national

Japan releases video of alleged radar lock-on by S Korean warship

119 Comments
By Mari Yamaguchi

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2018 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.


119 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Calm down, lads.

There's no need for any of this.

-5 ( +12 / -17 )

So first SK says it was accidentally hit with fire control radar while they were 'tracking a North Korean ship', now it never happened and the Japanese P1 was performing dangerous maneuvers while they were 'rescuing a North Korean ship'? At least keep your lies straight.

But I guess Japan isn't the only one who can't apologize for screwing up, eh South Korea?

26 ( +30 / -4 )

How far off the Noto peninsula?

Surely the Japanese understand that any dealings between South and North Korea are fraught with tension and possible danger.

Flying over the South Korean Navy when dealing with North Koreans is not advisable.

The South Korean Navy has a duty to defend itself.

-24 ( +7 / -31 )

Because the United States has security alliances with both Japan and South Korea, the US should carry out an objective investigation and release the findings. How long will it be before a SK vessel does the same thing to a USN vessel, and they will deny it like this? No doubt Japan would welcome this, but would South Korea? Bet they won't.

16 ( +23 / -7 )

@OssanAmerica

Had SK done this to a Chinese aircraft, odds are the SK ship would be at the bottom of the ocean now. But I don't think they would do this to anyone else. I have no doubt that SK did this on purpose to provoke a response from the Japanese aircraft. Looks like it backfired and now they are backpedaling trying to cover their butts.

21 ( +26 / -5 )

Surely the Japanese understand that any dealings between South and North Korea are fraught with tension and possible danger.

Flying over the South Korean Navy when dealing with North Koreans is not advisable.

The South Korean Navy has a duty to defend itself.

The reports originally stated that the P1 was flying within the Japanese Economic Exclusion Zone so they had every right to be there.

18 ( +23 / -5 )

What's with the South Koreans lately?

Have they forgotten that the main threat to their security comes from the North, not from Japan?

25 ( +29 / -4 )

This video release confirms that Japan doesn't have STIR radar signal signature record as widely believed, because Japan would have released that if they had that.

In other word, the P-1 was never locked on.

-22 ( +5 / -27 )

BigYenToday  08:08 am JST

What's with the South Koreans lately?

Have they forgotten that the main threat to their security comes from the North, not from Japan?

This is the main reason I advocate an investigation by the U.S. Until recently despite the power of the Chong Dae Hyup (known to be connected with Both Korea and China) appeared to be mainly over a small segment of the SK populace. Then it clearly had an influence over the SK Government. The SK military had been until this year very objective and free of such influence, but since the Japanese Naval Ensign issue it appears that the SK military has been "infiltrated". This throws the US-SK military alliance completely off the tracks, as the US can not defend SK without cooperation from Japan where the nearest assets sit. I say it's time to raise this to a diplomatic issue with the United States.

9 ( +16 / -7 )

As I said all along, this was NOT an accident, despite what many posters were saying. Now a few seem to have changed their minds lol!

The radar was locked on the P-1 purposely to make a political point.

16 ( +22 / -6 )

No need to release the video. No one would believe that SK would fire. Treat each other as neighbors, as simple as that.

-24 ( +4 / -28 )

@extanker

now it never happened

Of course it never happened. Japan can't produce the evidence of STIR radar signal and is forced to resort to a cheap shot like this, to save face of Abe himself. It was learned that the Defense Minister and higher ranks opposed releasing this video, but Abe himself ordered its release. https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2018122800890 (渋る防衛省、安倍首相が押し切る=日韓対立泥沼化も-映像公開)

Now Koreans know for sure Japan doesn't have the record to STIR radar signal emission.

Japanese P1 was performing dangerous maneuvers

In the video, you can hear the pilot saying "Let's climb to 1000 feet". In other word, the P-1 was flying way below 1000 feet.

In the US military, they call it Buzzing and considers it an hostile act.

The reports originally stated that the P1 was flying within the Japanese Economic Exclusion Zone so they had every right to be there.

The report is wrong, the P-1 was flying over what's officially called the "intermediary water zone" according to the Japan-Korea Fishery Treaty. This is an area where both side's EEZ claims overlap due to the Liancourt Rocks. Korea has same right to administer fishing in this area.

@OssanAmerica

How long will it be before a SK vessel does the same thing to a USN vessel

How about NEVER? After all, Korea never did to Japan, its enemy.

@BigYen

What's with the South Koreans lately?

Korea no longer considers Japan a significant country anymore. Korea's foreign ministry was restructured so that it has two big departments, US Department and China Department. The Japan Department was disbanded and was folded into the Southeast Asia Department, so Japan has same weight as Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, etc in Korea's foreign policy.

-21 ( +6 / -27 )

No one would believe that SK would fire.

It doesn't matter what people would 'believe'. Whether military or civilian, you do not point a weapon at someone you do not intend to shoot.

Would you be ok with your neighbor pointing a loaded pistol at your forehead with their finger on the trigger? Because that is the equivalent of what the South Korean warship did. Only with a much larger gun.

23 ( +27 / -4 )

@Akie

No need to release the video.

Indeed, Japanese Defense Minister and MoD officials didn't want to, but Abe personally ordered its release.

 https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2018122800890 (渋る防衛省、安倍首相が押し切る=日韓対立泥沼化も-映像公開)

Now this makes the resolution of this case that much difficult. Based on all available evidence, Japan doesn't have the STIR radar emission record, and Japan needs this to prove to the US or the rest of world that the P-1 was locked on.

So now this will drag on until one side is found to be at fault, almost certainly Japan's, and somebody will have to take a responsibility.

-18 ( +4 / -22 )

extanker, it doesn't matter the SK pointed a weapon or not, they are not going to shoot, as simple as that. They are professionally trained soldiers, very disciplined, and shooting order toward the Sun has to come from the Moon, it is not going happen.

-25 ( +3 / -28 )

So was the radar STIR or was it the search radar? Koreans claim it was the search radar in order to identify the plane, Japan claims they were locked by an STIR, but the spokesperson refused to confirm this. So what am i supposed to believe then? So far the Koreans have the winning side.

