News Chinese "weather" balloon shoot-down over US

[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?

 

[boneh3ad]

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

To be fair, it appears (according to NORAD) that those balloon incursions were only identified after the fact:

 

[gmax137]

needed special permission to do so

? Permission from whom?

 

[boneh3ad]

? Permission from whom?

That's a pertinent question and I don't know the answer. Normally the military (or CIA or FBI, for that matter) isn't allowed to collect intelligence on US soil. So I'm not sure who makes that call. I would guess probably the FISA Court would have to issue an appropriate warrant.

 

[russ_watters]

Some new details from USNORTHCOM via Aviation Week:


Summary:

• 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?

CNN says it's the size of three coach busses, so I'm not sure who to believe.

 

[berkeman]

CNN says it's the size of three coach busses, so I'm not sure who to believe.

We need to finally agree on SI bananas as the unit of measure. Please folks, let's stop being so obstructionist...

 

[boneh3ad]

CNN says it's the size of three coach busses, so I'm not sure who to believe.

The length of a plane in the Embraer E-Jet family ranges from about 2 to 3 coach bus lengths, so it seems consistent. But I don't know if that is metric coach buses or US customary coach buses (also known as greyhounds).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

CNN says it's the size of three coach busses, so I'm not sure who to believe.

That's what I heard first. Later I heard that was the size of the payload [3 busses]

 

[StevieTNZ]

those balloon incursions were only identified after the fact

Even worse of a situation, in my view.

 

[boneh3ad]

Even worse of a situation, in my view.

Sure, but it does offer one possible explanation why the government may want to let it overfly the country while gathering a ton of intelligence: so we can track them better in the future.

 

[Vanadium 50]

15 football fields by 15 football fields?
We used to call this "a square mile".

Which is a lot better to be looking for parts and pieces than seven square files, but is still a big, big area. Underwater does not make it better,

 

[hutchphd]

*****The Chinese have >500 nuclear warheads, many on ICBMs*******

What is Soooo Terrifying about a large balloon? Am I missing a fundamental point here? Is there a balloon gap? Is this some wierd theatre?

 

[berkeman]

Is there a balloon gap?

I think the gap was because we did not have any way to bring down the balloon from 60k' in a controlled way so it could be grounded right after it was detected. All we had was fighter jets with missiles, so had to wait until over water. But as @boneh3ad says, part of that wait may have been useful as well.

 

[Frabjous]

*****The Chinese have >500 nuclear warheads, many on ICBMs*******

What is Soooo Terrifying about a large balloon? Am I missing a fundamental point here? Is there a balloon gap? Is this some wierd theatre?

There is the issue that the US has not been detecting them. It is not clear if this has been addressed or if the US was just lucky this time. This has counterforce implications.

 

[berkeman]

I just saw this in the Lame Jokes thread, posted by @nsaspook and couldn't resist cross-posting it here.

 

[hutchphd]

I think the gap was because we did not have any way to bring down the balloon from 60k' in a controlled way so it could be grounded right after it was detected.

If it is such a threat just shoot it down. Big airplanes crash at high lateral speed and usually do little human damage unless over a city.
In the big scheme of things this just seems nuts. So we need an anti-balloon system? Can I get a piece of that development money?

 

[berkeman]

Can I get a piece of that development money?

Now would seem to be a good time to apply!

 

[Frabjous]

Now would seem to be a good time to apply!

From https://business.defense.gov/Work-with-us/Guide-to-working-with-DoD/

It typically takes at least 18 months of planning before a government contractor wins their first contract. Plan to invest significant time and resources becoming procurement ready, identifying potential opportunities, marketing to potential clients, developing proposals, implementing your first DoD contract and complying with DoD rules.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What is Soooo Terrifying about a large balloon? Am I missing a fundamental point here? Is there a balloon gap? Is this some wierd theatre?

Who is terrified? The Chinese sent a spy device and violated our airspace.

I see some media claiming people are terrified, but I have seen no such thing in fact. People made a bit of a thing to watch for it for fun. And we want to know what the Chinese hoped to accomplish.

