How to pop a balloon

[dyqik]

pushing the envelope.

Lol.

Seriously it's really quite difficult to shoot a high altitude balloon down. Even WW1 Zeppelins full of hydrogen could absorb hundreds of rounds of .303 incendiary without going down in either meaning of the word.
With this one at 60,000' you have to get up there in the first place, then find it, though I reckon it would give a good radar return, and then you have to put enough holes in it, for the gas to get out quickly. Do modern fighters even have guns? The aircraft with really good guns, like the A10 are for ground attack and are not capable of getting up that high. So missiles it is and those will go for the payload not the balloon. I can imagine quite a few meeting to discuss just how to bring it down.

The F22 has a rotary cannon, as does the F35.

This is because the F4's without cannons suffered from that in Vietnam, and also because it both allows for a close air-support role, and because with stealthy fighters engaging stealthy fighters, they might not detect each other until too close for missile use.

Plus a cannon with tracer rounds is probably useful in an intercepting civilian aircraft that might be terrorists role, to attract attention and focus minds with "a shot across the bows" or to force down unarmed aircraft.

[shpalman]

pushing the envelope.

Lol.

Seriously it's really quite difficult to shoot a high altitude balloon down. Even WW1 Zeppelins full of hydrogen could absorb hundreds of rounds of .303 incendiary without going down in either meaning of the word.
With this one at 60,000' you have to get up there in the first place, then find it, though I reckon it would give a good radar return, and then you have to put enough holes in it, for the gas to get out quickly. Do modern fighters even have guns? The aircraft with really good guns, like the A10 are for ground attack and are not capable of getting up that high. So missiles it is and those will go for the payload not the balloon. I can imagine quite a few meeting to discuss just how to bring it down.

The F22 has a rotary cannon, as does the F35.

This is because the F4's without cannons suffered from that in Vietnam, and also because it both allows for a close air-support role, and because with stealthy fighters engaging stealthy fighters, they might not detect each other until too close for missile use.

Also because the rules of engagement specified visual identification which meant having to get close anyway.

[Millennie Al]

Seriously it's really quite difficult to shoot a high altitude balloon down. Even WW1 Zeppelins full of hydrogen could absorb hundreds of rounds of .303 incendiary without going down in either meaning of the word.
With this one at 60,000' you have to get up there in the first place, then find it, though I reckon it would give a good radar return, and then you have to put enough holes in it, for the gas to get out quickly.

Why not just fly straight through the balloon? It's likely to be less substantial than other stuff (birds, hailstones etc) that hit aircraft.

[dyqik]

Seriously it's really quite difficult to shoot a high altitude balloon down. Even WW1 Zeppelins full of hydrogen could absorb hundreds of rounds of .303 incendiary without going down in either meaning of the word.
With this one at 60,000' you have to get up there in the first place, then find it, though I reckon it would give a good radar return, and then you have to put enough holes in it, for the gas to get out quickly.

Why not just fly straight through the balloon? It's likely to be less substantial than other stuff (birds, hailstones etc) that hit aircraft.

Because a balloon strong enough to support several tons of payload isn't going to just disappear you nitwit. You'll end up with a closing speed of several hundred miles an hour into a structure made of high tensile nylon and mylar, tied to several tons of metal.

[EACLucifer]

Seriously it's really quite difficult to shoot a high altitude balloon down. Even WW1 Zeppelins full of hydrogen could absorb hundreds of rounds of .303 incendiary without going down in either meaning of the word.
With this one at 60,000' you have to get up there in the first place, then find it, though I reckon it would give a good radar return, and then you have to put enough holes in it, for the gas to get out quickly.

Why not just fly straight through the balloon? It's likely to be less substantial than other stuff (birds, hailstones etc) that hit aircraft.

Because a balloon strong enough to support several tons of payload isn't going to just disappear you nitwit. You'll end up with a closing speed of several hundred miles an hour into a structure made of high tensile nylon and mylar, tied to several tons of metal.

