Many thanks to Anonymous for comments of December 23, 2018 concerning a South Korean
(SK) destroyer [1] locking its
weapons-guidance radar onto a Japanese Navy, Japanese designed Kawasaki P-1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft (MPA). This occured twice for several minutes on December
20, 2018 within the Japanese EEZ [2-3]. See complexity of location statuses in Map below.
The SK Navy said the radar irradiation was used being used, on December 20, 2018, to search
for a North Korean ship in distress.
Japan’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) does not believe the SK
explanation and believes the radar lock-on was intentional. This is because a
weapon-guidance radar is not suitable for surface search purposes [5]. Japan’s
MoD feels SK Navy conducted a hostile act against a friendly country. This SK
act breeds distrust between Japan and SK.
[1] SK Navy Gwanggaeto
the Great destroyer (DDH-971)
[2] https://www.sankei.com/politics/news/181222/plt1812220012-n1.html
[in Japanese]
[3] https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-Relations/Japan-accuses-South-Korea-of-locking-radar-on-patrol-plane
[very interesting and in English]
[4] http://www.mod.go.jp/j/press/news/2018/12/22a.html
[5] SK Gwanggaeto the Great destroyers are equipped
with complex sensors (see wikipedia
right sidebar) including a:
- Signal
Tracking and Illuminating Radar (STR)
for weapon-guidance. This was used to track or
“paint” the P-1. According
to experts STRs are not used for surface search, and
- AN/SPS-55 radar for surface search.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tri-ring has provided the Japanese P-1 MPA's December 20, 2018 Youtube video at https://youtu.be/s93-l68D3Eo
with voice recordings of P-1's encounter
with the South Korean destroyer.
Youtube seems to get most interesting, were the P-1 aircraft crew say:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Youtube seems to get most interesting, were the P-1 aircraft crew say:
- 6 mins 4 seconds in: "[Destroyer is] emitting radar"
- 6min 7sec "She is emitting FC (fire-control) type radar"
- 6m 9s "FC contact (rada is detected."
- 6m 16s "We should steer clear."
- 6m 29 "Moving away from the vessel for the time being."
- 6m 38s "...Radar is continuously detected."
- 6m 45s "The sound is so loud (the radio field intensity is terribly strong.)"
- 6m 56s "The gun is not directed at us."
- 8m 29s [The FC radar signal] "is not something that is occurring now, but we observed this."
- 8m 44s "The crew will call out using the International VHF 121.5 MHz."
- 8m 50s "FC radar is detected again."
The P-1 crew then ask the destroyer the following Question
in English:
- 9m 7s "Korean Naval Ship. Hull Number 971....We observe that your FC [fire control] antenna is directed to us...What is the purpose of your act? Over"
[no answer from South Korean destroyer]
- 9m 45s [repeats question]
- 10m 30s [repeats question]
- 11m [repeats question]
- 11m 30s onwards [Japanese P-1 "Captain" confirming that his P-1 crew have recorded the radar signals from the South Korean destroyer.]
- 12m 20s [repeats question]
- 12m 50s [repeats question]
[no answer from South Korean destroyer given to repeated questions.
- 9m 7s "Korean Naval Ship. Hull Number 971....We observe that your FC [fire control] antenna is directed to us...What is the purpose of your act? Over"
[no answer from South Korean destroyer]
- 9m 45s [repeats question]
- 10m 30s [repeats question]
- 11m [repeats question]
- 11m 30s onwards [Japanese P-1 "Captain" confirming that his P-1 crew have recorded the radar signals from the South Korean destroyer.]
- 12m 20s [repeats question]
- 12m 50s [repeats question]
[no answer from South Korean destroyer given to repeated questions.
Pete Comment
Maybe the destroyer was not operating on Japanese MPA frequencies? Or destroyer not fully monitoring frequencies. So never heard the questions?]
-------------------------------------------------
Pete Comment
Distrust remains between South Korea and Japan partly due
to unresolved disputes
since Japan’s occupation of Korea which ended in 1945. Several of the disputes include
islands and territorial waters and so includes the Destroyer-MPA confrontation.
Japan and South Korea are not enemies but they are not friends.
Map: Pete Comment - This South Korean hani new agency map, illustrating the destroyer-MPA confrontation, reflects the complexity of different territorial statuses to which was added the complexity of the destroyer's differing radar functions.