-13 ( +5 / -18 )

@extanker

 you do not point a weapon at someone you do not intend to shoot.

Then where is the record of STIR radar signal emission? Japanese MoD spokesperson refused to comment when specifically asked about the STIR radar.

In fact, an analysis of that posted video shows there was no RWR alarm in the cockpit expected if the P-1 was in fact painted by the targeting radar, all the system said was that there was a new hostile target. Then the pilot says they were getting some radar signal(Which isn't automatically a targeting radar).

Trust me, the Japanese MoD dropped the ball in this and someone's heads are going to roll.

-18 ( +3 / -21 )

Do not get closer to Korean military ships.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@IloveCoffee

So was the radar STIR or was it the search radar?

MW-08 Search Radar was ON

STIR Targeting Radar was OFF.

"Lock On" means a targeting radar continuously illuminating a target(P-1) so that the missile's seeker can see it and follow it. Normally when this happens, the RWR warning triggers but there was no RWR warning in that video. In other word, the P-1 aircrew was confused.

Koreans claim it was the search radar in order to identify the plane

They didn't turn on the MW-08 radar to identify the P-1, they turned it on to track the North Korean fishing boat adrift and the P-1 came in contact with it because it was flying so low. But you are right, turning on the search radar is a normal thing and all ships and planes do it, otherwise you have collisions.

Japan claims they were locked by an STIR, but the spokesperson refused to confirm this. So what am i supposed to believe then? So far the Koreans have the winning side.

Exactly.

-15 ( +3 / -18 )

extanker, it doesn't matter the SK pointed a weapon or not, they are not going to shoot, as simple as that.

It's not as simple as that. If they locked on with fire control radar, that is internationally recognized as a hostile act. I don't care how 'disciplined' they are, if they did it, which I believe that they did, they were 100% wrong.

16 ( +20 / -4 )

@extanker

If they locked on with fire control radar

P-1 wasn't locked on or illuminated with the STIR fire control radar. If Japan had the proof of this, they would have disclosed it already. They don't have it.

-20 ( +2 / -22 )

extanker, you have to trust neighbors. Hostile is a too strong word.

-19 ( +2 / -21 )

No one would believe that SK would fire.

Military members are not taught to believe or not believe. They are trained extensively to react under a certain order of rules and logic. The belief is trained out of them. Theirs is to act, not to think. This is what it means to be military. There are checks and balances, and that's probably what prevented a conflict this time, but had things gone another direction this could have easily have seen fire returned.

16 ( +19 / -3 )

Hostile is a too strong word.

Not it is not. A hostile act is a hostile act. If they did it, it is the actual definition of the phrase.

@strangerland

Excellent explanation.

15 ( +16 / -1 )

Strangerland, besides Abe, you are the only other one to make a fuss about it. Tell me one Japanese that didn't sleep well that day and that night.

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

@Samit batsu

If they locked on with fire control radar

P-1 wasn't locked on or illuminated with the STIR fire control radar. If Japan had the proof of this, they would have disclosed it already. They don't have it.

Which is why I said 'IF'. My argument with Aki is her belief that Japan should just trust that South Korea would not shoot at them. Even you can't argue that if they actually locked on, that it is clearly a hostile action. If the tables were turned and it was Japan that had locked on to a SK vessel, I would be saying the same thing about Japan.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

Strangerland, besides Abe, you are the only other one to make a fuss about it. Tell me one Japanese that didn't sleep well that day and that night.

How about the crew of that Japanese plane.

20 ( +20 / -0 )

extanker, now the case is escalated to who lied and who didn't. Are we going to have a happy new year ?

-16 ( +1 / -17 )

extanker, now the case is escalated to who lied and who didn't. Are we going to have a happy new year ?

My new year is going to be fine.

It's always been about who lied and who didn't. To me, the fact that South Korea's official story has changed since their first announcement makes their claim the more questionable one.

19 ( +20 / -1 )

extanker, are you joking ? The crews are trained for much worse situation than that.

-20 ( +1 / -21 )

@extanker

Even you can't argue that if they actually locked on, that it is clearly a hostile action.

But the fact is that the ROK destroyer's STIR radar was not turned on, and the P-1 did not record the STIR radar emission. The P-1 WAS NOT LOCKED ON.

That's what matters here; the Japanese MoD is accusing the Korean Navy of something it didn't do, and there are consequences on the Japanese side if they cannot prove they recorded the STIR radar emission.

-18 ( +3 / -21 )

As always changing stories and argue once it does not fit the narrative and change it again continuing denial until their face turns blue believing that if you tell the lie more than 100 times it will be accepted as the truth.

Is this a Korean/Chinese thing or is it common in all Banana republics?

14 ( +18 / -4 )

@Triring

Is this a Korean/Chinese thing or is it common in all Banana republics?

It is a Japanese thing, and Japan actually started the Second Sino-Japanese War over similar incident.

-21 ( +3 / -24 )

Another commonality between these apologists, try to change the subject and deflect the blame.

18 ( +20 / -2 )

@Akie

extanker, are you joking ? The crews are trained for much worse situation than that.

Actually, they are trained for situations exactly like this. Fire control radar locking on to your aircraft with no response from the ship locking on to them means a very real possibility that they are about to be fired on. Regardless of nationality. You may think that it is some kind of joke that they would just brush off because 'oh they're our friends' but you would be very wrong.

@Samit batsu

But the fact is that the ROK destroyer's STIR radar was not turned on, and the P-1 did not record the STIR radar emission. The P-1 WAS NOT LOCKED ON.

So now you are just completely ignoring what I was saying. Aki is failing to realize the seriousness of the situation IF they were locked onto. (See the big IF again?) If anyone is locked onto by a fire control radar from another nation, it would be serious business. IF. IF.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

@Samit Basu

I don't think Japan side consider this video as a primary evidence of being locked by radar.

This just shows a dialog and what Japan side went through.