The only useful spying it could do that a satellite couldn't that's I've heard about, is to monitor low-power transmissions used for our nuclear weapons systems - too weak for a satellite to detect. That is a bit bothersome. In a worst case it could be a prelude to nuclear war. But they have to know we would jam any potential signals... unless they hoped to sneak it in.

 

[boneh3ad]

A good discussion of why balloons are pertinent: https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefiel...ns-could-complement-space-based-intelligence/

The issue of nukes is irrelevant. It's a totally different mission and threat.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The issue of nukes is irrelevant.

Not according to Leon Panetta - former secretary of Defense

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In fact your own source says what I just said

Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, said one benefit of these balloons is their ability to hover closer to the ground than satellites, and they may be able to intercept communication or electronic signals that orbiting systems can’t.

 

[fresh_42]

My fear is, that it is part of the preparation to deal with the Taiwan issue. It could have served multiple goals in this respect:

• reaction time
• severeness of reactions
• spying facilities in the northwest
• testing jet streams relevant for potential fallouts
• and what else might be relevant for military personal

 

[boneh3ad]

Not according to Leon Panetta - former secretary of Defense

I haven't seen whatever he said. I suppose you could put a nuke on a balloon and it would be harder to detect but easier to shoot down than an ICBM.

Also, if a country decided to openly nuclearize a balloon, it immediately means they can't use balloons for other more useful purposes because everyone would assume it's a nuclear attack and retaliate. It's the same reason we don't have conventional ICBMs and why the US isn't planning to develop nuclear hypersonic weapons.

So to me, saying "why should I worry about balloons when they have nukes" is akin to saying "why should I be concerned about smoking cigarettes when I could die in a plane crash tomorrow." Unknowingly giving up intel is how you lose future wars.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I haven't seen whatever he said. I suppose you could put a nuke on a balloon and it would be harder to detect but easier to shoot down than an ICBM.

What I said: We use low-power communications to coordinate our nuclear weapons system. We use low power specifically so satellites can't detect those communications. A balloon is at much lower altitude so it could detect those signals.

Those are likely the most classified communications to be found. And it followed a track that brought it close to several critical nuclear sites, like Malmstrom AFB.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My fear is, that it is part of the preparation to deal with the Taiwan issue. It could have served multiple goals in this respect:

• reaction time
• severeness of reactions
• spying facilities in the northwest
• testing jet streams relevant for potential fallouts
• and what else might be relevant for military personal

Hopefully the payload will be intact enough to determine the motive.

 

[berkeman]

I think the gap was because we did not have any way to bring down the balloon from 60k' in a controlled way so it could be grounded right after it was detected. All we had was fighter jets with missiles, so had to wait until over water.

Okay, okay, we got this folks. I've been doing a little research, and we can put together a PF Team that can be available at a moment's notice if this happens again.

We can have several of these aircraft made available to us to get us to 51k', and our deer rifles can do the rest. I'm taking sign-ups at the following website; only apply if you have experience shooting your deer rifle while hanging out of a Leer jet at altitude. Wolverines! www.spacecowpokes.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_45

Service ceiling: 51,000 ft (15,545 m)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, okay, we got this folks. I've been doing a little research, and we can put together a PF Team that can be available at a moment's notice if this happens again.

We can have several of these aircraft made available to us to get us to 51k', and our deer rifles can do the rest. I'm taking sign-ups at the following website; only apply if you have experience shooting your deer rifle while hanging out of a Leer jet at altitude. Wolverines! www.spacecowpokes.com

View attachment 321929
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learjet_45

I think we need someone to jump wearing a jet pack, to get the last bit of altitude.

 

[fresh_42]

I think we need someone to jump wearing a jet pack, to get the last bit of altitude.

We can send Brady. He is currently available and an expert in deflation.

 

[berkeman]

We use low-power communications to coordinate our nuclear weapons system. We use low power specifically so satellites can't detect those communications. A balloon is at much lower altitude so it could detect those signals.

I'd ask for a source, but if you had one you probably couldn't share it. But honestly, it would be stupid to use lower power over-the-air comms to communicate short distances over the terrestrial US. Coax or fiber would work just as well, and be immune to over-the-air sniffing recon.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'd ask for a source, but if you had one you probably couldn't share it. But honestly, it would be stupid to use lower power over-the-air comms to communicate short distances over the terrestrial US. Coax or fiber would work just as well, and be immune to over-the-air sniffing recon.

No, I heard it in an interview. If you need to make a fuss I'll try to find a source. I said I heard it from Leon Panetta. I didn't mean personally.

 

[berkeman]

No, I heard it in an interview. If you need to make a fuss I'll try to find a source. I said I heard it from Leon Panetta. I didn't mean personally.

Sorry to make a fuss, but why in the world would you broadcast secure comms over short distances (low power) even using highly directional dish antennas when you could use secure fiber or coax? It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This looks like a related discussion

https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/files/scientificamerican0185-32.pdf

 

[boneh3ad]

What I said: We use low-power communications to coordinate our nuclear weapons system. We use low power specifically so satellites can't detect those communications. A balloon is at much lower altitude so it could detect those signals.

Those are likely the most classified communications to be found. And it followed a track that brought it close to several critical nuclear sites, like Malmstrom AFB.

I didn't contradict that. I contradicted an idea earlier in the thread that balloons aren't a concern because China has nukes, which are scarier. The key idea is the threshold for use of a nuke is almost impossibly high. Not so for a balloon.

 

[boneh3ad]

Sorry to make a fuss, but why in the world would you broadcast secure comms over short distances (low power) even using highly directional dish antennas when you could use secure fiber or coax? It just doesn't make sense to me.

The distances between silos are usually quite large. Cables like that would probably be vulnerable to sabotage. There's no perfect solution.

Any over the air comms are likely encrypted but even the pattern of use could be potentially useful. It's so-called pattern-of-life analysis that establishes working habits and protocols for sensitive installations. That's why the military had to ban Fitbits and other trackers on bases in the Middle East because it was posting data about when people go for runs and change shifts inadvertently.

 

[hutchphd]

I didn't contradict that. I contradicted an idea earlier in the thread that balloons aren't a concern because China has nukes, which are scarier. The key idea is the threshold for use of a nuke is almost impossibly high. Not so for a balloon.

I'm lost. Use to do whaT??

 

[boneh3ad]

I'm lost. Use to do whaT??

Just general use. The threshold for actually using a nuclear weapon is that the country basically needs to be facing an existential external threat thanks to mutually assured destruction.

The threshold for using a balloon for collecting intelligence is basically zero. The Chinese government just did it despite pending high level meetings with the US government.

 

[rbelli1]

So we need an anti-balloon system? Can I get a piece of that development money?

Someone has already beat you to it. I found a picture of prototype hardware.

BoB

 

[russ_watters]

I'm lost. Use to do whaT??

I found your comment in post #71 weird/confusing too. You seemed to be asking why we should be concerned about balloons when they have nukes. One thing has basically nothing to do with the other....and could be applied to any aggressive action they take. Why should we worry about fighter intercepts in international airspace when they have nukes? Why should we be worried about harassing Filipino fishing boats when they have nukes? They really are totally unrelated.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But honestly, it would be stupid to use lower power over-the-air comms to communicate short distances

And it would be stupid to try and listen at the receiving end. The transmitting end woule be better, and there are an infinite number of equally good or better positions.

Further, RF propagation (as you know) can be wacky. There are radio amateurs who have established communications with stations in all 50 states on "line of sight" bands. For the same money, you can do a lot better by 'wait and hope'.

 

[Swamp Thing]

Any over the air comms are likely encrypted but even the pattern of use could be potentially useful. It's so-called pattern-of-life analysis that establishes working habits and protocols for sensitive installations. That's why the military had to ban Fitbits and other trackers on bases in the Middle East because it was posting data about when people go for runs and change shifts inadvertently.

If that is one of the balloon's goals, there would probably be people on the ground who would easily hike or drive to places where the transmitter's sidelobes can be picked up. (I don't think that huge strips of land between and around the comms nodes could be made off limits to civilians). The PRC is able to apply quite a bit of coercion and/or other incentives onto former citizens, expats and diaspora in foreign countries.