Chinese "Spy Balloon" over CONUS.

Even the Brits could have downed this in the 1970's if they had wanted to. The BAC Lightning by mid 70's could be above 60,000 feet in under four minutes from take-off. Whatever it is, there are multiple solutions to bring it down. what surprises me is that it wasn't splashed over the Pacific.

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Everything boils down to taking risks to get rewards. The bet is that we’re getting more than they are from letting it continue.

Today it might sound like July 4th in North Carolina.

GASTONIA, N.C. — North Carolina police urge residents not to take ‘potshots’ at Chinese spy balloon

Link: twitter.com...



Not that they can shoot that far in the air, but I'm sure some will try for the shi* and giggles. 🤣

I honestly think the big power move is not to do anything.

The Chinese will be humiliated because them spying on USA isn't even threatening.

Like a skinny kid trying to push a sumo wrestler out the ring, it's just embarrassing.

originally posted by: imitator
Today it might sound like July 4th in North Carolina.

GASTONIA, N.C. — North Carolina police urge residents not to take ‘potshots’ at Chinese spy balloon

Link: twitter.com...

Not that they can shoot that far in the air, but I'm sure some will try for the shi* and giggles. 🤣

Hahaha!!

The Balloon might be dropping small paper Chinese flags and leaflets soon!! Now that would be insult to injury!

a reply to: charlyv

If they really are solar panels as we know them...?

.

Spy balloon = distraction or EMP practice.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree
Now maybe we will start taking the defense of our own country
as priority over that of another's

Dr. Andrew Hammond on Fox told us this morning the balloon is 'quite difficult to shoot down'...

I don't even know what to say to that.

Can you imagine how our fighter pilots feel hearing that crap?

Maybe we're thinking too big a proverbial bang for the carrier buck here.


What if the point was to map out weak spots in the communications & electrical aspects, but not for a ground war stateside.

Would something such as, perhaps floating, practically invisible to tech... jammers perhaps apply.

Could it be a dry positioning run for mobile Mandrake jammers? You hear those drowning # out on HAM radio, soo that's where my mind went.

Why jam our # here instead of bombing or invading the US, you ask? Well now.


Would it slow the US responsiveness down enough militarily for China to invade & establush a Taiwanese beachhead in a short timeframe? I bet it at least has somewhat plausible odds. Distract the bouncer by #ing with the bar's breaker box & you might slimeball that sucker punch in in the brief confusion.

originally posted by: Notabot12345666

originally posted by: McGinty


Of course i corrected them by saying that there has to be Space, or else what is underneath our flat Earth?

It’s turtles all the way down

OK Sturgill Simpson

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Everything boils down to taking risks to get rewards. The bet is that we’re getting more than they are from letting it continue.

Do you think there is a risk in shooting it down Zaph ? or let me say was because it's gone now .

They implied there was a Risk in shooting the balloon down because of falling debris , I find that to be a weak cop-out at best. So lets say it's not a balloon in our airspace , Lets say it's a massive Chinese Strategic Bomber making it's way from the west coast towards NYC .

Is our military going to be afraid of Falling debris then ? Is Joe Biden going to watch as the bomber makes it's way towards the east coast with impunity. ?

a reply to: silo13

He’s not wrong though. The lowest altitude I’ve seen puts it right at the ceiling for the F-15 and F-22. Its relative motion and tiny RCS is going to make it extremely unlikely a radar guided missile will even see it, let alone hit it. Its IR signature is virtually non existent. If you can get a gun shot on it all you’re doing is putting very small holes in it.

It can be shot down, but he’s right that it’s going to be difficult.

ETA- As for our fighter pilots, a couple of former fighter pilots were involved in a discussion about it, and they were the ones pointing out that it will be hard. They already know better than most.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: silo13

He’s not wrong though. The lowest altitude I’ve seen puts it right at the ceiling for the F-15 and F-22. Its relative motion and tiny RCS is going to make it extremely unlikely a radar guided missile will even see it, let alone hit it. Its IR signature is virtually non existent. If you can get a gun shot on it all you’re doing is putting very small holes in it.

It can be shot down, but he’s right that it’s going to be difficult.

You can't tell me we don't have some kind of a drone that can tether to this thing and bring it down to the ground safely.

a reply to: TheGoondockSaint

We barely have UAVs that can get to that altitude. And they all have to follow the same rules of aerodynamics that every other plane does.

originally posted by: silo13
Dr. Andrew Hammond on Fox told us this morning the balloon is 'quite difficult to shoot down'...

I don't even know what to say to that.

Can you imagine how our fighter pilots feel hearing that crap?

If you read through this entire thread, you'll notice some experienced people (Mantiss2021 and Zaphod58) explain it isn't as simple as "shooting" at it. As much as I wished this was taken care of before it got to Montana, it is what it is and let's hope it will be taken down now that it's over the Atlantic.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Firstly The Ceiling for the F-22 is Classified , Secondly the 20mm gun on the F-22 would do a little more than " Very Small Holes " . And it's not even the Balloon that's the real target but rather the Surveillance device floating below the Balloon.

We've had Aircraft and Anti-Aircraft munitions that could take that balloon down since the 1960's and as for Fighter pilots saying it would be " Hard " ?? So what get up there and do your job defend our country I don't give a damn if your aircraft stalls and you have to ditch after taking the shot , Just take the shot .

I beg you not to defend these weak Military tactics being spread on the Media , as I recall the Russians brought down a U2 spy plane in 1960 ? So the Balloon should not pose an issue in 2023.

a reply to: TheRedneck

At 66,000 feet, at night time, you're saying it's reflecting the sun?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: silo13

He’s not wrong though. The lowest altitude I’ve seen puts it right at the ceiling for the F-15 and F-22. Its relative motion and tiny RCS is going to make it extremely unlikely a radar guided missile will even see it, let alone hit it. Its IR signature is virtually non existent. If you can get a gun shot on it all you’re doing is putting very small holes in it.

It can be shot down, but he’s right that it’s going to be difficult.

ETA- As for our fighter pilots, a couple of former fighter pilots were involved in a discussion about it, and they were the ones pointing out that it will be hard. They already know better than most.

Not saying you're wrong. Just saying I don't believe it. Which translates to: I don't want to believe it.

If taking that thing out presents a problem? We're screwed.

The US Air Force's top air superiority fighter, the fifth-generation F-22 Raptor, which the US military scrambled in response to the Chinese balloon, has a maximum operating altitude of over 50,000 feet, according to the Air Force. That could be pushed higher though, even if it's less than ideal. "The F-22 is like a Lamborghini," Tannehill said.

source

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Quite the armchair fighter pilot?