Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 11379340)
Negloble over a 5 mile base line.
|
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 11379231)
Why bother? Its presence is known and knocking it down gives an indication of high altitude defence capability.
|
I wonder if it can be recovered with the instrument package relatively undamaged? If it starts to descend, Messrs Boyle, Archimedes and Newton would normally ensure a fairly hard bump on arrival.
|
Not that I think shooting it down is worth the candle.
Would a missile really be necessary? Wouldn’t a couple of short bursts of cannon-fire over a suitable area deflate the balloon(s) sufficiently to make it descend to earth? Seems a safer option. Do they have an aircraft with a cannon capable of such a feat. Perhaps an F-18 or F-16 would suffice. |
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 11379337)
We used to!
|
Originally Posted by melmothtw
(Post 11379369)
I'm guessing that was for known satellite orbits, rather than for a balloon that no one saw coming.
|
Boyle already ensured it would rise to that altitude and stay there. A slow leak would work, even by diffusion though the balloon envelope and Boyle might see to it that there was a slow return.
It could be from 12 to 24 miles up; If it's at the higher end of that range one will need a really good gun for a fighter to shoot it down. Then there's the rounds falling at random back onto Montana. The density may seem low, but it's sure one will hit the most valuable cow in a herd. Missiles are also a problem as the target one really wants is the balloon, which has not much radar or thermal signature. I checked and the air density at 120k ft is 0.002 that of sea level. Maybe that helps with the rounds from the fighter having less drag? |
Originally Posted by ETOPS
(Post 11379296)
Stand down - it's a weather balloon :rolleyes:
Albeit flying some 60,000 feet above any weather. As it will be static w.r.t. the air mass that it is moving in, what's the point ? |
Originally Posted by MechEngr
(Post 11379377)
Boyle already ensured it would rise to that altitude and stay there. A slow leak would work, even by diffusion though the balloon envelope and Boyle might see to it that there was a slow return.
It could be from 12 to 24 miles up; If it's at the higher end of that range one will need a really good gun for a fighter to shoot it down. Then there's the rounds falling at random back onto Montana. The density may seem low, but it's sure one will hit the most valuable cow in a herd. Missiles are also a problem as the target one really wants is the balloon, which has not much radar or thermal signature. I checked and the air density at 120k ft is 0.002 that of sea level. Maybe that helps with the rounds from the fighter having less drag? |
what's the point ? |
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 11379388)
I beg to differ. As it loses buoyancy Archimedes loses the battle with Newton. As it descends increasing pressure, courtesy of Boyle, will compress the fixed mass of gas further decreasing the buoyancy and accelerating the descent and resulting in a fearsome bump. The only question is would the rising temperature at lower altitude bring Mr Charles to the rescue?
|
Shoot
the china ballon down now immediately expel ALL china diplomats from us |
Whaaaat?!
|
That's an amusing proposal, Free Range.
Spoiler
|
Maybe these balloons will become a common sight -- probably Europe/UK next on the target list -- if that's possible.
Forget gunboat diplomacy -- balloons are cheaper. |
Unless anyone knows better: there is nothing of consequence a balloon can see that a satellite cannot see, and the US forces can likely listen in to any radio transmissions from the balloon, gaining intelligence on Chinese encryption. Yes, it's cheeky of the Chinese, but if the balloon were a serious threat it would be shot down. I suspect US can gain more than it loses by observing it and listening to its transmissions. Anyone in a position to know for sure is unlikely to post answers here.
|
I don't think it anything to do with intelligence gathering just a way of putting a weed up the administration.
Its a cheap way way to get the worlds attention and difficult to counter without either looking weak or stupid (if the US failed in an attempt to shoot it down). |
Originally Posted by 911slf
(Post 11379470)
Unless anyone knows better: there is nothing of consequence a balloon can see that a satellite cannot see, and the US forces can likely listen in to any radio transmissions from the balloon, gaining intelligence on Chinese encryption. Yes, it's cheeky of the Chinese, but if the balloon were a serious threat it would be shot down. I suspect US can gain more than it loses by observing it and listening to its transmissions. Anyone in a position to know for sure is unlikely to post answers here.