According to this source, on the second radar detection,

https://www.jiji.com/jc/article?k=2018122800708&g=pol

哨戒機(Japan airplain)は無線(contact with wireless)で駆逐艦(to Korean ship)に向け、英語(in English)で

「貴艦の火器管制レーダーがわれわれを指向したことを確認した。

(We confirmed you target us with radar.)

貴艦の行動の目的は何ですか

(what's your purpose of doing this?)」

と3回呼び掛けたが(Japan asked three times)、

応答がなかった。(No responce from Korea)

Why?

18 ( +20 / -2 )

Strangerland, besides Abe, you are the only other one to make a fuss about it. 

No I didn’t. What are you talking about? Where did I make a fuss?

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@extanker

So now you are just completely ignoring what I was saying. 

What you said is irrelevant. The P-1 was not locked on, hence this whole "IF" discussion about an event that didn't happen is irrelevant.

Koreans are not responsible for what happened with the equipment failure on Japanese plane, that's Japan's problem.

-20 ( +2 / -22 )

The radar was probably on "automatic-lockon" the frequency wasn't manned and neither were the guns because they were busy rescuing a North Korea fishing boat.

Next time you talk to 713, say who you are, you can't just go around saying; " This is the Japanese Navy, This is the Japanese Navy".

-17 ( +2 / -19 )

The South Korean vessel did not respond after three tries to communicate by the Japanese plane (which had every right to be there).

Then the South Korean government complained about Japan's release of the video. Why is this a problem if South Korea didn't do anything wrong?

I see Japan as being in the right on this one. South Korea owes an apology.

21 ( +23 / -2 )

Now it becomes clear Japanese side made clear radio contact using three different frequencies.

South Korea side needs to provide an explanation for failing to respond to it.

http://www.chunichi.co.jp/article/front/list/CK2018122502000069.html

Some media outlets including this one reported they did not respond because the signal level was so low and noisy, and considered it was directed to their coast guard ship.

But considering Japanese side unequivocal English messages and that they used three different radio frequencies to contact, it is difficult to accept that clarification.

When you received messages from the plane you were monitoring, you would think the message was directed to no other than you, wouldn't you?

18 ( +19 / -1 )

@Will Geode

The radar was probably on "automatic-lockon"

The STIR radar was OFF. The Korean destroyer wasn't on a combat alert as they were busy doing search and rescue.

@Hachikou

I don't think Japan side consider this video as a primary evidence of being locked by radar.

Indeed, where is the P-1's record of detecting STIR radar emission?

-18 ( +1 / -19 )

Well this video make the incident clear as MUD...……..sadly will just cloud the issue by the looks of it

5 ( +5 / -0 )

@Will Goode

if

they were busy rescuing a North Korea fishing boat.

Why did they direct the optical camera at the Japanese aircraft?

There's no need to do that.

18 ( +19 / -1 )

Seoul's Defense Ministry expressed "deep regret and concern" over Japan's release of the video a day after the countries' military officials held a video conference to resolve what Seoul described Tokyo's "misunderstanding."

Translating to, how dare you releasing the video to the public exposing how we announced complete lies with a straight face to the whole world to see. ROFL

8 ( +10 / -2 )

S Korean warship should have responded to Japan surveillance plane quickly if there was no problem when they asked with 3 different frequencies in emergency. It seems Korean warship ignored the questions intentionally because the warship emitted FC signals against Japan plane directly.

20 ( +21 / -1 )

@maru_7

South Korea side needs to provide an explanation for failing to respond to it.

No, you listen to the voice of P-1's captain yourself and tell me you can comprehend. I can't. Let's be honest here. Can you understand what the P-1 captain's saying? I can't! Heck, even Google's voice recognition software is having trouble subtitling the P-1 captain's speech!

https://youtu.be/T9Sy0w3nWeY?t=77

@kwatt

S Korean warship should have responded to Japan surveillance plane quickly if there was no problem when they asked with 3 different frequencies in emergency.

You listen to the Japanese MoD provided video clip yourself and tell me if you can comprehend.

-19 ( +2 / -21 )

The easiest way to solve this is...was there a NK ship in the area?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"what is the purpose of your act?"

Is this a normal way of communicating? You would want to confirm it was on purpose first....

-17 ( +1 / -18 )

You listen to the Japanese MoD provided video clip yourself and tell me if you can comprehend.

Dude, anyone with a casual understanding of Japanese can comprehend what the crew of the P-1 are saying, and his English may have a heavy accent, but anyone with experience in international maritime or aviation radio traffic would understand it easily.

19 ( +21 / -2 )

"what is the purpose of your act?"

Is this a normal way of communicating? You would want to confirm it was on purpose first....

Well I suppose “stop illuminating us with your frikkin FC radar” wouldn’t be very diplomatic.

19 ( +20 / -1 )

Well I suppose “stop illuminating us with your frikkin FC radar” wouldn’t be very diplomatic.

Not with the word frikkin in it, it wouldn't be diplomatic at all.

-12 ( +0 / -12 )

Flying under a thousand feet over a South Korean naval ship-what were the Japanese thinking?

-17 ( +4 / -21 )

Well, I’ll admit, I initially wanted to give SK the benefit of the doubt on this one, but a picture (or in this case a 13 minute video) says what a thousand words can’t.

16 ( +18 / -2 )

12 ( +16 / -4 )

Flying under a thousand feet over a South Korean naval ship-what were the Japanese thinking?

Seeing as the ship was in Japan’s EEZ, and patrol craft still rely somewhat on visual confirmation, patrol altitudes of 900 feet and less are not uncommon.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

@BeerDeliveryGuy

Seeing as the ship was in Japan’s EEZ,

The destroyer WAS NOT IN Japan's EEZ!

It was in the Intermediary waters.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

@OssanJapan

South Korea's behavior is not going unnoticed.

That was a bureaucratic mistake that was undone the next day.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Flying under a thousand feet over a South Korean naval ship-what were the Japanese thinking?

try flying 900 feet over an American aircraft carrier battle group in international waters and see what happens.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Samit BasuToday  10:31 am JST

@kwatt

S Korean warship should have responded to Japan surveillance plane quickly if there was no problem when they asked with 3 different frequencies in emergency.

