Chinese Spy Balloon Flying Over the U.S.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Like this?

R.ebabe7dbeda91ea8f64ef3c62fe53461
 
RyanShort1 said:
so it's worth having a discussion.
Click to expand...
Sure - so long as it’s recognized this is out of the area of expertise of the vast majority of this forum and out of the realm of current, actionable knowledge by everyone who has spoken up (anyone with such knowledge values their security clearance enough to keep their keyboard quiet).

Harmless discussions and speculation can be entertaining. Sadly, it seems yet again there are those who want to cut-and-paste information, speculation, and misinformation to promote an overarching story line.

And given that, it is kind of amazing this thread hasn’t been locked yet.
 
Just because you don't know....how do you know the knowledge base of the others? There are lots of engineers and military folks here.
Llewtrah381 said:
Sure - so long as it’s recognized this is out of the area of expertise of the vast majority of this forum and out of the realm of current, actionable knowledge by everyone who has spoken up (anyone with such knowledge values their security clearance enough to keep their keyboard quiet).

Harmless discussions and speculation can be entertaining. Sadly, it seems yet again there are those who want to cut-and-paste information, speculation, and misinformation to promote an overarching story line.

And given that, it is kind of amazing this thread hasn’t been locked yet.
Click to expand...
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
Just because you don't know....how do you know the knowledge base of the others? There are lots of engineers and military folks here.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Personally, someone citing prior maintenance on 1960’s air defense artillery does not seem to be proving expertise on current detection, capabilities assessment, and mitigation resources.
 
wanttaja said:
However, putting on my tinfoil hat again:
Click to expand...
Read an interesting post on a forum out of South America discussing their balloon. Their take was these multiple balloons (past/present) were doing just that, tracking upper level winds but for a nefarious purpose and not just cloud watching. There still is some suspicion in SA on Chinese motives after they tried to inject their "influence" into a number of countries years ago. Fortunately they were thrown out and went to Africa where they were welcomed with open arms. Regardless, it was an interesting take especially when they put it into the context of covid and its history and possible purpose. In your past travels and experience would something like this be plausible on such a scale where the delivery mechanism was wind based? I guess I better pick up a few extra rolls of tin-foil before there is a shortage over this lasted episode.;)
 
Bell206 said:
Read an interesting post on a forum out of South America discussing their balloon. Their take was these multiple balloons (past/present) were doing just that, tracking upper level winds but for a nefarious purpose and not just cloud watching. There still is some suspicion in SA on Chinese motives after they tried to inject their "influence" into a number of countries years ago. Fortunately they were thrown out and went to Africa where they were welcomed with open arms. Regardless, it was an interesting take especially when they put it into the context of covid and its history and possible purpose. In your past travels and experience would something like this be plausible on such a scale where the delivery mechanism was wind based? I guess I better pick up a few extra rolls of tin-foil before there is a shortage over this lasted episode.;)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it be easier just to look at the winds aloft on wxbrief?

It's not like the speed and direction of air currents are a mystery to anyone.
 
wanttaja said:
I learned to fly in North Dakota, and don't recall any prohibited areas around the launch silos. They're all over the place, it'd be tough to set up hundreds of individual prohibited areas, and making one cover them all would close off at least two states to GA.
Click to expand...
No change since what you recall. We have MOAs mostly for bomber training out of Minot AFB and Ellsworth AFB, the R-5403 area that includes National Guard artillery and USAF drone training, and always-on TFRs around Grand Forks AFB to protect drone launch and recovery operations. The Minuteman silos are (thankfully) protected by concrete, patrolling Twin Hueys, and Humvees rather than special use airspace.
 
Spring Ford said:
I don't believe that it had propellers or a rudder.
Click to expand...
Rudder, no. Propellers...there've been suggestions that it has multiple motors like a quad copter. If you look at the pictures of the thing, some of the blobs near the center *could* be shrouded fans.

The thing that bothers me is the offcenter thrust. A 200-foot-diameter envelope has a flat plate area of around 31,000 square feet (about the equivalent of 175' x 175'). Unless they've found a way to put a set of fans on top of the balloon, the thrust is going to be way, way, off center.
balloon thrust.JPG
To me,the drag of the balloon envelope vs the thrust of the off-center motor(s) make it look like there's going to be a heck of a lot of torque. It'll probably find some equilibrium and not just spin around the envelope, but it's still really going to cut down on the efficiency of the propulsion.

Yes, the air is AWFUL thin, and the drag on the balloon is far less. Still, though, that'll reduce the efficiency of the propellers, too.

Mind you, I'm a space guy and have no expertise in wind bags.....though a couple of decades ago, we were looking at a modified Schweizer operating at 65,000 feet using the liquid-cooled O-200 used in Voyager.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Baked Potato said:
Wouldn't it be easier just to look at the winds aloft on wxbrief?
Click to expand...
Not if one had other intentions outside simply tracking the wind. Nobody knew about the balloons until 4 months ago when one crashed off the coast of Hawaii. Then looking back in through the films saw others. Then these two. In the SA forum, the implication was there is another purpose for these "sleath" balloons or similar vehicles. The fact there have been balloons flying over North/South America without notice is the interesting point which even the military doesn't have a good answer for. And without drifting... to far into tinfoil airspace, it was noted on the forum there are those who hold the Wuhan lab leak wasn't an accident.:eek:
 
RyanShort1 said:
Even if this balloon is 100% benign, it does expose a potential avenue of aerial assault that presumably less advanced countries could employ to do us harm, so it's worth having a discussion.
Click to expand...

Oh, certainly. While I'm (obviously) fascinated by the technical details, there's still some operational questions that I think need to be cleared up.

It's said that this was detected flying over the Aleutians. Was the detection AUTOMATIC (e.g., air defense systems spotted the balloon), was it spotted in real time by an operator, and did the software ignore it? The latter, I think, is a possibility, if the system was designed to detect high-speed targets (e.g., incoming jet bombers). If that's the case, then obviously things have to change.

It flew north over the Aleutians, and crossed the coast around the middle of Alaska. Same question here. Were they tracking it by then, and how automatic was it? Did it require manual manipulation of the system?

Assuming they knew it was there in real-time or non-real time, what level of threat assessment was done? Who made the official USAF assessment of threat level? Was this SOP based on previous balloon detections? Was there a second lieutenant in a tactical center in Alaska who made the threat assessment, or was this bumped up to NORAD? When would the issue be bumped to National Command Authority?

The last fascinating question is how well we were able to track the balloon after it crossed into Canada. Were all our detection systems pointed OUTWARD, and thus unable to track something that was well over the continent? Back in the Bad Old Days, we had systems to track the Russkie bombers flying south over Canada. Do these system exist anymore? Or are we essentially blind? How did we track it, once it passed over the Canadian border?

The areas have plenty of air traffic control radar coverage, of course. But it would require skin tracking, because I bet the thing didn't have a transponder. Would the ATC radars reject it, as well, or flag it as a primary target? I know ATC was warning airliners of a "derelict" balloon, but was that based on pilot reports or radar?

Ron Wanttaja
 
Llewtrah381 said:
Sure - so long as it’s recognized this is out of the area of expertise of the vast majority of this forum and out of the realm of current, actionable knowledge by everyone who has spoken up (anyone with such knowledge values their security clearance enough to keep their keyboard quiet).

Harmless discussions and speculation can be entertaining. Sadly, it seems yet again there are those who want to cut-and-paste information, speculation, and misinformation to promote an overarching story line.

And given that, it is kind of amazing this thread hasn’t been locked yet.
Click to expand...
Oh, I dunno, I think expressing an opinion or concern about national security policy is germane to all citizens in a representative republic. Especially when it's both germane to general safety and the airspace that we fly in. I'm not an elitist and it seems that even some nobody might come up with something useful in how to deal with this low-tech high vulnerability surprise.

And as a proponent of free speech, I think it's wonderful that the thread hasn't been locked yet.
 
wanttaja said:
Assuming they knew it was there in real-time or non-real time, what level of threat assessment was done? Who made the official USAF assessment of threat level? Was this SOP based on previous balloon detections? Was there a second lieutenant in a tactical center in Alaska who made the threat assessment, or was this bumped up to NORAD? When would the issue be bumped to National Command Authority?
Click to expand...
A General VanHerck NORAD made the threat call. Supposedly once spotted there were U2s shadowing it but the General wouldn't confirm nor deny it. Below is a transcript of his press conference yesterday where he answers some of your questions. On another note the fact remains that there were previous balloons that floated over US/Canada that went undetected and were found after the fact by reviewing old tapes as a result of a balloon that crashed 4 months ago near Hawaii.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Transc...merican-aerospace-defense-command-and-united/
 
RyanShort1 said:
Even if this balloon is 100% benign, it does expose a potential avenue of aerial assault that presumably less advanced countries could employ to do us harm, so it's worth having a discussion.
Click to expand...

I still think it's a dry run of WWII Japan's balloon attacks. This one might be benign, but if hostilities occur a few hundred of these are cheap by military standards. The amount of wild fires they could start or agricultural pest that could be introduced could be huge.
 
Pi1otguy said:
I still think it's a dry run of WWII Japan's balloon attacks. This one might be benign, but if hostilities occur a few hundred of these are cheap by military standards. The amount of wild fires they could start or agricultural pest that could be introduced could be huge.
Click to expand...
Based on the alleged size if this thing, imagine if it was booby trapped for being shot down *and* was carrying even a payload of conventional guided glide bombs… or drones.
 
Pi1otguy said:
I still think it's a dry run of WWII Japan's balloon attacks. This one might be benign, but if hostilities occur a few hundred of these are cheap by military standards. The amount of wild fires they could start or agricultural pest that could be introduced could be huge.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make sense to do dry runs on the actual target...that just warns them and allows them to prepare in advance. Which, of course, is what's happening.

The Japanese did dry runs in preparation to attack Oahu, but not AT Oahu.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Doesn't make sense to do dry runs on the actual target...that just warns them and allows them to prepare in advance. Which, of course, is what's happening.
Click to expand...
It makes a lot of sense. The US flew 1-3 planes over Japan near the end of WW2 dropping leaflets repeatedly. It wasn't worth shooting down ... Until it dropped something bigger.
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
I really don't know why we're talking about a gun kill on a balloon anyway :lol: :loco:
Click to expand...

Actually, Canada demonstrated already that it's impractical. They tried using their CF-18s to shoot down their own balloon, similar size and altitude, after it went out of control in 1998.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/161148.stm

Excerpt:

According to news reports from the time, the Canadian CF-18s fired more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition at the balloon - the pilots refrained from using air-to-air missiles.

The volleys of ammo did not work.

"It wasn't enough to shake loose the release mechanism. They probably hit the balloon too. But those small bullet holes and a balloon that size would have almost no effect," Mr Sommerfeldt said.​
 
RyanShort1 said:
Oh, I dunno, I think expressing an opinion or concern about national security policy is germane to all citizens in a representative republic. Especially when it's both germane to general safety and the airspace that we fly in. I'm not an elitist and it seems that even some nobody might come up with something useful in how to deal with this low-tech high vulnerability surprise.

And as a proponent of free speech, I think it's wonderful that the thread hasn't been locked yet.
Click to expand...
I’m all in for free speech. But free speech isn’t the same as “responsible speech”, “honest speech”, “helpful speech” or a whole list of adjectives. I’m pretty sure it was our Middle School Civics class where we learned yelling “fire” in a crowded theater wasn’t protected free speech.

And a variety of opinions, ideas, concerns, etc. is generally good except, IMHO, when its intent is to push an agenda rather than illuminate. I mean, I can offer my experiences with, say, ODPs (and have) and they offer insights - but the inputs of several people here with actual ATC experience added a LOT more and was very informative for me. By contrast, generically trashing ATC because they’re government employees would be, let’s say, less helpful - even if “protected”.
 
Pi1otguy said:
It makes a lot of sense. The US flew 1-3 planes over Japan near the end of WW2 dropping leaflets repeatedly. It wasn't worth shooting down ... Until it dropped something bigger.
Click to expand...
Makes sense to ignore 1-3 planes a day dropping leaflets during an active war, when hundreds if not thousands, are flying over and dropping bombs.