Either way, the USA has previously run a number of balloon based intelligence programmes (e.g. Genetrix) , some of which overflew China. Of course they are within their rights to shoot the thing down, but the outrage seems a little hard to justify given the history. |
Origin?
Did it have "made in China" written on the side? Couldn't be from Russia or North Korea? Could it be that the respective government actually did not know?
Or something like the Bay of Pigs fiasco? In the UK, I haven't seen or heard anything regarding how the "ownership" was determined? Just asking. May have missed a news report ot two. |
Originally Posted by 70 Mustang
(Post 11379493)
Just asking. May have missed a news report ot two.
https://edition.cnn.com/politics/liv...685112a0bbb60a |
Originally Posted by 70 Mustang
(Post 11379493)
Did it have "made in China" written on the side? Couldn't be from Russia or North Korea? Could it be that the respective government actually did not know?
Or something like the Bay of Pigs fiasco? In the UK, I haven't seen or heard anything regarding how the "ownership" was determined? Just asking. May have missed a news report ot two. |
Still?
Why cancel the "Blinking" visit?
|
Originally Posted by Andrewgr2
(Post 11379305)
Perhaps it is a stray weather balloon- but the PRC would say that, wouldn’t they? If it is actually spying then it might be more beneficial for the US to intercept its transmissions and decode what it is reporting than it would be to bring it down - if indeed they have the technology to bring down something flying at perhaps 80,000 feet. If they do have the technology they might not want to demonstrate it.
|
In my opinion, the capabilities of this balloon are probably minimal and not the point. This is a strong statement from China - they can put their hardware directly over the US unopposed, and visible for all to see.
Powerful. |
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 11379388)
I beg to differ. As it loses buoyancy Archimedes loses the battle with Newton. As it descends increasing pressure, courtesy of Boyle, will compress the fixed mass of gas further decreasing the buoyancy and accelerating the descent and resulting in a fearsome bump. The only question is would the rising temperature at lower altitude bring Mr Charles to the rescue?
|
Originally Posted by Sue Vêtements
(Post 11379312)
Spying Over Montana?
Looking at a map I've always got the feeling that Montana is an old man spying on Idaho. Sticking his nose right into Idaho's business. You can't unsee that now |
I’ll be the cynic…. Put internal cargo that would produce an EMP blast
Hopefully the US will bring it down in the gulf or Atlantic coast |
Must be some clever coves in the PRC that can launch a balloon and get it to arrive in the right place in the US.
|
John Dutton will sort it out 🤠
|
The Chinese will auto destruct the balloon over the sea -- the balloon might even have the capability to auto destruct if attacked.
I wonder when the next balloon is due? |
Originally Posted by mikeoneflying
(Post 11379561)
I wonder when the next balloon is due?
|
Originally Posted by mikeoneflying
(Post 11379561)
I wonder when the next balloon is due?
|
|
NORAD and the Canadian DoD has confirmed that a 2nd Balloon is currently being tracked somewhere over Canada.
|
Why not shoot it down? Collateral damage would be almost zero chance. You don’t destroy it. A couple of rounds from an aircraft. Wait to see if it starts descending. No well then a couple more rounds. Eventually it is going to start a slow descent to the ground.
This does sound all very strange. |
Originally Posted by Imagegear
(Post 11379043)
No nation has yet claimed ownership, therefore it must be a hazard to high altitude navigation and should be removed.:E
IG |
Originally Posted by Flyhighfirst
(Post 11379587)
Why not shoot it down? Collateral damage would be almost zero chance. You don’t destroy it. A couple of rounds from an aircraft. Wait to see if it starts descending. No well then a couple more rounds. Eventually it is going to start a slow descent to the ground.
This does sound all very strange. How do we know gas is helium? H2 a darn sight cheaper and easier. |
EMP Weapon Positioning
PRC possibly just practicing how to position a balloon over the central US using the global jetstream, should they ever elect to employ the EMP bomb to shut down much of the US
|
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 11379231)
Why bother? Its presence is known and knocking it down gives an indication of high altitude defence capability.
|
Originally Posted by havoc
(Post 11379541)
I’ll be the cynic…. Put internal cargo that would produce an EMP blast
Hopefully the US will bring it down in the gulf or Atlantic coast |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.