You listen to the Japanese MoD provided video clip yourself and tell me if you can comprehend.

Of course you can't understand it. However S Koreans can fully understand Japanese English accents. Koreans and Japanese speak English with almost similar accents. They used to communicate each other in such kind of English.

IN CASE the warship Koreans didn't understand that emergency question clearly, why did not Koreans respond to ask Japan surveillance plane?

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Samit BasuToday  12:01 pm JST

@OssanJapan

*South Korea's behavior is not going unnoticed.*

That was a bureaucratic mistake that was undone the next day.

Really? Please show us a link proving that South Korea has been removed from the list of restricted Designated Third Party nations.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

@OssanJapan

Really? Please show us a link proving that South Korea has been removed from the list of restricted Designated Third Party nations.

Gladly.

https://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/us-military-back-pedals-on-base-access-for-south-koreans-in-japan-1.552336

US military back-pedals on base access for South Koreans in Japan

By LEON COOK AND YOO KYONG CHANG | STARS AND STRIPES

Published: October 18, 2018

YOKOTA AIR BASE, Japan — The U.S. military has removed South Korea from a list of nations whose citizens must undergo extra scrutiny before they can visit friends or attend events on American bases in Japan.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

For once I must agree with Akie. The ship was never going to fire on a Japanese plane. It is time to settle down and realise that it does not matter. Consider it rude if you must but there was never any danger of one US ally shooting at another US ally.

-13 ( +1 / -14 )

@Samit Basu

I'm simply saying. If people did not understand something important, they usually ask it again and again until they get it perfectly. Warship Koreans should have responded when Japan surveillance plane asked repeatedly. It seems to me (I think everyone) that warship Koreans intentionally ignored Japan surveillance's question because S Koreans had done what they should not have done.

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Koreans probably didn't respond because their English was worse than the Japanese aircrew.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

For once I must agree with Akie. The ship was never going to fire on a Japanese plane. It is time to settle down and realise that it does not matter. Consider it rude if you must but there was never any danger of one US ally shooting at another US ally.

Can you be sure it wasnt going to fire? Those poor Japanese pilots thought so. They were traumatized. I hope they are getting time off and counselling now. As for USA being both Korean and Japan ally. USA will 100% choose Japan over SK if this escalated to conflict, and be shoulder to shoulder with number one ally in the world Japan. SK will only have weak PRC as ally.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

No, you listen to the voice of P-1's captain yourself and tell me you can comprehend. I can't. Let's be honest here.

I must be amazing then, because I understood it all without looking at the subtitles lol. Like has been mentioned before, anyone with experience in international aviation or maritime would understand this. @Samit Basu you clearly just don't know anything you're talking about.

@Samit Basu

Indeed, where is the P-1's record of detecting STIR radar emission?

Thats not how RWR's work... And unless you were on the ship, how do you know it was OFF as you claim?

Regardless of whether it was off or not, the ROK navy has an obligation to respond to any communications request like that. The fact that they didn't shows extreme negligence or incompetence on the part of the ROK.

Here is the information: The P-1 RWR system shows that the ROK ship is using FCR. Whether or not that's true, the P-1 crew attempt to contact the ROK ship to understand their intentions. They can only go off the information that their system is giving them. The ROK ship has an obligation to respond, whether it was intentional or not. the ROK f'd up. Stop trying to defend it... petulant child.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

Well, next time a Korean plane gets near Japanese ships or territories... The Japanese SDF should lock on to their ships and planes...

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Strangerland, besides Abe, you are the only other one to make a fuss about it.

You've confused me with another poster. No fuss was made by me.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Korea admitted it the other day saying they were looking for a north Korean boat, or is this something else?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Not having the technical knowledge to know what is possible or not, I can't make any judgement on this issue.

Just hope both countries can gain some perspective and work for peace in Asia.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@CH3CHO

Shouldn't the onus be on the party making the accusation?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Sure, but at some point, you have to acknowledge the onus has been met. There's really not very much the Japanese can at this point. Even if they show an image of the RWR showing processed data, people like Basu would call it a misanalysis. If they show an ESM analysis graph with the PRF information et al on it, they'll say it is faked.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

a true fire control lockon would light up the RWR / similar systems like a christmas tree.

simply claiming you've been locked on to because an antenna is following your aircraft is ludicrous. a P-1 is well equipped enough to know when it's been locked onto by radar. alarms and beeps will be blaring everywhere inside the aircraft. take a look at ANY actual anti aircraft engagement video on youtube if you need proof of this.

sorry but unless japan can provide this proof (and it is ALL recorded, EVERY time, even if the lock is only a milisecond long) i am not very convinced an actual lock on happened.

besides all this, this incident is stupid, the countries are supposed to be allies. what are they doing provoking eachother? there is a big red country with a billion people in it, and a nutcase with nukes just hours away, both salivating at the prospect of these two nations acting like children.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

paradoxbox: "besides all this, this incident is stupid, the countries are supposed to be allies."

True, but whenever the US tries to hold a tripartite joint exercise the Koreans pull out if they think the Japanese will be taking part. I am sorry, but there is history at work here, like a husband and wife squabbling, where emotions get in the way. Neither can stand the other's voice, regardless of content.

As Samit Basu said above: "Korea no longer considers Japan a significant country anymore. "

Therein lies the insult, the problem and the lack of respect.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

@SamiBatsu

You can ignore Japan and be disrespectul at your own risk, S. Koreans are weak who need defending or was taken over by China, Russia, Japan or the US.

Your Korea has been irrelevant since beginning of time, you're just a vaassel state that belong to one country or another, you will be part of the middle kingdom if your unlucky or part of Japan if you are lucky!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

paradoxboxToday  06:57 pm JST

Most of the time, you see a fighter plane's RWR. The RWR must beep to get the attention of the single pilot. The same is not true of a large patrol plane that can dedicate a man to listening to the radar.

