Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Chinese spy balloon over US

Wikiposts
Search
Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Chinese spy balloon over US

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 18th Feb 2023, 22:36
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,292
Received 742 Likes on 257 Posts
How does one know two people impersonally?
langleybaston is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2023, 23:46
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag
Age: 57
Posts: 6,284
Received 344 Likes on 192 Posts
Originally Posted by langleybaston
How does one know two people impersonally?
good point. I guess one could know of two people indirectly, but in my case I know them directly. One broke his neck.
212man is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2023, 23:36
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,017
Received 61 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by 212man
I’m astonished to read that you don’t wear a parachute as a matter of course. I know two people personally that have used them in gliders (wing not correctly installed and a midair collision) plus read many accident reports where they were used
I used to work with the first glider pilot in Australia to use a parachute. He'd flown bombers in WW II and aerial photography in (then) Dutch East New Guinea, and never had to use one, He was only wearing his because the rules of the competition required it. After that, he always wore one. He may have been the first one you mentioned.
As he was descending, he tried to remember all the things he'd been taught more than 20 years before. Just before he landed, he remembered to spit his false teeth out.
Hydromet is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2023, 07:53
  #344 (permalink)  
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 17,515
Received 1,655 Likes on 759 Posts
Here we go again…

Putting this potential balloon at 45k feet (avg of the reported height between FL400-500) and running NOAA's HYSPLIT model shows a very interesting future trajectory over the next 48 hours for an object being steered by the wind.

Right over Hawaii.



​​​​​​​
ORAC is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2023, 16:55
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Frensham
Posts: 847
Received 90 Likes on 48 Posts
Aviation content:

Wokkafans is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2023, 21:21
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 249
Received 37 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by Wokkafans
Wow...it's not often you see a U2 at low level. I bet the pilot was wondering why he couldn't see both coasts.
Baldeep Inminj is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2023, 22:15
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: USA
Posts: 877
Received 219 Likes on 122 Posts
I like that the U2 pilot used his own plane's shadow for scale.
MechEngr is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by MechEngr:
Old 22nd Feb 2023, 22:34
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 494
Received 50 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Wokkafans
4G Inverted by any chance???


WB627 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2023, 07:18
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,799
Received 58 Likes on 43 Posts
Slightly better version from the BBC News article:

From https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64735538

Edit: higher resolution version here on Twitter:

Last edited by Jhieminga; 23rd Feb 2023 at 10:30. Reason: Added link - Don't know if it works though...
Jhieminga is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 23rd Feb 2023, 22:28
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Nevada, USA
Posts: 1,614
Received 43 Likes on 30 Posts
More here https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...m_medium=email
RAFEngO74to09 is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2023, 07:59
  #351 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,956
Received 861 Likes on 257 Posts
Originally Posted by Petit-Lion
Jet streams involve clear air turbulence, so I was told. How does it feel at zero true air speed?
Smooth
fdr is offline  
Old 1st Mar 2023, 13:33
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 255
Received 22 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by chevvron
You mean like the RAF did in 1960/61?

Vulcans managed to enter US airspace not once but twice!

The RAF Vulcans being special in that regard was always a myth. A large number of the hundreds of SAC bombers (B-47s, B-52s, B-57s) also penetrated the NORAD air defences during those same Operation Sky Shield exercises of the early '60s, the first large-scale tests of NORAD/SAGE after it's initial deployment. The illusion that the Vulcans achieved something unique is owed to the fact that their success was leaked by someone to the British press shortly thereafter (in1963) who in turn happily crowed about it, while on the other side of the pond OPSEC and classified materials relating to the capabilities of the then-new North American air defence system were taken far more seriously, for obvious reasons. Thus, for the next 35 years the perception that the RAF Vulcans succeeded where others had failed persisted, grew in the re-telling, and became part of British aviation lore. Any magazine article, program, or discussion about the Vulcan was almost sure to mention this "amazing" fact.


