Chinese military aircraft “dangerously intercept” Australian military aircraft? Reasonable and legal!

Spread the love

Author: Tanzhu source: official account: Yuyuan TanTian wechat id:yuyuantiantian

Some Australian politicians have staged another farce of “beating up the hatchet”:

On June 5, the Australian Ministry of Defense announced that on May 26, a p-8a anti submarine patrol aircraft of the Australian Air Force was intercepted by a Chinese j-16 fighter jet while carrying out a maritime reconnaissance mission in the South China Sea, which constituted a “security threat” to the crew.

You know, just four months ago, the Australian Ministry of Defense announced that the Australian patrol aircraft was “irradiated by a laser” by a Chinese ship while flying. Some Australian politicians put on a posture of “asking questions” and hyped up the matter.

Subsequently, the Chinese side directly released the live video. At that time, the Australian patrol aircraft was only 4 kilometers away from our ship recently, full of malice and unprofessional.

The Australian politicians who were “beaten in the face” were silent immediately.

Now, some Australian politicians are ready to pick up the script of “touch China”.

Chinese military sources told me that China’s operation is reasonable and legal.

Some Australian politicians hype “dangerous interception” in order to repeat the mistakes, stage another farce and jump into the fire again.

In this incident, some Australian politicians’ voices were very loud, but they did not say anything about the core information of the incident.

One of the most critical questions is, where was the Australian military aircraft at the time of the incident?

Authoritative military experts told me that China has many islands and reefs in the South China Sea, and the airspace over the islands and reefs is China’s leading airspace


He judged that the Australian military aircraft was over our islands and reefs

Very close.

What happened at the scene? The focus of Australia’s information disclosure is almost all the actions of China’s j-16 fighter. The credibility of some Australian politicians’ lies is unknown.

According to the Australian side, the Chinese military aircraft did the following operations:

J-16 fighter “very close” to p-8a patrol aircraft;


? restored on-site hand drawn drawing according to Australian parlance

J-16 fighter “released flare” when flying on the side of p-8a patrol aircraft;


? restored on-site hand drawn drawing according to Australian parlance

The j-16 fighter accelerated and surpassed the p-8a patrol aircraft, and “released chaff” in front of the nose of the p-8a patrol aircraft.


? restored on-site hand drawn drawing according to Australian parlance

The Australian side tried hard to portray itself as a “victim” and kept quiet about its actions. However, even if what the Australian side said this time is not all lies, it can not hide Australia’s “horse feet”. Let’s speak one by one.

First of all, if the Australian plane flies purely over the high seas, the Chinese plane will not take measures.

According to international law, all States enjoy freedom of navigation and overflight on the high seas and over them. Authoritative military experts told me that our fighters took off, which in itself is a signal.

The Chinese j-16 fighter took off. Two points are explained:

Australian military aircraft are approaching China’s airspace;

The behavior of the Australian military aircraft was not notified in advance.

Only under such circumstances will Chinese fighter planes take off.

Take off, that’s a warning!

Secondly, in most cases, when the aircraft of the approaching target country has taken off and started tracking and monitoring, the monitored aircraft will change its flight direction, indicating that it has no intention of “illegal intrusion”, and the well water of both sides will not invade the river.

If the monitored aircraft fails to do so, or even makes further provocative acts, the warning will be upgraded, including but not limited to:

Approaching, intercepting, striking flares, laser irradiating, guiding radar aiming, or even shooting down.

Therefore, when some Australian politicians hype the “dangerous interception” of Chinese military aircraft, they might as well ask themselves what they have done in the end?

Moreover, China has already set aside considerable leeway.

According to authoritative military experts, what Australia calls “chaff” should be “chaff jammer”. This kind of jamming bomb can jam the radar and missiles of the other side, and is not an offensive weapon.

The response measures taken by the Chinese army are professional, safe, reasonable and legal. All serious consequences will be borne by the Australian side.