Further, there is something to be considered for the conditions for the automatic alarm. For example, an easy point might be the detection of continuous wave illumination instead of pulse, but that doesn't go on until the missile is actually launched. It is thus perfectly possible for the STIR to be in radiating in automatic tracking without making an automated RWR go beep-beep-beep.

As far as not being threatening is concerned, the claim that the STIR is pointed but not radiating is not, BTW, worth all that much in substantive terms. When a STIR is being targeted by the TV camera, it is still following the plane in elevation and azimuth and in that sense it is still "locked". The ESSM's first flight phase is command guided and thus can actually be fired in this mode with the illuminator coming on seconds before impact, and in fact this is a valid tactic to reduce vulnerability to anti-radiation missiles.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

 a P-1 is well equipped enough to know when it's been locked onto by radar. alarms and beeps will be blaring everywhere inside the aircraft.

Have you seen the video? The audio recorded from the intercom is censored in places and records when the press talk is on, but you can hear alarms going off in the background when they detect the FC radar, followed by several verbal confirmations of a crew member saying “that is one loud sound,” and the crew chief saying “remember what that one (FCR alert) sounds like.”

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Can you be sure it wasnt going to fire? Those poor Japanese pilots thought so. They were traumatized. I hope they are getting time off and counselling now. As for USA being both Korean and Japan ally. USA will 100% choose Japan over SK if this escalated to conflict, and be shoulder to shoulder with number one ally in the world Japan. SK will only have weak PRC as ally.

Of course I am completely positive they were never going to fire. Military will not fire during peace time, doing so could start a war. If South Korea was at war then there may have been a remote possibility. The air crew would not have been close to be traumatized if they are trained military forces. Counseling would in no way be needed. And FYI Japan is not the number one ally of the US. Not even top 3.

Some like to make mountains from mole hills. Then there are those with common sense.

-11 ( +0 / -11 )

@Peter14

What S. Korea did would be seen as aggressive and a threat to any other country in the world. By defending this kind of aggressive behavior your digging yourself and S. Korea a bigger hole to fit in at the end of the day.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

The very people saying this “isn’t a big deal” would scream the loudest if a cop pointed a gun at an unarmed bystander.

If a soldier points a loaded rifle at a foreign soldier and illuminates him with a red-dot laser would you be sure he won’t fire?

This incident is a much larger issue, because it goes against friendly nations protocols, and implies that the SWO or CO intentionally overided the IFF (identify friend-or-foe) code. Such protocols exist for the very reason of avoiding serious misunderstandings. If the P-1 crew had assumed the SK ship was under control of hostile forces or acting rogue, what would have happened then would be a hasty egress with launching of chaff/flares and fighter jets arriving 10 minutes later. The P-1 crew’s calm restraint should be praised.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

What S. Korea did would be seen as aggressive and a threat to any other country in the world. By defending this kind of aggressive behavior your digging yourself and S. Korea a bigger hole to fit in at the end of the day.

While it may be viewed as an aggressive move there was never any threat. Failure to distinguish between the two is making a situation worse than it needs to be.

I am neither defending SK behavior or Japanese behavior. I speak from a position of neutrality.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

Yes, but wars, small scale clashes and friendly fire incidents have happened due to misunderstanding or failure to follow protocols. It’s not some light-hearted “Psych-out! Hahha let’s laugh it out over some beers” kind of incident.

9 ( +10 / -1 )

Nobody thinks it is a laughing matter. Its poor form. But it is not an act of War or even close to it.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

If I pointed a loaded rifle at you and lit you up with a laser sight, I think you’d have a lot stronger words to say than “poor form.”

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Its ok BeerDeliveryGuy, You clearly dont see the difference between a lone crazed gunman and a ship of fully trained military specialists trained not to flinch.

The lone gunman could be a crazy nut, he is unpredictable. A military vessel with fully trained crew during peace time you can better predict its actions or responses.

It would seem that many here wish to view South Korea as a hostile nation, based on differing views over very old events and a few more recent events. I find this of great concern.

As a neutral I would hope this could be minimized and not turned into something bigger. Others seem to want bigger. That is not a good sign for the future.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

If I pointed a loaded rifle at you and lit you up with a laser sight, I think you’d have a lot stronger words to say than “poor form.”

The Patrol craft confirmed no guns were pointed at the plane.

You would be better to say if you painted me with a laser sight but didnt have any guns pointed at me. And yea I would say thats poor form.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Of course I am completely positive they were never going to fire.

The military should not have been using the FCR either against friendly aircraft. I also doubt they were traumatized, and I don't want to make it sound like it is the end of the world. But they are at fault here, and the law of the issue was not really disputed by the South Koreans. One of their first throws is to justify the action, by saying they are finding a fishing boat in poor weather - as one can see, the weather, at least, is rather good and the seas rather flat. They clearly did not expect the Japanese to release video, and at this point, their credibility is shot.

The South Koreans had many offramps where they could have gotten off with minimal damage. They could simply have said "Yes, something like that did happen. It was not a wilful Act of State. We are investigating why." That would buy them several months and by the time the report comes out this would have blown over and few would be interested in even reading it.

10 ( +10 / -0 )

The Patrol craft confirmed no guns were pointed at the plane.

Right, but the missiles are launched from vertical tubes embedded in the deck. I do understand that the SK ship is manned by trained professionals, which is why such an incident is even more troubling. There was either a serious lapse in procedure or malicious intent. Neither of which are very settling explanations.

9 ( +9 / -0 )

"I do understand that the SK ship is manned by trained professionals, which is why such an incident is even more troubling. "

--BeerDeliveryGuy

Fortunately, Japanese are not trained professionally and save the day.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

There was either a serious lapse in procedure or malicious intent. Neither of which are very settling explanations.

I dont know how malicious their intent could be with a radar lock. The plane wont come down due to radar lock. I cant see how their intent could have been malicious. Stupid perhaps. Training new crew perhaps.

Its a big assumption to assume a malevolent or malicious intent. It was rude and uncalled for and a swift explanation should have been forth coming but I seriously doubt any sinister intent.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Obtaining a radar lock on to a friendly aircraft requires manual override from the SWO or XO. Radar lock-on is generally used as final warning to intruders (Japan was not intruding) when others means of warning fail.

