Jump to content

Another balloon object shot down over Alaska

JesusSweatDuck

By JesusSweatDuck
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

bolverk

bolverk 29824

Posted
Posted

@GoPokes83 

A more specific answer as to why the Canadian Prime Minister was able to order an American jet to shoot down the object over the Yukon:

Quote

 

The answer is simple. The F-22 and the pilot were part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, known as NORAD, a defense organization operated jointly by the United States and Canada.

NORAD’s stated purpose is to “prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces, and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America.”

It is led by a commander — currently Gen. Glen D. VanHerck — who reports to both the U.S. president and the Canadian prime minister.

Either of those leaders has the authority to issue an order, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did on Saturday. They are often in communication with each other as they do so, and this operation was no exception.

President Biden was informed of and supported the takedown of the object over the Yukon, a northwestern territory of Canada. Afterward, according to the White House, he and Mr. Trudeau “discussed the importance of recovering the object in order to determine more details on its purpose or origin.”

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hook1997

Hook1997 5434

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Helobious said:

Newb question: if I’m China, what would these super expensive balloons tell me that a few minutes on google earth couldn’t? 

Could have also been testing if it was detected, let go or shot down.  Could carry plenty of payload from chemical, biological, EMP, ect.  I’m guessing we will learn a lot more in the next few weeks.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoPokes83

GoPokes83 2240

Posted
Posted

So the Canuck’s are going to find and examine the wreckage? Everything I know about missiles is straight from Hollywood where one shot destroys an entire jet with a giant fireball. If that’s even partially true would there be anything left of whatever this was to study? The Yukon has some pretty rough terrain, how far would the debris be scattered after being blown apart and falling 40 thousand feet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wally Fairway

Wally Fairway 5600

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CycleTex87 said:

Massive red herring operation IMO. 

I agree, somewhere in China/Russia they are laying at downing $10k to launch a balloon and watching the US/Canada spending $million$ to track, scrabble interceptors, and missiles to shoot them down. 

All while they infiltrate via commercial flights into 50 different cities in North America, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bolverk

bolverk 29824

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, GoPokes83 said:

So the Canuck’s are going to find and examine the wreckage? Everything I know about missiles is straight from Hollywood where one shot destroys an entire jet with a giant fireball. If that’s even partially true would there be anything left of whatever this was to study? The Yukon has some pretty rough terrain, how far would the debris be scattered after being blown apart and falling 40 thousand feet?

They could call up that King Neptune guy with his metal detector from TOS.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17812

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, 4th and 5 said:

Instead of blowing them up with missiles, how about a round or 2 of 50 cal to deflate the balloon slowly, track it down to earth, recover it intact and study it.

It doesn't work very well. I believe the RAF had experience with this a few years ago. They had two fighters basically expend all their ammo trying to down a balloon with guns. These aren't party balloons. A few small holes don't actually do that much damage to them. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31686

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, GoPokes83 said:

So the Canuck’s are going to find and examine the wreckage? Everything I know about missiles is straight from Hollywood where one shot destroys an entire jet with a giant fireball. If that’s even partially true would there be anything left of whatever this was to study? The Yukon has some pretty rough terrain, how far would the debris be scattered after being blown apart and falling 40 thousand feet?

Somewhere I read one of the difficulties using missiles is that the balloon envelope doesn't have enough radar or infrared signature to reliably detonate AAMs, which are as you note proximity weapons that destroy everything in a radius by fragmentation.   Reports are, though, that the big Chinese one was taken out with an AIM-9 Sidewinder, which is an IR missile.

But, also, the usual target of an AAM has a lot of kinetic and potential/chemical energy that just needs a little help from the missile warhead to destroy itself, which would not be true of a balloon.

Regardless, they do seem to want to perforate the envelope and not just destroy the payload.  Also, apparently, many/most of these balloons are longcat long and the payload hangs hundreds of feet below the top of the envelope.  So it is conceivable that the envelope could be hit without coming close to the payload, even by an exploding missile with 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homercles

Homercles 10206

Posted
Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Somewhere I read one of the difficulties using missiles is that the balloon envelope doesn't have enough radar or infrared signature to reliably detonate AAMs, which are as you note proximity weapons that destroy everything in a radius by fragmentation.   Reports are, though, that the big Chinese one was taken out with an AIM-9 Sidewinder, which is an IR missile.

But, also, the usual target of an AAM has a lot of kinetic and potential/chemical energy that just needs a little help from the missile warhead to destroy itself, which would not be true of a balloon.