If the Japanese had come by in November 1941 and done a practice raid on Pearl Harbor, I think their reception would have been a lot hotter on December 7th.

As it is, the US will emphasize balloon detection and interception, making it less possible a balloon attack will occur unchallenged and making it a less-useful attack method.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Llewtrah381 said:
I’m all in for free speech. But free speech isn’t the same as “responsible speech”, “honest speech”, “helpful speech” or a whole list of adjectives. I’m pretty sure it was our Middle School Civics class where we learned yelling “fire” in a crowded theater wasn’t protected free speech.
Click to expand...
It is though. So maybe not everything you learned in middle school was strictly accurate.
 
Lindberg said:
It is though. So maybe not everything you learned in middle school was strictly accurate.
Click to expand...
So what's your point? I only see where you noticed one part of the post is incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Llewtrah381 said:
I’m all in for free speech. But free speech isn’t the same as “responsible speech”, “honest speech”, “helpful speech” or a whole list of adjectives. I’m pretty sure it was our Middle School Civics class where we learned yelling “fire” in a crowded theater wasn’t protected free speech.
Click to expand...
I think you are tiptoeing with incendiary conflation there. Do we want to start prosecuting lies? Is it ok if one team tells lies, but not if the other team does? Obviously, some lies told under oath will get you in trouble, but for the most part, we generally we let the consequences of lying play out rather than making that speech illegal.
And who gets to define "responsible" or "helpful?"
And a variety of opinions, ideas, concerns, etc. is generally good except, IMHO, when its intent is to push an agenda rather than illuminate.
Click to expand...
Ah, now it is clear that this is a very, very arbitrary argument.

I could argue that anyone with a voice who chooses to speak has an agenda. You're mistaking agendas as bad, when I would say that there might be certain agendas that are objectively bad (and yes, it is fair to demand a moral reasoning for condemning them).

For instance, I happen to hold such an opinion that it is a problem for one nation to threaten another with a balloon. Now if you could prove that it was actually defensive in nature, or genuinely scientific, then we certainly could have a fun debate.

For most of us, this IS a matter of national security, and morality (ie. is it a bad idea to shoot down the balloon over particular locations) and so by the very nature of the discussion there will be moral presuppositions and agendas invoked.
 
RyanShort1 said:
Should lies also be illegal? Do we want to start prosecuting lies?
Click to expand...
LOL - are you serious?!? They ARE illegal under the right circumstances. Impeachable, even.

And even if believed, they’re still lies.

And I can see this is pointless. And, frankly, scary, when people can’t tell the moral difference.
 
Me and some of my fellow space-engineer retirees had our weekly Zoom meeting today, and the balloon was a prime item for discussion. One of the guys came up with a *perfect* explanation of what the balloon was doing.

That wasn't a solar array on the bottom of the balloon: It was a Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR).

That snaps EVERYTHING in place. Running a SAR at 60,000 feet vs. a satellite at 150 miles gives you better resolution. Toodling along in a 15 knot wind at 600 is much better than shooting by at 18,000 MPH 150 miles up.

What's more, you *can't* do it from the ground. Even better, it's difficult to do covertly from a modified GA aircraft; not only do you need a lot of power, but you'd need a phased array antenna across the bottom of the airplane that'd attract a lot of attention.

What would you do with radar mapping of the surface down to centimeters? Perhaps finding buried cables...such as the USAF might use for backup C&C of missile operations.

An argument against this is the waviness and uneven lines of the array seen in the picture shot from Montana. However, that was taken through ~60,000 feet of atmosphere. It's quite possible the distortion was caused by the atmosphere, and the array itself was straight.

Where's the solar array then? Could just be on the opposite side of the panels for the SAR. Or on the very top of the envelope, probably the best place for them.

It's an interesting theory....

One of my friends has a relative that works for Worldview, a company that builds high-altitude balloons. Much smaller than the Chinese balloon, but sounds like it could do similar missions.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top