And for a professional crew to commit such a blunder for any reason, even if it’s just meant as a joke is a serious matter.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Locking-on with a FCR is not just “rude,” it’s literally saying “we are prepared to shoot you down. Get the heck out of here or prepare to fight.”

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Locking-on with a FCR is not just “rude,” it’s literally saying “we are prepared to shoot you down. Get the heck out of here or prepare to fight.”

Ok so you think SK is now a hostile nation. got it.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

It is a typical Japanese thriller. It started with an accidental radar lock on by SK and the very calm Japanese crew responded with communication in both Japanese and English, unfortunately the SK didn't understand the inquiry, resulting a missile attack by the Japanese plane, then the world war 3 followed, lasted only one hour, all the SK military were annihilated, but at the last minute, a NK nuclear bomb launched in the direction of Japan, and it fail to reach the destination, fallen into Japanese EEZ, caused tsunami and earthquake, the Japan started to sink, people screamed to escape from the Islands, all of sudden, a secret tunnel was found, with supersonic speed train to the mainland, and Japanese successfully evacuated in orderly manner, and reach their new home, and everything looks exactly the same as described by the ancestors, it is Tang Dynasty...

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

@Samit BasuToday 12:40 am JST

That's the official finding of the inquiry. 

While the format and lengths of inquiries vary, they are usually written out and at least several pages in length. Where is the PDF (preferably in something other than Korean)? So far they are claiming this in at best press releases.

Koreans are offering to disclose ship's operational record to prove the STIR radar was OFF.

What operational record? A log? That's not much better than a mere claim or self-declaration.

It is the Japanese side that can't prove if they detected the STIR radar signal, they are outright refusing to disclose the ESM records, mostly because they didn't record the STIR radar signature.

That last, I must say, is your speculation based on their refusal to disclose it. My interpretation is that it is a matter of cost-benefit. There are two major possibilities:

1) They can show the recording of the output from some automated ESM/RWR system. The obvious counter would be to say that the system is incorrectly programmed, or the output even falsified (similar output can be generated using training-simulation software).

2) They can show a full recording - PRF, frequencies ... etc. At best, they are releasing a lot of information about their ESM capabilities that an expert can see, so even if they prove their case they are still losing a lot for a "sorry" or "regret". AND the South Koreans can still insist they faked it. After all, that KDX-I destroyer has been around for about 20 years. Unless they did not use the STIR even once in training, chances are its print is already in the Japanese database. Which means the Japanese can fake it if they want to with reasonable authenticity (and by reverse, that it would not be particularly probative).

That is if the ROK destroyer understood it was being hailed.

OK, judgment call here. I saw the film. Yes, OK, the Japanese were Japanese in their English, but as recorded, they were intelligible.

That's doesn't even sound like an RWR warning alarm.

Wow, you know what the P-1's RWR sounds like? Or its activation conditions?

The MW-08 is an integrated air/surface search radar. Korean story checks out OK.

If it is an "air/surface search radar", then they should never have called it a fire control radar. It seems clear that they started out thinking they can get away with the STIR, then they realized they can't but they've already tried to justify the use of a "fire control radar", so they went down the path of saying "Urr, we meant the MW-08, which is kind of a fire control radar and kind of not..."

It is Japan's claim of Korea using STIR radar against the P-1 that doesn't check out.

Everything we've been able to see so far actually says the Japanese story checks out. At least you can actually see the antenna on the video, and it was pointed at them. Plus, you can see that the Koreans are lying about the weather at the time. Either that or their concept of weather are completely different from everyone elses'.

Further, I'll point out that it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that the Koreans at least brought something new up based on that video. If we accept the version that they were using the MW-08 searching for fishing boats, it will be in constant sweep way before the start of that video and the Japanese would not see that as a new contact.

Indeed. Did you hear RWR alarm going off in that entire video? I didn't. Actual fighter pilots who saw that video didn't hear that either.

The P-1 is not a fighter.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Dear S. Korea.

With the evidence Japan has on this situation and incident. You would lose the argument and debate in front of the world. If you want to be humiliated further keep talking.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

Where is the PDF (preferably in something other than Korean)?

Well, Japanese MoD has a copy. Releasing it would need Japanese consent.

FYI, Japanese MoD did send that video to the Korean Defense Ministry way in advance, the Korean side got convinced that Japan didn't have the STIR radar signal record after reviewing that video. The Japanese MoD knew this video served as no evidence of a lock-on and didn't want to release it to public, but Abe san overruled the defense minister and the MoD.

What operational record? A log? That's not much better than a mere claim or self-declaration.

Yes.

My interpretation is that it is a matter of cost-benefit. There are two major possibilities:

The only possibility is that Japanese record doesn't show STIR radar signature. This is why the Japanese MoD refuse to confirm if they have captured the STIR radar emission signature WHEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT IT.

Obviously, the benefit of humiliating the Korean Navy before the world is the benefit many times worth the cost, yet Japan won't do it. Why? Because they don't have it.

Koreans of course firmly said NO, the system was OFF. Japan refused to confirm if they have detected the signal.

You be the judge.

OK, the Japanese were Japanese in their English, but as recorded, they were intelligible.

That's because you are Japanese.

As non-Japanese, I couldn't understand a word of it after hearing it several times. And since Koreans are not Japanese, they wouldn't get it either.

If it is an "air/surface search radar", then they should never have called it a fire control radar.

It's not. MW-08 is a search radar. Only Japanese MoD calls it a fire control radar to confuse Japanese domestic audiences. In fact, Japanese MoD doesn't even distinguish what radar model they are talking about while Koreans are very specific about it.

Everything we've been able to see so far actually says the Japanese story checks out.

That shows your lack of knowledge. People who aren't knowledgeable easily fall for a propaganda.

Plus, you can see that the Koreans are lying about the weather at the time.

What about the weather? It's hard to locate a small wooden boat visually at sea-level. Think not from the P-1's perspective, think from the Korean Destroyer's perspective.

it will be in constant sweep way before the start of that video

Since it was searching for the boat at the surface, it was set to "low" aiming at the water surface, and this is why the P-1's ESM/RWR didn't pick it up until it got close.

