A People’s Liberation Army Air Force SU-35 fighter jet dropped flares near an Australian patrol aircraft in the South China Sea: why did it do this, and what are the consequences?
Summary
On October 19, 2025, a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft conducting a surveillance mission in the South China Sea was approached by a PLA-AF Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jet, which dropped flares at very close range. Canberra described this behavior as “unsafe and unprofessional.” Beijing, for its part, claims that the Australian aircraft had entered its airspace around the Paracel Islands. This incident is one of a series of close encounters between China and NATO allies in this strategic area. There are multiple issues at stake: respect for navigation rights, Chinese maritime claims, Australian presence, and the diplomatic and military response of the United States and NATO partners.
The incident in the South China Sea
On October 19, 2025, an Australian P-8A Poseidon was conducting a maritime patrol over the South China Sea, a highly disputed region. According to the Australian Department of Defense, a PLA-AF Su-35 fighter approached the aircraft and then dropped flares “in close proximity.” These flares were deployed twice, in close proximity to the Australian aircraft, which Canberra described as an “unsafe and unprofessional maneuver.”
The Australian aircraft was not damaged and no crew members were injured. However, Australian Defense Secretary Richard Marles emphasized that the proximity of the flares made the situation dangerous and that “it could have had a different outcome.”
For its part, China responded that the Australian aircraft had “illegally entered Chinese airspace” around the Paracel Islands (Xisha). The Southern Theater Command said the engagement was “legitimate, professional, and measured.”
The exact location of the incident is not specified identically by all parties. It is believed to be in international airspace or close to the area claimed by China, which leads to different interpretations. The Paracel Islands area is one of the most hotly contested areas in terms of waters and airspace.
Why did China take this action?
Several factors must be taken into account to understand the motives behind such behavior.
First, it is part of China’s strategy of asserting its air power in the South China Sea. For several years, Beijing has been using close interceptions, aggressive maneuvers, and flares to signal that it considers this space to be under its control, even when it is international airspace. The use of flares near a P-8A is no accident: it is a way of marking the sovereignty claimed by the People’s Liberation Army without resorting to firing, while testing the reactions of Australian and Western forces.
Second, Australia has been conducting maritime surveillance missions in this area for years, exercising its right to freedom of navigation and overflight in international air and sea space. Beijing interprets these missions as a provocation or discreet support for countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam, which contest its claims.
Thirdly, from a military standpoint, the use of flares or close maneuvers is a way of testing reactions, collecting data, and establishing a norm of presence. This is in line with China’s doctrine of combat using drones and interceptors, which envisages a form of air assimilation without necessarily resorting to firing.
Finally, the choice of Australia can be explained by its strategic alignment with the United States and NATO members, its participation in exercises with allies in the Indo-Pacific region, and its desire to have an increased presence in relation to China. This makes it a symbolic target for Beijing, which wants to send a message to its Western partners.
Why Australia was targeted and what its stance is
Australia occupies a strategic position in the Indo-Pacific region. The fact that an Australian aircraft was involved highlights several points.
The RAAF and ADF (Australian Defense Force) conduct regular patrols in the area to monitor shipping lanes—many of which pass through the South China Sea—and gather intelligence in an environment where China claims a large portion of maritime sovereignty. The Australian statement notes that “most of Australia’s trade passes through the South China Sea and that the rules-based order applies there.”
For Australia, the incident was not a complete surprise: it is the third tense interaction in 18 months with Chinese forces following the same pattern. Canberra felt it was important to publicly report this type of behavior in order to establish a principle of “standards of conduct” and to alert its allies.
The message sent to Beijing is that Australia will not bow to pressure or aerial harassment. The aim is to assert that maritime surveillance is legitimate and that military interactions must remain in line with international standards.
However, this stance comes at a cost: it increases Australia’s exposure to the risk of escalation and engages it in a dynamic of indirect confrontation with China, particularly through its links with the United States and the Quad.
NATO’s reactions and implications for international security
This incident does not only concern China and Australia. It is part of a broader context of geopolitical competition and Western military posturing towards Beijing.
NATO countries, notably the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, are closely monitoring this type of interaction in the South China Sea. For them, the incident illustrates a transformation of naval and air forces through unmanned systems and close surveillance, but also a challenge to freedom of navigation and overflight in international waters and airspace.
For Western allies, the incident confirms the need to adapt defense doctrines and interaction with Chinese aircraft: how should they respond to behavior described as “unsafe and unprofessional”? How can security protocols be strengthened in these high-tension areas?
In Australia and beyond, the incident could accelerate the strengthening of surveillance, intelligence, and air defense capabilities around the Indo-Pacific region. NATO is also considering incorporating these concerns into Article 5 and cooperation with regional partners.
This case also highlights that China is prepared to test the tolerance of Western countries. By including a key country such as Australia, Beijing is likely seeking to gauge the collective reaction of its adversaries and determine to whom it can gradually impose a new maritime and air status quo.
The stakes for international law and maritime order
The incident raises the question of rules for overflight and patrols in international air and sea space. Australia has emphasized that the aircraft was in “international airspace, above international waters,” and that its patrols were conducted “in accordance with international law.”
China, on the other hand, claims that the aircraft had entered its airspace around the Paracel Islands and that the measures taken were legitimate. This difference in interpretation is symptomatic of many confrontations in the South China Sea.
Observers say that the use of flares at close range is regrettable but also indicative of the difficulty of enforcing incident prevention protocols. The case shows that, in an area where several states claim rights, the risk of misunderstanding or escalation is real even without open conflict.
The challenge for Australia and its partners is to maintain free and secure access to strategic areas. For China, the challenge is to gradually impose its conception of sovereignty and control zones.
A critical perspective on escalation and responses
This incident outlines a pattern of interaction in which China is adopting a more aggressive—or at least more assertive—stance toward Western countries. The choice is strategic: a country like Australia, an ally of the United States, is on the front line. The use of proximity maneuvers rather than actual firing allows Beijing to test limits without immediately triggering a large-scale response.
For Australia, the challenge is to devise an appropriate response: maintaining surveillance missions and strengthening its allies, while avoiding direct escalation. For NATO, the challenge is how to integrate the Indo-Pacific into its strategic thinking, beyond the Atlantic.
Another critical point is that the incident could lead to even greater militarization of the region—more interceptors, more patrols, increased missile and air defense capabilities. This could reinforce the logic of an arms race rather than stabilization.
Finally, Australia’s public transparency is interesting: by making the incident public, Canberra has chosen to enter into an international debate, to highlight practices it considers unacceptable, and to indirectly call for a return to standards of interaction. This also puts China in a position where it has to respond, which it has done, by rejecting and accusing in turn.
The Su-35 and P-8A episode highlights a key moment in Sino-Australian dynamics, but also in the West’s stance toward China. It serves as a reminder that control of the air and sea in disputed areas is more than ever a collective challenge. The question remains: what will be the next step? A strengthened protocol for interaction? More coordinated patrols? Or an uncontrolled escalation of less public incidents? The near future will tell.
Sources
– Australian Department of Defense, “Statement on unsafe and unprofessional interaction …,” October 20, 2025.
– Janes, “Australia, China trade accusations following incident in airspace above South China Sea,” October 21, 2025.
– Reuters, “Australia flags China’s ‘unsafe’ flare drop in aerial encounter,” October 20, 2025.
– The Guardian, “Australia says Chinese fighter jet released flares near RAAF aircraft in ‘dangerous’ incident,” October 20, 2025.
– ABC News, “Chinese fighter jet released flares ‘very close’ to Australian aircraft,” October 20, 2025.
– Anadolu Agency, “China defends its military action to expel Australian warplane as ‘legitimate,’” October 22, 2025.
Live a unique fighter jet experience