risks of shooting down Russian aircraft
if American pilots interpret their actions
‘as a threat to our air or ground forces’.
In the air, without direct
communication and clear rules of
behavior, pilots can lose their lives and
international incident is a permanent
risk. One of the most shocking examples
was the April 1, 2001, Hainan Island
incident in which a Chinese J-8 fighter
collided with an EP-3 over the South
China Sea, which killed the Chinese
pilot and forced the American airplane
to land in Chinese territory. The
collision precipitated an international
incident. Once on the ground, China
disassembled the EP-3 and seized highly
sensitive information.In most cases, close intercepts are
unnecessary, the US Naval War College’s
Richard Moss pointed out in a recent
edition of Proceedings, an influential
American military journal. Sensors aboard
modern aircraft are more accurate than
their predecessors, and fighter crews carry
high-tech cameras and latest-generation
targeting pods that can record suspicious
aircraft from farther away than ever before.
What this means is that pilots tend to get
close — sometimes too close — in order
to make a point, by accident or because
the actual rules of how to conduct
intercepts are overly broad.
Some 45 years ago, the US and
the Soviet Union signed the INCSEA
agreement for US-Soviet incidents atIn the air, without
direct communication
and clear rules of behavior,
pilots can lose their lives and
international incident is a
permanent risk
sea, which established rules for conduct
between ships and aircraft from the two
countries. However, the agreement’s
few amendments over time have not
established fixed distances that would
keep aircraft at arm’s length from each
other. To make matters worse, revising
the INCSEA is currently impossible as the
US Congress has forbidden joint military
co-operation with Russia following the
2014 invasion of Crimea. But establishing
firm, fixed distances would help prevent
a potentially fatal collision, a shootdown
or another international incident.
‘Fixed distances could help avoid
ambiguity in situations where the intent
of the parties — particularly, with respect
to the use of force — cannot be readily
identified,’ Moss wrote.
Intent, or the perception of intent, is an
extremely important factor for military
pilots. An incoming warplane approaching
another in a threatening manner puts the
aggressed pilot in a dilemma. The same
situation applies to a ship’s captain staring
down an incoming attack jet — like the
Russian airplanes that have occasionally
buzzed US warships in the Black Sea.
‘Intent can be difficult to gauge in the
heat of the moment,’ Moss warns. ‘At what
point do deck-level, high-speed passes by
attack aircraft become a demonstration of
hostile intent?’
Currently, the answer lies with an
individual’s interpretation of the situation.
A new set of clear rules would help made
disastrous situations less likely.Above: The
incident involving
a USAF F-22 and
a Russian Su-
over Syria was
widely reported.
The USAF pilot
flew a ‘head-butt’
maneuver to warn
off the Russian
‘Frogfoot’. USAF/
SSgt Colton Elliott
Left: Pilots
operating over
Syria are well
aware of the
inherent risks of
flying in close
proximity to
Russian forces.
USAF/
SSgt Colton ElliottTHE BRIEFING // AERIAL INTERCEPTS
18 May 2018 //^ http://www.combataircraft.net
16-18 The Briefing C.indd 18 21/03/2018 10: