15 ms·

Why would a 21st century warplane shoot a balloon with a missile?

112 points by fergie 4y ago

santiagobasulto 4y ago
Honest question... why did they have to shoot it down? Wasn't it better/safer/smarter to pull it down and study/analyze it? EDIT: Assuming it was possible to pull it down. Was it?
- closewith 4y ago
  Pull it down with what?
  - santiagobasulto 4y ago
    I have no idea, I'm not an expert at all. Was it COMPLETELY impossible to pull it down?
    - pigbearpig 4y ago
      It was at 60,000 FT, so yes, COMPLETELY impossible.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - loudmax 4y ago
      The balloon was very high in the upper atmosphere, above normal commercial airline flight and above the reach of helicopters. If balloon pulling is a regular occurrence you can set up infrastructure for it. Devise some different approaches and test them to see what works. If they waited that long, the balloon would have drifted out of US territory and the politics of downing an object over international waters would have been very sketchy. So yes, it's probably possible to engineer a solution to down a balloon using some non-destructive method, but there simply wasn't time to test it out and figure out what works.
    - krisoft 4y ago
      > Was it COMPLETELY impossible to pull it down? As a first approximation: yes. Nobody can pull it down because not even the tallest human is tall enough to reach it. By far. So that is the answer to that. On the other hand I assume you mean: Is it possible to pull it down with some machine? And the answer is yes, it is possible to pull it down with some machine. Entirely within the demonstrated abilities of humankind. If we want to, have enough money and time, we could make a machine which captures it, takes it to Mars, lands it there softly, dances the cha-cha-cha with it there, launches again back to Earth and lands it softly here. Entirely possible. Only a matter of time and money. It is not a question of impossibility. It is a question of how much time you have (remember it is drifting out of your airspace) and how much money you want to spend on it, and how certain you want to do it, and how safe you want to keep your personal and people on the ground while doing it.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Maybe they could rig a hook on the end of a 60,000-foot broom handle?
    - closewith 4y ago
      The AIB-1 (Air Intercept Broom)?
  - willis936 4y ago
    Fulton comes to mind, but I really doubt it operates at 68,000 feet. Maybe there is a jet variant, but that might be something worth keeping secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery...
  - pabs3 4y ago
    A heavily weighted net perhaps?
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      How are you getting one big enough to take down a balloon "the size of two to three school buses" to 60k feet?
    - CydeWeys 4y ago
      I'm assuming you're joking, but if you're not ... How the hell are you getting a heavily weighted net up to 60,000 feet?!
      - pabs3 4y ago
        Half-serious. A rocket/missile perhaps? :)
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  I wonder the same thing. I suspect the reason is that the payload is large no heavy and very high up which makes it hard to catch. The US used to catch rolls of film out of the air after they were dropped by satellites, but those were small and had parachutes, which probably made it easier.
- frankfrankfrank 4y ago
  Because not blowing it up would mean people would continue asking pesky questions and demanding evidence. But that would take down the real hot air balloon, the narrative.
  - dahfizz 4y ago
    Did you watch the video? The payload clearly falls as one, intact piece. Its not like they blew it up with a nuke.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  It was shot down over shallow water to maximize the amount of wreckage they could study. Also, while international law is clearly on the US side shooting it down, I'm not sure if capturing it intact would be allowed. That might be air piracy or something. I am not an international lawyer.
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    > I'm not sure if capturing it intact would be allowed. That might be air piracy or something. I am not an international lawyer. 100% baseless speculation here. The US can, effectively, do whatever the hell it wants. Who's gonna tell us no? We invaded multiple sovereign countries over the past few decades and no one stopped us; you think anyone is gonna stop us doing anything to a balloon within our own airspace? And whatever happens afterwards is a matter for diplomacy, not international courts; there's no one who can enforce a ruling against the US (or China) like that. Welcome to the world of sovereign state actors, where might makes right.
moose_man 4y ago
Signaling. It was super brazen invasion of US airspace, this wasn't an accident. So the response was overkill in response to that. Anyway, it looks like China started escalating the conflict today so we'll see how it ends up working out. What I'm confused about is why is China escalating today?
- atlantic 4y ago
  Surely there is a vertical limit to US airspace??
  - ericmay 4y ago
    There isn’t at least directly above the country. This normally applies to all countries as well.
    - croes 4y ago
      At certain heights you are in space and space is international. Anything above 110km is normally considered space, anything below 60km is a country's air space, anything between is a grey area. That's why the gean BND had it's Space theory to justify it's spying. The chinese was way below that a ca. 19km
      - ericmay 4y ago
        I’d say it’s best to think of that gray zone as more of a nobody really operates here zone.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    "According to international law, states retain sovereignty over the airspace above their territory – subject to certain aviation laws such as the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention). Article 1 of the Chicago Convention makes this clear by providing that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. This exclusive sovereignty does not extend to space, because according to Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty, outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. But where does sovereignty over airspace stop, and outer space begin? The exact legal boundary of space is not defined in international law." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9432/#:~:text=According%20to%20international%20law%2C%20states,Aviation%20(the%20Chicago%20Convention) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-.... So No, but Yes eventually there is a limit ...
mytailorisrich 4y ago
In the video (or one of the videos) it looks like the missile hit the base of the balloon, which did pop the balloon but also separated the payload from the balloon without destroying the payload. Considering that they waited until the balloon was over shallow water it seems like a deliberate, 'surgical' move to seize the payload with minimum damage. For public consumption this also provided a clean and decisive shoot rather than looking rather ridiculous by shooting rounds at it without necessarily any immediate effects. So a good ending for the President's image. The fact that they it let cross the country first suggests that it wasn't deemed a threat, though.
- wnkrshm 4y ago
  Air to air missiles have proximity fuzes and the pattern of the shrapnel is roughly a disk normal to the missile - so not that precise. Or do you think it was actually a laser-guided air-ground missile?
  - pohl 4y ago
    It was an AIM-9X Sidewinder, with the warhead removed.
    - euler_angles 4y ago
      The missile clearly fuses, it had a warcranium. Where are you and others getting the idea that the missile had no warcranium?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- snarf21 4y ago
  From what I've read elsewhere, they were jamming it extensively for most of its trip. In addition, they were using it as an exercise in monitoring and assessing its capabilities. Then it was safely disabled in shallow US waters with no risk of collateral. Seems like it was handled professionally by all involved.
Zetobal 4y ago
I mean why not? Would have been funnier if they pulled out an old ww2 plane and let them rip it to shreds. They downed a lot of blimps in ww2.
- bearmode 4y ago
  Good luck getting a WW2 fighter to 60,000 feet
  - leetrout 4y ago
    Biplanes have been to 56,000 feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.161 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.161
    - bearmode 4y ago
      Yeah, those biplanes don't have armaments though. Most fighters of the time were maxing out around 30-40,000 feet, with high altitude recon/bombers maxing out around 50k-ish
AstixAndBelix 4y ago
A little reminder that the missile fired at the balloon had its warhead REMOVED! A missile not only is more precise than the guns, but can also be fired at a much safer distance. Punching a big hole immediately exploded the balloon, whereas shooting a bunch of cannon shots could have resulted in much more unforseen consequenced
- AstixAndBelix 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- arethuza 4y ago
  C.W. Lemoine ("Mover") who is a former military aviator pretty much makes all of these points in his YT video on this event.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > A little reminder that the missile fired at the balloon had its warhead REMOVED! Where are people getting this idea from? I've seen zero reputable reporting of it, and there's a visible grey smoke cloud from the explosive in the close-up videos. https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728 https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    There is no massive fireball Michael Bay explosion which, I assume, is what people expect.
    - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
      This is a very strange thing to say, because shooting a missile with an explosive warhead is exactly what most people expect, whereas the kinetic version does not come to mind immediately
mhd 4y ago
I wanted to joke about this showing the clear need for jet-mounted shotguns, but there is or was probably some multi-million MIC research project about exactly this. (And yes, I read that 1000 holes weren't sufficient. But software architecture rule #1: if brute force didn't work, it just wasn't brute enough.)
- JackFr 4y ago
  “XML is like violence - if it’s not solving your problem you’re not using enough of it.”
