lxman1 wrote:

It could be a test to see how we react, hard to say for sure, but they are less than honest about so many things.

My thoughts exactly.

I don't get the fear mongering over shooting this thing down. It wouldn't create a debris field that covers half a state, 11 miles up doesn't allow for that. Nor is it a difficult target to take out. A missile (or three) going straight through the envelope (to detonate well beyond it) would work. If this were a Maverick movie they'd hook onto the balloon tether with a eight pack of re-entry parachutes and recover it. Me, I think, if it gets there, take it down over the Great Lakes and retrieve it from there.

Tugg

https://www.9news.com.au/world/chinese- ... 54f9702fd5

Another one in Central America

they are really losing another balloon

On FlightRadar24, if you track "HBAL617", you can get a little chuckle...

superbizzy73 wrote:

On FlightRadar24, if you track "HBAL617", you can get a little chuckle...

They seem to have taken it off, its was there one minute then they must have shot it down its gone

And for the description it said no this is not a Chinese hot air balloon

Try Napalm, I guess...

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 ... -us-expert

It's got nothing to do with the B-3 bomber!

"We will not be telling Americans where to look for the shiny Chinese balloon in the sky somewhere over the United States for the next few days."

The distraction is in. Bought themselves a few more days in the news-cycle.

A101 wrote:

https://www.9news.com.au/world/chinese-second-spy-balloon-central-america-joe-biden-surveillance-espionage-usa-news/ee46ff2e-ecde-4972-88fe-de54f9702fd5

Another one in Central America

they are really losing another balloon

Like the line from The Hunt for Red October: "Andre, you've lost ANOTHER submarine?"

I was an air traffic controller at the facility in Albuquerque that controls Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas in the 80s and early 90s. During that time NOAA would launch balloons out of Fort Sumner NM. Of course these balloons had transponders with altitude readout, but we had no trouble keeping airplanes away from them. It only took about 20 minutes for the balloons to get above 60,000 ft at launch, with similar times on the way back down for recovery. The low ground speeds of the balloons made them seem almost like stationary objects compared to the speed of the fixed wing aircraft.

The balloons were quite large. 1,500 feet tall at launch, 800 foot across when expanded at altitude. I recall being briefed that the payloads weighed over 5,000 pounds.

I would take the pilot reports of this balloon at 50,000 ft with a grain of salt. The size of the balloon, the angles of the sun, the curvature of the earth, meteorological conditions all combine to make for deceptive optics.

We would routinely have pilots report the NOAA balloons “ 10 miles off my right at about our altitude or just above.” They would be shocked when we would tell them that the balloon was actually at 104,000 feet and 200 miles away. Aircraft actually near the balloons at altitude would never report it because it was so far above them, they wouldn’t see it even when we gave them advisories with the location referencing their position.

Did you get a chance to work Aspen call signs out of Beale?

Earlier I had posted two other facts - one about a Chinese company wanting to build a corn mill right next to a Minuteman base (which has now been blocked) and that the Chinese are on crash effort to build more missile silos.

Now being a rather paranoid person, I don't see anything good coming out of these events. IMO the parallels between the recent actions of the Chinese and those of Imperial Japan prior to WWII are striking.

Questions
Did the DEW radars in Alaska pick up this balloon? If not, yikes.
Is this a tit-for-tat for our actions in the South China Sea - i.e not respecting their new boundaries.
Now why do they need more missile silos ? Everyone else until recently has been reducing delivery vehicles.

Per DailyMail Biden 'WILL try to shoot down' the Chinese spy balloon over the Atlantic

Biden 'WILL try to shoot down' the Chinese spy balloon over the Atlantic so it can be retrieved and studied - as aircraft is due to exit the east coast over the Carolinas by noon today

Looks like Maverick, Goose, Iceman and others are getting into position...
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=ae61d3,ae61c9,ae61db,ae61e3&lat=32.483&lon=-79.712&zoom=7.9&showTrace=2023-02-04&trackLabels

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Did you get a chance to work Aspen call signs out of Beale?

Yes, the reason for my username. There were a couple standard training routes for both the SR71s and the U2s (Piñon call signs) out of Beale that went through our airspace. We also had a SR specific refueling track that the IP was near the southeast corner of NM in west Texas. They used it on operational missions that headed out towards the Gulf of Mexico.

It was thrilling watching the SR71 targets jump across your radar screen. The ground speed line in our data blocks would max out at 990 knots. However we could do a range/bearing/fix function on the target indicator and still get an accurate speed. Usually between 1800 and 1900 knots ground speed. Over 2,000 mph.

The F111 functional test flights out of Cannon would get up to about 1400 knots, but only for a few minutes before they would decelerate and come back down.

Good times.

btfarrwm wrote:

We're probably not shooting it down because we don't know what's in it. The Pentagon feels very strongly it is a surveillance balloon and not a weather balloon, so it would be valuable to recover it intact and analyze its contents. If it makes it over the ocean, intact and at altitude, I guarantee it will be shot down over US waters and recovered by the Navy.

It will be interesting to see how quickly it falls, assuming we shoot it down. The 12nm of US Territorial Waters offshore is not a lot of distance to recover it. It will also be interesting to see if it has a “self destruct” mechanism if the balloon is popped.

FAA has issued ground stops at 3 airports across Carolinas, and established restricted airspace for “National Defense”. Also, refueling tankers flying near NC & SC coast.

I would think that it would be fairly easy to track the winds at the altitudes that the balloon has been flying at and make a reasonable assessment on it's track verses the winds. This may give an idea whether or not it is steerable.

Paul Sperry @paulsperry_
Senior reporter http://RealClearInvestigations.com; NY Post columnist; longtime Hoover Institution media fellow; ex-DC bureau chief IBD; author bestseller INFILTRATION


BREAKING: The Chinese spy craft has been reported flying as low as 35,000 feet and potentially in the path of commercial passenger jets above a number of states, alarming the FAA, according to federal aviation security sources.

"China's balloon flyover of the United States is clearly a provocative and aggressive act. It was most likely a type of dry run [for an EMP attack]," said ret. U.S. Air Force Maj. David Stuckenberg, who led the Defense Department's EMP Task Force.

It’s been hit. Looks like the box on bottom disconnected from the balloon after balloon deflated.

https://twitter.com/astroqv/status/1621 ... rIwUh1C6fw

Took out by F-22s using missiles it seems. This would be the first air to air kill of the F-22 if confirmed.

Why missiles? Wouldnt make it more sense to use guns?

Wonder if any elint a/c were launched to see if the balloon was still in active communication during its foray over the US?
My line of thinking, if active that would be most important, imagine the reaction if it was a manned a/c, but harmless balloon, we already have the nay-sayers that China could get the info they need from their satellites, guess China never got the memo on their capabilities.

TheSonntag wrote:

Why missiles? Wouldnt make it more sense to use guns?

Wasn't it up at 80,000ft, or was it only 35,000ft? Can the F22 reliably get to 80,000ft (if the balloon was that high), or is it just a ballistic zoom climb then down it goes again once it gets there?

I do remember the SAAB Viggen did go higher than the SR-71 at times, but only for a brief time - it could not remain there.

par13del wrote:

Wonder if any elint a/c were launched to see if the balloon was still in active communication during its foray over the US?
My line of thinking, if active that would be most important, imagine the reaction if it was a manned a/c, but harmless balloon, we already have the nay-sayers that China could get the info they need from their satellites, guess China never got the memo on their capabilities.

You could easily track the RC-135 that was shadowing it yesterday as it crossed over Tenn.

Launched out of Offutt AFB.

Any guesses what's onboard? Does Xi Jinping have a sense of humor?

Foreign leaders always under estimate how quick the US public is to anger.

cpd wrote:

TheSonntag wrote:

Why missiles? Wouldnt make it more sense to use guns?

Wasn't it up at 80,000ft, or was it only 35,000ft? Can the F22 reliably get to 80,000ft (if the balloon was that high), or is it just a ballistic zoom climb then down it goes again once it gets there?