Exactly this. To get to sixty thousand feet, a Raptors engines are putting out a lot of thrust, meaning they are sucking in a lot of air, meaning a lot of balloon envelope will be sucked right into those extremely important and also lightly built and fragile turbines. There'd be a very high chance of losing the plane, and not an inconsiderable chance of the pilot losing their life. Recently over Ukraine, a Ukrainian MiG-29 was lost because it ingested parts of the wreckage of a shaitanmoped the pilot had just shot down with cannon fire. Thankfully the pilot was able to eject and survived, but it's a serious danger.

[EACLucifer]

pushing the envelope.

Lol.

Seriously it's really quite difficult to shoot a high altitude balloon down. Even WW1 Zeppelins full of hydrogen could absorb hundreds of rounds of .303 incendiary without going down in either meaning of the word.
With this one at 60,000' you have to get up there in the first place, then find it, though I reckon it would give a good radar return, and then you have to put enough holes in it, for the gas to get out quickly. Do modern fighters even have guns? The aircraft with really good guns, like the A10 are for ground attack and are not capable of getting up that high. So missiles it is and those will go for the payload not the balloon. I can imagine quite a few meeting to discuss just how to bring it down.

As Dyqik mentioned, modern fighters do have guns - generally something very fast firing in the 20-30mm range, but they don't tend to carry that much ammunition as guns are a weapon of last resort, and 20-30mm holes aren't hugely more effective than .303 holes - I'm assuming here that the cannon rounds don't have the sort of fuzing required to detect the balloon, but I could be wrong.

The solution was an AIM-9X, which uses imaging IR - it's possible that in an otherwise empty sky, the imaging IR was enough, but if not, the F-22's radar can guide the missile until it is at least near the target, and potentially directly onto it. The other challenge is fusing, and that's probably why a short ranged IR guided AIM-9 was used rather than a long range radar guided AIM-120 - where the AIM-120 has a radar proximity fuse, the AIM-9 has an optical one - basically a whole bunch of laser range finders that let it know when it is next to the target. They'd have - and clearly had - no problem picking up any part of the spy balloon.

[EACLucifer]

China's whinging about the balloon shootdown is hilarious. If it really was a weather balloon that got out of control, the correct response would be "We're both relieved and grateful that you were able to deal with the situation without anyone getting hurt, and apologise for it happening in the first place".

Then again, China's a fascist regime that puts people in camps due to their ethnicity and literally makes money selling their hair.

China is used to getting away with stuff and bullying and pushing the envelope. Unsurprisingly it whinges, because it hopes to carry on getting away with stuff and bullying and pushing the envelope, even though this time it didn't.

I'm pleased the US shot it down and, which the Chinese seem rather more upset about, cancelled Blinken's trip to Beijing. It doesn't matter that it may be over something that proves not very important. It's about the messaging around getting away with stuff.

Absolutely. They may find the US harder to push around than they are used to. Dictatorships have been getting far too comfortable lately and assuming democracies can easily be pushed around - that does at last seem to be changing a little, and the idea that democracies lack determination is currently being tested and, so far, proven incorrect.

[Woodchopper]

Report that the balloon was carrying an ‘airliner sized’ payload. https://news.yahoo.com/suspected-chines ... 28919.html

I can believe that as on video the structure below the balloon seemed a lot bigger than the aircraft which shot it down.

But then, what was the balloon carrying? Presumably a lot more than some cameras?

[lpm]

NERVE GAS

[Gfamily]

NERVE GAS

Some idiots were castigating Biden for having it shot down so it would releasing the deadly nerve gas it was likely to contain - not realising that you can't have a lighter-than-air gas that suddenly descends to ground level when the balloon bursts.

[dyqik]

Report that the balloon was carrying an ‘airliner sized’ payload. https://news.yahoo.com/suspected-chines ... 28919.html

I can believe that as on video the structure below the balloon seemed a lot bigger than the aircraft which shot it down.

But then, what was the balloon carrying? Presumably a lot more than some cameras?

Based on some images that I think are the actual balloon payload, although I'm not sure whether they were real or not, the long spar without solar panels could be carrying an interferometric radar (probably on the solar panel spar as well), or lidar for very high resolution 3d mapping. Or that long cross shape could just be to help stabilize the platform for high resolution cameras - although NASA balloons with telescopes onboard do not use that kind of structure for stability.

