High altitude object shot down
"Extra- Terrestrials cannot be ruled out" said a US military spokes person.
Well there is a giant step forward towards the truth.
BBC News - Mystery surrounds objects shot down by US military
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64620064
BBC News - Mystery surrounds objects shot down by US military
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64620064
There is so much about this that doesn’t add up. The first balloon was clearly identifiable as such, and the Chinese immediately laid claim to it. The next 3 were much smaller and couldn’t even be positively identified as balloons, one was cylindrical and now this latest one is described as octagonal - I haven’t seen any claims from the Chinese that any of the subsequent 3 “unknown aerial vehicles” belong to them, or did I miss that ?
The US/UK/Canada have been tracking these things for many years, (possibly even shooting them down) they just haven't let details leak out before now.
If you read some of the foregoing material, even Russia and China admit some of the objects are unknown to them.
Last edited by chevvron; 13th Feb 2023 at 10:31.
Do you seriously believe 'the first balloon' was only a few days ago?
The US/UK/Canada have been tracking these things for many years, they just haven't let details leak out before now.
If you read some of the foregoing material, even Russia and China admit some of the objects are unknown to them.
The US/UK/Canada have been tracking these things for many years, they just haven't let details leak out before now.
If you read some of the foregoing material, even Russia and China admit some of the objects are unknown to them.
Do you seriously believe 'the first balloon' was only a few days ago?
The US/UK/Canada have been tracking these things for many years, they just haven't let details leak out before now.
If you read some of the foregoing material, even Russia and China admit some of the objects are unknown to them.
The US/UK/Canada have been tracking these things for many years, they just haven't let details leak out before now.
If you read some of the foregoing material, even Russia and China admit some of the objects are unknown to them.
how on earth do you know?
As you said they haven’t let the details leak out, how come you are aware? Surely that means that they HAVE let the details out?
Just to you eh?
The following users liked this post:
I think we may all be getting a bit silly about this.
So the US shoot down a large Chinese Surveillance/ weather balloon, Ownership not denied by China. US widen the search parameters on their radar and now start shooting down every toy kite/ weather balloon orhobby balloon they see.
Of course people must be having a great laugh launching 'small' helium balloons and large kites all over the US / China /Russia in the hope of triggering a QRA from USAF
So the US shoot down a large Chinese Surveillance/ weather balloon, Ownership not denied by China. US widen the search parameters on their radar and now start shooting down every toy kite/ weather balloon orhobby balloon they see.
Of course people must be having a great laugh launching 'small' helium balloons and large kites all over the US / China /Russia in the hope of triggering a QRA from USAF
Now, China is accusing the US of flying high altitude balloons without permission over Chinese airspace for more than 10 times since the beginning of last year.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-say...082747472.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-say...082747472.html
Er, if the “US/UK/Canada have been tracking these things for many years, they just haven’t let details leak out before now..”
how on earth do you know?
As you said they haven’t let the details leak out, how come you are aware? Surely that means that they HAVE let the details out?
Just to you eh?
how on earth do you know?
As you said they haven’t let the details leak out, how come you are aware? Surely that means that they HAVE let the details out?
Just to you eh?
The following users liked this post:
Which balloons? From the interview to the head of US NORAD linked above:
I was hoping that a flight community would offer at least some speculation on that., but I saw none, so here's my 5c.
I was hoping that a flight community would offer at least some speculation on that., but I saw none, so here's my 5c.
- There is a provocation in act, a sort of show of will and abilities directed against the US and it's allies.
- It doesn't just demonstrate the ability of getting above or very close to pretty much any point over the Noth, but also the ability of assembling and launching these from domestic soil, or Canadian one. Both are very worrying.
- The objects could be rotary wing(s) drones, fully enclosed? Maybe some expert could comment on the physics and technology needed to fly them to 40,000 ft.
- The shutdown by with live AIM missile is debatable. An unarmed missiles, like the one used with the ballon over sea would have preserved debris for analysis. Although, it could have been feared that it may have missed a small object.
- A kinetic knock out device should be used, something that can embed into the target or grab to it, then descend by chute.
If these later balloons deploy a radar reflector only when at altitude, having been launched at night, they may be virtually invisible to radar beforehand, making launch site identification that much more difficult. They can probably be carried in a car or van, so each came from a different launch site anyway.
As a method of detecting Canadian & American primary radar capability, it does seem an ingenious plan.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,372
Received 117 Likes
on
84 Posts
"The chances of anything coming from Mars, are a million to one...he said "
Just a bit of reassurance you understand..
Just a bit of reassurance you understand..
????
They’re going to be pretty peed off too, having travelled all those millions of miles only to have their craft blasted out of the skies.
There is no way any government can decrypt data assuming it has encrypted correctly. Modern encryption is just too secure for that to happen. Thats why governments complain so much about Apple, and Whatsapp, and Telegram, and Signal, etc, etc. They know they cant crack the encryption in any time frame thats considered useful.
Most military onboard technology in use today was designed ages ago, running on electronics developed decades ago, with software of similar age and hardware midlife updates every decade or less, and software upgrade cycles way much longer than the commercial examples given. And backward compatibility with other platforms (for datalink, etc.) prevents implementing only the latest security standards and encryption protocols.