I do remember the SAAB Viggen did go higher than the SR-71 at times, but only for a brief time - it could not remain there.

I guess that F-22 could reach 90,000ft or more.

In 1984, during a NATO exercise, Flt Lt Mike Hale intercepted a U-2 at a height which they had previously considered safe (thought to be 66,000 feet (20,000 m)). Records show that Hale also climbed to 88,000 ft (27,000 m) in his Lightning F.3 XR749. This was not sustained level flight but a ballistic climb, in which the pilot takes the aircraft to top speed and then puts the aircraft into a climb, exchanging speed for altitude...

...Lightning pilot and Chief Examiner Brian Carroll reported taking a Lightning F.53 up to 87,300 feet (26,600 m) over Saudi Arabia at which level "Earth curvature was visible and the sky was quite dark", noting that control-wise "[it was] on a knife edge"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_E ... _Lightning

Spacepope wrote:

par13del wrote:

Wonder if any elint a/c were launched to see if the balloon was still in active communication during its foray over the US?
My line of thinking, if active that would be most important, imagine the reaction if it was a manned a/c, but harmless balloon, we already have the nay-sayers that China could get the info they need from their satellites, guess China never got the memo on their capabilities.

You could easily track the RC-135 that was shadowing it yesterday as it crossed over Tenn.

Launched out of Offutt AFB.

Reporting is that the balloon was blocked during it's entire transit over the US.

https://twitter.com/jimsciutto/status/1 ... 13920?s=20

Aspen71 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Did you get a chance to work Aspen call signs out of Beale?

Yes, the reason for my username. There were a couple standard training routes for both the SR71s and the U2s (Piñon call signs) out of Beale that went through our airspace. We also had a SR specific refueling track that the IP was near the southeast corner of NM in west Texas. They used it on operational missions that headed out towards the Gulf of Mexico.

It was thrilling watching the SR71 targets jump across your radar screen. The ground speed line in our data blocks would max out at 990 knots. However we could do a range/bearing/fix function on the target indicator and still get an accurate speed. Usually between 1800 and 1900 knots ground speed. Over 2,000 mph.

The F111 functional test flights out of Cannon would get up to about 1400 knots, but only for a few minutes before they would decelerate and come back down.

Good times.

I went thru UPT with a guy whose Dad was, I think the title is correct, the military coordinator at ZAB (Staley). So, while I was at Tucson Guard in Hun school, the visits to his home inevitably included a visit to the center. I did get see a few Aspens on radar.

His other story was in the days of SAC “no-notice” ORIs at Amarillo, Roswell, he’d get a call from Omaha only saying the ORI would begin shortly. He’d call the wing commanders and tell them, “here they come, ready or not”. Just like a Jimmy Stewart movie.

True, good times.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Questions
Did the DEW radars in Alaska pick up this balloon? If not, yikes.

That I don’t know because I don’t even know what a DEW radar is. But I have 100% confidence that the balloon did not make it all the way to Montana without both the Canadian and U.S. militaries being fully aware of it. Just because the civilian news media didn’t know about it doesn’t mean the military was asleep at the switch. Things happen EVERY SINGLE DAY that the news media never hears about.

Shot down with a sidewinder missile… because why use 20MM when you can fire off a $400,000 missile? ‘Murica
And before anyone says “oh it’s probably an old one due to be scrapped anyway” no. If it failed it would be a huge embarrassment for such a high profile mission.

Zkpilot wrote:

Shot down with a sidewinder missile… because why use 20MM when you can fire off a $400,000 missile? ‘Murica
And before anyone says “oh it’s probably an old one due to be scrapped anyway” no. If it failed it would be a huge embarrassment for such a high profile mission.

20mm's will only poke small holes without detonating as the fuse requires hitting something hard to detonate. So you'll either have to spray it with a lot of 20mm's to poke it with enough holes to make it go down, or hope you hit something critical.

Not to mention, for 20mmm the Pilot would have to close to about 2,500’ of the balloon. As you “aim” the gun by aiming the plane, you are on a collision path with it. Try that at M1.0 or greater. M1.0 at 58,000’ is only 192KIAS.

ThePointblank wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Shot down with a sidewinder missile… because why use 20MM when you can fire off a $400,000 missile? ‘Murica
And before anyone says “oh it’s probably an old one due to be scrapped anyway” no. If it failed it would be a huge embarrassment for such a high profile mission.

20mm's will only poke small holes without detonating as the fuse requires hitting something hard to detonate. So you'll either have to spray it with a lot of 20mm's to poke it with enough holes to make it go down, or hope you hit something critical.

Lots of bullets then. M61A2 rate of fire 6000 rounds per minute. Has 480 rounds so 12.5 seconds. Now given speeds involved say 200 rounds fired and 100 hitting. 100 rounds would shred the flying F out of that balloon. Even if it remained intact it would still rapidly deflate and descend. Potentially even descend at a rate that it has a soft enough landing to be easily recovered quickly.
But no, more fun to fire off a $400k missile.

Zkpilot wrote:

Shot down with a sidewinder missile… because why use 20MM when you can fire off a $400,000 missile? ‘Murica
And before anyone says “oh it’s probably an old one due to be scrapped anyway” no. If it failed it would be a huge embarrassment for such a high profile mission.

Please see this article:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/w ... n-it-seems

Zkpilot wrote:

Lots of bullets then. M61A2 rate of fire 6000 rounds per minute. Has 480 rounds so 12.5 seconds. Now given speeds involved say 200 rounds fired and 100 hitting. 100 rounds would shred the flying F out of that balloon. Even if it remained intact it would still rapidly deflate and descend. Potentially even descend at a rate that it has a soft enough landing to be easily recovered quickly.
But no, more fun to fire off a $400k missile.

You might wanna check your math…

While you’re doing that, you could ask yourself why two guys who trained to kill people and break things for a living aren’t up in arms about it being an aim-9 or 120 kill.

Zkpilot wrote:

Shot down with a sidewinder missile… because why use 20MM when you can fire off a $400,000 missile? ‘Murica
And before anyone says “oh it’s probably an old one due to be scrapped anyway” no. If it failed it would be a huge embarrassment for such a high profile mission.

Settle down Beavis. The missile was already laid for years ago. This is better training than shooting a Sidewinder at a QF-16.

How high up was this thing when they shot it down? I suspect, but obviously have no idea, that it would be in different conditions from what they usually train in.

LyleLanley wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Lots of bullets then. M61A2 rate of fire 6000 rounds per minute. Has 480 rounds so 12.5 seconds. Now given speeds involved say 200 rounds fired and 100 hitting. 100 rounds would shred the flying F out of that balloon. Even if it remained intact it would still rapidly deflate and descend. Potentially even descend at a rate that it has a soft enough landing to be easily recovered quickly.
But no, more fun to fire off a $400k missile.

You might wanna check your math…

While you’re doing that, you could ask yourself why two guys who trained to kill people and break things for a living aren’t up in arms about it being an aim-9 or 120 kill.

Nothing wrong with the math unless you’re implying that the manufacturer of the Vulcan has its numbers wrong?

Avatar2go wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Shot down with a sidewinder missile… because why use 20MM when you can fire off a $400,000 missile? ‘Murica
And before anyone says “oh it’s probably an old one due to be scrapped anyway” no. If it failed it would be a huge embarrassment for such a high profile mission.

Please see this article:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/w ... n-it-seems

Interesting read for sure. Its main pretext is that it is being shot down over land… which it wasn’t.

Zkpilot wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Shot down with a sidewinder missile… because why use 20MM when you can fire off a $400,000 missile? ‘Murica
And before anyone says “oh it’s probably an old one due to be scrapped anyway” no. If it failed it would be a huge embarrassment for such a high profile mission.

Please see this article:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/w ... n-it-seems

Interesting read for sure. Its main pretext is that it is being shot down over land… which it wasn’t.