Regardless, they do seem to want to perforate the envelope and not just destroy the payload.  Also, apparently, many/most of these balloons are longcat long and the payload hangs hundreds of feet below the top of the envelope.  So it is conceivable that the envelope could be hit without coming close to the payload, even by an exploding missile with 

There’s a reason they use the AIM-9x version…it’s not a ‘heat seeker’ in the traditional sense.  It uses contrast imaging in the IR spectrum, of which a balloon/equipment in a -40C sky would stand out like a sore thumb.  Also has the added benefit of not using active radar terminal guidance like an AMRAAM would, which is nice because the return from a balloon/equipment is tiny and limits what China can glean from the emissions signature. 
 

The main military intel I’d guess they can capture from a balloon vs satellite is signal data on the different radar modes of our fighters like the Raptor.  Given the inverse square law, I’m sure they have all they need on stuff like NORAD and AWACS, but probably not shorter range stuff like fighters and missiles…and comms capture by amateurs shows the fighter jokes stating their radars have a hard time maintaining lock, so if anything China may be trying to build a library of data to update their RWR tech as we light it up trying to plot an intercept.  
 

I’d read that F15s have that Sniper/whatever pod that can do IRST and may be helping the Raptors figure out where they are to get within range of a Sidewinder lock.  That’s better than giving radar info to China.  There’s just no way they’re going to be able to engage visually at 600 knots…not without risking a $200M fighter and pilot.  
 

The awesome book Sled Driver has a paragraph where an SR-71 flies by a weather balloon.  Granted it was Mach 3 but he flew by it so fast that it was gone in a blink.  A fighter probably has a decent coffin corner at high altitude so they can’t just drop flaps and lazily do circles around it to engage visually, so using a sidewinder is the safest/cheapest/smartest way to take it out.  
 

TLDR:  A modern sidewinder makes sense as it has the best approach to engaging the target in a safe, effective way without giving up more info on our radars/missiles than necessary. 

Edited by Homercles
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17854

Posted
Posted
There’s a reason they use the AIM-9x version…it’s not a ‘heat seeker’ in the traditional sense.  It uses contrast imaging in the IR spectrum, of which a balloon/equipment in a -40C sky would stand out like a sore thumb.  Also has the added benefit of not using active radar terminal guidance like an AMRAAM would, which is nice because the return from a balloon/equipment is tiny and limits what China can glean from the emissions signature. 
 
The main military intel I’d guess they can capture from a balloon vs satellite is signal data on the different radar modes of our fighters like the Raptor.  Given the inverse square law, I’m sure they have all they need on stuff like NORAD and AWACS, but probably not shorter range stuff like fighters and missiles…and comms capture by amateurs shows the fighter jokes stating their radars have a hard time maintaining lock, so if anything China may be trying to build a library of data to update their RWR tech as we light it up trying to plot an intercept.  
 
I’d read that F15s have that Sniper/whatever pod that can do IRST and may be helping the Raptors figure out where they are to get within range of a Sidewinder lock.  That’s better than giving radar info to China.  There’s just no way they’re going to be able to engage visually at 600 knots…not without risking a $200M fighter and pilot.  
 
The awesome book Sled Driver has a paragraph where an SR-71 flies by a weather balloon.  Granted it was Mach 3 but he flew by it so fast that it was gone in a blink.  A fighter probably has a decent coffin corner at high altitude so they can’t just drop flaps and lazily do circles around it to engage visually, so using a sidewinder is the safest/cheapest/smartest way to take it out.  
 
TLDR:  A modern sidewinder makes sense as it has the best approach to engaging the target in a safe, effective way without giving up more info on our radars/missiles than necessary. 

I’ll bet the boys down at Raytheon are already working on a cheaper version of the sidewinder with grapeshot specifically for balloons.
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Homercles

Homercles 10206

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


I’ll bet the boys down at Raytheon are already working on a cheaper version of the sidewinder with grapeshot specifically for balloons.

Poking holes in large balloons doesn’t seem to work very well…at least not when you are trying to down it in a specific place.  It’s unpredictable, which in the military is bad news.  
 

So it’s feasible but if emptying a few hundred rounds of 20mm doesn’t work well, I’d be surprised if a sidewinder with flechettes would be much better.  But I’m sure you’re right insofar as Raytheon eyeing more money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoPokes83

GoPokes83 2240

Posted
Posted
It doesn't work very well. I believe the RAF had experience with this a few years ago. They had two fighters basically expend all their ammo trying to down a balloon with guns. These aren't party balloons. A few small holes don't actually do that much damage to them. 

What about one of those a 10’s that shoot a gazillion 30mm shells a second?

Also, probably been covered a few times already, but would one of you smarter than me guys explain to me how a balloon that just wanders around wherever the wind takes it just hoping to get lucky is a great spy plan? Are they looking for all our chicken house secrets by flying over rural Missouri?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JesusSweatDuck

JesusSweatDuck 17814

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, GoPokes83 said:


What about one of those a 10’s that shoot a gazillion 30mm shells a second?

Also, probably been covered a few times already, but would one of you smarter than me guys explain to me how a balloon that just wanders around wherever the wind takes it just hoping to get lucky is a great spy plan? Are they looking for all our chicken house secrets by flying over rural Missouri?

They said it had some ability to be maneuvered. Not exactly sure how though

Edited by JesusSweatDuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17812

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

They said it had some ability to be maneuvered. Not exactly sure how though

Perhaps similar to hot air balloons. It can control its altitude and find favorable currents to carry it where it wants to go. I assume the bigger balloon had more direct propulsion as well. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17812

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, GoPokes83 said:


What about one of those a 10’s that shoot a gazillion 30mm shells a second?

A F22 already uses fairly large shells at 20mm. Larger calibers help, but they are still relatively small compared to the size of the balloon. The other issue is relative speed. Jets move fast. Balloons move slow and are relatively small. It is hard for our fighters to safely engage one of these things with guns without risking loss of the fighter. The A10s lower speed may be helpful here, but it is going to have trouble operating at the altitudes these objects have been found at. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105586

Posted
Posted

So, work with me here.....a fighter plane.....equipped with "Tactical Scissors*" on the front.  Just cut the strings between the balloon and payload -- balloon floats away, payload plummets in free fall right there, easy recovery.

* "Tactical Scissors" is a trademark of the Raytheon group, and cost $300 million per pair, because of special design and alloys and shit.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YGIFS

YGIFS 19453

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, JesusSweatDuck said:

They said it had some ability to be maneuvered. Not exactly sure how though

It appeared to have solar arrays on it.  Presumably, and this is complete novice language here, some type of servo would be able to tilt the arrays back towards the sunlight if the balloon were to get blown around with the panels facing north or west after sunset or what have you.  

I'll say it again, they just caused a huge rift in the American political ecosystem that was already ripe with fomenting anger.  And they did it with a $500k balloon system, not years and billions of dollars in propaganda and tradecraft.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JesusSweatDuck

JesusSweatDuck 17814

Posted
  • Author
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, work with me here.....a fighter plane.....equipped with "Tactical Scissors*" on the front.  Just cut the strings between the balloon and payload -- balloon floats away, payload plummets in free fall right there, easy recovery.

* "Tactical Scissors" is a trademark of the Raytheon group, and cost $300 million per pair, because of special design and alloys and shit.

scissor timbers GIF

14 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

A F22 already uses fairly large shells at 20mm. Larger calibers help, but they are still relatively small compared to the size of the balloon. The other issue is relative speed. Jets move fast. Balloons move slow and are relatively small. It is hard for our fighters to safely engage one of these things with guns without risking loss of the fighter. The A10s lower speed may be helpful here, but it is going to have trouble operating at the altitudes these objects have been found at. 

Yeah, an A10 can't fly at 60K ft

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BachelorTrek

BachelorTrek 3167

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

 

5CCFC7F5-7D95-4AD3-8730-831E686D8E5D.jpeg

My dearly departed Mom lived in Brazil in the 1950s, both in Rio de Janeiro (since it overlooks Rio) and Sao Paulo, and had even visited the Christ the redeemer statue at least once.

She remembers hearing it mentioned in the news, even back then, that the Christ the redeemer statue would get struck by lightning.

Things struck by lightning are always incredible pictures, but the hysteria is unwarranted.

The Christ the redeemer statue gets struck regularly by lightning.

This is not new.

It's hit by lightning up to 6 times per year, per OGlobo, the largest news and media outlet in Brazil:

https://oglobo.globo.com/rio/noticia/2023/02/numero-de-raios-que-caem-no-estado-do-rio-aumentou-33percent.ghtml

And it goes on to say that the Rio de Janeiro state that the city of Rio de Janeiro is in, gets a ton of lightning strikes.

 

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Surly Bevo

Surly Bevo 25528

Posted
Posted

On the potential "alien" objects.  My deal with that.  You are telling me that these things are sophisticated enough to travel and navigate through space/spacetime, or whatever to arrive at Earth, and enter our atmosphere in a controlled manner that prevents them from being incinerated. Then Captain Hiller takes it out with a janky old Murican bandit shot. 

 

Drunk Will Smith GIF by IFC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...