Per Ardua Ad Astra

The Royal Air Force, in its current form, celebrated its 100th anniversary in April.  It is actually older if you consider the Air Battalion of Royal Engineers, which later turned into the Royal Flying Corps, and if you also consider the Royal Naval Air Service.  

A history of the birth of the Royal Air Force, "RAF: The Birth of the World's First Air Force", was published earlier this year, perhaps to profit from that anniversary.  It details the genesis of the RAF as an independent service and the reorganization of various air boards and committees into the Air Ministry.  The sub-title is misleading.  Perhaps a more fitting one would have been: "The Birth of the World's First Independent Air Force".  The author is Professor of History at King's College London and presumably knows that Italy's 'Corpo Aeronautico Militare' pioneered military aviation by carrying out both the first aerial bombardment mission and the first reconnaissance flight, pre-WW1 during the Italo/Turkey War.   And France's 'Service Aeronautique', and even Germany's 'Luftstreitkrafte' are a bit older than their Brit counterparts.  But I would surmise the editors at the publishing house knew their potential book buyers better and went with the version that would sell.

The author, Richard Overy, is a professor at King's College in London and an award winning historian: Samuel Eliot Morison Prize of the Society for Military History in 2001, plus the Wolfson History Prize and Hessell-Tiltman Prize in 2004.  The book is not much over a hundred pages, it is perfect for a quick summer read.  And perfect for the average aviation buff.  Yet this is not a detailed history. 

For someone looking for more beef I would recommend retired RAF Wing Commander Ian Philpott's "The Birth of the Royal Air Force" published by Pen &Sword.  Philpott does not have the academic chops of Professor Overy, but IMHO his book has a more extensive scope.  Not only a history, it is encyclopedic in its details of operational events, including some first clumsy attempts at CAS, which has generated much interest on this blog in the past.  Also gives specifics on early Brit airplane design, RFC airfields and RNAS seaplane bases.   A bit spendy, but worth the price.  And it was published five years ago, so certainly there are inexpensive used copies available.

ADIZzy in the East China Sea

Mildly interesting activity off the east coast of the People's Republic of China this week.

First, the PRC announced the creation of an expended "Air Defense Identification Zone" that covers a fairly large portion of the west side of the Pacific that lies between the PRC to the west, Taiwan (ROC) to the south, Japan to the northeast, and the Republic of Korea to the north:

Note the gray area; that's the overlap between the western edge of Japan's own claimed ADIZ (the black line on the left side of the gray area) and the east edge of the PRC's new ADIZ.

Why is this important?

Well, and ADIZ is, in effect, a milder form of "territorial waters", an assertion of sovereignty. The FAA defines it, in part, as "an area of airspace over land or water in which the ready identification, location, and control of civil aircraft is required in the interest of national security." The PRC is insisting that it has the right to enforce the ADIZ regulations, which include

"...flight plans, as well as radio and logo identification, of all aircraft operating in the zone. The state-run news agency, Xinhua, said if an aircraft did not supply its flight plan, “China’s armed forces will adopt emergency defensive measures.”" (NYT, 11/26/13)

.The United States responded by sending a pair of B-52 bombers through the ADIZ without doing so. The message to the PRC couldn't have been clearer; bite me, PRC, we consider this area international waters and don't recognize your effing ADIZ.

Analysis of this action here, here, and here.

So...do I think "This means woah!"? No.

But it is an intriguing bit of geopolitical gamesmanship from the PRC, for two reasons:

1. The territory involved includes the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and seems to be a likely part of a stepped-up assertion of sovereignty over those ocean rocks, during a period when the issue has become increasingly contentious, and

2. The way the Chinese claiming their new ADIZ rules work. Typically these zones affect aircraft en route to the polity claiming the ADIZ; that's how the U.S. zones work:

But the Chinese are saying that their ADIZ applies to ALL aircraft transiting this zone, not just aircraft inbound for the PRC. This is actually a pretty significant reach; it would be like the United States claiming the right to query and, if not satisfied, stop or even detain any vessels transiting within it's 100-mile limit. This would have the effect, if enforced, of challenging the traditional legal standard of "innocent passage"; "...so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law." (UNCLOS, Section 3(A)(19).

Why is China doing this? Why now?

Good questions. I don't know; I suspect that a LOT of people aren't sure. In some ways the PRC is a riddle wrapped inside an enigma. Clearly someone is feeling cocky about the PRC's strength in the East China Sea. Who? Why? And to what purpose?

Again; all good questions and ones that it'd be nice to know the answer to.