4 ms·

>erred by sending such a large I surmise you need large balloon to carry required instruments on one platform. Going forward IMO PRC just going to fly them hig

>erred by sending such a large I surmise you need large balloon to carry required instruments on one platform. Going forward IMO PRC just going to fly them higher, US can keep shooting them down... possible until they can't, both will reveal US capabilities. At minimum, finding out f22 + missile ceiling is worth the cost. PRC isn't going to stop program just because US domestic politics goes full retard, if anything, that's strategically exploitable especially if PRC can make current WH admin look weak by flying a balloon at height that can't be shot down. Medium/long term, PRC building/exposing CONUS vunerability is net benefitial for PRC posture - it's their version of, in DoD parlance, integrated deterence. IMO US analysis missing strategic calculus on PRC side.

jjtheblunt 4y ago
You could just pop them with a laser instead of bothering to scramble jets and missiles, I’d think.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  You could but confirming US has that capability is significant. The purpose is to gather intelligence after all. E: Lunar ranging = ground stations. Not feasible to cover CONUS with network of ground based laser for forseeable future. If anything, balloons will try to bait responses from SHiELD/air based laser ABL interception (YAL1) that can be extrapolated to IndoPac theatre.
  - jjtheblunt 4y ago
    Considering the lunar ranging experiment of fifty years ago, it seems like it shouldn’t be some big surprise? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment#/media/File%3AGoddard_Spaceflight_Center_Laser_Ranging_Facility.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experime...
  - CameronNemo 4y ago
    Not feasible to cover CONUS with network of ground based laser for forseeable future. It is also not feasible to keep using million dollar missiles to shoot down thousand dollar balloons. I kind of doubt that the planes are cheaper than ground based lasers. Even so, a mobile ground station could avoid giving away the US position and allow them to cover more area. Not sure how feasible that is.
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      Even if eventually technically feasible, imo it will take multi decades to acquire finish program and acqure platforms in sufficient numbers. Missiles feasible short term because there's airframes and stockpiles. It's a function of what's available. I think PRC can mass weaponize balloons to drope guided munitions much sooner than US can build up economic counter measures. Silly as meme is, balloon gap might eventually be real.
Overtonwindow 4y ago
Serious question: was there ever any doubt that US military could shoot something down out of the sky no matter how high it flies? If they are doing this to determine capabilities, it's like staking at a grocery store to see if it sells milk.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  Removing doubt has value. If US has to shift to another platform to hit 80k feet ballon reveals specific capabilities. Like if US has to start using advanced ground based interceptors, it will inform PRC on constraints relevant in IndoPac scenario. If US has to break out asat tier weapons, ASM135 cost 5B for ~15 missiles then PRC can start developing capabilities to accordingly to shift strategic math. Imagine if balloon threat forces US to reorient billions on homeland balloon defense, that's potentially billions not going elsewhere. E:over post limit but Streak Eagle was high performance preproduction airframe specifially designed to hit 100k for a few minutes. Hard to say if current blocks can do the same or reliable prosecute mission at 100k, finding out is value itself. > knowing the US would use it to undersell capabilities Simultaneously capabilities can be prodded, i.e. PRC start testing counter measures on balloons, and if successful reveal gaps / cause more drama - US domestic politics may constrain how much US can undersell. Ultimately getting US to change ROE and consistenly enagage with live weapons is opportunity for both sides.
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    US has flown F-15 (and F-104 for that matter) to over 100K feet MSL. China knows this already.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    Of course, if the US expects that the Chinese are using this to test our capabilities, then they could use that to undersell their capabilities. And then the Chinese, knowing the US would use it to undersell capabilities…
    - JohnBooty 4y ago
Ancapistani 4y ago
Higher would be more expensive to shoot down, but given that we have missiles designed to shoot down satellites - at least in LEO - I don’t think it’ll be possible to use altitude as a means of evading response.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  US switching platforms itself has information value. If it takes expensive ASAT tier platforms to take out balloons then saturation with higher ballons might be viable. Like if US has to start trading 5M USD SM6s to hit 110ft ballons, then 100K USD balloons might be economic way to trade sap US advanced missile inventory in future war.
- georgeg23 4y ago
  These balloons could be an economical counter to the American Low Earth Orbit Military Constellation https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency
Vecr 4y ago
I don't think they can send a balloon the US can't shoot down, but the problem with using ground or sea based interceptors, or longer range jet-launched missiles launched from below is identification and proper targeting. The US might not want to take the risk of hitting the wrong thing/a misidentified object.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  Bug reason why PRC aviation / airspace is stressed is because PLA has priority intercepting US recon. If balloons cause comparable stress on commercial US aviation then problems with ID becomes part of the strategy. Exposing CONUS vunerability and fallout of domestic politics might be the point.
golem14 4y ago
I actually wonder why not burn holes in them by laser… maybe the US doesn’t want to show their capabilities, but that was the first thing that came to mind

jjtheblunt 4y ago

You could just pop them with a laser instead of bothering to scramble jets and missiles, I’d think.

dirtyid 4y ago
You could but confirming US has that capability is significant. The purpose is to gather intelligence after all. E: Lunar ranging = ground stations. Not feasible to cover CONUS with network of ground based laser for forseeable future. If anything, balloons will try to bait responses from SHiELD/air based laser ABL interception (YAL1) that can be extrapolated to IndoPac theatre.
- jjtheblunt 4y ago
  Considering the lunar ranging experiment of fifty years ago, it seems like it shouldn’t be some big surprise? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment#/media/File%3AGoddard_Spaceflight_Center_Laser_Ranging_Facility.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experime...
- CameronNemo 4y ago
  Not feasible to cover CONUS with network of ground based laser for forseeable future. It is also not feasible to keep using million dollar missiles to shoot down thousand dollar balloons. I kind of doubt that the planes are cheaper than ground based lasers. Even so, a mobile ground station could avoid giving away the US position and allow them to cover more area. Not sure how feasible that is.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    Even if eventually technically feasible, imo it will take multi decades to acquire finish program and acqure platforms in sufficient numbers. Missiles feasible short term because there's airframes and stockpiles. It's a function of what's available. I think PRC can mass weaponize balloons to drope guided munitions much sooner than US can build up economic counter measures. Silly as meme is, balloon gap might eventually be real.

Overtonwindow 4y ago

Serious question: was there ever any doubt that US military could shoot something down out of the sky no matter how high it flies? If they are doing this to determine capabilities, it's like staking at a grocery store to see if it sells milk.

dirtyid 4y ago
Removing doubt has value. If US has to shift to another platform to hit 80k feet ballon reveals specific capabilities. Like if US has to start using advanced ground based interceptors, it will inform PRC on constraints relevant in IndoPac scenario. If US has to break out asat tier weapons, ASM135 cost 5B for ~15 missiles then PRC can start developing capabilities to accordingly to shift strategic math. Imagine if balloon threat forces US to reorient billions on homeland balloon defense, that's potentially billions not going elsewhere. E:over post limit but Streak Eagle was high performance preproduction airframe specifially designed to hit 100k for a few minutes. Hard to say if current blocks can do the same or reliable prosecute mission at 100k, finding out is value itself. > knowing the US would use it to undersell capabilities Simultaneously capabilities can be prodded, i.e. PRC start testing counter measures on balloons, and if successful reveal gaps / cause more drama - US domestic politics may constrain how much US can undersell. Ultimately getting US to change ROE and consistenly enagage with live weapons is opportunity for both sides.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  US has flown F-15 (and F-104 for that matter) to over 100K feet MSL. China knows this already.
- mcphage 4y ago
  Of course, if the US expects that the Chinese are using this to test our capabilities, then they could use that to undersell their capabilities. And then the Chinese, knowing the US would use it to undersell capabilities…
  - JohnBooty 4y ago

Ancapistani 4y ago

Higher would be more expensive to shoot down, but given that we have missiles designed to shoot down satellites - at least in LEO - I don’t think it’ll be possible to use altitude as a means of evading response.

dirtyid 4y ago
US switching platforms itself has information value. If it takes expensive ASAT tier platforms to take out balloons then saturation with higher ballons might be viable. Like if US has to start trading 5M USD SM6s to hit 110ft ballons, then 100K USD balloons might be economic way to trade sap US advanced missile inventory in future war.
georgeg23 4y ago
These balloons could be an economical counter to the American Low Earth Orbit Military Constellation https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Development_Agency

Vecr 4y ago

I don't think they can send a balloon the US can't shoot down, but the problem with using ground or sea based interceptors, or longer range jet-launched missiles launched from below is identification and proper targeting. The US might not want to take the risk of hitting the wrong thing/a misidentified object.

dirtyid 4y ago
Bug reason why PRC aviation / airspace is stressed is because PLA has priority intercepting US recon. If balloons cause comparable stress on commercial US aviation then problems with ID becomes part of the strategy. Exposing CONUS vunerability and fallout of domestic politics might be the point.

golem14 4y ago

I actually wonder why not burn holes in them by laser… maybe the US doesn’t want to show their capabilities, but that was the first thing that came to mind