Chinese "Spy Balloon" over CONUS.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

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.

Half of this Brick Wall problem is the outright end result of the American Exceptionalism horse puckey -- when the wool is pulled back & they see we are not THAT exceptional when the Mettle Test cometh & they just had Pep Rally smoke blown up butts instead of tangible results for decades...what other response did people expect outta that?

It's kinda like realizing the lux end car someone finally bought is really kinda ordinary. Sucks wind out from under wings, lol.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

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.

The Russians brought down a U2 spy plane in 1960 , that plane had a ceiling of over 13 miles high 70,0000ft .

We have the munitions to bring that balloon down and have had for decades , there is no excuse zero none at all to not shoot down that balloon.

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.

What they needed to do is wait for it to drift into a desert, wooded area with very little to no population, sling a 100 mile diameter TFR, surface to 100,000 feet, and go Guns on it. Even a couple of hits would be enough to slowly deflate the ballon and let is slowly return to earth.

The ammo that misses or goes through it will drop to earth with very little probability of hitting something.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

Not needed @ FL600.

It doesn't seem that shooting it down would be difficult at all. A large, slow moving, target would seem to be optimal for a laser guided missile, one with no payload perhaps for reduced damage.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Quite the armchair fighter pilot?

lol mate we have Drones and surface to air missiles that could bring that balloon down .

No need for a Fighter Pilot , Tom Cruise can sit this one out.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

My thoughts exactly. This has happened before over the last several years, even during Trump's administration. So why the hubbub now?

This reeks of slight of hand.

a reply to: Freenrgy2

Yep.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

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.

The Russians brought down a U2 spy plane in 1960 , that plane had a ceiling of over 13 miles high 70,0000ft .

We have the munitions to bring that balloon down and have had for decades , there is no excuse zero none at all to not shoot down that balloon.

From what I've read, yes, we can certainly shoot it down. The military was saying they wouldn't because of the risk to people on the ground. Zaph pointed out that there's a wealth of intel by watching this thing as it crossed the continent. I get that. Still, I'm very upset that it got to Montana in the first place. It came over Alaska and then over Canada. They should have gathered as much intel as soon as it was detected and take it down somewhere over Alaska.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Firstly, the F-22 ceiling is 65,000 feet. The service ceiling is slightly higher.

Second, shooting down a U-2, with a fairly large radar return, moving fairly quickly is a hell of a lot easier than shooting down something moving so slowly that radar is going to try to ignore it, if it even sees it because the return is so small.

Third, a 20mm round is going to punch straight through, so yes, they will be relatively small holes that are going to very slowly deflate the envelope. And yes, it is about the sensor package. We want it as intact as possible. Not shot to #.

Third, the US doesn’t keep antiaircraft missile systems set up around the country. The only fairly permanent ones are NASAMS units around DC. We’ve relied on aircraft alone since the 70s.

Fourth, the Intelligence data that we’re getting from this is more than worth all the people that are suddenly military experts screaming to shoot it down.

So beg all you want, this was the right choice to make.

originally posted by: kykweer
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.

An interesting hypothesis. In a chess game, if your opponent makes what they likely think is a very strong move, how would they react if you just act like nothing significant happened and you are ignoring that move by your own reaction? Or lack, thereof?

Even a charging bear will stop if you can convince it that it made a mistake.

a reply to: Rich Z

How might you convince a charging Bear 🐻 that it made a mistake?

a reply to: silo13

I didn’t say impossible, I said difficult. Because it is. It’s a radar target on par with an F-22, moving slowly. Air to air missiles are designed to look for targets moving fairly quickly. Much quicker than wind speed. It can be done, but not as easily as people assume.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Using this argument, the SA-2 was able to shoot down B-52s, so there’s absolutely no reason it can’t shoot down an F-22. The U-2 has an RCS of 0.01 M2. That’s about the size of a bird. This balloon is made out of materials that don’t reflect radar, other than the equipment gondola. That means it’s RCS is orders of magnitude smaller than a U-2. That alone makes it a significantly more difficult operation.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Air to air and surface to air missiles don’t home in on communications signals.

Technologically speaking, they could by using an array of highly directional antennas as the nose sensor.

Now, whether we have anything like that is another question completely (and one I am sure you can answer). It would be a very niche application of missile control tech. It would require a continuous signal; if the signal targeted was sporadic, the guidance would be running blind during any times the signal was inactive. It would work fine for taking out a commercial radio station (constant carrier).

TheRedneck

a reply to: BlackmoonJester

You need something that can shoot a laser guided missile that can get in range of the missile. You can’t just strap any missiles on any plane.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I want to Argue with you and pick apart your response and I could if I wanted to .

But I respect you and I'll leave it at that , The American people don't care about some intelligence gathering mate you have to see that the Average American cares about being safe and feeling safe.

So it should have been brought down end of story , It could have been brought down slowly and then we could have really gathered intel when we captured it .

So the whole it's valuable Intel angle is bullsh*t.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Ok, sure. We’ll just let a great opportunity to gather extremely valuable Intel, in our own back yard, because we want to make people feel better. That makes perfect sense. Screw the guys that may have to actually fight China, it’s far more important that Ma and Pa Kettle feel good.

As for the rest, whatever you say. You’re the expert.

originally posted by: Rich Z

An interesting hypothesis. In a chess game, if your opponent makes what they likely think is a very strong move, how would they react if you just act like nothing significant happened and you are ignoring that move by your own reaction? Or lack, thereof?

Even a charging bear will stop if you can convince it that it made a mistake.

There is a thought exercise designed to illustrate one basic deception technique.
Say you have a doozy of a secret plan, and someone, perhaps a reporter, divulged your entire plan to the public, but most likely not on purpose. It may have been a perfect guess, or somehow something got out. Either way, what do you do?

Your first step is to ignore him. You do not give him the credibility. After all, for all everyone knows, he was indeed just guessing. If you pounce on him for it, you run the risk of validating him (giving him the credibility). By ignoring him, you are showing that you don't care, his words are no threat, and his broadcast was meaningless.

This ties into the "magic balloon party" show in some ways. "Ignore" the balloon (as in, treat it as if it is a non-threat), take advantage of the balloon, analyze the payload of the balloon, then, maybe later on, pop the balloon.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Is the average American scared of this balloon or feels threatened by it?