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Air-to-air missiles are jet-mounted shotguns. They send a cloud of shrapnel into the target. For a good example, look at pictures of the MH17 debris: https://twitter.com/samgadjones/status/491242301872955393 https://twitter.com/samgadjones/status/491242301872955393 https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1835D/production/_107456199_mh17_impact_location_624v2-nc.jpg.webp https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1835D/production...
- Sebb767 4y ago
  > if brute force didn't work, it just wasn't brute enough Arguably, upgrading to explosives counts as 'more brute'
  - Tostino 4y ago
    The missile they took it down with didn't have an explosive warhead. It was more like an arrow.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      I've seen this claim several times in this thread, zero of them with a source. Meanwhile, the close-up video has clear evidence of a detonation. https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728 https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728
throwaway020623 4y ago
Are there any laser weapons portable enough to use (either on a vehicle or a ship if the balloon is near the cost)? I have read about lasers that are used against missiles and planes. I imagine that the balloon would be more fragile. Could it be hurt even if the laser has lost energy due to the high altitude?
- closewith 4y ago
  The YAL-1 with it's Mega Watt laser may have been able to burn a significant hole in the envelope, but it was retired in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
- mlindner 4y ago
  Perhaps but they're not going to show off any new weapons to whatever Chinese sensors are on board.
- lm28469 4y ago
  You usually don't show off your brand new never seen before army tech to a potential future enemy to pop a literal balloon
flohofwoe 4y ago
Here's more information about shooting down balloons with modern airplanes than you ever wanted to know (TL;DR: it's surprisingly tricky): https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/why-shooting-down-chinas-spy-balloon-over-the-u-s-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/why-shooting-down-chin...
- adolph 4y ago
  This article is the best comprehensive and contextual description of the targeting and munition decision.
pohl 4y ago
The missile was locked [Edit: had mistakenly said “guided”] by where the pilot was looking, and guided by IR so that it could hit precisely. Also, this missile had no warhead. They removed it on purpose to limit the damage. They wanted to maximize what they could recover and study. Had the balloon been at an altitude the guns could reach, though, maybe the would have used them.
- goodcanadian 4y ago
  Apparently, there is already precedent for the guns not being a great choice: The time a wayward Canadian balloon caused an international stir — and thwarted 3 air forces: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weather-balloon-canada-china-1.6737831 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weather-balloon-canada-chin...
- mlindner 4y ago
  I've seen this incorrect take repeated several places and I'm wondering where it originates. Yes, the missile had a warhead. No, missiles are not guided by where pilots are looking. > Had the balloon been at an altitude the guns could reach, though, maybe the would have used them. The jet was flying at approximately the same altitude of the balloon. The altitude of the balloon was below the max service ceiling of the aircraft.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  It was an AIM-9 Sidewinder. They're not sight directed; I think you're confused by the fact that the pilot can generate a lock-on by looking. I can't find any reputable source claiming a removed warhead, and there's a visible detonation (it's not a Michael Bay movie, folks, they don't add gasoline to make a pretty fireball) on the close-up video; that greyish smoke cloud didn't come from the balloon. https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728 https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728
  - euler_angles 4y ago
    Yeah that missile fused. It was a normal AIM-9X. Missile war cranium detonations are underwhelming (there's not that many pounds of explosives involved) because they are trying to kill aircraft via shrapnel of some kind. Two common designs are a continuous rod that expands in a circle around the detonation, or a hashed metal casing that produces hundreds of small fragments.
chrisco255 4y ago
My understanding is we should wait until the balloon is accompanied by at least 98 others before we worry, worry, super-scurry, and call the troops out in a hurry.
- dsego 4y ago
  Looks like saving face and putting on a show for the concerned public. https://youtu.be/xuVk1zpp94k https://youtu.be/xuVk1zpp94k
  - rocgf 4y ago
    This guy definitely is _the source_ I would use to get all my information. He has videos on every topic imaginable, I can only assume he's an expert in all of them.
    - mlindner 4y ago
      Lol. I don't get how people find random people on youtube and then suddenly treat them on experts on all topics. I think some people will actually think your post isn't sarcasm.
  - blitzar 4y ago
    Got to admit - I suffer from a myriad of conscious and unconscious biases - didn't see that kind of rational thinking coming from "Beau of the Fifth Column".
  - concordDance 4y ago
    I get puzzled about why people use such a low bandwidth medium as real time talking.if he put all that in a post it'd be a few hundred words and could be read in a minute.
    - account42 4y ago
      I do agree but is anyone going to see that post? Even for Google searches (as opposed the video being pushed by the Youtube algorithm), videos are often ranked at/near the top.
JCM9 4y ago
Using guns wouldn’t work well because of various interesting aspects of physics. It was tried before on a different balloon and based on that they used a missile. In this situation it was important that the balloon be disabled in one hit and crashed within US territorial waters to avoid bigger headaches. The US regularly patrols just outside a Chinese airspace and for the US to shoot at something outside it’s airspace or have the ballon crash in international waters would open up a whole different can of worms.
- arethuza 4y ago
  Perhaps worth noting that the US did overflights of China with drones (or at least attempted to) as recently as 1971: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21
  - 10xDev 4y ago
    Why is something "as recently" as 1971 worth noting?
    - bell-cot 4y ago
      Talk to a diplomat about "precedents". And to someone familiar with current politics in China about the policy of cultivating memories of past indignities, which were suffered at the hands of foreign powers.
      - smeagull 4y ago
        Indignities as recent as 1945.
        bell-cot 4y ago
        I’m thinking that quite a few indignities were far more recent. Perhaps you are using the word as a euphemism for thing far worse?
        4y ago
Overtonwindow 4y ago
[flagged]
- Overtonwindow 4y ago
  Disregard. As soon as I posted three people answered the question separately.
chiefalchemist 4y ago
The USA's DOD budget is nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Yet our air space was infiltrated by a balloon? And we had no low impact (?) way of bringing that ballon down? Moral of the story...China makes a minuscule investment in a ballon and the USA increases an already bloated and excessive DOD budget. China without going to war suckers the USA into losing another financial battle.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Nothing was "infiltrated". They knew where the balloon was since shortly after it left Chinese airspace and tracked it continously as it made it's way toward Alaska, south over Canada, and over the United States. (Is this thread being astroturfed?)
  - lm28469 4y ago
    > after it left Chinese airspace Afaik that's false, they backtracked it to China using historical wind patterns, but it wasn't tracked from China to the US since day 1
  - dsfyu404ed 4y ago
    >Is this thread being astroturfed? Some people have a vested interest in various US parties (the executive, the military, others?) looking inept. Some people have a very vested interested in those parties or a subset thereof looking competent. No need to spend money on astroturfing when the team politics knuckle draggers will do it for you.
    - chiefalchemist 4y ago
      Could be. But both parties are pro-DOD, and that's the only thing we need to know.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    And now ask yourself...why did they allow it to penetrate US air space? Who benefits from that narrative? From that fear? Your #1 answer should be The MIC. Keep in mind, the POTUS takes a constitutional vow to protect the borders. And we get this? For a week? Stop being so naive.
idontwantthis 4y ago
Did the balloon have enough heat to trigger the seeker or did the pilot have to aim the missile and it exploded when it got close?
- prettyStandard 4y ago
  FTA: Laser fuze. I assume that means it detonates on proximity measured by Laser.
- ironick09 4y ago
  Missiles can track things other than heat signatures.
  - closewith 4y ago
    As far as has ever been publicly disclosed, there is no version of the AIM-9X with a non-IR seeker.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Each of the variants, including the AIM-9X, are listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder as "IR/Laser fuze". Boresight shot towards a slow, non-maneuvering target plus laser fuze should be just fine.
      - closewith 4y ago
        What do you mean by boresight shot? Even in BORE mode, the AIM-9X seeker tracks the IR signature of the target.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Arm missile, fire straight ahead, let proximity fuze do the work. AIM-9X has demonstrated capability to fire without a lock.
bayesian_horse 4y ago
I don't quite believe the reason about guns not being fast enough to bring it down. Enough bullets will shred it eventually and bring it down pretty fast. More of an issue would be that the plane has to come too close to the (relatively speaking) stationary target. That would be dangerous for the pilot and the plane.
- Mtinie 4y ago
  > I don't quite believe the reason about guns not being fast enough to bring it down. What makes this reason a challenge for you to believe? The F-22’s M61A2 20mm Gatling gun propels 20mm (~0.75”) rounds. A full load out is 480 rounds. The target is a 90’ diameter, nearly atmosphere equalized pressure vessel. Striking the target with 480 rounds of that size is nowhere near enough to create a large escape surface for the slightly positive pressure gas to vacate quickly.
  - bayesian_horse 4y ago
    As I said, enough rounds would do the trick. No reason not to send in two or three planes. Except that all of that increases the risk. Also you assume a clean through-and-through hole, no tearing. I think the risk to the pilots from flying straight at a balloon is the bigger factor.
    - Mtinie 4y ago
      You’ll need more than 1,000 rounds[1] (and that was a much smaller balloon) [1] “ The time a wayward Canadian balloon caused an international stir — and thwarted 3 air forces” - https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6737831 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6737831
- dahfizz 4y ago
  Well, unsurprisingly, the US military knows more about this than you. Multiple planes and over a thousand rounds is not enough to bring down a much smaller balloon[1]. Not to mention, a leaky balloon will fall slowly, making it an obstacle for regular air traffic. A single missile is faster, cheaper, easier, etc. We didn't want to bring the balloon down "eventually". We wanted to bring down the balloon precisely and immediately, once it was over water but still in US airspace. [1] https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb
xchip 4y ago
I also have lots of questions: - How do we know it is a spy balloon and not just a weather balloon that got lost?? - If it is a spy balloon why not take it down gently and look at its payload? - Did the balloon got on top of a military base by chance or was it directed? - How was it directed from so far away if the balloon has no propellers?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > How do we know it is a spy balloon and not just a weather balloon that got lost? It has a much larger payload than weather balloons. > If it is a spy balloon why not take it down gently and look at its payload? That's what they did. Controlled shootdown over shallow water; they're collecting the parts now. > Did the balloon got on top of a military base by chance or was it directed? How was it directed from so far away if the balloon has no propellers? The Pentagon says it maneuvers. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinese-spy-balloon-has-unexpected-maneuverability/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinese-spy-ballo... Might be small propellers (think drone props) within that truss structure.
  - pookha 4y ago
    If we can launch wildly complex space hardware to look into the deepest regions of the universe we can bring down a balloon without the IronEagle dog fighter theatrics. You have to admit this came across like some old-timey George Creel propaganda.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      We've plenty of reason to develop the technology for space flight. We've essentially zero reason to develop the technology to hijack a high-altitude helium ballooon. As clearly demonstrated, much easier techniques already exist.
    - gizmo686 4y ago
      We spend decades and billiobs if dollars planning and building space telescopes. Why would we spend money investing in a balloon defense system, when we already have an air defense system that can handle them.
pookha 4y ago
I'm no balloon pilot but I'd assume you could just puncture it and bring the thing down gradually?
- minitoar 4y ago
  At high altitude these sorts of balloons are massively stretched out due to the low atmospheric pressure. A puncture will cause catastrophic failure of the balloon.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    The opposite is true. https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb > A runaway weather balloon floating toward Britain over the North Atlantic is proving a tough target for some of Canada’s top guns. The helium-filled balloon, a 25-story high unmanned research station used to measure ozone levels over Canada, was launched Monday from Vanscoy, Saskatchewan. > Jet fighters trying to bring the balloon down fired more than 1,000 rounds into it Thursday, but it remained aloft. The air force hopes the now-leaking balloon will eventually come down.
    - minitoar 4y ago
      That balloon was not at high altitude. From the article you linked: >``It’s at an altitude and an area where trans-Atlantic flights pass nearby,″ That is around 35k feet. I’m talking about the altitude that the recent Chinese balloon was at, around 60k feet.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  How do you get to the balloon to puncture it? You have 3 choices: an airplane, a drone, or another balloon. Airplanes are fast, you can't just approach, slow down, reach out and poke the balloon. Drones don't fly that high up. On the internet you can find that drones can fly as high as 33000 feet. It's likely the military has drones that fly higher, maybe even as high as this balloon. But you need one that flies that high, and also has the capability to puncture a balloon. It looks like such a modification was not doable in the given window of time. Another balloon. That would obviously be doable. If a balloon can fly at 60000 feet, another one can too. But again, you need the modifications to make it go up there and shoot at another balloon. Maybe in the future they'll make this type of balloons, but for now they didn't have one handy. And if they had, they didn't want to tip their hand. Better to use weaponry that's widely known to exist, rather than new and classified stuff.
aaron695 4y ago
[dead]
mattjaynes 4y ago
For aviation noobs (like me) wondering how low the balloon would have to be in order for a helicopter to be an option for retrieval: "The maximum altitude which can be reached during forward flight typically depends on the ability of the engine to breathe the thinner air rather than the rotor's ability to provide lift. Turbine-engine helicopters can reach around 25,000 feet (7,620 meters). But the maximum height at which a helicopter can hover is much lower - a high performance helicopter can hover at 10,400 feet (3,170 meters)." Source: https://www.virginexperiencedays.co.uk/experience-blog/how-high-can-a-helicopter-fly https://www.virginexperiencedays.co.uk/experience-blog/how-h...
- cduzz 4y ago
  Is the one on mars able to operate with really thin air because mars has less gravity? A "balloon retrieval bot" using battery powered propulsion, launched by another platform such as a rocket (or another balloon!) might be a fun thing for someone at raytheon to pitch.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Large, much faster blades, and very light construction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenuity_(helicopter) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenuity_(helicopter) > The planet's atmospheric density is about 1⁄100 that of Earth's at sea level, or about the same as 87,000 ft (27,000 m), an altitude never reached by existing helicopters. This density reduces even more in Martian winters. To keep Ingenuity aloft, its specially shaped blades of enlarged size must rotate between 2400 and 2900 rpm, or about 10 times faster than what is needed on Earth.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
    Of course that helps, but the whole design was made for it. It's dual rotors were designed for the environment, and rotate at 2500 rpm+ vs 500rpm for a normal helicopter.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  This is why no one brings down the bodies from Everest.
adolph 4y ago
I don’t see mention of Air Defense Identification Zone. Within this area is where the balloon interdiction and response should have occurred. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_defense_identification_zone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_defense_identification_z...
jansan 4y ago
What amazes me is that the distance of 60000ft (20km) is quite short here on earth. You can do it by bicycle in one hour. But if you go vertical, suddenly the rules change. Up there isn't even enough air to power the engines of jets, so the will have to carry an oxigen tank with them. If you go vertical things become difficult really quickly and space starts in vertical direction where the neighboring town is in horizontal direction. Also, where is the limit when you would call the balloon a satellite? Satellites cross over foreign countries all the time, so there must be a height above which this is not a problem. Is there a fixed threshold for this?
- masklinn 4y ago
  I don’t think there’s a hard set boundary (I don’t remember that the ‘67 OST defines one). The FAI treats the Karman line as the limit between atmospheric and space flight. USAF uses a lower 50 miles threshold (80km), NASA uses that for uniformity since 2005.
- alephxyz 4y ago
  Satellites have to be placed in orbit by definition. To be in orbit at 20km of altitude you'd need to be flying at over 7km/s, so balloons can't argued to be satellites.
Dalewyn 4y ago
This and the previous thread on this subject have highlighted some interesting(?) things, at least for me: * The IT community, despite the majority being some form of an intellectual, has either a flawed (read: Hollywood) or no understanding of physics or military aviation. * The IT community, despite the majority being some form of an intellectual, has a patently insufficient understanding of how sovereignty, diplomacy, and laws work. * The Chinese apologists are hilarious to witness, particularly the ones who believe two wrongs make a right.
- squaresmile 4y ago
  I mean, that's every non-IT topic in an IT forum. It's to be expected from all forums really. Everyone has blind spots about other professions. I think the key is to treat off-topic threads like watercooler talk, friends shooting the shit with each other and enjoy the drama. I'm sorry but I gotta laugh at "despite the majority being some form of an intellectual", as if that is worth something. If you don't have the experience and the domain knowledge, can you call yourself an intellectual in that domain?
  - afarrell 4y ago
    When I call myself an intellectual, it is mostly a form of pride or vanity. As a boy, I read Ender's Game and Zhuge Liang's commentaries on The Art of War. As a man, I like to imagine that I now know enough to keep the whole world safe from catastrophic war. It is a comforting illusion.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > "despite the majority being some form of an intellectual", as if that is worth something. I think I would phrase that as "despite the majority thinking of themselves some form of an intellectual, outside of their domain, they are out often out their depth and unaware of it". > If you don't have the experience and the domain knowledge, can you call yourself an intellectual in that domain? Yeah, that's the thing. You can assume that "in that domain" is irrelevant, and call yourself an intellectual, period. You can and you'd be wrong, very wrong, but you wouldn't be alone. It's common.