In either case, I don't think they could have had specific targets in mind, because the balloon is not steerable enough to be sure to pass over the specific targets.

That makes me think they they were trying to survey something that's of strategic political value but not directly military. Maybe soil moisture or natural gas leaks or something like that which is of agricultural/trade or energy policy value? With high accuracy measurements wanted to confirm satellite results, but specific targets not needed.

It could also be that the balloons are technology demonstrators for future satellite instruments, and the Chinese want to get maximum bang for their buck in testing by flying them wherever collecting data, while not giving a f.ck about national airspace.

[monkey]

NERVE GAS

Some idiots were castigating Biden for having it shot down so it would releasing the deadly nerve gas it was likely to contain - not realising that you can't have a lighter-than-air gas that suddenly descends to ground level when the balloon bursts.

Were the same idiots complaining that he wasn't shooting it down last week?

[IvanV]

Reports arriving of about 3 similar events during Trump's presidency, which were "not detected" - yet apparently now we know about them - so perhaps "ignored" is what that really means. Trump describes this as "fake disinformation" - unusual accuracy from him, but probably because he's unable to work out what that really means.

[Grumble]

Reports arriving of about 3 similar events during Trump's presidency, which were "not detected" - yet apparently now we know about them - so perhaps "ignored" is what that really means. Trump describes this as "fake disinformation" - unusual accuracy from him, but probably because he's unable to work out what that really means.

Double stating a negative is perfectly acceptable as a way to add emphasis, in English.

[shpalman]

Reports arriving of about 3 similar events during Trump's presidency, which were "not detected" - yet apparently now we know about them - so perhaps "ignored" is what that really means. Trump describes this as "fake disinformation" - unusual accuracy from him, but probably because he's unable to work out what that really means.

Double stating a negative is perfectly acceptable as a way to add emphasis, in English.

Yeah yeah.

[dyqik]

Reports arriving of about 3 similar events during Trump's presidency, which were "not detected" - yet apparently now we know about them - so perhaps "ignored" is what that really means. Trump describes this as "fake disinformation" - unusual accuracy from him, but probably because he's unable to work out what that really means.

Or possibly "not determined to be a Chinese balloon at the time".

[IvanV]

Double stating a negative is perfectly acceptable as a way to add emphasis, in English.

It can be, if we can understand that is what is going on. Because many speakers will purposefully use a second negative to negate the first, for the particular nuance that creates.

Trump has consistently referred to "fake news", and never, that I have heard before, to "fake lies" (in effect). So now when he does refer to a "fake lie", it stands in contrast to his normal usage, and so potentially means something different.

Context makes clear on this occasion he meant nothing different than "fake news". But at the least I can get a cheap rag out of his verbal covfefe.

[monkey]

Reports arriving of about 3 similar events during Trump's presidency, which were "not detected" - yet apparently now we know about them - so perhaps "ignored" is what that really means. Trump describes this as "fake disinformation" - unusual accuracy from him, but probably because he's unable to work out what that really means.

Double stating a negative is perfectly acceptable as a way to add emphasis, in English.

Yeah yeah.

Nah, yeah.

[dyqik]

Double stating a negative is perfectly acceptable as a way to add emphasis, in English.

It can be, if we can understand that is what is going on. Because many speakers will purposefully use a second negative to negate the first, for the particular nuance that creates.

Trump has consistently referred to "fake news", and never, that I have heard before, to "fake lies" (in effect). So now when he does refer to a "fake lie", it stands in contrast to his normal usage, and so potentially means something different.

Context makes clear on this occasion he meant nothing different than "fake news". But at the least I can get a cheap rag out of his verbal covfefe.

Any hypothesis that suggests that Trump is very careful with the language he uses can immediately be rejected...

[monkey]

I've just remebered that Trump knows a lot about balloons.

trump_bloon.jpg (38.36 KiB) Viewed 393 times

(pic off of BBC)

[bolo]

Balloon Shoot-Down Reveals New Insights On U.S., Chinese Capabilities

Quite a lot of interesting technical detail, including this:

A high-altitude balloon—even a 200-ft.-tall balloon—presents a challenging target for a heat-seeking missile, with a dim thermal signature and a helium gas void within the envelope. The F-22 appeared to aim instead for a 70-100-ft.-long (20-30-m) horizontal truss dangling from a single line beneath the balloon ...
The heat generated by the electronic systems appeared to be enough to provide a targeting lock for the imaging infrared seeker in the AIM-9X. The height of the target—60,000-65,000 ft.—still required the missile to ascend several thousand feet from a launch point at 58,000 ft. ...

[Little waster]

Seriously it's really quite difficult to shoot a high altitude balloon down. Even WW1 Zeppelins full of hydrogen could absorb hundreds of rounds of .303 incendiary without going down in either meaning of the word.
With this one at 60,000' you have to get up there in the first place, then find it, though I reckon it would give a good radar return, and then you have to put enough holes in it, for the gas to get out quickly.

Why not just fly straight through the balloon? It's likely to be less substantial than other stuff (birds, hailstones etc) that hit aircraft.

Sounds like a job for Concorde.

[Little waster]

Reports arriving of about 3 similar events during Trump's presidency, which were "not detected" - yet apparently now we know about them - so perhaps "ignored" is what that really means. Trump describes this as "fake disinformation" - unusual accuracy from him, but probably because he's unable to work out what that really means.

Double stating a negative is perfectly unacceptable as a way to not add emphasis, in English.

FTFY

[Woodchopper]

Report that the balloon was carrying an ‘airliner sized’ payload. https://news.yahoo.com/suspected-chines ... 28919.html

I can believe that as on video the structure below the balloon seemed a lot bigger than the aircraft which shot it down.

But then, what was the balloon carrying? Presumably a lot more than some cameras?

Based on some images that I think are the actual balloon payload, although I'm not sure whether they were real or not, the long spar without solar panels could be carrying an interferometric radar (probably on the solar panel spar as well), or lidar for very high resolution 3d mapping. Or that long cross shape could just be to help stabilize the platform for high resolution cameras - although NASA balloons with telescopes onboard do not use that kind of structure for stability.

In either case, I don't think they could have had specific targets in mind, because the balloon is not steerable enough to be sure to pass over the specific targets.

That makes me think they they were trying to survey something that's of strategic political value but not directly military. Maybe soil moisture or natural gas leaks or something like that which is of agricultural/trade or energy policy value? With high accuracy measurements wanted to confirm satellite results, but specific targets not needed.

It could also be that the balloons are technology demonstrators for future satellite instruments, and the Chinese want to get maximum bang for their buck in testing by flying them wherever collecting data, while not giving a f.ck about national airspace.

Initial information suggests it was collecting signals intelligence:

The Biden administration has determined that the suspected Chinese surveillance balloon that traversed the United States last week was operating with electronic surveillance technology capable of monitoring US communications, according to a senior State Department official.

The balloon “was capable of conducting signals intelligence collection operations” and was part of a fleet that had flown over “more than 40 countries across five continents.”

“We know the PRC used these balloons for surveillance,” the official said. “High resolution imagery from U-2 flybys revealed that the high-altitude balloon was capable of conducting signals intelligence collection operations.”

Signals intelligence refers to information that is gathered by electronic means – things like communications and radars.

US officials disclosed new details about the balloon’s capabilities and the US decisions on how and when to bring it down across classified briefings and public hearings on Thursday, while lawmakers passed a resolution condemning China and demanded the Biden administration provide more answers to Congress.

The FBI has started its initial stages of evaluating the pieces of the balloon that were recovered and brought to the FBI lab in Quantico, Virginia for analysis, senior FBI officials said Thursday.

Only evidence that was on the surface of the ocean has been delivered to FBI analysts so far, one official said, which includes the “canopy itself, the wiring, and then a very small amount of electronics.” The official said analysts have not yet seen the “payload,” which is where you would expect to see the “lion’s share” of electronics.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics ... index.html

[dyqik]

TBH, "Capable of collecting signals intelligence" means that it's got an antenna, a (probably SDR) radio receiver, and a recording device. Which I'd put on almost any balloon test flight by default.