East China Sea ADIZ

[ORAC]

Fact Sheet: China's Air Defense Zone (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131124/DEFREG03/311240004/Fact-Sheet-China-s-Air-Defense-Zone)

TAIPEI — What appears to be a crisis in the making, China’s Ministry of National Defense (MOD) has established the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) effective as of 10 a.m. on Nov. 23.

The zone covers the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku Islets claimed by China, Japan, and Taiwan. The islets are under the administrative control of Japan. China has been flying unmanned aerial vehicles into the area of the islets and Japan has threatened to shoot them down.

China launched two aerial patrols, one Tu-154 and one Y-8, over the area the day of the announcement and Japan deployed two F-15 fighters to intercept.

China’s ADIZ overlaps Japan ADIZ by approximately half, causing concern the overlap could start a war.

The Chinese ADIZ also overlaps Taiwan (Republic of China/ROC). According to a Nov. 24 statement by Taiwan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Taiwan will “adhere to the principles set forth in the East China Sea Peace Initiative [set forth by President Ma Ying-jeou on Aug 5), with the aim of resolving disputes peacefully, while taking appropriate measures to ensure the safety of ROC airspace.” Ma’s five-point peace initiative urges all “parties to refrain from antagonistic actions; not abandon dialogue; observe international law; resolve disputes through peaceful means; and form a mechanism for exploring and developing resources on a cooperative basis.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry issued a statement on Nov. 23 urging China not to impose a “unilateral action” that “constitutes an attempt to change the status quo in the East China Sea.” Further, the US is “deeply concerned” about the announcement and “escalatory action will only increase tensions in the region and create risks of an incident.”

Below is a collection of Chinese MOD press releases since the announcement:

MOD Press Release:

The Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China, in accordance with the Statement by the Government of the People’s Republic of China on Establishing the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone, now announces the Aircraft Identification Rules for the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone as follows:

First, aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone must abide by these rules.

Second, aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone must provide the following means of identification:

1. Flight plan identification. Aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone should report the flight plans to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China or the Civil Aviation Administration of China.

2. Radio identification. Aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone must maintain the two-way radio communications, and respond in a timely and accurate manner to the identification inquiries from the administrative organ of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone or the unit authorized by the organ.

3. Transponder identification. Aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone, if equipped with the secondary radar transponder, should keep the transponder working throughout the entire course.

4. Logo identification. Aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone must clearly mark their nationalities and the logo of their registration identification in accordance with related international treaties.

Third, aircraft flying in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone should follow the instructions of the administrative organ of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone or the unit authorized by the organ. China’s armed forces will adopt defensive emergency measures to respond to aircraft that do not cooperate in the identification or refuse to follow the instructions.

Fourth, the Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China is the administrative organ of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone.

Fifth, the Ministry of National Defense of the People’s Republic of China is responsible for the explanation of these rules.

Sixth, these rules will come into force at 10 a.m. Nov. 23, 2013.

MOD Press Release:

The zone is being established in accordance with the Law of the People’s Republic of China on National Defense (March 14, 1997), the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Civil Aviation (October 30, 1995) and the Basic Rules on Flight of the People’s Republic of China (July 27, 2001).

The zone includes the airspace within the area enclosed by China’s outer limit of the territorial sea and the following six points: 33º11’N and 121º47’E, 33º11’N and 125º00’E, 31º00’N and 128º20’E, 25º38’N and 125º00’E, 24º45’N and 123º00’E, 26º44’N and 120º58’E.

MOD Q&A

On Nov. 23, China’s Defense Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun took questions from the media on the issue:

Following is the full text released by the MOD:

Q: Why does the Chinese government decide to establish the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone? Is it related to the current situation in the region?

A: Air Defense Identification Zone is an area of air space established by a coastal state beyond its territorial airspace to timely identify, monitor, control and react to aircraft entering this zone with potential air threats. It allows early-warning time and provides air security.

Following the international practice, the Chinese government sets up the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone with the aim of safeguarding state sovereignty, territorial land and air security, and maintaining flight order. This is a necessary measure taken by China in exercising its self-defense right. It is not directed against any specific country or target. It does not affect the freedom of over-flight in the related airspace.

Q: What is the basis for China to establish the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone?

A: The setup of East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone by the Chinese government is not only based on adequate legitimate reference, but also in accordance with current international practice. Since the 1950s, more than 20 countries including some major countries and China’s neighboring countries have successively established Air Defense Identification Zones. Chinese government’s relevant behavior is in line with the UN Charter and other international laws and customs. China’s domestic laws and regulations such as the Law of the PRC on National Defense, the Law of PRC on Civil Aviation and Basic Rules on Flight have also clearly stipulated on the maintenance of territorial land and air security and flight order.

Q: How is the coverage of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone defined? Why is the boundary of the Zone only 130 km away from some country’ territory?

A: The coverage of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone is defined by China’s need for air defense and maintaining flight order.

Actually the easternmost point of the Zone is so close to China that combat aircraft can soon reach China’s territorial airspace from the point. Therefore it is necessary for China to identify any aircraft from this point to assess its intentions and examine its identities so as to allow enough early-warning time for responsive measures in maintaining air security. In addition, some country established Air Defense Identification Zone as early as in 1969. The shortest distance from their zone to the Chinese mainland is also 130 km.

Q: What responding measures will the Chinese side take when foreign aircraft enter the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone?

A: Announcement of the Aircraft Identification Rules for the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone of the People’s Republic of China has made specific rules on the identification of aircraft in related airspace. In the face of air threats and unidentified flying objects coming from the sea, the Chinese side will identify, monitor, control and react depending on different situations. We hope that all parties concerned work actively with the Chinese side to jointly maintain flight safety.

What needs to be specified is that the Chinese side has always respected the freedom of over-flight in accordance with international law. The establishment of the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone does not change the legal nature of related airspace. Normal flights by international airliners in the East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone will not be affected in any way.

Q: Will China establish other Air Defense Identification Zones?

A: China will establish other Air Defense Identification Zones at the right moment after necessary preparations are completed.

----------------------------------

Japan warns of ‘unpredictable events’ over China’s new ADIZ over Senkakus (http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/11/25/national/japan-warns-of-unpredictable-events-over-chinas-new-adiz-over-senkakus/)

TAIPEI: Take steps against China’s ADIZ move: DPP (http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/11/26/2003577702)

[ShotOne]

Not good news..trouble ahead. Sadly, we have set them a bad example. Take a look, for instance how much of the North Atlantic is covered by th US ADIZ

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

BBC News - US B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25110011)

n.b. Chinese (and any other) aircraft may fly in the US ADIZ without following published procedures, as long as they aren't planning to enter US airspace. The US have just done exactly the same to China.

"The United States does not recognize the right of a coastal nation to apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter national airspace nor does the United States apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. airspace."
U.S. Navy's Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations

[Lyneham Lad]

B-52 bombers challenge disputed China air zone (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25110011)

Whilst Spain continues to tweak the tail of a (paper) tiger (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25100083), the US seems to be testing a rather more potentially aggressive one... It will be interesting to see the reactions to this and Japan's decision not to flight-plan commercial flights through the zone. (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/26/uk-japan-airlines-china-idUKBRE9AP0R220131126)

[SINGAPURCANAC]

Thank you Good, that someone shows to these comunist idiots that it is not enough to declare air sovernignity.
You have to prove it.
but communist,all around world, are too stupid to understand it.

even I don't suppport US foreign policy,it is good exapmle how airspace, and ability to protect it is important.

well done,
:D:D:D:D

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

As National "Logos" will need to be "clearly marked", would it be a good time to paint the red, white and blue back into the stars and stripes? Low Vis markings, though tactically very sensible in an armed conflict, might not be best suited to an armed confrontation. If the alledged intruder is to be shooed away by the alledged guardian, it might be wise to visually know whose doing what to whom.

I think the Japs have kept their National Markings in full colour (the solid red roundel).

[air pig]

As National "Logos" will need to be "clearly marked", would it be a good time to paint the red, white and blue back into the stars and stripes? Low Vis markings, though tactically very sensible in an armed conflict, might not be best suited to an armed confrontation. If the alledged intruder is to be shooed away by the alledged guardian, it might be wise to visually know whose doing what to whom.

I think the Japs have kept their National Markings in full colour (the solid red roundel).