On June 7, Tan Kefei, spokesman of the Ministry of national defense, answered a reporter’s question on Australia’s speculation that Chinese military aircraft “interfered” with Australian military aircraft. The merits of the matter were clear at a glance:


On May 26, an Australian p-8a antisubmarine patrol aircraft entered the airspace near Xisha, China for close reconnaissance, and continuously approached China’s Xisha airspace despite repeated warnings from China. The southern theater of the Chinese people’s Liberation Army organized naval and air forces to identify and verify the Australian military aircraft, and warned them to drive them away.


In Australia, we are completely confusing black and white.

Even the Australian media can’t stand the operation of some Australian politicians. The Australian media published the information about the plane in their reports:

The protagonist of this incident is “almost certainly” the Australian p-8a antisubmarine patrol aircraft numbered a47-008.

According to the data of the flight tracking website “radarbox” and the aviation control information website (ADS-B exchange), I found the movement of the aircraft.

On May 18, the aircraft took off from Edinburgh air force base in southern Australia and flew to Clark Air Force Base on Luzon Island in the northwest Philippines.

In the next half month:

May 20th

The plane went to the South China Sea for investigation

Return after more than 5 hours

May 26th

The plane went to the South China Sea for investigation

Return after more than 4 hours

June 2nd

The plane went to the South China Sea for investigation

June 3rd

The plane went to the South China Sea for investigation

Return after more than 7 hours

June 5th

The plane was diverted to the Philippine Sea for investigation

Return after more than 7 hours

Coincidentally, Canadian planes also recently flew into the relevant airspace in the East China Sea, and then hyped the “China Canada military aircraft encounter” incident, singing a tune with Australia.

What is the purpose of wandering around other people’s houses every day?

You know, Australia and Canada are both members of the “five eye alliance”, and have intelligence sharing mechanisms with the United States, Britain and New Zealand. The military aircraft sent by Australia and Canada are both capable of intelligence gathering.

It is no coincidence that the front foot comes and the back foot goes. What is the reason for such close cooperation?

Australia has made no secret of this – the trajectory of its aircraft has exposed the “Mastermind” behind it.

Clark air force base, where this p-8a patrol aircraft stopped and landed, was once the largest air force base of the United States overseas. In March this year, Aquilino, commander of the US Indian Pacific headquarters, showed up here.

Australia has worked so hard, even to provoke China, for the sake of the United States.

Liu Qing, vice president of the China Academy of international studies, told me that the South China Sea is an important node of the US “Indo Pacific strategy”. The United States hopes to take a step-by-step approach to strengthen its forward strategic deployment in the Western Pacific region. In this process, the United States hopes to “test” the reactions of all parties. It needs to enter the South China Sea from different places

Line drill.

Australia is one of the chess pieces.

The positioning of the “pawn” given by the United States to Australia is not unknown to Australian politicians themselves. In july2009, Hillary Clinton, then Secretary of state of the United States, announced that the United States would “return to the Asia Pacific” with the phrase “the United States is back” at Bangkok airport.

Two years later, Australia agreed with the United States to set up a military command center in Darwin port in northern Australia that could deploy 2500 Marines.

This is the first time that the US military has deployed such a large-scale combat force in the South Pacific since the end of World War II. The US military is not shy about its true intentions:

The US bases in northern Australia are closer to the South China Sea than those in South Korea and Japan.

Since then, Australia has officially become the forward deployment position of the US military, and has also begun to increase its involvement and intervention in the South China Sea issue.

Remember that Australia unilaterally suspended the contract to order 12 conventional submarines from France? Why does Australia not hesitate to offend France, but also give up conventional submarines and turn to nuclear submarines?

According to a report of the US agency strategy and budget evaluation center, nuclear submarines sailing from Australia can stay in the South China Sea for up to 77 days, while conventional submarines can only last for about 11 days.

In order to better “cooperate” with the United States in the South China Sea, Australia can only “stab” France.

However, if you define yourself as the “deputy sheriff” of the South Pacific region and blindly follow the fate of the United States, just look at the embarrassing end of former Australian Prime Minister Morrison.

Anyone who risks provoking any provocative act against China must be prepared to bear all serious consequences.

Some Australian politicians not only want to “work hard” for others, but also begin to “cherish life” and beg for mercy when they fail.

Such acts of “losing face” and “losing halberd” will only discredit the international community.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *