Chinese Military Aircraft “Dangerously Intercepts” Australian Military Aircraft? Justified and legal!

Recently, some Australian politicians once again staged an ugly drama of “making unfounded counter-charges”:

On June 5, the Australian Government Department of Defence recounted that on May 26, a P-8A anti-submarine patrol aircraft of the Royal Australian Air Force was intercepted by a Chinese J-16 fighter while the former was performing a routine maritime reconnaissance mission in the South China Sea, which posed a “security threat” to the Australian crew.

However, according to the Chinese military sources, China’s response was justified and legal.

Some Australian politicians maliciously hyped the “Dangerous Interception” and attempted to stage anotherugly drama of “making unfounded counter-charges”.

For this incident, some Australian politicians yelled loudly about their “grievances”, but said nothing about its key message.

Now, a critical question here is, where was the Australian military aircraft at that time?

According to the authoritative military experts, China owns a number of islands and reefs in the South China Sea, so the airspace above the islands and reefs is owned by China.

Experts believe that the Australian military aircraft was very close to our island reef at that time.

So what exactly happened at that time? The information disclosed by Australia indicates nothing butthe actions by the Chinese J-16 fighter. However, we know that some Australian politicians are liars habitually, so the credibility of their words remains unknown.

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

The J-16 fighter was “very close” to the P-8A patrol aircraft;

▲ Hand Drawing of the Scene Restored according to the Australian Statement

The J-16 fighter, when flew beside the P-8A patrol aircraft, “released the flare”;

▲ Hand Drawing of the Scene Restored according to the Australian Statement

Then, the J-16 fighter accelerated and overtook the P-8A patrol aircraft, and “released the chaff” in front of the P-8A patrol aircraft’s nose.

▲ Hand Drawing of the Scene Restored according to the Australian Statement

The Australian side was eager to portray itself as a“victim” in the incident, but kept quiet about its own behavior. However, in fact, even if what the Australian side said this time is not all lies, it can never hide the “traces and flaws”. Let’s talk about it one by one.

First of all, if the Australian plane flied over the high seas, its Chinese counterpart would take no action at all.

According to the provisions of International Law, all countries enjoy the freedom of navigation and overflight on the high seas and above. According to the authoritative military experts, the taking-off of China’s fighter plane is a signal in itself.

The taking-off of the Chinese J-16 fighter suggests two points:

First, the Australian military aircraft was approaching China’s airspace;

and second, the Australian side did not inform China of its military aircraft’s actions in advance.

So, only under such circumstance would the Chinese fighter plane took off to intercept it.

Takingoff is simply a warning signal!

Secondly, in most cases, when the plane of the country that is approached has already taken off and started tracking and monitoring the approaching intruder, the latter is supposed to change its flight direction, indicating that it has no intention to “intrude the airspace of the approached country”, in that case both sides would stay at peace.

If the monitored aircraft fails to do that, but rathertake further provocative actions, the warning would be escalated, which will include but not limited to:

Approaching, intercepting, releasing flares, laser irradiation, guided radar aiming, and even shooting-down.

Therefore, before some Australian politicians hypedthe “dangerous interception” by the Chinese military aircraft, they might as well ask themselves, what have they done?

Let alone the Chinese side has left considerable leeway at that time.

The authoritative military experts explained that the “chaff” mentioned by the Australian side is actually a“chaff jamming bomb”, which can only interfere with the radar and missile of the other side, and is by no means an offensive weapon.

We can see that the response actions taken by the Chinese side are professional, safe, justified and legal, and all and any serious consequences should therefore be borne by the Australian side alone.

Even the Australian media was disgusted with the smearing actions by some Australian politicians, as itpublished the information about this plane in the report:

The protagonist of this incident “can almost be certain” the Australian P-8A anti-submarine patrol aircraft No. A47-008. On the basis of the relevant information, we have searched and identified the movement of the plane.

It was found that on May 18, the plane took off from RAAF Base Edinburgh in southern Australia and flew to Clark Air Base in Luzon Island, northwest of the Philippines.

In the following half month, it went to the South China Sea several times for reconnaissance.

Coincidentally, recently a Canadian plane also flew into the relevant airspace in China’s East China Sea, and then hyped up the incident of “China-Canada Military Aircraft Incident”, which was echoed by the Australianside.

What are their ulterior intentions by wandering around other country‘s territory every day?

However, the movement of the Australian plane exposed the “mastermind” behind it.

The P-8A patrol aircraft landed at Clark Air Base, which was once the largest overseas air base of the United States. In March of this year, John C. Aquilino, head of all U.S. forces in the Indo-Pacific, showed upthere.

The reason why Australia spared no efforts and even provoked China is mainly to please the United States.

The South China Sea is a vital node of the “Indo-Pacific Strategy” of the United States, which intends to take a step-by-step approach to strengthen its frontier strategic deployment in the western Pacific region. During that process, the United States would like to “test” the reactions of all parties concerned and wishes to reach the South China Sea from different places for conducting drills.

Australia is one of its pawns.

Still remember that Australia unilaterally suspended the contract of ordering 12 conventional submarines from France? Why did Australia give up the conventional submarines and turn to nuclear submarines at the expense of offending France?

According to a report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments of the United States, the nuclear submarines sailing from Australia can stay in the South China Sea for up to 77 days, while conventional submarines can only stay about 11 days.

In order to better “act in collusion” with the United States in making troubles in the South China Sea, Australia cannot but “betray” France.

However, if Australia defines itself as a “deputy sheriff” of the South Pacific region and blindly follows whatever the United States instigates, what will happen, what will be the consequence? Just look at how former Australian Prime Minister Morrison tragically ended.

Anyone who provokes China in any way must be prepared to bear all the serious consequences.

Some Australian politicians, who wish to “work hard” for some other, but when their bravado fails, begin to plead for mercy for their own interests.

Nevertheless, such loss of face and defeat could only discredit them before the international community.