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.
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!!