Chinese "Spy Balloon" over CONUS.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What if the frequency used was the same as the communications link of the military installations themselves? Jamming that signal could trigger a nuclear exchange. What about aircraft communications frequencies? That could make for a really bad day for the pilots. Transmissions could easily be made directional aimed at the satellite to prevent interference and deter interception; the Chinese know where the Chinese satellites are, and the balloon would have known where it was via GPS. It would be a simple calculation.

Or it could have used frequencies within a commercial band. Any jamming signal would have also jammed comercial airwaves. I haven't heard anything about that happening.

Also, I don't really buy the story that the military was even jamming it. If so, it would have become unmaneuverable, but we are told it was maneuverable. It couldn't know how and where to maneuver to without the control signals getting through.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm not sure why people keep feeling the need to school me about the differences between a party balloon vs weather balloon vs airship - but I find it rather sweet.

Nevertheless - it's not actually relevant to what we were actually discussing ie 'the missile must have had a warhead/fuse to have 'shredded' the balloon.

For the record, I'm fairly well acquainted with meteorological balloons. We used them on range prior to weapons trials.

The bottom line is: the pressure inside a 'lighter than air' balloon changes as it ascends - they're much larger at 85,000 feet than at the launch site.

The point I was making was that you don't need an explosive to break apart a balloon. I accept that my analogy with a party balloon wasn't very good, but the point still holds true.

Hitting a neutrally bouyant 'airship' (whether it be round or zeppelin shaped is really immaterial - but this is a better description of what has been shot down), with a supersonic missile, as has been amply demonstrated, and is clearly much more effective than firing 1000's of 20mm - especially over populated areas, for obvious reasons.

The missile directly hitting the craft at that speed obliterated both missile and the fabric of the airship. The friction was so great, that portions of the fabric could be observed to ignite.

1 shot, 1 kill. Good job. A first for the F 22. And a payload that is largely intact and retrievable - thanks to the correctly setup missile.

a reply to: TheRedneck

We were told it was maneuverable, but I didn’t see any sign of control surfaces. And it didn’t seem to do anything but follow the upper level winds. We’re told a lot of things, that doesn’t make them true.

Localized SATCOM jamming wouldn’t affect commercial aircraft, because they generally don’t use SATCOM much. I’m not sure how jamming military frequencies would trigger a nuclear exchange. It’s not like they couldn’t call a landline and warn our bases that certain frequencies would be unavailable as it passed overhead.

a reply to: horatio321

1 shot, 1 kill. Good job. A first for the F 22. And a payload that is largely intact and retrievable - thanks to the correctly setup missile.

And he's the first pilot in history who gets to paint a balloon (rather than an enemy fighter jet) on the side of his F-22!

a reply to: horatio321

I agree it was a good shot. The only thing I disagreed with was the physical description of why the balloon shredded. It was due to friction, not a sudden pressure release. The result may be the same, but the dynamics are completely different.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: horatio321

I agree it was a good shot. The only thing I disagreed with was the physical description of why the balloon shredded. It was due to friction, not a sudden pressure release. The result may be the same, but the dynamics are completely different.

TheRedneck

Copy that. I think when a supersonic projoctile/missile impacts a target, the shock wave (which is pressure) rips material apart. Similar to a sniper's bullet when it liquifies internal organs.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't see enough control surfaces to indicate major maneuverability either. That's why I keep saying it probably had some minor maneuverability. The ability to change altitude between prevailing wind patterns is in itself a form of maneuverability; it's akin to just changing buses in a metropolitan area... you may not be driving anything, but you can still determine where you are going.

Localized SATCOM jamming wouldn’t affect commercial aircraft, because they generally don’t use SATCOM much.

That assumes the frequency bands being used are in our SATCOM band. China does not, last I heard, require adherence to US regulations on their spy satellites. They could be using control tower frequencies for all we know.

I’m not sure how jamming military frequencies would trigger a nuclear exchange. It’s not like they couldn’t call a landline and warn our bases that certain frequencies would be unavailable as it passed overhead.

Phone calls take more time, time that allows for a longer communication window. And that also sounds like a perfect plan to see how our silos react to sudden loss of signal, even when warned.

It's just not as simple as you think it is. This is precisely why we have FCC restrictions on bandwidth usage.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Phantom423

Yes - I'm sure there has been a fair bit of banter surrounding it, too!

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: horatio321

1 shot, 1 kill. Good job. A first for the F 22. And a payload that is largely intact and retrievable - thanks to the correctly setup missile.

And he's the first pilot in history who gets to paint a balloon (rather than an enemy fighter jet) on the side of his F-22!

Actually, the RAF did just that, in 1916:

www.rafhornchurch.thehumanjourney.net...

Not in an F22, obviously!

a reply to: TheRedneck

SATCOM uses similar bands no matter who you are, for the same reason. But do you really think we don’t know what bands China uses already?

I’ve never said it was simple. But the military isn’t as utterly incompetent as you seem to be implying that they are.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

I’ve never said it was simple. But the military isn’t as utterly incompetent as you seem to be implying that they are.