---
By Anonymous and Tri-ring
and Have a Happy New Year
and Have a Happy New Year
from Pete
Hello Pete. I hope you have a good year.
ReplyDeletehttps://southkoreanmilitary.blogspot.com/2018/12/fighter-pilots-view-on-japan-korea.html?m=1
I just want to introduce this article.
I am concerned that there are few English articles introducing Korean opinions and only Japanese opinions are published in English.
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteCould you use this vid since it is the official one announced by DoD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s93-l68D3Eo
Thanks Anonymous [at 31/12/18 12:33 PM]
ReplyDeleteFor the interesting fighter pilot's view at https://southkoreanmilitary.blogspot.com/2018/12/fighter-pilots-view-on-japan-korea.html?m=1
Have a Happy 2019
Pete
Thanks Tri-ring
ReplyDeleteFor the Japanese P-1 MPA's Youtube video https://youtu.be/s93-l68D3Eo with voice recordings of its encounter with the South Korean destroyer
Youtube seems to get most interesting 9 mins 15 seconds in ( which I encode at https://youtu.be/s93-l68D3Eo?t=9m15s )
when the MPA broadcasts to destroyer the following Question in English:
"We observe that your FC [fire control] antenna is directed to us...What is the purpose of your act? Over"
[no answer from South Korean destroyer]
9min45secs [repeats question]
10min30s [repeats question]
11min [repeats question]
11m30s onwards [Japnanese P-1 "Captain" confirming that his P-1 crew have recorded the radar signals from the South Korean destroyer.]
12m20s [repeats question]
12m50s [repeats question]
[no answer from South Korean destroyer given to repeated questions. Maybe the destroyer was not operating on Japanese MPA frequencies? So never heard the questions?]
Happy 2019
Pete
The last transmission was on international emergency frequency that all naval vessels are required to monitor.
ReplyDeleteYou will also notice that the ROK naval vessel is not flying her national identification flag which also violates international laws.
Basically SK government official comments concerning the incident was full of BS and was revealed with the release of the video for all to see.
Your post doesn't explain why senior Japanese officials/officers, current and former, are either unusually quiet about this or are even speaking out in Korea's side.
ReplyDeleteJapan's former Chief of Staff of Japan's air force, Toshio Tomogami, is a well known ultra right wing nationalist and history revisionist who denies Japan's war crimes. There's even a wikipedia page about his controversies.
Tomogami is anything but pro-Korean, but he came out to DEFEND South Korea, when he usually disparages South Korea. Go look at his recent twitter posts.
https://twitter.com/toshio_tamogami
More interestingly, Tomogami's final tweet about the issue had a bit of forewarning:
https://twitter.com/toshio_tamogami/status/1076637077230342144
今回の韓国の火器管制レーダーの電波照射について今以上に詳しく話すと自衛隊や日本政府に迷惑をかけることになるかもしれないのでこれ以上は言わない。今回ぐらいのことは世界中の軍が日常的にやっていることであり、電波照射をしてもミサイルが直ちに飛んでいかないような安全装置もかけられている。
Translation: If I speak more in detail about the recent investigation of South Korea's fire control radar signals it may INCONVENIENCE the Self Defense Force and the Japanese government, so I will not say any more than this. This (actions of South Korea) is done routinely by militaries around the world, and missiles have safety measures to prevent launching after radar scans.
And then there was friction between Abe and MoD officials to release the video:
https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2018122800890&g=pol
Japan's defense ministers and officials from the MoD didn't want the video released because they felt it's more likely to provoke South Korea to actively react to this when the MoD is trying to repair ties with Korea.
Then there's Jiro Ono, ex PM secretary to Junichiro Koizumi, who also looked at the video Japan released and noted that it looks like South Korea's vessel was the one in danger based on the manner with which the P-1 patrol aircraft approached the destroyer.
https://twitter.com/onojiro/status/1078928659832963072
Also, an armed patrol aircraft approaching a ship from a rear angle at low altitude (just above 150m; JMSDF pilots mention in the video that they're rising to 300m) itself unusually close and provocative if you want to go down that route. Have you not seen the video that Shinzo Abe ordered to be released? It's unusually close. Korea's position is that they utilized FC radar like the MW-08, and not the STIR radar. Japan refuses to release radar records, which would've served as concrete proof of this side, under the guise of national security confidentiality.
Since I've already listed Japanese links, here's a Korean one where it highlights the sudden shift in tone from Japan's media from going nuts about reporting to just NOT MENTIONING IT AT ALL. Even google translate is sufficient to get the idea if you can't read Korean.
http://news.kbs.co.kr/news/view.do?ncd=4106087&ref=N
This is Shinzo Abe basically making a fuss to rally votes in preparation for the upcoming elections, since he can't use North Korea as fodder anymore. Why do you think that Japanese newspapers suddenly cut off reporting on the issue just now, despite having it make the front pages for some time?
Japanese domestic news coverage about this issue dropped around the same time that South Korea's MoD announced that it would publish its own footage and proof on youtube in the near future:
https://news.v.daum.net/v/20181231204539687?rcmd=rn
I can't imagine why any news outlet under the usual circumstance would just suddenly cut back on reporting on a hyped on issue like this, which is an easy way to get viewers. That's like saying CNN is going to stop reporting on Trump's latest mishap, or Fox News not reporting about Hilary Clinton conspiracy theories.
So why don't you just wait and see what the Korean footage will show? I can't help but see that virtually all your links from Japanese media; you don't even mention the Korean side of the story at all.
Happy New Year Anonymous [at 1/1/19 5:13 AM ]
ReplyDeleteYou have clearly made an in depth study of media and political reactions concerning this confrontation.
But you have not seemed to notice a South Korean blog article already on this thread. I repeat it below.
Cheers Pete
"Anonymous said...
Hello Pete. I hope you have a good year.
https://southkoreanmilitary.blogspot.com/2018/12/fighter-pilots-view-on-japan-korea.html?m=1
I just want to introduce this article.
I am concerned that there are few English articles introducing Korean opinions and only Japanese opinions are published in English.
31/12/18 12:33 PM"
Happy New Year Tri-ring [at 31/12/18 10:40 PM]
ReplyDeleteYes I think the crew of the S Korean destroyer were able to see-recognise and hear on radio that the MPA was a non-hostile Japanese P-1.
I would guess that for political reasons the destroyer did not answer the questions from the P-1. So the destroyer commander decided to maintain radio silence.
Bilateral political tensions reasons also controlled what ROK officials and politicians have said or not said about the confrontation to Japan and in the media.
"not flying her national identification flag which also violates international laws." is an additional matter I don't know about. Maybe no South Korean flag on the destroyer in the context of reducing controversy when pursuing North Korean boats?
Regards
Pete
These are very early days, imagine if you can , when there are hundreds of planes, drones ,recon aircraft, subs, all growing in number daily towards 2055. Steps will need to be taken to identify assets and intent well and truely before a computer takes measures into it’s own hands.
ReplyDeleteLet me remind us all that the “Sheffield “ was sunk in the Falklands because the ships computer actually identified the the incoming missile as a NATO friendly weapon and did nothing. Lessons learned.
(correction on mis-typing)
ReplyDeleteHi Pete
As Japan and SK join an agreement of the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) to reduce the chance of an incident at sea between the countries [1,2], discussion should be based on CUES. Which one violated CUES and degree of violation should be discussed.
Though CUES is adopted for naval ships and naval aircraft, both Japanese and SK airforce experts (Tomogami [3], ROK Defense [4]) did not access CUES at all.
P-1 complied with CUES, but Kwanggaeto did not. Various rules in CUES [2] such as 2.8.1 (a) (avoidance of simulation of attacks by fire control radars), 3.3 (establishment of radio communication), 3.4 (call signs), 3.5 (voice procedures) and 3.6 (exchange of key information) were neglected by Kwanggaeto.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_for_Unplanned_Encounters_at_Sea
[2] Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea
http://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instructions/CUES_2014.pdf
[3] https://twitter.com/toshio_tamogami/status/1076637077230342144
[4] https://southkoreanmilitary.blogspot.com/2018/12/fighter-pilots-view-on-japan-korea.html?m=1
Regards
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteAs Japan and SK join an agreement of the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) to reduce the chance of an incident at sea between the countries [1,2], discussion should be based on CUES. Which one violated CUES and degree of violation should be discussed.
Though CUES is adopted for naval ships and naval aircraft, both Japanese and SK airforce experts (Tomogami [3], ROK Defense [4]) did not access CUES at all.
