News Chinese "weather" balloon shoot-down over US

[Ivan Seeking]

Balloon shot down.

It sounds like we do plan to retrieve it. They shot it down before it was over international waters.

[Thread split off from the Weird News thread]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

They [former military/defense talking heads] say that even if there was a serious effort for the balloon to spy on sensitive sites, we likely jammed any attempts to collect information. But now we are claiming that we gathered useful information about the technology on the balloon.

 

[berkeman]

CNN is reporting that an AIM-9X missle was used. Why would you use a heat-seeking missle to shoot down an engineless balloon that is at the same temperature as the background?

 

[Jarvis323]

They [former military/defense talking heads] say that even if there was a serious effort for the balloon to spy on sensitive sites, we likely jammed any attempts to collect information. But now we are claiming that we gathered useful information about the technology on the balloon.

Which could be tricky. While you are jamming it and collecting information about it, hopefully it/or they (with other means) aren't gathering information about how you jam signals and gather information, which resources you use to do it with, and where those resources are based. Further, you hope it isn't gathering information about your strategy to prevent them from being able to gather information about how you gather information.

 

[boneh3ad]

CNN is reporting that an AIM-9X missle was used. Why would you use a heat-seeking missle to shoot down an engineless balloon that is at the same temperature as the background?

View attachment 321759

Because it's more than just heat seeking.

 

[boneh3ad]

Why does the title refer to it as a "weather" balloon?

 

[berkeman]

Why does the title refer to it as a "weather" balloon?

Because that's what the Chinese government <cough> said it was. I'll add quotes to make the implication more obvious.

 

[berkeman]

Because it's more than just heat seeking.

That would make sense. Can you say what the alternate targeting mechanism is? Something like a laser-guided munition? I guess you could guide it in with a medium power IR laser illumination?

 

[boneh3ad]

That would make sense. Can you say what the alternate targeting mechanism is? Something like a laser-guided munition? I guess you could guide it in with a medium power IR laser illumination?

According to this (generally a good source) it has a laser proximity fuse and can also be guided remotely by the F-22 based on radar.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...hinese-spy-balloon-off-carolinas-with-missile

 

[berkeman]

According to this (generally a good source) it has a laser proximity fuse and can also be guided remotely by the F-22 based on radar.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...hinese-spy-balloon-off-carolinas-with-missile

Ah thanks.

But then there's this from that report:

Videos of the shootdown showed an F-22 Raptor launching an air-to-air missile at the balloon for the kill. This would be the F-22's first 'kill.'

That's embarassing, IMO. They should have just used an F-16 or similar fighter to shoot down the highly maneuverable balloon...

 

[Office_Shredder]

They may have just used this as a training exercise for the new plane. If China is going to send you target practice, you take it.

 

[boneh3ad]

Ah thanks.

But then there's this from that report:

That's embarassing, IMO. They should have just used an F-16 or similar fighter to shoot down the highly maneuverable balloon...

F-16s can't fly high enough. F-22s have the highest service ceiling of US fighters.

 

[Frabjous]

They may have just used this as a training exercise for the new plane. If China is going to send you target practice, you take it.

Those missiles cost several hundred thousand dollars each.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The official F-22 max altitude was only shown to be over 50,000 feet. This revealed they can go to 60,000.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Those missiles cost several hundred thousand dollars each.

That is pocket change for the military. They spend more on donuts.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Those missiles cost several hundred thousand dollars.

So? They're worthless if they don't work in a live fire environment. It's always good to confirm they do.

The air force surely shoots a bunch of them every year for training. Do you think this was less useful in that capacity?

 

[Frabjous]

So? They're worthless if they don't work in a live fire environment. It's always good to confirm they do.

The air force surely shoots a bunch of them every year for training. Do you think this was less useful in that capacity?

I have not heard that the balloon had countermeasures, so it seems like overkill.
I fear that the missile was more expensive than the balloon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So? They're worthless if they don't work in a live fire environment. It's always good to confirm they do.

The air force surely shoots a bunch of them every year for training. Do you think this was less useful in that capacity?

Ideally, every dime of our $750 Billion+ military budget goes towards nothing but testing!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have not heard that the balloon had countermeasures, so it seems like overkill.
I fear that the missile was more expensive than the balloon.

It depends on what the balloon was carrying. Reportedly, the balloon was about 120 feet in diameter and might carry a payload of around a ton.

We needed to shoot it down to determine what it was carrying. The information is what has value, not so much the balloon itself.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I have not heard that the balloon had countermeasures, so it seems like overkill.
I fear that the missile was more expensive than the balloon.

But again, we probably shoot like 10,000 missiles a year at nothing, just to let people see what it's like to shoot a missile. How is this worse?

I also just don't think there are that many options to shoot something down at 60,000 feet. It probably cost as much just to get the fighter up there as it cost to shoot the missile.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One example of where this might be sensitive is in regard to low power communications from places like Malmstrom AFB [nuclear weapons base], which the balloon passed fairly closely. Apparently, those communications systems are designed to prevent being monitored by satellites. But something like a balloon [much lower altitude] might carry equipment that could detect those transmissions. The Chinese could have been testing to see if they could detect those transmissions.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But now we are claiming that we gathered useful information about the technology on the balloon.

Probably did.

Even if nothing else,, it tells ths US what Chinese technology is and is not capable of. "Hey Joe, wnere's the frabulator?" "I guess they don't know about the frabulator."

It also tells what the Chinese are interested in. Photography? Radio? Both? Neither?

As of yesterday, the statement was that the balloon would not be shot down. I wonder why things changed.

Also China and the US do not share a border. This balloon must have passed over Canadian and likely Russian airspace. I wonder what Ottowa and Moscow think of this.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Probably did.

Even if nothing else,, it tells ths US what Chinese technology is and is not capable of. "Hey Joe, wnere's the frabulator?" "I guess they don't know about the frabulator."

It also tells what the Chinese are interested in. Photography? Radio? Both? Neither?

As of yesterday, the statement was that the balloon would not be shot down. I wonder why things changed.

Alsol China and the US do not share a border. This balloon must have passed over Canadian and likely Russian airspace. I wonder what Ottowa and Moscow think of this.

The WH is claiming that last Wednesday, Biden ordered it shot down as soon as it could be done safely.

 

[Nugatory]

As of yesterday, the statement was that the balloon would not be shot down.

I understood the US government's position to be "the balloon will not be shot down YET".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I wonder what Ottowa and Moscow think of this.

Defence minister: Canada supports U.S. downing of suspected Chinese spy balloon​

https://ottawasun.com/news/national...,apologize, but this video has failed to load.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There's a lot of land between Montana and South Carolina. I;m surprised this was the first opportunity. Especially given that Montana is not exactly the most populous state.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There's a lot of land between Montana and South Carolina. I;m surprised this was the first opportunity. Especially given that Montana is not exactly the most populous state.

I was thinking the same thing.

Maybe they were worried about the potential payload.

 

[dlgoff]

There's a lot of land between Montana and South Carolina. I;m surprised this was the first opportunity. Especially given that Montana is not exactly the most populous state.

Well, it flew over my state of Kansas. I'm glad they didn't shoot it down here.

 

[gmax137]

I was kind of hoping we could figure a way to just quietly deflate the balloon and catch it on the way down, or as it hit the water. So that it would just disappear, to be studied at our leisure, with everyone wondering if we had it or not.

 

[russ_watters]

There's a lot of land between Montana and South Carolina. I;m surprised this was the first opportunity. Especially given that Montana is not exactly the most populous state.

Official statement was that it wasn't worth the risk, but I would have preferred it too.

 

[phinds]

There's a lot of land between Montana and South Carolina. I;m surprised this was the first opportunity. Especially given that Montana is not exactly the most populous state.

They were not taking ANY chances. I mean, can't you just see the headline "Murderous DOD slaughters innocent farmer's favorite cow !"

 

[boneh3ad]

Official statement was that it wasn't worth the risk, but I would have preferred it too.

I suspect the official statement is only a half truth. Yes the risk of impacting people on the ground is higher, but I'd guess a bigger reason is that recovery would be more difficult.

Even in a sparsely populated area, shooting it down over land would mean some local yahoos are going to come looking for souvenirs, and it's difficult to secure large swaths of land.

I think it's also possible we were tracking it but considered it a low threat, so why divulge sensitive capabilities?

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, some bad news for Don. Nobody in DC gives a hoot about Kansas. They call it "flyover country". I suspect a good number of them think the whole state is in black and white. Whatever the rationale, it was not "protecting Kansans."

I agree that shooting it down over water means you don
t have to deal with lookie-loos, or "yahoos" as they have been called upthread, but if you shoot it down over water, then it's over water,. Recovery is not so easy, especially if you want important litte tiny parts.

The Canadian response was less outraged than I would have guessed. I am surprised it wasn't more along the lines of "whatever disagreements you have with the Americans does not give you the right to violate sovereign Canadian airspace." Now, I expect the Chinese don't give a hoot about that, but am still surprised pf the reaction. Maybe it's related to my first paragraph: the Prairie Provinces are to Ottowa as Kansas is to Washington.

As far as a dangerous payload, the Chinese are not stupid enough to do that.

It's interesting that the Chinese are hopping mad and even threatening retaliation. The US position could well be "Golly, you said yourself it was out of control. Can't leave a hazard to navigation out there. Why that would be irresponsible."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's in <50 feet of water. So, it is fairly easy to retrieve. One person estimated that terminal velocity may have been around 500 mph. This assumes the payload weighs about a ton. The debris field is about 7 miles long [according to Pete Buttigieg].

Chinese bluster doesn't worry me a bit.

 

[boneh3ad]

First, some bad news for Don. Nobody in DC gives a hoot about Kansas. They call it "flyover country". I suspect a good number of them think the whole state is in black and white. Whatever the rationale, it was not "protecting Kansans."

I agree that shooting it down over water means you don
t have to deal with lookie-loos, or "yahoos" as they have been called upthread, but if you shoot it down over water, then it's over water,. Recovery is not so easy, especially if you want important litte tiny parts.

The Canadian response was less outraged than I would have guessed. I am surprised it wasn't more along the lines of "whatever disagreements you have with the Americans does not give you the right to violate sovereign Canadian airspace." Now, I expect the Chinese don't give a hoot about that, but am still surprised pf the reaction. Maybe it's related to my first paragraph: the Prairie Provinces are to Ottowa as Kansas is to Washington.

As far as a dangerous payload, the Chinese are not stupid enough to do that.

It's interesting that the Chinese are hopping mad and even threatening retaliation. The US position could well be "Golly, you said yourself it was out of control. Can't leave a hazard to navigation out there. Why that would be irresponsible."

It's likely faux outrage and the target audience is their own people and any sympathetic people internationally. They know we have the balloon and can easily tell if it really is a weather balloon (unlikely), but that won't get reported everywhere. It's all theater.

 

[dlgoff]

First, some bad news for Don. Nobody in DC gives a hoot about Kansas. They call it "flyover country". I suspect a good number of them think the whole state is in black and white. Whatever the rationale, it was not "protecting Kansans."

 

[hmmm27]

So, why is the US lagging so far behind in the development of modern interceptor-dirigibles that they have to use missiles ?

(Also, if they want to build a US/Mexico wall, a fleet of LTA craft moored/stationed every couple of miles along the border would probably cost the same and - after the political posturing is over - then you've got a fleet of dirigibles)

 

[dlgoff]

So, why is the US lagging so far behind in the development of modern interceptor-dirigibles that they have to use missiles ?

(Also, if they want to build a US/Mexico wall, a fleet of LTA craft moored/stationed every couple of miles along the border would probably cost the same and - after the political posturing is over - then you've got a fleet of dirigibles)

From: https://www.rd.com/article/why-you-... you never,one trip, according to Wilnechenko.

The main reason you never see airships in the sky anymore is because of the huge costs it takes to build and run them. They're very expensive to build and very expensive to fly. Airships require a large amount of helium, which can cost up to $100,000 for one trip, according to Wilnechenko.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The official F-22 max altitude was only shown to be over 50,000 feet. This revealed they can go to 60,000.
https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/

You can find plenty of places online that quote the real ceiling as 65,000 feet.

The operational ceiling is the height at which everything is guaranteed to work. Maybe some of the supersonic afterburner stuff gets flaky at higher altitudes, but that's not an issue when you're trying to catch up to a balloon.

Also, missiles can shoot up I assume, is it even obvious how high the f 22 went?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Well, 7 miles of debris isn't so easy or quick to comb through. Even on dry land. "Only" 50 feet of water makes it more difficult.

