News Chinese "weather" balloon shoot-down over US

[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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why would that be the plan?

1. Canada is a safer place to be than the us.
2. The alternatives are far far away.
3. Canada doesn't seem particularly outraged by the violation of its airspace.

I think a reasonable mission plan is to come down over Canada, enter Montana, take the pictures, go north and up, and then transmi them. Ditch the balloon over the ocean some days later,

 

[boneh3ad]

I don't see why you would assume Canada wouldn't have shot the balloon down had it stayed up there. If the US asked Canada to down it had it returned to Canadian territory, I'd bet they would do it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't see why you would assume Canada wouldn't have shot the balloon dow

They didn't shoot it down on the way in.

 

[boneh3ad]

They didn't shoot it down on the way in.

Neither did we when it first crossed our airspace. Clearly there is more to this than just who can shoot the balloon down first. The thing was tracked all through Alaska, which is home to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, home of the Pacific Air Forces and a squadron of F-22s. We obviously waited for it to pass over our territory before shooting it down and we have been in communication with Canada throughout the episode.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I'm just going to wait until the results are released in regards to what the balloon had with it, and then make further comments then.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think the "results" will ever ve released, or at least not any time soon. If the Chinese are adversaries, what is the point in telling them what the US has and has not learned from this. If the Chinese are friends, what's the point in embarassing them?

 

[boneh3ad]

I don't think the "results" will ever ve released, or at least not any time soon. If the Chinese are adversaries, what is the point in telling them what the US has and has not learned from this. If the Chinese are friends, what's the point in embarassing them?

For one, the Chinese government is not a friend to the United States (or the West more broadly).

The point of releasing information is to take control of the narrative more broadly. China knows what was on the balloon and what we likely now have to examine. We aren't really telling them anything. Meanwhile, being transparent about (some) secrets is a good way to build trust, which is important given how deep a hole we (the US) have dug ourselves in that department around the world. It's also something Biden has already employed with success related to Russia and the invasion of Ukraine. The US declassified a fair bit of information to share in the run up to the invasion, was met with great skepticism, and then it turned out we were right and being forthcoming rather than alarmist. Transparency like that builds trust.

There is also the issue of domestic politics. Being transparent can help deflect some of the criticism that has been directed at the administration for how this was handled. If they can show why it was handled that way and what was learned in some way, it can improve their standing with the public.

I am not saying it isn't a fraught issue. There will need to be a lot of care regarding what is released publicly and how. But there are a lot of advantages to releasing at least some information.

 

[StevieTNZ]

Interesting, "Perhaps you recognise me, it's your favourite president" said "It never happened with us under the Trump administration and if it did, we would have shot it down immediately."

However, "A senior defence official confirmed that Chinese surveillance balloons passed over the US "at least three times during the prior administration" but were not shot down or revealed to the public." - https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/us-ca...sed-us-skies-under-donald-trump-pentagon-says

 

[berkeman]

Let's be a little careful not to get too much into the political side of this. We've been doing okay so far, but the thread could get closed if we dwell too much on the political angles. Thanks.

 

[boneh3ad]

Some new details from USNORTHCOM via Aviation Week:


Summary:

• The US military conducted a lot of signals intelligence on the balloon as it traversed the country, needed special permission to do so
• The AIM-9X was chosen in part to limit damage to the payload, had never been used in this way before
• The US military likes to discuss the size of things in terms of the size of other things, apparently. How many bananas wide was the payload?