P-1 complied with CUES, but Kwanggaeto did not. Various rules in CUES [2] such as 2.8.1 (a) (avoidance of simulation of attacks by fire control radars), 3.3 (establishment of radio communication), 3.4 (call signs), 3.5 (voice procedures) and 3.6 (exchange of key information) were neglected by Kwanggaeto.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_for_Unplanned_Encounters_at_Sea
[2] Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea
http://www.jag.navy.mil/distrib/instructions/CUES_2014.pdf
[3] https://twitter.com/toshio_tamogami/status/1076637077230342144
[4] https://southkoreanmilitary.blogspot.com/2018/12/fighter-pilots-view-on-japan-korea.html?m=1
Regards
Thanks for the information Anonymous [at 2/1/19 12:29 PM]
ReplyDeleteI see that CUES https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_for_Unplanned_Encounters_at_Sea
was agreed in 2014.
Regards
Pete
Given the colonial baggage between the 2 countries, ROK likely views Japan as a historical enemy. That will unlikely change until Japan shows some flexibility on issues of comfort women and forced labor. This incident is minor in my view, when there are several grey areas. Publicizing it, against the back drop of Japan's decision to hunt again whales for food raise all sorts of red flags with most if not all Asian nations that live through WW2.
ReplyDeleteKQN
The minke whales are abundant in the sea and are not in the red zone.
ReplyDeleteSaying you are not allowed to hunt them while other fish stocks are allowed does not make any sense in terms of unbiased utilization of the sea.
In that sense capturing the blue tuna stock is lot more disruptive like it is done in Australia and other parts of the world when Japan had already perfected complete closed circuit tuna farming by Kinki University that most all nation are hesitant to adopt due to cost.
As for being off topic whell you people started it so you post my as well or remove all completely, your choice.
No democracy gains from tension between Japan and South Korea.
ReplyDeleteOnly China, Russia and North Korea gain.
Pete
This just highlights how easy it would be for situations such as SCS could get out of hand. An armed patrol aircraft coming in low & from the rear near potential conflict zones should expect fire control radar till clear identification of said plane happens. It should then obviously have then been turned off ASAP. As has been shown by no less than 3 at sea collisions by high end warships in recent times, mistakes & delays, especially by inexperienced junior officers can have devistating outcomes. The ship may have been on radio silence for a reason. A junior may be unsure if this matter was enough to countermand instructions. The SK destroyer is unlikely to actually fire at an identified Japanese plane. The same cannot be said in places like SCS. One stressed out button pusher is all it would take.
ReplyDeleteVery true Anonymous [at 3/1/19 6:38 PM]
ReplyDeleteWith so many major navigation-handling errors in 2018 (leading to deaths and a sinking) a shoot down of a friendly aircraft (full of operators with no ejection seats (??)) would be even worse.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
ReplyDeleteSK MoD demanded an apology from Japan on JAN/03/2019 [1], and an executive of Japan MoD executives strongly opposed SK response, saying "The trust relationship with SK Navy is completely collapsed [2]."
Under Moon Jae-in administration, bilateral relationship between Japan and SK has drastically deteriorated by series of incidents [3], and SK will eventually have a larger damage caused by the deterioration.
[1] https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2019/01/205_261419.html
[2] https://snjpn.net/archives/88284
[3] i) discard of agreement of comfort women agreement by SK government, ii) dicision of pay compensation for former Korean labors by SK supreme Court, iii) refusal of Rising Sun Flag in SK Naval review, iv) SK Naval exercises around Takeshima, v) FC radar irradiation by SK destroyer, etc.
Regards
Hi Anonymous [at 4/1/19 12:15 PM]
ReplyDeleteThanks for the update.
It is suspcious that S Korea's President MOON Jae-in shares the same name with today's:
"Glory to China's Chang'e-4. We Own Far Side of MOON. Suckers!" of Jan 4, 2019 at
https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/01/glory-to-chinas-change-4-we-own-far.html
Regards
Pete
I seriously can not believe it ROK DoD which recently released an alleged video utilizing video released by Japan had actually doctored the original to add some voice.
ReplyDeleteThe ROK DoD release video;
https://youtu.be/4dpWAWpzWyE
at 3:35 you can here Korean stating something in Korean.
The original video ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=s93-l68D3Eo
At around 0:45 of the same scene you only hear Japanese.
Now how in the world did that Korean message get in their after Japan had release it.
ROK at infringed copy right material and doctored in voice to claim they are innocent, how pathetic can they go?
ReplyDeleteIt’s called saving face. NE Asian nations will take it to its extremes. It amazes me the population of these places are so high. You would have thought they would have all killed each other off well before now.