In addition, sweeping is what search radars do. Fire Control Radars like the STIR constantly track and illuminate target, and you get the whole continuous buzzing alarm from RWR if Locked On as Japanese MoD claims. This is why actual combat pilots laugh at Japanese MoD's claims of a Lock On after reviewing this video, and this is why the MoD officials didn't want to release it to public because they know the US Navy would laugh at them after seeing that video.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Samit BasuToday 02:25 am JST

Japanese MoD knew this video served as no evidence of a lock-on and didn't want to release it to public, but Abe san overruled the defense minister and the MoD.

According to the source you previously chose:

防衛省は当初、映像公開について「韓国がさらに反発するだけだ」(幹部)との見方が強く、岩屋毅防衛相も否定的だった。複数の政府関係者によると、方針転換は27日、首相の「鶴の一声」で急きょ決まった。

It seems to be that it is more about diplomacy than because it "served as no evidence of a lock on".

This is why the Japanese MoD refuse to confirm if they have captured the STIR radar emission signature WHEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED ABOUT IT.

Or maybe they considered it a national security issue. You cannot take someone's "No comment" as a "No', you know?

Suppose he said Yes. How much of an improvement would that make. Not a lot. They'll ask for proof and we'll advance to the two scenarios I posited (and which you completely ignored). I'll also point out your quotes were taken on the 25th, and your own article says that until the 27th, they are still thinking of whether to hold back a bit or go strong.

MW-08 is a search radar. Only Japanese MoD calls it a fire control radar to confuse Japanese domestic audiences.

Ah, but here's the problem. If they want to say it is a search radar, they did not have to make any statements about it being part of the fire control system, or call it a 射撃統制レーダー. The problem is that they can't even line up their story correctly, so the whole idea of saying it is the MW-08 came later ... in a "clarification".

What about the weather? It's hard to locate a small wooden boat visually at sea-level. Think not from the P-1's perspective, think from the Korean Destroyer's perspective.

At least, the weather was great, so they should not have tried to make it as if the weather was bad. It wasn't.

Since it was searching for the boat at the surface, it was set to "low" aiming at the water surface, and this is why the P-1's ESM/RWR didn't pick it up until it got close.

As the P-1 gets closer, at similar altitudes, it is actually easier to get into the vertical beamwidth of the radar when it is further out. Sigh...

Fire Control Radars like the STIR constantly track and illuminate target, and you get the whole continuous buzzing alarm from RWR if Locked On as Japanese MoD claims. 

You are assuming that the RWR works the same way on a fighter as a patrol plane, which can dedicate a full person to monitoring the electromagnetic spectrum. Or that you know its activation condition.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

https://jp.yna.co.kr/view/AJP20181222000100882?section=japan-relationship/index

According to Yonhap News Agency (Dec 22)

「出動した駆逐艦は遭難した北の船舶を迅速に見つけるため火器管制レーダーを含むすべてのレーダーを稼働し、この際、近くの上空を飛行していた日本の海上哨戒機に照射された」

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

That was during the initial hours. The formal inquiry confirmed all procedures were followed and the STIR radar was OFF, meaning the Lock-On as claimed by Japanese MoD could not have happened.

In addition, a former JMSDF Vice Admiral is siding with the Koreans. No evidence of a Lock-On in that video.

https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20181229/p2a/00m/0na/024000c

The South Korean government has insisted that the destroyer was using radar for omnidirectional search on a different frequency instead of the fire-control radar. To dismiss this claim, Japan needs to disclose data such as the frequency of the radar waves.

However, the government cannot disclose such sensitive information. "If we disclosed that, we would reveal our search capabilities," said a senior official of the Defense Ministry.

While maintaining that there are limits to how far Japan can disclose such data, Defense Minister Iwaya said, "Needless to say, we gathered data on the radio waves and recorded it."

Toshiyuki Ito, former vice admiral at the MSDF, pointed out that the video that the ministry has disclosed is insufficient as evidence of Japan's claim that the P-1 aircraft was targeted by the fire-control radar aboard the South Korean destroyer.

"The video has confirmed that the P-1 wasn't flying at an alarmingly low altitude, but is insufficient as evidence because it doesn't record a warning sound showing that the destroyer targeted (its fire-control radar on the MSDF patrol plane)," he said. "Neither side can easily compromise in the dispute."

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

If a former JMSDF Vice Admiral can tell there was an insufficient evidence of a lock-on in the video that Japanese MoD released at the direction of Abe and at the opposition of the MoD higher ranks and the Defense Minister, imagine all the world naval officials laughing at Japan after watching that video right now. I have repeatedly have said there was no sign of a Lock-On alarm in that video.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

This is a very partizan thread, any poster against Japan gets many negatives, but I believe @samitbasu is an expert, so we should listen to him.

What is scary is Japan have just said yes to Trump for 147 F35s, and if the radio is this bad they should not buy them !

Also the communication protocol is very bad using your own language against a foreigner (SK), it should be in translated text !

The English is very poor also !

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Also the pilot of the P-1 should have said in very clear English, this is P-1 "xyz", not just " this is the Japanese Navy", because then they will look out for a ship instead of up for a plane.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

NNnext time the STIR Radar locks on, they should say:" This is the Japanese Navy, we have you surrounded"!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

That was during the initial hours. The formal inquiry confirmed all procedures were followed and the STIR radar was OFF, meaning the Lock-On as claimed by Japanese MoD could not have happened.

Their explanation had changed several times, with claims down to them doing so following their manual.

