim of Sovereignty over a desolate pile of rocks and related underwater resources.

Cheers
 
Pi1otguy said:
My casual understanding of the last century (post WWII) is that we always create ROE that negate key advantages of systems we've designed. Korean war ROE often required visual ID thereby negating the F4 long range advantage and the current wars (OCOs *sigh*) have all sorts of ROEs that make things difficult too.
Click to expand...

If the "F4" you're referring to is the McDonnell Phantom II, Korean War ROE had no effect on it as its first flight was made almost five years after the Korean Armistice.
 
Pi1otguy said:
Korean war ROE often required visual ID thereby negating the F4 long range advantage and the current wars (OCOs *sigh*) have all sorts of ROEs that make things difficult too.
Click to expand...

F4F? out of service
F4U didn't 'zactly have a long range targeting system

F-4? Not in service until well after the armistice was signed

Now if you'd said Viet Nam, you might be on to something...:D
 
X3 Skier said:
The Chinese clandestinely had hacked the Obamacare website causing the registration debacle. But recent documents released by Edward Snowden in Russia uncovered the plot and this really irritated the White House who had planned to show how it was the Republicans that were the true cause. That's the real reason the B-52's were launched. Just a diversion. :yes:

Meanwhile, Sec of State Kerry promises the Chinese will suffer sanctions like those recently negotiated with Iran unless they send a delegation to Tierra del Fuego for talks with the EU about this claim of Sovereignty over a desolate pile of rocks and related underwater resources.

Cheers
Click to expand...

Cite please.
 
Henning said:
Do you think we could take on China and win?
Click to expand...

Without a doubt. We 'could'. But would we? It would be real messy. It would require nukes, and we might (would probably) sustain a strike nuclear strike somewhere at home too, or at least on a battle group.

But if Obama thinks it will divert attention from the ACA and other things, he might just issue an executive order to go.:yikes:
 
I find it amazing that the US refused to trade with the Soviet Union for 30 years because they were commies and we trade with China because they work cheaper than the Soviets did.
 
Henning said:
Do you think we could take on China and win?
Click to expand...

I have my iPad, so no loss to me if the supply of new ones dries up. So long as they keep sending us critical electronic components we should be able to win....
 
I've been saying it for decades: MacArthur was right.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
I've been saying it for decades: MacArthur was right.

-Rich
Click to expand...

I take it you mean we should have nuked them in the Korean war?
Or do you mean he was right when he thought China would not enter the Korean War?
Or do you mean when he was right to lead troops into Hoover town to beat the crap out of homeless veterans?
 
Clip4 said:
I take it you mean we should have nuked them in the Korean war?
Or do you mean he was right when he thought China would not enter the Korean War?
Or do you mean when he was right to lead troops into Hoover town to beat the crap out of homeless veterans?
Click to expand...

The first. Not necessarily nukes, but we should have invaded. At the very least, it would have saved the Chinese people half a century of Communist oppression and its devastating effect on their ancient culture.

-Rich
 
RJM62 said:
The first. Not necessarily nukes, but we should have invaded. At the very least, it would have saved the Chinese people half a century of Communist oppression and its devastating effect on their ancient culture.

-Rich
Click to expand...

It's not impossible, the Mongols did even with the wall.
 
Clip4 said:
I find it amazing that the US refused to trade with the Soviet Union for 30 years because they were commies and we trade with China because they work cheaper than the Soviets did.
Click to expand...
Um, China may call themselves communist, but they have fully embraced capitalism. They are completely drunk on it.
 
Clark1961 said:
F4F? out of service
F4U didn't 'zactly have a long range targeting system

F-4? Not in service until well after the armistice was signed

Now if you'd said Viet Nam, you might be on to something...:D
Click to expand...
Yea, Vietnam. Was off by a few years. :mad2:
 
Fearless Tower said:
Um, China may call themselves communist, but they have fully embraced capitalism. They are completely drunk on it.
Click to expand...

My read is commerce is heading at breakneck speed toward capitalism but the political and personal system is still dominated by communist ideals. Latest evidence is the "new" one child policy.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top