Then, in 1997 the Sky Shield files were de-classified and that particular RAF Vulcan myth got popped like a Chinese spy balloon: The files showed that, in 1961, the initial NORAD/ADC system was very porous over such a large geographic area vs a large-scale, coordinated attack employing hundreds of bombers employing all manner of tactics and available ECM not because a few RAF Vulcans had succeeded but because the true scope of success by the SAC bombers as well. In fact, the majority of bombers flying SAC and RAF profiles/formations were successful (NORAD/ADC had better success picking-up/intercepting those assigned to fly Soviet profiles/formations). Obviously, it would be pretty stupid, even traitorous, to let your Cold War adversaries know the full extent of that weakness and fortunately it wasn't revealed at the time despite those publicly trumpeting the handful of RAF Vulcans. Once the full scope was revealed in 1997 however, instead of pride in the Vulcan affair there should instead be a dose of embarrassment for the leak plus for the decades of glorifying a success that was, in reality, not uncommon for all bomber types and crews during Sky Shield.


Of course, all of the above occurred when JFK was president. During the following 6 decades, NORAD has mostly likely managed an upgrade and tweak or two, so I doubt the balloon is like the Vulcans at all.

Last edited by PukinDog; 1st Mar 2023 at 13:57.
PukinDog is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by PukinDog:
Old 25th Sep 2023, 14:44
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 2,713
Received 1,024 Likes on 611 Posts
A bit of closure from the i. Seems it wasn't spying after all.

Remember the furore seven months ago when what was described as a Chinese spy balloon passed over the United States until it was finally shot down by US fighters on 4 February over the Atlantic, from which its wreckage was later dredged up by the US navy. The US-China confrontation escalated significantly as Republicans criticised the White House for failing to shoot it down earlier.

But last weekend, the retiring chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, said that the alleged spy balloon was not, in point of fact, spying, having most probably been blown off course by the wind when approaching Hawaii.

In contrast to the previous uproar, American politicians and media scarcely reacted when Milley told CBS News last Sunday that the balloon was not spying. “The intelligence community, their assessment – and it’s a high-confidence assessment – [is] that there was no intelligence collection by that balloon,” he said.

What was the balloon doing over the US, having got there by way of Alaska and Canada? Milley had a prosaic explanation, saying that it had been heading towards Hawaii at 60,000 feet when it was diverted by the wind. “Those winds are very high,” he said. “The particular motor on that aircraft can’t go against those winds at that altitude.”

When the errant balloon was examined by American experts they discovered that its sensors had never been switched on. Milley still described it as a spy balloon, though he added that “we know with a high degree of certainty that it got no intelligence, and didn’t transmit any intelligence back to China”.
Ninthace is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2023, 15:04
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,972
Received 153 Likes on 93 Posts
So it WAS a spy balloon, but simply switched off!
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2023, 16:25
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 2,713
Received 1,024 Likes on 611 Posts
Originally Posted by jolihokistix
So it WAS a spy balloon, but simply switched off!
And lost
Ninthace is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2023, 18:33
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 1,972
Received 153 Likes on 93 Posts
Originally Posted by Ninthace
And lost
…but found itself over some interesting sites.
jolihokistix is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2023, 18:44
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 2,713
Received 1,024 Likes on 611 Posts
Originally Posted by jolihokistix
…but found itself over some interesting sites.
Given the altitude and the potential area of observation, could you draw a serpentine route over the US that didn't?
Ninthace is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2023, 19:58
  #358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Only occasionally above FL50
Age: 71
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by Ninthace
A bit of closure from the i…

“The particular motor on that aircraft can’t go against those winds at that altitude.”
.
Has there been any previous suggestion that the balloon had a ‘motor’ to counter winds? Seems rather improbable to me.
Andrewgr2 is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2023, 20:07
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Baston
Posts: 3,292
Received 742 Likes on 257 Posts
Originally Posted by Andrewgr2
Has there been any previous suggestion that the balloon had a ‘motor’ to counter winds? Seems rather improbable to me.
Good question; to stand still or slow down substantially the "motor" needs to produce at least 100kt, sustainable ............. the fuel burn [portmanteau phrase] would be big and would itself demand a lot of lift.
Just possible but very unlikely.
langleybaston is offline  
Old 25th Sep 2023, 20:14
  #360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 102
Received 50 Likes on 28 Posts
Is Hawaii still a part of the USA? Is it ok to fly suspicious looking balloons over just Hawaii?
Ohrly is offline  
The following users liked this post:


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.