zitsarethecure 4y ago
I'm not up to date on spy-balloon technology, but what kind of things can they learn using a balloon that they couldn't have learned by using a satellite?
- hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
  Today's New York Times piece says >Now [balloons] are making a comeback, because while spy satellites can see almost everything, balloons equipped with high-tech sensors hover over a site far longer and can pick up radio, cellular and other transmissions that cannot be detected from space. That is why the Montana sighting of the balloon was critical; in recent years, the National Security Agency and United States Strategic Command, which oversees the American nuclear arsenal, have been remaking communications with nuclear weapons sites. That would be one, but only one, of the natural targets for China’s Ministry of State Security, which oversees many of its national security hacks. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/05/us/politics/balloon-china-spying-united-states.html?unlocked_article_code=G0tbSJLwVu6K7u1F-8RyhHPePvirkVbi589U1dS2uj8kj4XOSbS9NIi0dd4CtBk31vXEmrUeaImuIRsK3Z-8_rKirYGr6G4297Wgg9C0oIMJ4q90ntZ-ji6oYgVvMJFBMOCh0NhW0uy2L5F3XDG77YBAiS0XaWskxRtINaAo-xWzmoIYklJc9l55JrOtFyi2PTmArvUWm7_Ml1w0sK8Q9mI2qCjRrSArFai1Yz3FJqoSiDkrqNfH4WmU_Bsp51Lf31Ahh4aRVPPsRlT00lublNdd86c5cWqRjVufySbmLNh_zf7PTt3jofCO2HMceUT_OFKQt156qP9gXVyUcUD3gFZYkLZiw1OBk7jtyJq-G5M&smid=share-url https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/05/us/politics/balloon-china...
  - grugagag 4y ago
    Does the baloon transmit the data back via sattelite or is it recorded on a device and has to be phisically retrieved?
    - hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
      That's a good question. I haven't heard any information one way or the other, and it wouldn't surprise me if the public never learns those kinds of details (or, rather, only learns in 30 years or whenever it gets declassified)
    - ourmandave 4y ago
beecafe 4y ago
This precedent should be extended to overflying satellites.
- mrleinad 4y ago
  If that policy is applied to the US, you'll see a LOT less satellites in the sky. After a certain amount of km, it's all good. Same as international waters.
  - beecafe 4y ago
    That's the point. Letting adversaries overfly your country with their satellites is bad.
    - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
      Well, if you want these United States to start shooting down any satellite overhead, then Russia and China follow suit and there'll be nothing left (and/or it will just provoke all-out war on the ground too.)
      - beecafe 4y ago
        Not any, just the military ones.
        mrleinad 4y ago
        Good luck identifying them
xnx 4y ago
Are there rocket systems that can deploy drones to great heights or distances?
bombcar 4y ago
TLDR: Too big for guns, switching to missiles.
alkonaut 4y ago
What I don't understand is why one would opt for an IR (heat seeking) missile, over a radar homing one? In this case the goal - I'm guessing - was to pop the ballon and not damage the payload more than necessary. Any heat emitted must have been from the payload, so an IR seeker might hit the part you want to keep (the only part emitting any heat at all).
- hrunt 4y ago
  If you believe that the payload was a sophisticated signals investigation platform, sending a radar-homing missile towards it potentially gives your adversary access to information about your missile's capabilities.
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    I guess. Likely the F-22 radar itself is a better kept secret than the AMRAAM which has existed for a long time and in semi-recent versions in places like Pakistan. So that could be a reason: firing a radar homing missile requires using the plane radar (?) and you'd prefer to avoid that if possible.
- cyberge99 4y ago
  From what I’ve read, this was the first F22 air to air “kill”, so this may have been the first opportunity to test the missile system in production.
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    [dead]
ck2 4y ago
Because the missile costs a million dollars and now they can say that F-22 was in the first air-to-air combat. It's all ridiculous, on purpose, first rule of military, burn money so you can demand more. A few bullets would have been a slow descent they could track and capture far more easily. Now it's a show they can reproduce a million dollars a pop. The NSA is also now free to float balloons around the country for cellphone capture.
- science4sail 4y ago
  > The NSA is also now free to float balloons around the country for cellphone capture. Why would the NSA need to float balloons around the country when they could just ask/force the telecom companies to give them a copy of their cell tower data?
jjk166 4y ago
Guns on planes are deliberately made to spray over a certain area to increase the odds of a kill, which is good when you're in a fight to the death and you're all out of other options, which is the scenario the gun was made for. Using guns here would risk damaging the payload which they want to recover for study, both to see what exactly was observed and to get a better understanding of the device. The balloon was brought down with a missile that had the primary explosive removed, it basically just flew through the balloon. This being the F-22's first air-to-air kill after nearly 2 decades in service, it's not like these missiles are a precious resource to be conserved. It also would be quite embarrassing to attempt to shoot down the balloon and fail, so it makes sense to go for a guaranteed kill. Finally, it should be noted that the balloon was at approximately 60,000 ft. The F-22's flight ceiling is above 50,000 ft, but the exact value is classified. It is possible that the F-22 simply could not get up high enough to engage with guns even if that was desirable, or it's also possible that the F-22 is capable of flying that high but the US did not want to confirm that to a potential foreign adversary. In general it is also just good practice to keep some distance between your most capable assets and foreign espionage devices. As one can see from video of the encounter, it was very effective in bringing the balloon down in a controlled manner. It's one thing to monday-morning quarterback a failure, but this is ridiculous.
- zombielinux 4y ago
  F22 unclass service ceiling is 65,000ft
- apaprocki 4y ago
  Per what I read, the F-22 was operating at 58,000 ft and shot the balloon that was at the time at 65,000 ft. A missile was used because it had to elevate ~7,000 ft to hit the target. The balloon fell in 47 ft of water, 6 mi from the coast. edit source: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3288543/f-22-safely-shoots-down-chinese-spy-balloon-off-south-carolina-coast/ https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/32...
- leokennis 4y ago
  I know absolutely nothing about planes and missiles etc. but the "measure thrice, cut once, build in failsafes and leave loads of margin for error" approach seems very plausible for a bureaucratic and highly public organization like the US Army.
gwbas1c 4y ago
Do we even have planes that can shoot bullets anymore? (Please excuse my ignorance, I really don't follow the military very closely.) Can jets even fire bullets? I'm no expert in physics, but somehow I think firing a bullet from a jet just wouldn't work.
- SigmundA 4y ago
  Why wouldn't it work? Yes I believe all US combat aircraft still carry a gun, usually a 20mm Vulcan cannon: Here is the F22's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6GhVrVjArI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6GhVrVjArI
- detaro 4y ago
  It's not as important anymore, but pretty much every fighter jet still has a a gun or can carry one on a mount, yes. (commonly 20mm cannon of some kind)
- ranger207 4y ago
  Yes, jets can fire bullets. There's no reason they wouldn't be able to. Almost all US fighters carry guns. Most carry the M61 Vulcan gatling cannon firing 20mm rounds. The exceptions are the F-35 series. The F-35A, used by the Air Force, carries a GAU-12 Equalizer gatling cannon firing 25mm rounds; the F-35B (the STOVL variant used by the Marine Corps) and the F-35C (used by the Navy) do not carry guns. Guns on fighters have basically the same level of utility as bayonets on assault rifles; that is, not very much.
gwbas1c 4y ago
What I want to know is: Why publicize this now? It's clear that China's been sending out spy balloons for a few years. (And that we (the US) probably do plenty of our own spying too.) So what's the real reason for telling the whole world about this and cutting off a diplomatic visit?
- TheCoelacanth 4y ago
  First time it has happened with a president who isn't asleep at the wheel?
- mhb 4y ago
  The game theory of the balloons https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34677497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34677497
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  citizens saw it.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    That, and not being willing (or able) to stop it makes the president look weak. No president wants that if they can help it, so no president will authorize releasing the information if they can help it.
  - gwbas1c 4y ago
    So? If you see a balloon, do you automatically assume it's a spy balloon from China? If the US government ignored the sightings, or gave a plausible answer, I don't think there would be much of a hubbub.
SecurityMinded 4y ago
Because, the powers that be, a.k.a. corrupt Biden family, sold to chinese commies, do not want what this balloon was all about, because their chinese overlords want to keep it hidden. After the payload of spy data was delivered home, i.e., china, the vehicle is destroyed. Otherwise, capturing it and reverse engineering what it was doing in US airspace, and what data it collected as it traversed the whole fucking country, would be very useful. Don't you think?
- jprd 4y ago
  Yikes. I fear you may have succumbed to propaganda. Can you provide sources to how "Chinese overlords" have manipulated "corrupt Biden family" in any specificity? Do you believe that the thousands of career professionals in the US government just decided to not do their jobs because of "corrupt Biden family"?

112 points by fergie 4y ago

Honest question... why did they have to shoot it down? Wasn't it better/safer/smarter to pull it down and study/analyze it? EDIT: Assuming it was possible to pull it down. Was it?

closewith 4y ago
Pull it down with what?
- santiagobasulto 4y ago
  I have no idea, I'm not an expert at all. Was it COMPLETELY impossible to pull it down?
  - pigbearpig 4y ago
    It was at 60,000 FT, so yes, COMPLETELY impossible.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - loudmax 4y ago
    The balloon was very high in the upper atmosphere, above normal commercial airline flight and above the reach of helicopters. If balloon pulling is a regular occurrence you can set up infrastructure for it. Devise some different approaches and test them to see what works. If they waited that long, the balloon would have drifted out of US territory and the politics of downing an object over international waters would have been very sketchy. So yes, it's probably possible to engineer a solution to down a balloon using some non-destructive method, but there simply wasn't time to test it out and figure out what works.
  - krisoft 4y ago
    > Was it COMPLETELY impossible to pull it down? As a first approximation: yes. Nobody can pull it down because not even the tallest human is tall enough to reach it. By far. So that is the answer to that. On the other hand I assume you mean: Is it possible to pull it down with some machine? And the answer is yes, it is possible to pull it down with some machine. Entirely within the demonstrated abilities of humankind. If we want to, have enough money and time, we could make a machine which captures it, takes it to Mars, lands it there softly, dances the cha-cha-cha with it there, launches again back to Earth and lands it softly here. Entirely possible. Only a matter of time and money. It is not a question of impossibility. It is a question of how much time you have (remember it is drifting out of your airspace) and how much money you want to spend on it, and how certain you want to do it, and how safe you want to keep your personal and people on the ground while doing it.
- wpietri 4y ago
  Maybe they could rig a hook on the end of a 60,000-foot broom handle?
  - closewith 4y ago
    The AIB-1 (Air Intercept Broom)?
- willis936 4y ago
  Fulton comes to mind, but I really doubt it operates at 68,000 feet. Maybe there is a jet variant, but that might be something worth keeping secret. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery...
- pabs3 4y ago
  A heavily weighted net perhaps?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    How are you getting one big enough to take down a balloon "the size of two to three school buses" to 60k feet?
  - CydeWeys 4y ago
    I'm assuming you're joking, but if you're not ... How the hell are you getting a heavily weighted net up to 60,000 feet?!
    - pabs3 4y ago
      Half-serious. A rocket/missile perhaps? :)
dan-robertson 4y ago
I wonder the same thing. I suspect the reason is that the payload is large no heavy and very high up which makes it hard to catch. The US used to catch rolls of film out of the air after they were dropped by satellites, but those were small and had parachutes, which probably made it easier.
frankfrankfrank 4y ago
Because not blowing it up would mean people would continue asking pesky questions and demanding evidence. But that would take down the real hot air balloon, the narrative.
- dahfizz 4y ago
  Did you watch the video? The payload clearly falls as one, intact piece. Its not like they blew it up with a nuke.
HWR_14 4y ago
It was shot down over shallow water to maximize the amount of wreckage they could study. Also, while international law is clearly on the US side shooting it down, I'm not sure if capturing it intact would be allowed. That might be air piracy or something. I am not an international lawyer.
- CydeWeys 4y ago
  > I'm not sure if capturing it intact would be allowed. That might be air piracy or something. I am not an international lawyer. 100% baseless speculation here. The US can, effectively, do whatever the hell it wants. Who's gonna tell us no? We invaded multiple sovereign countries over the past few decades and no one stopped us; you think anyone is gonna stop us doing anything to a balloon within our own airspace? And whatever happens afterwards is a matter for diplomacy, not international courts; there's no one who can enforce a ruling against the US (or China) like that. Welcome to the world of sovereign state actors, where might makes right.

moose_man 4y ago

Signaling. It was super brazen invasion of US airspace, this wasn't an accident. So the response was overkill in response to that. Anyway, it looks like China started escalating the conflict today so we'll see how it ends up working out. What I'm confused about is why is China escalating today?

atlantic 4y ago
Surely there is a vertical limit to US airspace??
- ericmay 4y ago
  There isn’t at least directly above the country. This normally applies to all countries as well.
  - croes 4y ago
    At certain heights you are in space and space is international. Anything above 110km is normally considered space, anything below 60km is a country's air space, anything between is a grey area. That's why the gean BND had it's Space theory to justify it's spying. The chinese was way below that a ca. 19km
    - ericmay 4y ago
      I’d say it’s best to think of that gray zone as more of a nobody really operates here zone.
- blitzar 4y ago
  "According to international law, states retain sovereignty over the airspace above their territory – subject to certain aviation laws such as the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (the Chicago Convention). Article 1 of the Chicago Convention makes this clear by providing that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. This exclusive sovereignty does not extend to space, because according to Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty, outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. But where does sovereignty over airspace stop, and outer space begin? The exact legal boundary of space is not defined in international law." https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9432/#:~:text=According%20to%20international%20law%2C%20states,Aviation%20(the%20Chicago%20Convention) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-.... So No, but Yes eventually there is a limit ...

mytailorisrich 4y ago

In the video (or one of the videos) it looks like the missile hit the base of the balloon, which did pop the balloon but also separated the payload from the balloon without destroying the payload. Considering that they waited until the balloon was over shallow water it seems like a deliberate, 'surgical' move to seize the payload with minimum damage. For public consumption this also provided a clean and decisive shoot rather than looking rather ridiculous by shooting rounds at it without necessarily any immediate effects. So a good ending for the President's image. The fact that they it let cross the country first suggests that it wasn't deemed a threat, though.

wnkrshm 4y ago
Air to air missiles have proximity fuzes and the pattern of the shrapnel is roughly a disk normal to the missile - so not that precise. Or do you think it was actually a laser-guided air-ground missile?
- pohl 4y ago
  It was an AIM-9X Sidewinder, with the warhead removed.
  - euler_angles 4y ago
    The missile clearly fuses, it had a warcranium. Where are you and others getting the idea that the missile had no warcranium?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
snarf21 4y ago
From what I've read elsewhere, they were jamming it extensively for most of its trip. In addition, they were using it as an exercise in monitoring and assessing its capabilities. Then it was safely disabled in shallow US waters with no risk of collateral. Seems like it was handled professionally by all involved.

Zetobal 4y ago

I mean why not? Would have been funnier if they pulled out an old ww2 plane and let them rip it to shreds. They downed a lot of blimps in ww2.

bearmode 4y ago
Good luck getting a WW2 fighter to 60,000 feet
- leetrout 4y ago
  Biplanes have been to 56,000 feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.161 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caproni_Ca.161
  - bearmode 4y ago
    Yeah, those biplanes don't have armaments though. Most fighters of the time were maxing out around 30-40,000 feet, with high altitude recon/bombers maxing out around 50k-ish

AstixAndBelix 4y ago

A little reminder that the missile fired at the balloon had its warhead REMOVED! A missile not only is more precise than the guns, but can also be fired at a much safer distance. Punching a big hole immediately exploded the balloon, whereas shooting a bunch of cannon shots could have resulted in much more unforseen consequenced

AstixAndBelix 4y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
arethuza 4y ago
C.W. Lemoine ("Mover") who is a former military aviator pretty much makes all of these points in his YT video on this event.
ceejayoz 4y ago
> A little reminder that the missile fired at the balloon had its warhead REMOVED! Where are people getting this idea from? I've seen zero reputable reporting of it, and there's a visible grey smoke cloud from the explosive in the close-up videos. https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728 https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  There is no massive fireball Michael Bay explosion which, I assume, is what people expect.
  - AstixAndBelix 4y ago
    This is a very strange thing to say, because shooting a missile with an explosive warhead is exactly what most people expect, whereas the kinetic version does not come to mind immediately

mhd 4y ago

I wanted to joke about this showing the clear need for jet-mounted shotguns, but there is or was probably some multi-million MIC research project about exactly this. (And yes, I read that 1000 holes weren't sufficient. But software architecture rule #1: if brute force didn't work, it just wasn't brute enough.)

JackFr 4y ago
“XML is like violence - if it’s not solving your problem you’re not using enough of it.”
ceejayoz 4y ago
Air-to-air missiles are jet-mounted shotguns. They send a cloud of shrapnel into the target. For a good example, look at pictures of the MH17 debris: https://twitter.com/samgadjones/status/491242301872955393 https://twitter.com/samgadjones/status/491242301872955393 https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1835D/production/_107456199_mh17_impact_location_624v2-nc.jpg.webp https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1835D/production...
Sebb767 4y ago
> if brute force didn't work, it just wasn't brute enough Arguably, upgrading to explosives counts as 'more brute'
- Tostino 4y ago
  The missile they took it down with didn't have an explosive warhead. It was more like an arrow.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    I've seen this claim several times in this thread, zero of them with a source. Meanwhile, the close-up video has clear evidence of a detonation. https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728 https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728

throwaway020623 4y ago

Are there any laser weapons portable enough to use (either on a vehicle or a ship if the balloon is near the cost)? I have read about lasers that are used against missiles and planes. I imagine that the balloon would be more fragile. Could it be hurt even if the laser has lost energy due to the high altitude?

closewith 4y ago
The YAL-1 with it's Mega Watt laser may have been able to burn a significant hole in the envelope, but it was retired in 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1
mlindner 4y ago
Perhaps but they're not going to show off any new weapons to whatever Chinese sensors are on board.
lm28469 4y ago
You usually don't show off your brand new never seen before army tech to a potential future enemy to pop a literal balloon

flohofwoe 4y ago

Here's more information about shooting down balloons with modern airplanes than you ever wanted to know (TL;DR: it's surprisingly tricky): https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/why-shooting-down-chinas-spy-balloon-over-the-u-s-is-more-complicated-than-it-seems https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/why-shooting-down-chin...

adolph 4y ago
This article is the best comprehensive and contextual description of the targeting and munition decision.

pohl 4y ago

The missile was locked [Edit: had mistakenly said “guided”] by where the pilot was looking, and guided by IR so that it could hit precisely. Also, this missile had no warhead. They removed it on purpose to limit the damage. They wanted to maximize what they could recover and study. Had the balloon been at an altitude the guns could reach, though, maybe the would have used them.

goodcanadian 4y ago
Apparently, there is already precedent for the guns not being a great choice: The time a wayward Canadian balloon caused an international stir — and thwarted 3 air forces: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weather-balloon-canada-china-1.6737831 https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/weather-balloon-canada-chin...
mlindner 4y ago
I've seen this incorrect take repeated several places and I'm wondering where it originates. Yes, the missile had a warhead. No, missiles are not guided by where pilots are looking. > Had the balloon been at an altitude the guns could reach, though, maybe the would have used them. The jet was flying at approximately the same altitude of the balloon. The altitude of the balloon was below the max service ceiling of the aircraft.
ceejayoz 4y ago
It was an AIM-9 Sidewinder. They're not sight directed; I think you're confused by the fact that the pilot can generate a lock-on by looking. I can't find any reputable source claiming a removed warhead, and there's a visible detonation (it's not a Michael Bay movie, folks, they don't add gasoline to make a pretty fireball) on the close-up video; that greyish smoke cloud didn't come from the balloon. https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728 https://twitter.com/MikeSington/status/1621996717624393728
- euler_angles 4y ago
  Yeah that missile fused. It was a normal AIM-9X. Missile war cranium detonations are underwhelming (there's not that many pounds of explosives involved) because they are trying to kill aircraft via shrapnel of some kind. Two common designs are a continuous rod that expands in a circle around the detonation, or a hashed metal casing that produces hundreds of small fragments.

chrisco255 4y ago

My understanding is we should wait until the balloon is accompanied by at least 98 others before we worry, worry, super-scurry, and call the troops out in a hurry.

dsego 4y ago
Looks like saving face and putting on a show for the concerned public. https://youtu.be/xuVk1zpp94k https://youtu.be/xuVk1zpp94k
- rocgf 4y ago
  This guy definitely is _the source_ I would use to get all my information. He has videos on every topic imaginable, I can only assume he's an expert in all of them.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Lol. I don't get how people find random people on youtube and then suddenly treat them on experts on all topics. I think some people will actually think your post isn't sarcasm.
- blitzar 4y ago
  Got to admit - I suffer from a myriad of conscious and unconscious biases - didn't see that kind of rational thinking coming from "Beau of the Fifth Column".
- concordDance 4y ago
  I get puzzled about why people use such a low bandwidth medium as real time talking.if he put all that in a post it'd be a few hundred words and could be read in a minute.
  - account42 4y ago
    I do agree but is anyone going to see that post? Even for Google searches (as opposed the video being pushed by the Youtube algorithm), videos are often ranked at/near the top.

JCM9 4y ago

Using guns wouldn’t work well because of various interesting aspects of physics. It was tried before on a different balloon and based on that they used a missile. In this situation it was important that the balloon be disabled in one hit and crashed within US territorial waters to avoid bigger headaches. The US regularly patrols just outside a Chinese airspace and for the US to shoot at something outside it’s airspace or have the ballon crash in international waters would open up a whole different can of worms.

arethuza 4y ago
Perhaps worth noting that the US did overflights of China with drones (or at least attempted to) as recently as 1971: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21
- 10xDev 4y ago
  Why is something "as recently" as 1971 worth noting?
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Talk to a diplomat about "precedents". And to someone familiar with current politics in China about the policy of cultivating memories of past indignities, which were suffered at the hands of foreign powers.
    - smeagull 4y ago
      Indignities as recent as 1945.
      - bell-cot 4y ago
        I’m thinking that quite a few indignities were far more recent. Perhaps you are using the word as a euphemism for thing far worse?
      - 4y ago

Overtonwindow 4y ago

[flagged]

Overtonwindow 4y ago
Disregard. As soon as I posted three people answered the question separately.

chiefalchemist 4y ago

The USA's DOD budget is nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Yet our air space was infiltrated by a balloon? And we had no low impact (?) way of bringing that ballon down? Moral of the story...China makes a minuscule investment in a ballon and the USA increases an already bloated and excessive DOD budget. China without going to war suckers the USA into losing another financial battle.

mlindner 4y ago
Nothing was "infiltrated". They knew where the balloon was since shortly after it left Chinese airspace and tracked it continously as it made it's way toward Alaska, south over Canada, and over the United States. (Is this thread being astroturfed?)
- lm28469 4y ago
  > after it left Chinese airspace Afaik that's false, they backtracked it to China using historical wind patterns, but it wasn't tracked from China to the US since day 1
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago
  >Is this thread being astroturfed? Some people have a vested interest in various US parties (the executive, the military, others?) looking inept. Some people have a very vested interested in those parties or a subset thereof looking competent. No need to spend money on astroturfing when the team politics knuckle draggers will do it for you.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    Could be. But both parties are pro-DOD, and that's the only thing we need to know.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  And now ask yourself...why did they allow it to penetrate US air space? Who benefits from that narrative? From that fear? Your #1 answer should be The MIC. Keep in mind, the POTUS takes a constitutional vow to protect the borders. And we get this? For a week? Stop being so naive.

idontwantthis 4y ago

Did the balloon have enough heat to trigger the seeker or did the pilot have to aim the missile and it exploded when it got close?

prettyStandard 4y ago
FTA: Laser fuze. I assume that means it detonates on proximity measured by Laser.
ironick09 4y ago
Missiles can track things other than heat signatures.
- closewith 4y ago
  As far as has ever been publicly disclosed, there is no version of the AIM-9X with a non-IR seeker.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Each of the variants, including the AIM-9X, are listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-9_Sidewinder as "IR/Laser fuze". Boresight shot towards a slow, non-maneuvering target plus laser fuze should be just fine.
    - closewith 4y ago
      What do you mean by boresight shot? Even in BORE mode, the AIM-9X seeker tracks the IR signature of the target.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Arm missile, fire straight ahead, let proximity fuze do the work. AIM-9X has demonstrated capability to fire without a lock.

bayesian_horse 4y ago

I don't quite believe the reason about guns not being fast enough to bring it down. Enough bullets will shred it eventually and bring it down pretty fast. More of an issue would be that the plane has to come too close to the (relatively speaking) stationary target. That would be dangerous for the pilot and the plane.

Mtinie 4y ago
> I don't quite believe the reason about guns not being fast enough to bring it down. What makes this reason a challenge for you to believe? The F-22’s M61A2 20mm Gatling gun propels 20mm (~0.75”) rounds. A full load out is 480 rounds. The target is a 90’ diameter, nearly atmosphere equalized pressure vessel. Striking the target with 480 rounds of that size is nowhere near enough to create a large escape surface for the slightly positive pressure gas to vacate quickly.
- bayesian_horse 4y ago
  As I said, enough rounds would do the trick. No reason not to send in two or three planes. Except that all of that increases the risk. Also you assume a clean through-and-through hole, no tearing. I think the risk to the pilots from flying straight at a balloon is the bigger factor.
  - Mtinie 4y ago
    You’ll need more than 1,000 rounds[1] (and that was a much smaller balloon) [1] “ The time a wayward Canadian balloon caused an international stir — and thwarted 3 air forces” - https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6737831 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6737831
dahfizz 4y ago
Well, unsurprisingly, the US military knows more about this than you. Multiple planes and over a thousand rounds is not enough to bring down a much smaller balloon[1]. Not to mention, a leaky balloon will fall slowly, making it an obstacle for regular air traffic. A single missile is faster, cheaper, easier, etc. We didn't want to bring the balloon down "eventually". We wanted to bring down the balloon precisely and immediately, once it was over water but still in US airspace. [1] https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb

xchip 4y ago

I also have lots of questions: - How do we know it is a spy balloon and not just a weather balloon that got lost?? - If it is a spy balloon why not take it down gently and look at its payload? - Did the balloon got on top of a military base by chance or was it directed? - How was it directed from so far away if the balloon has no propellers?

ceejayoz 4y ago
> How do we know it is a spy balloon and not just a weather balloon that got lost? It has a much larger payload than weather balloons. > If it is a spy balloon why not take it down gently and look at its payload? That's what they did. Controlled shootdown over shallow water; they're collecting the parts now. > Did the balloon got on top of a military base by chance or was it directed? How was it directed from so far away if the balloon has no propellers? The Pentagon says it maneuvers. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinese-spy-balloon-has-unexpected-maneuverability/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chinese-spy-ballo... Might be small propellers (think drone props) within that truss structure.
- pookha 4y ago
  If we can launch wildly complex space hardware to look into the deepest regions of the universe we can bring down a balloon without the IronEagle dog fighter theatrics. You have to admit this came across like some old-timey George Creel propaganda.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    We've plenty of reason to develop the technology for space flight. We've essentially zero reason to develop the technology to hijack a high-altitude helium ballooon. As clearly demonstrated, much easier techniques already exist.
  - gizmo686 4y ago
    We spend decades and billiobs if dollars planning and building space telescopes. Why would we spend money investing in a balloon defense system, when we already have an air defense system that can handle them.

pookha 4y ago

I'm no balloon pilot but I'd assume you could just puncture it and bring the thing down gradually?

minitoar 4y ago
At high altitude these sorts of balloons are massively stretched out due to the low atmospheric pressure. A puncture will cause catastrophic failure of the balloon.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  The opposite is true. https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb > A runaway weather balloon floating toward Britain over the North Atlantic is proving a tough target for some of Canada’s top guns. The helium-filled balloon, a 25-story high unmanned research station used to measure ozone levels over Canada, was launched Monday from Vanscoy, Saskatchewan. > Jet fighters trying to bring the balloon down fired more than 1,000 rounds into it Thursday, but it remained aloft. The air force hopes the now-leaking balloon will eventually come down.
  - minitoar 4y ago
    That balloon was not at high altitude. From the article you linked: >``It’s at an altitude and an area where trans-Atlantic flights pass nearby,″ That is around 35k feet. I’m talking about the altitude that the recent Chinese balloon was at, around 60k feet.
credit_guy 4y ago
How do you get to the balloon to puncture it? You have 3 choices: an airplane, a drone, or another balloon. Airplanes are fast, you can't just approach, slow down, reach out and poke the balloon. Drones don't fly that high up. On the internet you can find that drones can fly as high as 33000 feet. It's likely the military has drones that fly higher, maybe even as high as this balloon. But you need one that flies that high, and also has the capability to puncture a balloon. It looks like such a modification was not doable in the given window of time. Another balloon. That would obviously be doable. If a balloon can fly at 60000 feet, another one can too. But again, you need the modifications to make it go up there and shoot at another balloon. Maybe in the future they'll make this type of balloons, but for now they didn't have one handy. And if they had, they didn't want to tip their hand. Better to use weaponry that's widely known to exist, rather than new and classified stuff.

aaron695 4y ago

[dead]

mattjaynes 4y ago

For aviation noobs (like me) wondering how low the balloon would have to be in order for a helicopter to be an option for retrieval: "The maximum altitude which can be reached during forward flight typically depends on the ability of the engine to breathe the thinner air rather than the rotor's ability to provide lift. Turbine-engine helicopters can reach around 25,000 feet (7,620 meters). But the maximum height at which a helicopter can hover is much lower - a high performance helicopter can hover at 10,400 feet (3,170 meters)." Source: https://www.virginexperiencedays.co.uk/experience-blog/how-high-can-a-helicopter-fly https://www.virginexperiencedays.co.uk/experience-blog/how-h...

cduzz 4y ago
Is the one on mars able to operate with really thin air because mars has less gravity? A "balloon retrieval bot" using battery powered propulsion, launched by another platform such as a rocket (or another balloon!) might be a fun thing for someone at raytheon to pitch.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Large, much faster blades, and very light construction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenuity_(helicopter) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingenuity_(helicopter) > The planet's atmospheric density is about 1⁄100 that of Earth's at sea level, or about the same as 87,000 ft (27,000 m), an altitude never reached by existing helicopters. This density reduces even more in Martian winters. To keep Ingenuity aloft, its specially shaped blades of enlarged size must rotate between 2400 and 2900 rpm, or about 10 times faster than what is needed on Earth.
- HarHarVeryFunny 4y ago
  Of course that helps, but the whole design was made for it. It's dual rotors were designed for the environment, and rotate at 2500 rpm+ vs 500rpm for a normal helicopter.
BurningFrog 4y ago
This is why no one brings down the bodies from Everest.

adolph 4y ago

I don’t see mention of Air Defense Identification Zone. Within this area is where the balloon interdiction and response should have occurred. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_defense_identification_zone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_defense_identification_z...

jansan 4y ago

What amazes me is that the distance of 60000ft (20km) is quite short here on earth. You can do it by bicycle in one hour. But if you go vertical, suddenly the rules change. Up there isn't even enough air to power the engines of jets, so the will have to carry an oxigen tank with them. If you go vertical things become difficult really quickly and space starts in vertical direction where the neighboring town is in horizontal direction. Also, where is the limit when you would call the balloon a satellite? Satellites cross over foreign countries all the time, so there must be a height above which this is not a problem. Is there a fixed threshold for this?

masklinn 4y ago
I don’t think there’s a hard set boundary (I don’t remember that the ‘67 OST defines one). The FAI treats the Karman line as the limit between atmospheric and space flight. USAF uses a lower 50 miles threshold (80km), NASA uses that for uniformity since 2005.
alephxyz 4y ago
Satellites have to be placed in orbit by definition. To be in orbit at 20km of altitude you'd need to be flying at over 7km/s, so balloons can't argued to be satellites.

Dalewyn 4y ago

This and the previous thread on this subject have highlighted some interesting(?) things, at least for me: * The IT community, despite the majority being some form of an intellectual, has either a flawed (read: Hollywood) or no understanding of physics or military aviation. * The IT community, despite the majority being some form of an intellectual, has a patently insufficient understanding of how sovereignty, diplomacy, and laws work. * The Chinese apologists are hilarious to witness, particularly the ones who believe two wrongs make a right.

squaresmile 4y ago
I mean, that's every non-IT topic in an IT forum. It's to be expected from all forums really. Everyone has blind spots about other professions. I think the key is to treat off-topic threads like watercooler talk, friends shooting the shit with each other and enjoy the drama. I'm sorry but I gotta laugh at "despite the majority being some form of an intellectual", as if that is worth something. If you don't have the experience and the domain knowledge, can you call yourself an intellectual in that domain?
- afarrell 4y ago
  When I call myself an intellectual, it is mostly a form of pride or vanity. As a boy, I read Ender's Game and Zhuge Liang's commentaries on The Art of War. As a man, I like to imagine that I now know enough to keep the whole world safe from catastrophic war. It is a comforting illusion.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > "despite the majority being some form of an intellectual", as if that is worth something. I think I would phrase that as "despite the majority thinking of themselves some form of an intellectual, outside of their domain, they are out often out their depth and unaware of it". > If you don't have the experience and the domain knowledge, can you call yourself an intellectual in that domain? Yeah, that's the thing. You can assume that "in that domain" is irrelevant, and call yourself an intellectual, period. You can and you'd be wrong, very wrong, but you wouldn't be alone. It's common.

zitsarethecure 4y ago

I'm not up to date on spy-balloon technology, but what kind of things can they learn using a balloon that they couldn't have learned by using a satellite?

hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
Today's New York Times piece says >Now [balloons] are making a comeback, because while spy satellites can see almost everything, balloons equipped with high-tech sensors hover over a site far longer and can pick up radio, cellular and other transmissions that cannot be detected from space. That is why the Montana sighting of the balloon was critical; in recent years, the National Security Agency and United States Strategic Command, which oversees the American nuclear arsenal, have been remaking communications with nuclear weapons sites. That would be one, but only one, of the natural targets for China’s Ministry of State Security, which oversees many of its national security hacks. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/05/us/politics/balloon-china-spying-united-states.html?unlocked_article_code=G0tbSJLwVu6K7u1F-8RyhHPePvirkVbi589U1dS2uj8kj4XOSbS9NIi0dd4CtBk31vXEmrUeaImuIRsK3Z-8_rKirYGr6G4297Wgg9C0oIMJ4q90ntZ-ji6oYgVvMJFBMOCh0NhW0uy2L5F3XDG77YBAiS0XaWskxRtINaAo-xWzmoIYklJc9l55JrOtFyi2PTmArvUWm7_Ml1w0sK8Q9mI2qCjRrSArFai1Yz3FJqoSiDkrqNfH4WmU_Bsp51Lf31Ahh4aRVPPsRlT00lublNdd86c5cWqRjVufySbmLNh_zf7PTt3jofCO2HMceUT_OFKQt156qP9gXVyUcUD3gFZYkLZiw1OBk7jtyJq-G5M&smid=share-url https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/05/us/politics/balloon-china...
- grugagag 4y ago
  Does the baloon transmit the data back via sattelite or is it recorded on a device and has to be phisically retrieved?
  - hoppyhoppy2 4y ago
    That's a good question. I haven't heard any information one way or the other, and it wouldn't surprise me if the public never learns those kinds of details (or, rather, only learns in 30 years or whenever it gets declassified)
  - ourmandave 4y ago

beecafe 4y ago

This precedent should be extended to overflying satellites.

mrleinad 4y ago
If that policy is applied to the US, you'll see a LOT less satellites in the sky. After a certain amount of km, it's all good. Same as international waters.
- beecafe 4y ago
  That's the point. Letting adversaries overfly your country with their satellites is bad.
  - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
    Well, if you want these United States to start shooting down any satellite overhead, then Russia and China follow suit and there'll be nothing left (and/or it will just provoke all-out war on the ground too.)
    - beecafe 4y ago
      Not any, just the military ones.
      - mrleinad 4y ago
        Good luck identifying them

xnx 4y ago

Are there rocket systems that can deploy drones to great heights or distances?

bombcar 4y ago

TLDR: Too big for guns, switching to missiles.

alkonaut 4y ago

What I don't understand is why one would opt for an IR (heat seeking) missile, over a radar homing one? In this case the goal - I'm guessing - was to pop the ballon and not damage the payload more than necessary. Any heat emitted must have been from the payload, so an IR seeker might hit the part you want to keep (the only part emitting any heat at all).

hrunt 4y ago
If you believe that the payload was a sophisticated signals investigation platform, sending a radar-homing missile towards it potentially gives your adversary access to information about your missile's capabilities.
- alkonaut 4y ago
  I guess. Likely the F-22 radar itself is a better kept secret than the AMRAAM which has existed for a long time and in semi-recent versions in places like Pakistan. So that could be a reason: firing a radar homing missile requires using the plane radar (?) and you'd prefer to avoid that if possible.
cyberge99 4y ago
From what I’ve read, this was the first F22 air to air “kill”, so this may have been the first opportunity to test the missile system in production.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  [dead]

ck2 4y ago

Because the missile costs a million dollars and now they can say that F-22 was in the first air-to-air combat. It's all ridiculous, on purpose, first rule of military, burn money so you can demand more. A few bullets would have been a slow descent they could track and capture far more easily. Now it's a show they can reproduce a million dollars a pop. The NSA is also now free to float balloons around the country for cellphone capture.

science4sail 4y ago
> The NSA is also now free to float balloons around the country for cellphone capture. Why would the NSA need to float balloons around the country when they could just ask/force the telecom companies to give them a copy of their cell tower data?

jjk166 4y ago

Guns on planes are deliberately made to spray over a certain area to increase the odds of a kill, which is good when you're in a fight to the death and you're all out of other options, which is the scenario the gun was made for. Using guns here would risk damaging the payload which they want to recover for study, both to see what exactly was observed and to get a better understanding of the device. The balloon was brought down with a missile that had the primary explosive removed, it basically just flew through the balloon. This being the F-22's first air-to-air kill after nearly 2 decades in service, it's not like these missiles are a precious resource to be conserved. It also would be quite embarrassing to attempt to shoot down the balloon and fail, so it makes sense to go for a guaranteed kill. Finally, it should be noted that the balloon was at approximately 60,000 ft. The F-22's flight ceiling is above 50,000 ft, but the exact value is classified. It is possible that the F-22 simply could not get up high enough to engage with guns even if that was desirable, or it's also possible that the F-22 is capable of flying that high but the US did not want to confirm that to a potential foreign adversary. In general it is also just good practice to keep some distance between your most capable assets and foreign espionage devices. As one can see from video of the encounter, it was very effective in bringing the balloon down in a controlled manner. It's one thing to monday-morning quarterback a failure, but this is ridiculous.

zombielinux 4y ago
F22 unclass service ceiling is 65,000ft
apaprocki 4y ago
Per what I read, the F-22 was operating at 58,000 ft and shot the balloon that was at the time at 65,000 ft. A missile was used because it had to elevate ~7,000 ft to hit the target. The balloon fell in 47 ft of water, 6 mi from the coast. edit source: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3288543/f-22-safely-shoots-down-chinese-spy-balloon-off-south-carolina-coast/ https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/32...
leokennis 4y ago
I know absolutely nothing about planes and missiles etc. but the "measure thrice, cut once, build in failsafes and leave loads of margin for error" approach seems very plausible for a bureaucratic and highly public organization like the US Army.

gwbas1c 4y ago

Do we even have planes that can shoot bullets anymore? (Please excuse my ignorance, I really don't follow the military very closely.) Can jets even fire bullets? I'm no expert in physics, but somehow I think firing a bullet from a jet just wouldn't work.

SigmundA 4y ago
Why wouldn't it work? Yes I believe all US combat aircraft still carry a gun, usually a 20mm Vulcan cannon: Here is the F22's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6GhVrVjArI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6GhVrVjArI
detaro 4y ago
It's not as important anymore, but pretty much every fighter jet still has a a gun or can carry one on a mount, yes. (commonly 20mm cannon of some kind)
ranger207 4y ago
Yes, jets can fire bullets. There's no reason they wouldn't be able to. Almost all US fighters carry guns. Most carry the M61 Vulcan gatling cannon firing 20mm rounds. The exceptions are the F-35 series. The F-35A, used by the Air Force, carries a GAU-12 Equalizer gatling cannon firing 25mm rounds; the F-35B (the STOVL variant used by the Marine Corps) and the F-35C (used by the Navy) do not carry guns. Guns on fighters have basically the same level of utility as bayonets on assault rifles; that is, not very much.

gwbas1c 4y ago

What I want to know is: Why publicize this now? It's clear that China's been sending out spy balloons for a few years. (And that we (the US) probably do plenty of our own spying too.) So what's the real reason for telling the whole world about this and cutting off a diplomatic visit?

TheCoelacanth 4y ago
First time it has happened with a president who isn't asleep at the wheel?
mhb 4y ago
The game theory of the balloons https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34677497 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34677497
nickthegreek 4y ago
citizens saw it.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  That, and not being willing (or able) to stop it makes the president look weak. No president wants that if they can help it, so no president will authorize releasing the information if they can help it.
- gwbas1c 4y ago
  So? If you see a balloon, do you automatically assume it's a spy balloon from China? If the US government ignored the sightings, or gave a plausible answer, I don't think there would be much of a hubbub.

SecurityMinded 4y ago

Because, the powers that be, a.k.a. corrupt Biden family, sold to chinese commies, do not want what this balloon was all about, because their chinese overlords want to keep it hidden. After the payload of spy data was delivered home, i.e., china, the vehicle is destroyed. Otherwise, capturing it and reverse engineering what it was doing in US airspace, and what data it collected as it traversed the whole fucking country, would be very useful. Don't you think?

jprd 4y ago
Yikes. I fear you may have succumbed to propaganda. Can you provide sources to how "Chinese overlords" have manipulated "corrupt Biden family" in any specificity? Do you believe that the thousands of career professionals in the US government just decided to not do their jobs because of "corrupt Biden family"?