If a Chinese fighter pilot on QRA cannot identify a B52, in I suspect daylight, which have been around for at least 45 to 50 years then there is a problem. The Japanese are a self defence force, so have no reason for tactical markings as they are under the constitution signed post WWII, cannot deploy offensive force outside Japan. I am aware though they are acquiring 'through deck cruisers'.

[Cows getting bigger]

In the dim and distant past I used to get sight of signals from the USN when they were sailing big ships close to our fair isles. Quite often the signals would indicate something along the lines of the US respect territorial waters (ie 12nm) but outside of that they would operate under 'due regard'. In other words, 'we'll do our own thing'. I occasionally tried to mention that we both kicked with the same foot but this didn't seem to make much difference.

It seems to me that the Americans are playing the same game with the Chinese. God bless America.

PS. Try and get within 200nm of the US coastline without finding something grey and pointy on you wing.

[reynoldsno1]

I suspect the Chinese will have a problem detecting the (very) quiet shukshukshuk of a nuclear powered submarine (any sort) ...:hmm:

[Hangarshuffle]

US military aircraft defies China's new defence zone to fly over disputed East China Sea - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10476579/US-military-aircraft-defies-Chinas-new-defence-zone-to-fly-over-disputed-East-China-Sea.html)




Well I just hope as a fast developing superpower that China has its entire Command and Control system in full order. I mean we wouldn't want a uncontrolled local commander taking unilateral action, would we?
Tricky times for the leaders of China and I wonder how much control one arm has of the other.
I read in a book that the magic numbers for the actual control of China are 9, 13 and 300 as regards the numbers of people within the pyramid of the 3 different executive bodies in charge of the whole set up. It works but takes time to push through things I imagine.
I wonder how much control the Chinese civilian leadership actually have over their military?
Could be tricky. Parallels with what JFK faced in the early 1960s? He headed a rapidly developing superpower that had rampant military leaders seemingly chomping at the bit..he reined them in of course for a while...then was tested by the arrival of the Berlin Wall and Cuba Missile Crisis and seemed to fall foul of the US military.
Seems a little similar here, in a way.

[ShotOne]

Unfortunately the Chinese have learned too well from Western nations. I don't like what is happening, not least since its going to cost commercial airlines millions in fuel to avoid the zone of bickering. But it is quite difficult to frame an argument to oppose it since their ADIZ is so similar, even down to the wording, as those imposed by the USA. Try flying through that without a flight plan or radio contact and see how far you get!

[Eclectic]

I think that USA will drive a couple of carrier task groups through the ADIZ with maximum 24/7 air operations. Thus leaving much egg on the face of the Chinese.

The whole ADIZ is just a tactic to force negotiations (ie surrender of) those islands.

[Lyneham Lad]

'Face' and the losing thereof is perhaps something much underestimated in the West. Unpredictable outcome/repercussions!

[Lima Juliet]

There will be plenty of posters on here that have flown 'due regard' in some of UK's finest outside of 12 nautical miles... :ok:

LJ

[Bevo]

Unfortunately the Chinese have learned too well from Western nations. I don't like what is happening, not least since its going to cost commercial airlines millions in fuel to avoid the zone of bickering. But it is quite difficult to frame an argument to oppose it since their ADIZ is so similar, even down to the wording, as those imposed by the USA. Try flying through that without a flight plan or radio contact and see how far you get!
Actually there is a major difference as has been pointed out:

As stated in Xinhua, China's new aircraft identification rules don't distinguish between aircraft flying through the zone with no intention of flying into China's airspace and those that do, the Center for Strategic and International Studies points out.

This is not how the United States interprets the ADIZ, as stated by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's on November 23: "The United States does not apply its ADIZ procedures to foreign aircraft not intending to enter U.S. national airspace. We urge China not to implement its threat to take action against aircraft that do not identify themselves or obey orders from Beijing."
http://www.cnn.com/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/25/world/asia/china-japan-island-explainer/)

[West Coast]

'Face' and the losing thereof is perhaps something much underestimated in the West. Unpredictable outcome/repercussions!

I don't disagree, but can't help but wonder why we default to this mindset. Should we soft shoe around the Chinese actions for fear of offending them? I didn't expect the US to act as quickly as they did, but I'm glad they conducted this freedom of naviagation exercise.