Thought police antagonist
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 1,372
Received 117 Likes
on
84 Posts
”Across the gulf of space, minds immeasurably superior to ours, regarded this Earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely, they drew their plans against us…”
They’re going to be pretty peed off too, having travelled all those millions of miles only to have their craft blasted out of the skies.
They’re going to be pretty peed off too, having travelled all those millions of miles only to have their craft blasted out of the skies.
For that reason it makes a lot of sense for the West to keep rather quiet regarding when and how each one was being detected.
All this speculation about gamechanging hype capabilities of these new super dooper fighters (balloons) is IMHO way exaggerated. Downloading Petabytes of Sensor Data via Satlink? Ain't gonn'a happen. Highest end sensors on board? China wouldn't be so stoopid to donate their latest tech for the cost of a cheap AIM-9 to the West.
If the Recce device is shot down, the Recce goes both ways. The target can dissimante the Sensor devices which gives usefull information about the opponent's tech.
Apple, Whatapp, etc. are recent, modern softwares running on recent OS's, itself on top of recent hardware. And all software layers are updated and patched every month or so. Backward compatibility or support is limited, these softwares simply stop functioning on old hardware or on an OS that's 5 years out of date.
Most military onboard technology in use today was designed ages ago, running on electronics developed decades ago, with software of similar age and hardware midlife updates every decade or less, and software upgrade cycles way much longer than the commercial examples given. And backward compatibility with other platforms (for datalink, etc.) prevents implementing only the latest security standards and encryption protocols.
Most military onboard technology in use today was designed ages ago, running on electronics developed decades ago, with software of similar age and hardware midlife updates every decade or less, and software upgrade cycles way much longer than the commercial examples given. And backward compatibility with other platforms (for datalink, etc.) prevents implementing only the latest security standards and encryption protocols.
Modern encryption algorithms are mathematical in nature and if implemented correctly as I said before, are to all intents and purposes unbreakable.
The older hardware can quite happily encrypt data using the latest encryption algorithms, but it will all happen a little slower that all.
Whether they do this or not, I have no idea, and unless you work in the military you wont have either. And if you do, you would not be talking about it here as you would be breaking your governments official secrets act.
As an aside everybody thinks public key encryption was invented in the US. Not so, a researcher at GCHQ invented in at home in his head in the early 70's, but the UK goverment kept it secret for around 30 years.
Typical with our bloody government.
Well, I once circled a bundle of hay at about 7000ft and the other day passed near several big plates of styrofoam, also around 7000ft.. Thermals sometimes do wonders.
Another one…over Lake Huron this time …..this is getting monotonous.
Standby for a storm of rumours, innuendo and hearsay from the media.
JOKE I am beginning to suspect that “Little Jimmy’s school science project has gotten completely out of hand.”JOKE OVER
https://airlive.net/alert-faa-closed...EZDCyzoFVTcirE
Standby for a storm of rumours, innuendo and hearsay from the media.
JOKE I am beginning to suspect that “Little Jimmy’s school science project has gotten completely out of hand.”JOKE OVER
https://airlive.net/alert-faa-closed...EZDCyzoFVTcirE
Last edited by albatross; 13th Feb 2023 at 13:13.
Condoms filled with helium have been the core feature of many a stag do, hen party or indeed wedding reception. Some were bound to escape when the door or window was open, and when the supply of bread rolls as ammunition ran out.
We have a plague of contraceptives on the rampage.
We have a plague of contraceptives on the rampage.
At 40 km the STP atmosphere density is 0.0038 kg per cubic metre. The temperature is -30 deg C. So a car shaped box of air would weigh say 20 * 0.0038 = 60 grams - so the ballon can’t weigh more than that without some form of propulsion to keep it up, or the temporary use of wave lift, as used by heavier than air gliders/sailplanes.
To lift a 10kg payload, you would need a ballon volume of at least 10/0.0038 = 2600 cubic metre or a sphere of approx 17m diameter (I’m assuming that the ballon is full of helium and that effectively weights nothing).
So these 'car size balloons' can't have much surveillance kit on them if they are truly balloons and don't have means of generating some lift. Or they are bigger than are being reported. Or my maths is wrong (not unusual).
It would be dissapointing if the military and hence the politicians don't know exactly what these are given the money spent on the kit available to military. But I'm betting they are not saying so they can make the best spin/propaganda out of the whole business.... But I may be wrong (again not unusual)
To lift a 10kg payload, you would need a ballon volume of at least 10/0.0038 = 2600 cubic metre or a sphere of approx 17m diameter (I’m assuming that the ballon is full of helium and that effectively weights nothing).
So these 'car size balloons' can't have much surveillance kit on them if they are truly balloons and don't have means of generating some lift. Or they are bigger than are being reported. Or my maths is wrong (not unusual).
It would be dissapointing if the military and hence the politicians don't know exactly what these are given the money spent on the kit available to military. But I'm betting they are not saying so they can make the best spin/propaganda out of the whole business.... But I may be wrong (again not unusual)
The following users liked this post: