5 ms·

The U-2 and balloons – Some history, and some thoughts

24 points by KoftaBob 4y ago

infocollector 4y ago
Does anyone know the comparison between these things in the US: 1. How much does it cost to take off an airplane that shoots a balloon? 2. How much does it cost to shoot a balloon with the aircraft that can shoot it? 3. How much does it cost to build a balloon that has Software Defined Radio+camera and a transmitter/a battery+solar panel for energy+a SoC? (My guess is that this is < $1000) Why not just send a (< $1000) low cost drone to kill these?
- JKCalhoun 4y ago
  60,000 feet is a little high for a low cost drone is it not?
  - tonyarkles 4y ago
    Yes. Looking at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604..., the atmosphere is about 9% as dense at 60,000ft compared to sea level. While you get some drag advantages, you're going to have serious trouble with both lift and thrust using conventional "low-cost drone" tech up there. Quadrotors are right out for a number of reasons, but a purpose-built fixed wing might be possible although likely not for under $1000. You'll need massive wings and some kind of propulsion system (likely hydrocarbon-based) that can suck in a huge amount of the thin atmosphere to try to get what little oxygen is available. The prevailing winds at altitude can be moving quite fast, so you'll need an airframe that can handle those forces as well as a propulsion system that can generate enough thrust to overcome those headwinds.
- twelve40 4y ago
  because a low cost drone has trouble ascending to 18,000 m with enough ammo and maneuverability to take out an object size half the Statue of Liberty in a controlled way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Chinese_balloon_incident#/media/File:Chinese_Balloon_Size_Comparison.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Chinese_balloon_incident#...
- exitb 4y ago
  Up until a certain scale, the cost is roughly zero. The planes fly regardless of the balloons, the missiles are periodically replaced even if unused. I'd guess that most of the costs related to the balloons are generated in Washington.
- adolph 4y ago
  The costs are just numbers. Overreacting to the point of shooting hobby club balloons is priceless.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > Why not just send a (< $1000) low cost drone to kill these? Where can I buy this for < $1000 ?
- ancientworldnow 4y ago
  This is dramatically under selling the sophistication of the balloon. Zoom into the payload from the u2 shot and you'll see this is more akin to a floating radio tower than a simple commodity tv tuner turned sdr. The entire craft and payload are likely over a million dollars and as mentioned, the additional costs for the US destroying it are likely close to 0 if used en lieu of already mandatory training flight hours.
lmm 4y ago
Seems a little disingenuous to tout the superiority of the U-2 over balloons for surveillance overflights of the USSR because the USSR was able to shoot down some balloons and issue protest notes about them, while neglecting to mention the U-2's own record in that area.
- LWIRVoltage 4y ago
  They aren't - I don't think you realized whats happening here That is a picture of a unreleased photo, on a u2 enthusiast site in an article that only is talking about the history of theU2 Some Osint digging reveals this was very recently likely leaked to them So in actuality, they haven't been pushing the u2 usage at all. I never saw owing public trackers spot the u2 while the spy balloon was over the country No, this article is catching attention because it's a unique perspective from a unreleased photo. ... picture of a picture style similar to the keyhole satellite photo leak from the last president
  - diggernet 4y ago
    The photo has been released. And unlike this picture of a picture, it has some nice detail of the balloon payload. https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1628497300891791360 https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1628497300891791360 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpmVm_TXgAUrlnm?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpmVm_TXgAUrlnm?format=jpg&name=...
  - lmm 4y ago
    > They aren't - I don't think you realized whats happening here I mean, the text of the linked page contains the following: > While the CIA was developing the revolutionary U-2 at great speed in late 1955, a sceptical USAF pressed ahead with an alternative means of photographing the Soviet Union. Over 500 large camera-carrying balloons were launched from western Europe, the theory being that the prevailing jetstreams would carry them west-to-east across the Soviet landmass, so that they could be recovered 8-10 days later in northern Asia. > Codenamed Project Genetrix, this scheme was not a great success, with less than 10 percent of the camera payloads recovered. Many others were shot down by Warsaw Pact fighters, or simply drifted down to earth. The USSR collected the evidence, displayed it in Moscow, and issued strong protest notes. > The CIA wasn’t enthusiastic about the project, and the success of the early U-2 overflights in 1956-57 suppressed any thoughts of balloon reconnaissance. Which reads like cheerleading for the U-2 (see also the Global Hawk comment at the end) and cherry-picking from the relevant history to do so.

24 points by KoftaBob 4y ago

Does anyone know the comparison between these things in the US: 1. How much does it cost to take off an airplane that shoots a balloon? 2. How much does it cost to shoot a balloon with the aircraft that can shoot it? 3. How much does it cost to build a balloon that has Software Defined Radio+camera and a transmitter/a battery+solar panel for energy+a SoC? (My guess is that this is < $1000) Why not just send a (< $1000) low cost drone to kill these?

JKCalhoun 4y ago
60,000 feet is a little high for a low cost drone is it not?
- tonyarkles 4y ago
  Yes. Looking at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604..., the atmosphere is about 9% as dense at 60,000ft compared to sea level. While you get some drag advantages, you're going to have serious trouble with both lift and thrust using conventional "low-cost drone" tech up there. Quadrotors are right out for a number of reasons, but a purpose-built fixed wing might be possible although likely not for under $1000. You'll need massive wings and some kind of propulsion system (likely hydrocarbon-based) that can suck in a huge amount of the thin atmosphere to try to get what little oxygen is available. The prevailing winds at altitude can be moving quite fast, so you'll need an airframe that can handle those forces as well as a propulsion system that can generate enough thrust to overcome those headwinds.
twelve40 4y ago
because a low cost drone has trouble ascending to 18,000 m with enough ammo and maneuverability to take out an object size half the Statue of Liberty in a controlled way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Chinese_balloon_incident#/media/File:Chinese_Balloon_Size_Comparison.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Chinese_balloon_incident#...
exitb 4y ago
Up until a certain scale, the cost is roughly zero. The planes fly regardless of the balloons, the missiles are periodically replaced even if unused. I'd guess that most of the costs related to the balloons are generated in Washington.
adolph 4y ago
The costs are just numbers. Overreacting to the point of shooting hobby club balloons is priceless.
lm28469 4y ago
> Why not just send a (< $1000) low cost drone to kill these? Where can I buy this for < $1000 ?
ancientworldnow 4y ago
This is dramatically under selling the sophistication of the balloon. Zoom into the payload from the u2 shot and you'll see this is more akin to a floating radio tower than a simple commodity tv tuner turned sdr. The entire craft and payload are likely over a million dollars and as mentioned, the additional costs for the US destroying it are likely close to 0 if used en lieu of already mandatory training flight hours.

lmm 4y ago

Seems a little disingenuous to tout the superiority of the U-2 over balloons for surveillance overflights of the USSR because the USSR was able to shoot down some balloons and issue protest notes about them, while neglecting to mention the U-2's own record in that area.

LWIRVoltage 4y ago
They aren't - I don't think you realized whats happening here That is a picture of a unreleased photo, on a u2 enthusiast site in an article that only is talking about the history of theU2 Some Osint digging reveals this was very recently likely leaked to them So in actuality, they haven't been pushing the u2 usage at all. I never saw owing public trackers spot the u2 while the spy balloon was over the country No, this article is catching attention because it's a unique perspective from a unreleased photo. ... picture of a picture style similar to the keyhole satellite photo leak from the last president
- diggernet 4y ago
  The photo has been released. And unlike this picture of a picture, it has some nice detail of the balloon payload. https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1628497300891791360 https://twitter.com/ZcohenCNN/status/1628497300891791360 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpmVm_TXgAUrlnm?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FpmVm_TXgAUrlnm?format=jpg&name=...
- lmm 4y ago
  > They aren't - I don't think you realized whats happening here I mean, the text of the linked page contains the following: > While the CIA was developing the revolutionary U-2 at great speed in late 1955, a sceptical USAF pressed ahead with an alternative means of photographing the Soviet Union. Over 500 large camera-carrying balloons were launched from western Europe, the theory being that the prevailing jetstreams would carry them west-to-east across the Soviet landmass, so that they could be recovered 8-10 days later in northern Asia. > Codenamed Project Genetrix, this scheme was not a great success, with less than 10 percent of the camera payloads recovered. Many others were shot down by Warsaw Pact fighters, or simply drifted down to earth. The USSR collected the evidence, displayed it in Moscow, and issued strong protest notes. > The CIA wasn’t enthusiastic about the project, and the success of the early U-2 overflights in 1956-57 suppressed any thoughts of balloon reconnaissance. Which reads like cheerleading for the U-2 (see also the Global Hawk comment at the end) and cherry-picking from the relevant history to do so.