Bullshit. It is a very slow moving target. It is ridiculous to assume nobody in the DoD every considered that balloons could threaten the USA, and therefore never developed a weapon that could do anything to them.
It only sounds stupid to the ignorant. To those of us who worked in the weapons industry, this is a difficult problem. As the article points out, such intercepts have been tried before and failed completely.
Not the first time I hear people add "in my profession experience" to their uninformed opinions. Gotta say, I admire the straight face with which you say this even as you exposed yourself just yesterday. Cheers.
Considering the previous attempts to shoot down balloons had been failures, I don't think my doubt was misplaced. And all I expressed was doubt. I'm glad to know they can do it. More particularly, it is interesting to know how they did it (with an IR-guided missile, not a radar-guided missile)
At least I didn't claim it was producing chemtrails, or that JFK Jr. is alive.
Not bullshit. You should read the article. Balloon intercepts have been attempted in the past, completely failing. It's like trying to shoot down a fog bank. Even being profusely punctured does not impair the balloon's buoyancy by much.
It is ridiculous for you to assume that the DoD has time, attention, resources, and funding to do everything imaginable.
And where would they go? How can you target anything with a balloon? The Japanese tried to do this in World War II and it was a colossal failure. So, do you learn from history---or put history aside and engage in flights of fancy?
Solar panels + lithium batteries + propulsion + precise weather data = balloons can be directed. Payload could be virus, dirty bomb, spy equipment.
It is a very low cost asymmetric warfare technique. It would cost 50x more for us to launch warplanes and shoot it down that it cost to build and deploy the balloon.
There was no propulsion system. Balloons are not dirigibles. This one simply followed the prevailing currents. And, as it turns out, they are an easy kill (happy, that).
My original point was only that it was doubtful. I am overjoyed to be proven wrong on this. It does indicate a more subtle performance capability of the AIM-9X Sidewinder. (In previous attempts in the past, it had proven to be impossible.)
So wait, if we launch a balloon like that, that starts dropping redpill pamphlets all over the world, they cant stop it? What if it says "Vaccines Kill" ? I am sure Pfizer will come up with a new technology to shoot it down.
You need to have means for aiming at what you are shooting at. The A-10 is not meant to shoot other aircraft with that cannon. But the whole point of using cannon fire or machine gun fire is moot as the article stated. They tried that once upon a time. Shot the envelope up to the point of hundreds of holes, but it made no difference. (You have a poor conception of how large these balloons become when they are fully inflated at altitude. And there is very little overpressure in the balloon.)
Even with that aside, an F-16 is meant to pursue a target and shoot at it. The relative airspeed is low. With something almost stationary, the F-16 would be closing at its flight velocity. There is a question whether the firing system could close a solution under those conditions. (It is a variation of the shooting at a moving target problem. Just because the target is moving toward you does not mean it is not a ballistics problem.)
Interesting idea. The AH-64 Apache attack helicopter has a service ceiling of 20,000 feet. So also the CH-47 Chinook cargo helicopter. No flamethrower has ever been mounted on a helicopter. Too much danger of flame ingestion by the engines. But machine gun fire would be possible. The problem, of course, as the lead article pointed out, is that you can shoot one of these balloons full of holes and it will have very little effect on its buoyancy. So, I think it is a non-starter.
My frens, I read the article, and they did not say it was impossible, they only point out that it's harder than you might think.
Let's look at the logistics.
Is it travelling slowly? Yes. Does that make it easy to take out; not necessarily, it's REALLY HIGH.
Let's look at this in detail.
The highest flying military aircraft (that we know about) is the F-22. Yes, the F-15 and the U-2 flew higher, but those aircraft were unarmed. The F-22 flies at a maximum of about 65,000 feet. This balloon is flying between 120,000 and 150,000 feet. That means that if the F-22 flew towards it and was in its closest range of shooting it, the bullets would still have to travel 12-15 miles in an upward direction and fly straight. Have you ever tried to shoot a target 12-15 miles away and above you? It's not so easy.
Let's look at a missile. Yes, a missile can fly that far and aim itself. But the plastic of the balloon is not radar reflective, only the payload would be. I would guess that the payload would have the radar signature of a push type lawn mower, maybe less. That would be difficult even for a radar to lock onto 12 miles away, though not impossible, for a missile. Those missiles cost between $1M and $3M each. Well, that's not a problem for the military.
The only known, still flying aircraft that can get to somewhere near that altitude would the U-2. There are only a couple of them still flying and they are not armed. They can't afford the weight of weapons.
Airborne lasers. The only airborne laser (that I know of) was mounted to the nose of a 747 that was used as a test bed in the 1990's. That 747 has been in the bone yard in Tucson AZ with its engines removed for a couple decades now. You can go on a tour there and see it for yourself. It is possible that the military has airborne lasers now, but I doubt that the military would want to reveal that those weapons exist.
Ground based lasers. We probably have ground based lasers that might be effective against a target 20- 30 miles high. The Navy has been testing ship based lasers. Last time I checked, the Navy didn't have any warships in Montana, South Dakota or Minnesota, though I could be wrong on this. They don’t tell me everything.
Space weapons. I recall that there was a treaty signed back in the 1970's. It's been a long time since I was in the 1970's so I'm not remembering those details, but I again doubt that the US military would want to reveal that they had such weapons in space.
DEWS. If they exist (which I'm sure they do), again, I doubt that the military would want to reveal that they had them and that they were in space.
The point of the article it NOT that it was impossible to take the balloon out, but that it was harder than you think.
I agree, while it might be possible, but it is probably harder than we think.
Couple of thoughts, monkeyworx reported it was at 19,000ft, but Gov ,AP was saying 60,000ft.
F22 seems to be able to engage. “ In testing, an F-22 cruising at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m) struck a moving target 24 miles (39 km) away.[110]”
Also, is not a small target, but size of 3 buses they report.
Not sure, but seems we could put some rounds in it from a fighter. Also would be a great test of the Boeing platform laser tester!(unless bone yarded as you say)
Waste of $$ to shoot a missile I would think.
It may be descending because it's lost its gas or maybe deliberately because it's done its duty and now committing suicide. If, before, it was flying as low as 19,000 ft. they might have had to file a flight plan because it would have been in commercial airspace. For a spy device? Not likely. It's more likely that it WAS flying much higher and now is descending and at a lower altitude.
I basically agree, but to your points on energy weapons:
4. The YAL-1A was available through 2010 when it intercepted a boosting target. It was subsequently scrapped as described. Lasers on fighter aircraft are being studied, but no installations have occurred.
5. Ground-based lasers may not have the range to engage. They can also be blocked by clouds.
6. We have no space weapons. Tried hard to do it in the 1980s, but no joy.
7. Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) are, in practice, high-energy lasers. At one time there was consideration of particle-beam weapons, but they fell out of favor due to problems with beam propagation stability.
The article basically documented that it was impossible to take down a balloon with weapons we have. Some completely different weapon might be necessary to deal with a balloon in future.
Bullshit. It is a very slow moving target. It is ridiculous to assume nobody in the DoD every considered that balloons could threaten the USA, and therefore never developed a weapon that could do anything to them.
It is. This is how propaganda works. The more stupider it sounds. the more desperate they are.
It only sounds stupid to the ignorant. To those of us who worked in the weapons industry, this is a difficult problem. As the article points out, such intercepts have been tried before and failed completely.
I would bet this assertion is as equally relevant as your previous assertion of working in airborne surveillance ;)
Both are true, weapons and surveillance. I am a man of many flavors. Your bet would lose.
Not the first time I hear people add "in my profession experience" to their uninformed opinions. Gotta say, I admire the straight face with which you say this even as you exposed yourself just yesterday. Cheers.
Considering the previous attempts to shoot down balloons had been failures, I don't think my doubt was misplaced. And all I expressed was doubt. I'm glad to know they can do it. More particularly, it is interesting to know how they did it (with an IR-guided missile, not a radar-guided missile)
At least I didn't claim it was producing chemtrails, or that JFK Jr. is alive.
Amusing to watch you.
If there was a bounty on it I betcha some country folks would have had it on the ground snapping selfies..
Those boys at Duck Dynasty would be able to take it down.
Not bullshit. You should read the article. Balloon intercepts have been attempted in the past, completely failing. It's like trying to shoot down a fog bank. Even being profusely punctured does not impair the balloon's buoyancy by much.
It is ridiculous for you to assume that the DoD has time, attention, resources, and funding to do everything imaginable.
How bout shoot a flare into it and ignite the gasses or burn the material?
Can't "ignite" helium. At high altitude there is probably not enough oxygen to combust the plastic membrane of the envelope.
<flips table>
The balloon was at 60,000 feet.
It is ridiculous to believe that our military has never considered that we could be attacked via balloon.
North Korea could launch 1000 balloons from a freighter off our coast.
And where would they go? How can you target anything with a balloon? The Japanese tried to do this in World War II and it was a colossal failure. So, do you learn from history---or put history aside and engage in flights of fancy?
Solar panels + lithium batteries + propulsion + precise weather data = balloons can be directed. Payload could be virus, dirty bomb, spy equipment.
It is a very low cost asymmetric warfare technique. It would cost 50x more for us to launch warplanes and shoot it down that it cost to build and deploy the balloon.
There was no propulsion system. Balloons are not dirigibles. This one simply followed the prevailing currents. And, as it turns out, they are an easy kill (happy, that).
Do you stand by your original point, that it is just too hard to shoot down balloons?
My original point was only that it was doubtful. I am overjoyed to be proven wrong on this. It does indicate a more subtle performance capability of the AIM-9X Sidewinder. (In previous attempts in the past, it had proven to be impossible.)
just hit it with a space laser or DEW.
Two words: Rail Gun.
Good trick, if we had any.
So wait, if we launch a balloon like that, that starts dropping redpill pamphlets all over the world, they cant stop it? What if it says "Vaccines Kill" ? I am sure Pfizer will come up with a new technology to shoot it down.
My dog would LOVE to get a hold of that balloon!
A-10 warthog. Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrt. Down.
The A-10 can only shoot at ground targets. It has no means of using the cannon for air-to-air engagements, as it is NOT designed for dogfights.
Dogfight? It's a balloon slowly drifting through the sky. Get an f16 then, they have machine guns.
You need to have means for aiming at what you are shooting at. The A-10 is not meant to shoot other aircraft with that cannon. But the whole point of using cannon fire or machine gun fire is moot as the article stated. They tried that once upon a time. Shot the envelope up to the point of hundreds of holes, but it made no difference. (You have a poor conception of how large these balloons become when they are fully inflated at altitude. And there is very little overpressure in the balloon.)
Even with that aside, an F-16 is meant to pursue a target and shoot at it. The relative airspeed is low. With something almost stationary, the F-16 would be closing at its flight velocity. There is a question whether the firing system could close a solution under those conditions. (It is a variation of the shooting at a moving target problem. Just because the target is moving toward you does not mean it is not a ballistics problem.)
How bout helicopter mounted with flame thrower??
I’m sure Airwolf or Bluethunder are up for the task!
Interesting idea. The AH-64 Apache attack helicopter has a service ceiling of 20,000 feet. So also the CH-47 Chinook cargo helicopter. No flamethrower has ever been mounted on a helicopter. Too much danger of flame ingestion by the engines. But machine gun fire would be possible. The problem, of course, as the lead article pointed out, is that you can shoot one of these balloons full of holes and it will have very little effect on its buoyancy. So, I think it is a non-starter.
<flips table again>
https://twitter.com/rwapodcast/status/1621374590495723522?s=46&t=I7cFpw25NXD9n5K-Aloz3A
More likely to prevent solar heating and loss of buoyancy control.
I think a good laser weapon would punch a good hole in it.
If only I had a high powered laser.
My frens, I read the article, and they did not say it was impossible, they only point out that it's harder than you might think.
Let's look at the logistics. Is it travelling slowly? Yes. Does that make it easy to take out; not necessarily, it's REALLY HIGH.
Let's look at this in detail.
The highest flying military aircraft (that we know about) is the F-22. Yes, the F-15 and the U-2 flew higher, but those aircraft were unarmed. The F-22 flies at a maximum of about 65,000 feet. This balloon is flying between 120,000 and 150,000 feet. That means that if the F-22 flew towards it and was in its closest range of shooting it, the bullets would still have to travel 12-15 miles in an upward direction and fly straight. Have you ever tried to shoot a target 12-15 miles away and above you? It's not so easy.
Let's look at a missile. Yes, a missile can fly that far and aim itself. But the plastic of the balloon is not radar reflective, only the payload would be. I would guess that the payload would have the radar signature of a push type lawn mower, maybe less. That would be difficult even for a radar to lock onto 12 miles away, though not impossible, for a missile. Those missiles cost between $1M and $3M each. Well, that's not a problem for the military.
The only known, still flying aircraft that can get to somewhere near that altitude would the U-2. There are only a couple of them still flying and they are not armed. They can't afford the weight of weapons.
Airborne lasers. The only airborne laser (that I know of) was mounted to the nose of a 747 that was used as a test bed in the 1990's. That 747 has been in the bone yard in Tucson AZ with its engines removed for a couple decades now. You can go on a tour there and see it for yourself. It is possible that the military has airborne lasers now, but I doubt that the military would want to reveal that those weapons exist.
Ground based lasers. We probably have ground based lasers that might be effective against a target 20- 30 miles high. The Navy has been testing ship based lasers. Last time I checked, the Navy didn't have any warships in Montana, South Dakota or Minnesota, though I could be wrong on this. They don’t tell me everything.
Space weapons. I recall that there was a treaty signed back in the 1970's. It's been a long time since I was in the 1970's so I'm not remembering those details, but I again doubt that the US military would want to reveal that they had such weapons in space.
DEWS. If they exist (which I'm sure they do), again, I doubt that the military would want to reveal that they had them and that they were in space.
The point of the article it NOT that it was impossible to take the balloon out, but that it was harder than you think.
I agree, while it might be possible, but it is probably harder than we think.
Lol. ‘They don’t tell me everything’...
Nice
Couple of thoughts, monkeyworx reported it was at 19,000ft, but Gov ,AP was saying 60,000ft. F22 seems to be able to engage. “ In testing, an F-22 cruising at Mach 1.5 at 50,000 feet (15,000 m) struck a moving target 24 miles (39 km) away.[110]”
Also, is not a small target, but size of 3 buses they report. Not sure, but seems we could put some rounds in it from a fighter. Also would be a great test of the Boeing platform laser tester!(unless bone yarded as you say) Waste of $$ to shoot a missile I would think.
It may be descending because it's lost its gas or maybe deliberately because it's done its duty and now committing suicide. If, before, it was flying as low as 19,000 ft. they might have had to file a flight plan because it would have been in commercial airspace. For a spy device? Not likely. It's more likely that it WAS flying much higher and now is descending and at a lower altitude.
I see now it was shot down. Nice of the pResident to get rid of the evidence for the Chinese.
I basically agree, but to your points on energy weapons: 4. The YAL-1A was available through 2010 when it intercepted a boosting target. It was subsequently scrapped as described. Lasers on fighter aircraft are being studied, but no installations have occurred. 5. Ground-based lasers may not have the range to engage. They can also be blocked by clouds. 6. We have no space weapons. Tried hard to do it in the 1980s, but no joy. 7. Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) are, in practice, high-energy lasers. At one time there was consideration of particle-beam weapons, but they fell out of favor due to problems with beam propagation stability.
The article basically documented that it was impossible to take down a balloon with weapons we have. Some completely different weapon might be necessary to deal with a balloon in future.
Thank you for the details. Nice to hear from another anon familiar with those type of details. Facts are our friends!!