Of course the Chinese outrage is feigned. But it also shows they don't believe their own story, which is not a good look.

And as for people not caring about Kansas (or Manitoba) what can I say? I like the Sunflower State. I can't help it if the attitude of our betters is "shut up, grow wheat, and do as you're told." (But it is a shame that the larget city in Kansas is in Missouri)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You can find plenty of places online that quote the real ceiling as 65,000 feet.

The operational ceiling is the height at which everything is guaranteed to work. Maybe some of the supersonic afterburner stuff gets flaky at higher altitudes, but that's not an issue when you're trying to catch up to a balloon.

Also, missiles can shoot up I assume, is it even obvious how high the f 22 went?

What sources? Official? I can find sources that claim Israel started forest fires with space LASERS too.

It was near the same altitude as the balloon, which was at 60,000 feet.

 

[hmmm27]

From: https://www.rd.com/article/why-you-dont-see-blimps-anymore/#:~:text=The main reason you never,one trip, according to Wilnechenko.

Yes, well... not coating the balloon envelope in thermite would probably help with the reintroduction of Hydrogen as a lifting medium of choice.

Or, get going on fusion reactors : Helium for everybody.

 

[russ_watters]

One person estimated that terminal velocity may have been around 500 mph. This assumes the payload weighs about a ton.

That seems really unlikely. Terminal velocity for even a pretty dense object is generally 100-200 mph. That's from the Mythbusters "falling bullet" episode.

Anyway, I would have hoped for popping the balloon without damaging the electronics so maybe it would hit the ground as a streamer at <100mph. Following it down, the pilots would have a view of the impact site and no debris"field". And the authorities would get to it before locals, unless it were literally in aomeone's backyard.

 

[Vanadium 50]

popping the balloon

Balloons tend to tear.

That puts more force on them so they tend to tear more.

Nevertheless, I believe that you could have a few helicopters full of big men with big guns ready to secure the crash site. This doesn't sound like a technical problem.

 

[Office_Shredder]

What sources? Official? I can find sources that claim Israel started forest fires with space LASERS too.

Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)(It also mentions 50k feet is for full combat speed in the article)

It was near the same altitude as the balloon, which was at 60,000 feet.

How do you know that they were at the same altitude?

 

[berkeman]

If it were really a highly instrumented weather balloon, would it normally include a way for the Chinese ground controllers to deflate it in a controlled manner to safely descend and land it? It seems like that would be a reasonable feature for such a sophisticated weather balloon to have if it might be blown off course over other countries.

I wonder if the US made a request to the Chinese government to please land it asap after it violated US airspace...

 

[Vanadium 50]

normally include a way for the Chinese ground controllers to deflate it i

Yes, balloons can be so equipped. It is often used to ensure recovery on land instead of the ocean.

Honestly, I think something did go wrong. Surely it was not the Chinese plan to float a balloon over American farmland only to be shot down. Most likely the intent was to take some pictures of missile silons in Montana and possibly North Dakota, and then get back up at altitude and safely across the Canadian border. For whatever reason, the ascent did not work.

 

[boneh3ad]

Yes, balloons can be so equipped. It is often used to ensure recovery on land instead of the ocean.

Honestly, I think something did go wrong. Surely it was not the Chinese plan to float a balloon over American farmland only to be shot down. Most likely the intent was to take some pictures of missile silons in Montana and possibly North Dakota, and then get back up at altitude and safely across the Canadian border. For whatever reason, the ascent did not work.

Why would that be the plan? Canada is a NATO member, a member of the Five Eyes, and the other half of NORAD. Why would Canada be some safe haven from the US and why would anyone think they'd be any less bothered by an airspace violation by a spy balloon than the US?

 

[boneh3ad]

Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)(It also mentions 50k feet is for full combat speed in the article)
How do you know that they were at the same altitude?

According to the Pentagon, the F-22s were at 58,000 feet and the balloon was between 60,000 and 65,000 feet.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/04/us/politics/chinese-spy-balloon-shot-down.html

I might guess they intentionally fired from below to try to direct the blast frag from the missile up and into the balloon and away from the payload to maximize the amount to be recovered.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Also I found this

https://www.businessinsider.com/runaway-weather-balloon-fighter-jets-history-2023-2

Which supports the decision to use a missile I guess.