Also read further:

There is a historical precedent for all of this, as well. In 1998, a rogue weather balloon from Canada deployed to measure ozone levels accidentally drifted away. BBC reported at the time that the airship was the size of a 25-story building and was operating at an altitude between 27,000 and 37,000 feet, so admittedly much lower than China’s is now.

The incursion prompted attempts from Canada, Britain, and the United States to shoot it down, with two Canadian Air Force CF-18 Hornet fighters firing more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition from their own Vulcan cannons into the balloon off the coast of Newfoundland. That balloon took days to come down, at one point even gaining altitude and drifting across Canada and then out over the Atlantic Ocean, which made for a problematic situation for regional air traffic.

Two CF-18's firing over 1000 rounds didn't immediately bring down a similarly sized weather balloon; it took days for it to come down.

Zkpilot wrote:

LyleLanley wrote:

Zkpilot wrote:

Lots of bullets then. M61A2 rate of fire 6000 rounds per minute. Has 480 rounds so 12.5 seconds. Now given speeds involved say 200 rounds fired and 100 hitting. 100 rounds would shred the flying F out of that balloon. Even if it remained intact it would still rapidly deflate and descend. Potentially even descend at a rate that it has a soft enough landing to be easily recovered quickly.
But no, more fun to fire off a $400k missile.

You might wanna check your math…

While you’re doing that, you could ask yourself why two guys who trained to kill people and break things for a living aren’t up in arms about it being an aim-9 or 120 kill.

Nothing wrong with the math unless you’re implying that the manufacturer of the Vulcan has its numbers wrong?

6,000 rounds per minute = 100 rounds per second. 480 rounds @ 100 rounds per second = 4.8 seconds. No?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Not to mention, for 20mmm the Pilot would have to close to about 2,500’ of the balloon. As you “aim” the gun by aiming the plane, you are on a collision path with it. Try that at M1.0 or greater. M1.0 at 58,000’ is only 192KIAS.

Must have been a very special kind of balloon if you needed to go supersonic to keep up with it!

The F-22 would have a real hard time shooting it down using guns unless it was at a much lower altitude. To fly much above FL500 (sustained) it has to be supersonic, and the closing speed would be pretty ridiculous making it hard to hit. You wouldn't use guns off a zoom climb either.
Makes perfect sense to use a missile.

The reason cannon fire doesn't work well on a balloon, is that it offers no resistance to the round, and is pressurized only slightly higher than atmospheric pressure. You can hole it for sure, but then it requires gas diffusive & convective exchange through the holes to make it less buoyant, which takes time.

A bit more on this, plus other unusual shootdowns this week;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41PYBA1rB0Q

Some of the hysteria (and political posturing) I have seen on this in the media, Orson Wells must be laughing in his grave thinking of his 1930's radio broadcast!

art wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Not to mention, for 20mmm the Pilot would have to close to about 2,500’ of the balloon. As you “aim” the gun by aiming the plane, you are on a collision path with it. Try that at M1.0 or greater. M1.0 at 58,000’ is only 192KIAS.

Must have been a very special kind of balloon if you needed to go supersonic to keep up with it!

It’s not keeping up with the balloon, it’s keeping an F-22 airborne at the top of its operational ceiling. Tough shooting conditions for sure.

travaz wrote:

I would think that it would be fairly easy to track the winds at the altitudes that the balloon has been flying at and make a reasonable assessment on it's track verses the winds. This may give an idea whether or not it is steerable.

Such balloons are steered using the winds. They go up and down (releasing gas or adding more to the balloon) to catch the wind that will make them go in the right direction.

art wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Not to mention, for 20mmm the Pilot would have to close to about 2,500’ of the balloon. As you “aim” the gun by aiming the plane, you are on a collision path with it. Try that at M1.0 or greater. M1.0 at 58,000’ is only 192KIAS.

Must have been a very special kind of balloon if you needed to go supersonic to keep up with it!

The F-22 needs to be supersonic to fly that high is the reason.