An Australian pilot was forced to take evasive action after a Chinese military jet detonated flares close to a Navy helicopter that was operating in international waters near South Korea.

The Defence Department has described the actions of the J-10 Chinese Air Force plane as “unsafe and unprofessional” following the incident which took place in the Yellow Sea over the weekend.

On Saturday a MH-60R Seahawk which had launched from HMAS Hobart was intercepted by the People’s Liberation Army-Air Force (PLA-AF) as it was taking part in a UN mission to enforce sanctions against North Korea.

  • maynarkh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    91
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Correct me if I’m wrong but you don’t “detonate” flares, they don’t explode, they just burn with a bright flame. Yes, certainly, dropping, popping, ejecting them near other aircraft, especially with an intention to harass is unprofessional and dangerous, but the headline is still sensationalist.

    To be clear, I’m not tone policing, the verbiage just gives the wrong impression on how flares work.

    • ik5pvx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      5 months ago

      You are right. I once heard a pilot say “popping flares”, so that’s my usual choice.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        The difference between “popping” and “dropping” in my reading is that some planes have the flare ejection system aimed upwards, which primarily helps with threats from behind as the flares fly up as they “pop”, then drop into the trail of the aircraft, while some systems are aimed downwards and also mostly to the side, so the “drop” flares which are better if the expected threat is going to be below the aircraft.

        This is just conjecture from me, it might be BS, but I see most fighter jets have flare systems aimed upwards, while some transport planes and helicopters have it on the sides on the low side. In case of the helicopters, it might also be there to avoid getting in the rotors. I’m no military pilot, though, so take this with a mine worth of salt.

        • RedditRefugee69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          5 months ago

          They don’t aim upwards really because the missile would chase the flare as it falls and bring the defending plane right back into the field of view of the seeker. The flares are supposed to pull the missile away from the aircraft. Source: my plane has flares.

          I will also say that “detonating” is a very silly word for this situation because they burn rather than explode. This shouldn’t understate the danger though of ingestion of a burning flare into an engine (modern helicopters like this have small engines that power the rotor) or impact with the rotor which has the potential to cause an even more violent end. If the helicopter is operating with its side doors open, that flare could even enter the cabin and cause serious injury if not loss of the whole aircraft. All of this to protect sales to an evil dictator (NK)

          • maynarkh@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Thanks for the response!

            I guess I’ve based my assumptions on the only plane I’ve ever seen popping flares, which was an old Sukhoi. From what I’ve seen in old school textbooks, a lot of those planes had flare dispensers aimed upwards. Maybe the idea is that ideally they would try to get a side aspect to the missile either way, so it wouldn’t matter as much?

            Now that you mention it, newer MiGs - I mean as new as a MiG-21 is - drop flares downwards. I’d love to find out more about the engineering of this.

    • trolololol@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think the next greatest invention from aí should be reading articles and writing honest headlines.

  • Cypher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The Australian government needs to retaliate in a serious way.

    They just had talks between generals about this sort of dangerous behaviour and the Chinese immediately do this.

    This is a message from China that they don’t respect Australia. Fine.

    Australia should cut coal and iron exports to the bastards right before their next winter hits.

    • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Can you define “retaliate in a serious way” ?

      This media release is precisely the correct measured response to this kind of childish behaviour from China.

      Cutting coal and iron exports would harm australua more than China. They put a tax on our wine and barley and that did some damage.

      This type of flex from China is already commonplace in SEA, and thankfully we have cool heads in charge who will hold the right positions and respond in a measured way.

    • assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      73
      ·
      5 months ago

      Lol. Australia is just as codependent on our iron and coal trade with China as china is. We’re not going to do anything to threaten that. Let’s be honest. Really though, should Australia be operating warships so close to China when they really don’t like it. I don’t imagine or expect the Australian navy/Air Force to be friendly to a Chinese warships if they were off the coast of Brisbane or Sydney.

      • mynachmadarch@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        58
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        Found the bot who can’t read. International waters near south Korea with an actual mission against north korea. That’s not “operating near China”. If that was the case, the world should be nothing but bloody war, just about every country has military at their border. That’s near another country.

        And the biggest reason this is a double dick move by China, the Seahawk was on a UN mission. Guess who’s part of UN. That’s right. China.

        • Skua@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          A UN mission that China has actively voted for repeatedly, no less. Every UNSC resolution against North Korea going back to 2006 has been unanimous.

  • YeetPics@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    The author here uses ““international waters”” to denote an area the Chinese haven’t claimed yet but surely will claim as its own territory someday soon.

    Seriously, fuck these imperialist shit-hole countries.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    An Australian pilot was forced to take evasive action after a Chinese military jet detonated flares close to a Navy helicopter that was operating in international waters near South Korea.

    The Defence Department has described the actions of the J-10 Chinese Air Force plane as “unsafe and unprofessional” following the incident which took place in the Yellow Sea over the weekend.

    On Saturday a MH-60R Seahawk which had launched from HMAS Hobart was intercepted by the People’s Liberation Army-Air Force (PLA-AF) as it was taking part in a UN mission to enforce sanctions against North Korea.

    “The PLA Air Force plane dropped flares about 300 metres in front of the Seahawk helicopter and about 60 metres above it, requiring the helicopter to take evasive action in order to not be hit by those flares,” Mr Marles said in a statement.

    Shadow Defence Minister Andrew Hastie also condemned what he described as the “provocative and dangerous interaction” of the Chinese Air Force with an Australian helicopter in the Yellow Sea.

    “The Coalition calls on Richard Marles to stand up for our ADF personnel and raise this incident directly with his Chinese counterpart,” Mr Hastie added.


    The original article contains 407 words, the summary contains 194 words. Saved 52%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • CaptKoala@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    5 months ago

    Tldr: J-10 pulled a dick move, helicopter made a turn, journalists had a slow day.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      UN sanctions. Can you remind me if China is on the UNSC or not? If only we could look at their voting record for these sanctions…

    • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      Sanctions that China also voted for, making this irrational and illogical behavior, in addition to being dangerous and provocative.

    • YeetPics@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Stfu, I own your front and back yards. Don’t like it? I’ma shoot your dog.