[Heathrow Harry]

bloody stupid action by the Chinese but they have learnt from the west here

the islands are much disputed - why the Japanese Govt bought the damn things off their private owner a few years back is beyond me - just made any escalation a Govt - Govt issue immediately

The Chinese have a good historical claim to them but then we have an irrefutable case to own Aquitaine and the Mexican really should have the southern USA..............

"historic Claims" are normally just an excuse to start a fight - like "Natural boundaries2 - there is no case of anyone ever RETREATING their border to a Natural Boundary

[Lyneham Lad]

All getting a bit silly now... (http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/28/uk-japan-china-idUKBRE9AR0AF20131128)

(Reuters) - Japanese and South Korean military aircraft flew through disputed air space over the East China Sea without informing China, officials said on Thursday, challenging a new Chinese air defence zone that has increased regional tensions and sparked concerns of an unintended clash.

The odds on it all going pear-shaped seem to be shortening by the day.

[air pig]

This has the makings of a disaster, lets hope the trigger fingers are steady rather than twitchy.

China sends warplanes to new air defence zone amid tensions - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10481766/China-sends-warplanes-to-new-air-defence-zone-amid-tensions.html)

The Chinese navy had large naval exercises recently including their SSBN's.

[ShotOne]

Right then, Bevo so if the Chinese were to send some of their aircraft a couple of hundred miles off the Florida coast that would be OK with Uncle Sam, provided they don't intend to enter US national airspace??

Their ADIZ closely mirrors that of the US, even down to the explanatory wording, despite the weaselly explanation about intentions. How would anyone know the intent when they aren't speaking on the radio?

I don't approve of what the Chinese govt are doing...but they are doing it just the way we showed them!

[Rosevidney1]

And the potential for misunderstanding incurring precipitate action increases by the day. Add the mindset that goes with losing face and we are indeed living in interesting times.

[Herod]

It seems also, from the press, that Japan is sending its airliners through the ADIZ. Not doing so tacitly accepts the Chinese move, and weakens Japan's claim to the islands. If this goes on, someone's going to get hurt.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The Chinese ADIZ is fundamentally different to other nations, in that it requires procedures be followed for transiting a/c.
The surrounding nations plus USA have immediately defied it, and not been challenged, and thus the Chinese have badly miscalculated on 3 fronts.

There seemto be 3 likely outcomes.
1. Chinese 'relabel' the ADIZ
2. Chinese maintain ADIZ and claim it's working for internal consumption
3. Chinese shoot somebody down.

Option 2 would be the usual Chinese approach, but the cat may already be out of the bag on this one
Chinese Bloggers Turn Fire on China's Military As U.S. Flies B-52s Over Disputed Islands in East China Sea - China Real Time Report - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/11/27/chinese-bloggers-turn-fire-on-beijing-amid-u-s-b-52-challenge/)

Edit: Worth looking at the Chinese statements in detail
ADIZ Will Reduce East China Sea Tension | CHINA US Focus (http://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/adiz-will-reduce-east-china-sea-tension/)

One section is interesting
"It should be noted that the ADIZ is not a no-fly zone. China has been consistently respecting every country's freedom of overflight as long as they comply with the international law and can be legally identified by the management of the ADIZ." (my italics)
There is no requirement in International law for an a/c to be "legally" identified if transiting this ADIZ. The "legal" requirement is with Chinese Law, which from an international standpoint is only applicable to Chinese registered a/c.
Classic case of deliberately mixing differing requirements in the same sentence to give the impression of uniformity.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

It seems also, from the press, that Japan is sending its airliners through the ADIZ.

I hope Charlie C remembers KAL007. I also hope that our Nipponese friends aren't being overly gung ho.

[Fratemate]

I've been through this 'ADIZ' a couple of times now and haven't noticed anything strange at all. There was a bit more Chinese chatter on Guard on the first two days but nobody could understand what they were saying since they chose not to broadcast in English.

I'm all for the Japanese stance. We're flying on established airways with the Japanese FIR, so there is no need whatsoever to copy the flight plan to China. If the Chinese were to hurl a missile at an airliner while they are flying from e.g. Taipei to Tokyo there would be all hell to pay from the international community and the Chinese are not so stupid to ignore that.

In order to save 'face', the Chinese just have to remove their demand regarding themselves as flight plan addressees within the Fukuoka FIR. They can keep their lines on a map, business can continue as usual and everybody can go back to mistrusting each other in the region.

[MFC_Fly]

I can't really see what the fuss is about. China has said all planes transiting the zone must file flight plans and identify themselves, or face "defensive emergency measures". [BBC]
I don't like what is happening, not least since its going to cost commercial airlines millions in fuel to avoid the zone of bickeringWhy? File a flight plan, identify yourself if challenged on the 121.5 and expect to have a Chinese fighter or 2 sitting on your wing-tips if you don't. No need to avoid the ADIZ at all. I very much doubt that China would detect an unidentified aircraft and just open fire on it. I also very much doubt China would risk the wrath of the rest of the world (well most of it) by shooting at a foreign military aircraft that is operating normally in INTERNATIONAL airspace. The purpose of an ADIZ is to identify aircraft approaching your national airspace in order to counter any identified threat that may subsequently enter said airspace.

As for airspace around the disputed islands, if they and the routes being flown fall outside of ICAO recognised Chinese airspace then there is no need to address China on any flight plan filed, so by international law China could do nothing about them except maybe intercept them to take a look if they failed to identify themselves. How many of you here have used the phrase "We are a NATO/UK military aircraft operating in international airspace", well the commercial world could use a similar response to any challenge from China.

[ShotOne]

Unfortunately MFC, even if you can't see what the fuss is about, the acceptable risk threshold for commercial operations is not the same as for a B52 or a P3. You "very much doubt" the Chinese would open fire. That's nice. But do you know what's going to happen? Did you predict the 2001 midair collision with the Chinese fighter, or the establishment of this ADIZ, come to that?

[MFC_Fly]

Did you predict the 2001 midair collision with the Chinese fighter, or the establishment of this ADIZ, come to that? No, ShotOne, you are totaly correct, I didn't.

But likewise I did not predict the mid-air collision between the civilian airliner and the military jet over California in 1971, or the mid-air collision between the civilian airliner and the military jet over Russia in 1981, or the mid-air collision between the civilian airliner and the military aircraft over Libya in 1992, or the one over Iran in 1993, or the one in Syria last year. None of those individual incidents have lead to commercial airlines spending millions on fuel to avoid those areas, so why should a mid-air collision between 2 military aircraft make them do so?

I also did not predict the establishment of the ADIZ's around Canada, India, Japan, Pakistan, Norway, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Taiwan, or the United States of America. :rolleyes:

[ShotOne]

Not asking you to predict all the troubles of the world, MPC just pointing out that you have no idea what action the Chinese will take if an airline followed your advice not to file a flight plan as they are demanding. I suspect the least likely option would be "nothing". The one instance we do have to draw on resulted in a fatal midair collision.

[Eclectic]

Some exceptionally good political analysis of the situation:

Search | The Economist (http://www.economist.com/search/gcs?ss=ADIZ#masthead&gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=ADIZ&gsc.page=1)

[NorthernKestrel]

One possible scenario simulated here...


A hypothetical East China Sea air combat clash | Aerospace | The Royal Aeronautical Society (http://media.aerosociety.com/aerospace-insight/2013/11/29/a-hypothetical-east-china-sea-air-combat-clash/8848/)


NB: is this the same wargame as in the WW3: Battle of Britain thread?

[ORAC]

More Chinese Air ID Zones Predicted (http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131201/DEFREG03/312010004/More-Chinese-Air-ID-Zones-Predicted)

TAIPEI, SEOUL AND TOKYO — China’s establishment of an air defense identification zone (ADIZ) last week over the East China Sea has given the US an unexpected challenge as Vice President Joseph Biden prepares for a trip to China, Japan and South Korea beginning this week. The trip was scheduled to address economic issues, but the Nov. 23 ADIZ announcement raised a troubling new issue for the US and allies in the region. China’s ADIZ overlaps the zones of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Sources indicate China’s ADIZ could be part of its larger anti-access/area-denial strategy designed to force the US military to operate farther from China’s shorelines. China might also be planning additional identification zones in the South China Sea and near contested areas along India’s border, US and local sources say. China’s ADIZ might be an attempt by Beijing to improve its claim to disputed islands in the East China Sea also claimed by Japan, sources said. These islands — known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China — are under the administrative control of Japan.

Mike Green, senior vice president for Asia and Japan chair at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said this is part of a larger Chinese strategy beyond disputes over islands. “This should be viewed as a part of a Chinese effort to assert greater denial capacity and eventual pre-eminence over the First Island Chain” off the coast, he said. Green, who served on the US National Security Council from 2001 to 2005, said China’s Central Military Commission in 2008 “promulgated the ‘Near Sea Doctrine,’ and is following it to the letter, testing the US, Japan, Philippines and others to see how far they can push.”

June Teufel Dreyer, a veteran China watcher at the University of Miami, Fla., said “salami slicing” is a large part of China’s strategic policy. “The salami tactic has been stunningly successful, so incremental that it’s hard to decide what Japan, or any other country, should respond forcefully to. No clear ‘red line’ seems to have been established,” Dreyer said. The Chinese refer to it as “ling chi” or “death from a thousand cuts.”.........................

[khaki83]

South Korea debates on expanding it's own ADIZ

Debate on Air Zones Continues in South Korea - Korea Real Time - WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2013/12/03/debate-on-air-zones-continues-in-south-korea/)

"South Korea on Tuesday continued to debate its response to China’s move to include an area of ocean disputed by the two nations in its own new air-defense identification zone.

On Thursday, South Korea said it would consider extending its own air-defense zone to respond to China’s move after Beijing refused a demand from Seoul to redraw its new zone.

Since then, the issue has been on the agenda at a series of high-level meetings in Korea’s capital as the government considers how to proceed."

[ShotOne]

, At least they haven't carved off huge areas of ocean and declared them "fleet weapons ranges" under de facto military control...yet. As you sow...

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

They are not de facto. Sail through them if you like. The USN will turn up and ask you to move along, but that's as far as it goes. Same for UK sea ranges. In practice, they are hardly ever penetrated when in use, as the times of use are published and almost to a man or woman, mariners appreciate the need for them. Same goes for aircraft.

[ShotOne]

That's simply not the case, fox. If the US navy decide it's active, international waters or not, there's no question of going that way. If that means spending a couple of thousand dollars extra on fuel then it's just tough luck.

"Mariners appreciate the need..." Really? Did anyone ask them?, or aviators for that matter?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

My info on US ranges is secondhand from 3 captains who have done it. About the same from UK ranges. I've done oversea range clearance from the air. We simply waited for boats to clear the area or shifted the area a bit (if possible).
I'm a yacht and aircraft captain. The other skippers I've discussed this issue with have all agreed with the sentiments I expressed.

edit: I believe the MoD do consult with the RYA, etc.

edit 2: just rechecked the regs for a range off Hawaii extending into international waters. What I said originally is the case. If commercial companies choose to go around them, it's their choice.

[ShotOne]

I'll take your word for boating protocol but ATC will in no way allow a flight through an active danger area and disregarding this would be a career limiting move, irrespective of whether any firing was taking place. We're not talking a few square miles off the South coast. Some of the Atlantic fleet ranges cover huge areas. As for consultation, they did exactly as the Chinese did; none at all.

[Lima Juliet]

Fox3

Re: Clear Range Procedures (warning thread drift!)

I can remember doing this off the coast of a well known Mediterrean island. We saw something floating in the sea and found an inflatable lie-low (spelling?) drifting ~20 miles off the coast. After several low passes we decided that the area (and inflatable) was clear and then strafed it within the notified Range and its procedures.

I often wondered if we had missed the fact that there may have been a fat German laying on it waving frantically thinking they were finally to be rescued! No one was reported missing that week having drifted out to sea in the media, so nothing to answer to, thankfully.

So my total 'kills' in the mighty F3 total 3:

1. A Jindivik
2. A Recreational Vehicle
3. An inflatable Lie-Low (sp?)

Quite a haul to be proud of! :}

LJ

PS. In fact, make that 6, if I include 3x Upland Geese!

[Ronald Reagan]

CrossTalk: China's New March - YouTube (http://youtu.be/XgqyX9VS9UM)

[Gulfstreamaviator]

lilo.....but who cares, its close enough...... good shooting.... glf