Chinese "weather" balloon shoot-down over US

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Balloon Weather
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the recent shoot-down of a Chinese balloon over the US, with participants exploring the implications of the event, the technology involved, and the strategic considerations behind the military response. The conversation touches on military tactics, the nature of the balloon, and the potential information it could gather or transmit.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the balloon was shot down before reaching international waters and that retrieval efforts are planned.
  • There is speculation about the balloon's purpose, with some suggesting it may have been intended for espionage, while others argue that any information gathering efforts were likely jammed by US defenses.
  • Questions arise regarding the use of an AIM-9X missile to target an engineless balloon, with some participants suggesting alternative targeting mechanisms may have been employed.
  • Participants discuss the potential for the balloon to carry a significant payload and the importance of determining what it was carrying.
  • Concerns are raised about the cost-effectiveness of using expensive missiles against the balloon, with some arguing that the military often conducts training exercises that may justify the expenditure.
  • There are references to the balloon's flight path, with some participants speculating on its proximity to sensitive military communications and the implications for US-China relations.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the balloon's capabilities and the US government's changing narrative regarding the decision to shoot it down.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the balloon's purpose, the appropriateness of the military response, or the implications of the event for US-China relations. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the uncertainty surrounding the balloon's capabilities, the effectiveness of the military response, and the strategic implications of the incident, indicating that various assumptions and definitions are at play.

Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
8,213
Reaction score
2,660
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]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
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?

AIM-9X.png
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wrichik Basu and nsaspook
berkeman said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: scottdave
Why does the title refer to it as a "weather" balloon?
 
boneh3ad said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: scottdave
boneh3ad said:
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?
 
berkeman said:
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
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters and dlgoff
  • #10
boneh3ad said:
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...
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: OmCheeto
  • #11
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Wrichik Basu, phinds, berkeman and 1 other person
  • #12
berkeman said:
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.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Klystron, scottdave, Spinnor and 4 others
  • #13
Office_Shredder said:
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.
 
  • #15
Frabjous said:
Those missiles cost several hundred thousand dollars each.

That is pocket change for the military. They spend more on donuts.
 
  • #16
Frabjous said:
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?
 
  • #17
Office_Shredder said:
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.
 
  • #18
Office_Shredder said:
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!
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes   Reactions: Spinnor, Tom.G and russ_watters
  • #19
Frabjous said:
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.
 
  • #20
Frabjous said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Spinnor, russ_watters and Ivan Seeking
  • #21
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: russ_watters
  • #22
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD and russ_watters
  • #23
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • #24
Vanadium 50 said:
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".
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: boneh3ad
  • #26
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD and Astronuc
  • #27
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
  • #28
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur, Spinnor, russ_watters and 1 other person
  • #30
Vanadium 50 said:
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 77 ·
3
Replies
77
Views
14K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K