Nor as competent as they're always telling us either (see U.S. history.)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Zaphod58

I didn't see enough control surfaces to indicate major maneuverability either. That's why I keep saying it probably had some minor maneuverability. The ability to change altitude between prevailing wind patterns is in itself a form of maneuverability; it's akin to just changing buses in a metropolitan area... you may not be driving anything, but you can still determine where you are going.


TheRedneck

Given the length of the visible array, if they had mounted multiple propellers along the span they might have been using something like thrust diffentials to steer: reducing, or even reversing, the thrust on one side or the other to re-orient the ship.

But that would take a lot of power to the props

And officials had claimed there propeller(s), plural.

Though I haven't seen any evidence of that claim in any of the published photos.



And, would it not be possible to use the "solar panels" as aerodynamic surfaces by adjusting their angles, actively, during flight?

a reply to: The GUT

No, they aren’t always, hence there was probably some information that got out. But to say they couldn’t stop anything from getting out is a seriously higher level of incompetence than I’ve ever seen in military operations. And I’ve seen some impressive incompetence over the years in various areas.

a reply to: Zaphod58

SATCOM uses similar bands no matter who you are, for the same reason. But do you really think we don’t know what bands China uses already?

Yes, but there is nothing besides habit/tradition forcing them to use those bands in this case. If the Chinese know that we know the frequencies they use, and if the Chinese wished to make the signal harder to jam, why is it such a stretch to think they may have used frequencies or techniques that made jamming their signal problematic?

I’ve never said it was simple. But the military isn’t as utterly incompetent as you seem to be implying that they are.

I do not intend to imply incompetence. I am positive the military has specialists who are even more aware of the technology than I am. I am simply stating the limits of those technologies based on physical laws.

I am also positive our military specialists are also cognizant of those physical limitations.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Mantiss2021

Given the length of the visible array, if they had mounted multiple propellers along the span they might have been using something like thrust diffentials to steer: reducing, or even reversing, the thrust on one side or the other to re-orient the ship.

But that would take a lot of power to the props

That array is not extremely strong structurally; balloons typically are not that strong stucturally because strength equates to weight and balloons operate on buoyancy. I cannot see it being able to withstand heavy strain from the ends of the array.

At the speed it traveled across the country, it had to have been riding some pretty fast winds. That means in order to reverse or just to hover stationary, the propulsion system would have to output a lot of power. If propellers were stationed along the axis of the array instead of concentrated at the center, that power equates to a lot of force and a lot of moment, which the structure does not appear even remotely able to withstand. Turning with the wind would not require nearly as much power, and this it seems reasonable to believe it could slowly turn.

The flight path we have correlates that. It consisted of no sharp turns or sudden decelerations.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's entirely plausible that the craft had the ability to position the array and align it for best signal strength.

With efficient, brushless, electric motors, light weight lithium batteries with high energy density - I'm sure between the solar panels and nature's own air currents - it could stay aloft and under intelligent control for weeks - possibly months.

The main function of any propulsion would be to control ascent/decent, as well as yaw for optimal antenna performance. It appears to me that the 'balloon' may have been more comparable to a neutrally buoyant 'airship' - but this is pure speculation on my part.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Perhaps.

Addressing the structural strength of the array, in the video I've posted elsewhere, the airship shown incorporates a support truss made of carbon fiber tube 1/4" OD (if I recall correctly). The truss is 100FT long, and weighed 19lbs.

The truss supported the entire craft, and provided mounting points for the twin props and their motors.

That airship flew back in 2011, and was built by a private company without government funds.



Now imagine what could be possible with the resources and financial backing of the Chinese government.


Using larger diameter CF components, and far more advance design and construction techniques (the truss was actually bolted together at each joint because they lacked 3D printing to fabricate one piece joint connectors or the funds to custom wind CF structures), strength, and rigidity would be much improved - with limited weight penalty.

If I were to design that Chinese balloon, I would not have placed the propellers at the ends of the array; that would have required rather large propellers, with accompanied large, heavy motors.

Those large props and motors could have also, conceivably increased the ships RF signature, right?


I would have placed multiple smaller propulsion units along the edge (leading or trailing) of the array; similar amount of thrust, but with the torque distributed across the entire length of the structure. And redundancy to boot!

Might also explain why the props that were supposedly mounted didn't show up in the photos, they were too small to see given the angle and resolution of the pictures.


ETA:

This "shop talk" back and forth is Fun! Gives my retired brain a proper workout. Thanks!

a reply to: TheRedneck

Of course they are. And they’re cognizant of their capabilities, and the Chinese capabilities. But apparently they aren’t capable of thinking of ways to stop information from going out or jamming anything, despite some of the best hardware we have monitoring the situation. I probably shouldn’t have used the word implying, because you’re pretty much stating they’re incompetent.

a reply to: TheRedneck

As to your earlier comment about using ATC frequencies, which ones? Did they change as they crossed into different areas? VHF, UHF, or HF? All three?

a reply to: putnam6 --- Putnam6 and everyone, ours *have* gone dark, and much more:


heathercoxrichardson.substack.com...

Basically, the CCP committed a major blunder in assuming that the Biden administration would continue previous administrations' difficulties in identifying CCP balloon overflights. Nope, US air security was tightened after Biden became US President.