Oh, I've read something similar yesterday, from Asahi already:

https://digital.asahi.com/articles/ASLDX4QGHLDXUTFK00P.html

そもそも、韓国はレーダーを使って北朝鮮の船を捜索していたと説明していたが、映像では韓国の警備救難艦のすぐそばに北朝鮮船舶とみられる船が見える。元海将の伊藤俊幸・金沢工業大学虎ノ門大学院教授はこの点では、韓国側の主張は成り立たないとみる。

肝心の照射を受けた場面で、映像からはレーダー波を変換した音が聞こえない。伊藤氏は「自衛隊の能力に関わると判断して消したのだろうが、日本の主張の証拠としては弱い」。

If we are to use Mr. Ito as an authority, then we'll also have to accept his assessment that the video is sufficient to prove that South Korea's version is BS (so their credibility is zero), and his assessment that they erased the sound off for security considerations. Which on its merits is possible, since they had been redacting the voice on-and-off even at the cost of the probative value of the recording, and that kind of sound would be a monotone that would make it easier to erase without affecting voice too much.

However, I'll point out that Mr. Ito is a former admiral who specialized in submarines. 

http://www.kanazawa-it.ac.jp/kyouinroku/a/BGAAG.html

Submarine commanders are trained in observation so his assessment of the visual is authoritative. However, he is not necessarily an expert on the functions and procedures of the ESM system on patrol aircraft, especially one that went into service after he retired. So it is still perfectly possible the sound was not on the tape simply because the ESM did not operate as he imagined. You may recall that a patrol plane is different from a fighter and not only do they have enough people for dedicated monitoring of the electromagnetic situation, but the fact they may be asked to hang around even in the face of a tracking radar, in which case that stupid sound would be in the cockpit for hours.

And supposing the sound was there and left on, my sense is that the probative value would be limited. You have already made the play yourself in fact - mistaken automatic analysis. At some point you have to stop asking for more evidence and ask yourself where the preponderance of the evidence is lying.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Also the communication protocol is very bad using your own language against a foreigner (SK), it should be in translated text !

Ummm they are speaking in Japanese among themselves, and all communications to the SK vessel are in (admittedly poor) English; which is the standard language for international maritime and aviation communication. If you have spent any amount of time listening to air or sea radio traffic, or even the in-flight conversations of pilots, you would know that there are a variety of foreign accents, some poor, some fluent in the aviation industry. Pilots and seafarers just deal with it. If the SK ship truly did not understand what they were saying (on all 3 standard ID and distress frequencies, that military ships and aircraft are required to monitor and respond at all times) a simple “Japan Navy, this is hull number 971. Request not understood. Repeat transmission, over.” Would have been the proper response.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Ok, @beerdeliveryguy (very important function BTW), but if a ship is required to say specifically "hull 971", then in aviation we say for instance " VH-PUP", we don't just say "air force"

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Kazuaki

Most audio and visual alarms in military equipment have an off switch. But in the video a crew member says “凄い音ですね!” -pretty much “dude, that thing is loud!” when they detect the radar lock. The alarm can be heard only faintly in the background, because the voices are recorded off the comm-system, which probably isn’t connected to the alarm system. The comm-system in an aircraft would probably also be tuned to not pick up environment noise like engines, vibration, etc...

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@Will Goode

Right, it would have been proper for the P-1 to identify as well, however having a radar locked on you is somewhat of an emergency situation. When cops show up at an armed robbery, they say “Police! Drop it!” rather than, “This is Officer Jones from 5th precinct, vehicle number X badge number X. Please put your weapons down.”

3 ( +4 / -1 )

For those who are arguing that you can't hear the alarm in the back ground, there are things called Bone Conductive Microphone Sets that does not pickup background noise which is used in conditions like this where noise pollution rich environment can be hazardous disrupting communication within the group.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

@Will Goode

You must be a native English speaker, so you probably don't understand Japanese English accent. Japanese and Korean have their own similar accents of English. Japanese SDF and Korean Navy/Air force used to communicate in such kinda English for a long time. My point is Korean can fully understand Japanese English. If not, Korean should respond to ask it again.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

I like your sense of humour @beerdeliveryguy , and I think we can all relate to thinking we had the equivalent of a laser red dot targeting system on us, and feeling agitated attending the equivalent of an armed robbery, and hastily broadcasting;"What is the purpose of your act ? This is the Japanese Navy"

If it was me on the #971, I would think , "are they referring to the rescue of a North Korean Fishing Boat ?"

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I guess the intention of the Japanese PM in escalating the dispute between the 2 neighboring countries is to collect public resentment to justify military expansion in the future. Together with the released video, the former Chief of Staff of Japan's Air Self-Defense Force repeatedly made it clear that the S. Korean navy did not show any hostile action toward the Japanese P-1 patrol aircraft. Only amateurish jingoists thoughtlessly try to deny the expert's contribution: https://ironna.jp/article/11560

https://twitter.com/toshio_tamogami/status/1076637077230342144

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

@Kazuaki Shimazaki

Submarine commanders are trained in observation so his assessment of the visual is authoritative. However, he is not necessarily an expert on the functions and procedures of the ESM system on patrol aircraft, especially one that went into service after he retired. 

Then please read what one of the most authoritative experts in Japan on patrol aircraft says:

 陸海空自の対空ミサイル部隊では日々の訓練で、自分の部隊の上空に接近する航空機は、万が一に備えその航空機が何者であるか識別するとともに、あらゆる航空機を疑似の射撃目標としてレーダー操作訓練を実施している。疑似目標には自衛隊機だけでなく米軍機も民間航空機も含まれている。

https://ironna.jp/article/11560

I assume you have at least a basic level of reading Japanese and reasoning.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Both camps need to calm down and dial down the rhetoric of conflict.

Heartily agree.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

If you are going to rely on that quote, you will have to pay attention to

疑似目標には自衛隊機だけでなく米軍機も民間航空機も含まれている。

Read: Play these games with your own planes, planes that would never know what had happened, or formally allied planes that had almost certainly consented to what is about to come. None of these three would apply to the P-1.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Samit,

Army, Air Force and Navy are commonly used and recognized translation terms to describe Japan’s armed forces when communicating with other militaries, over the radio, or other non formal dialogue for the sake of brevity.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

LOL @SJ , if that be the case the most likely explanation is the crew of the P-1, overhead the words " north korea" , (didn't wait for the words fishing boat), panicked and incorrectly identified the destroyer.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites