Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 526 posts

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#101

Post by dirtyid »

jjtheblunt wrote: post #90
dirtyid wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>erred by sending such a large I surmise you need large balloon to carry required instruments on one platform. Going forward IMO PRC just going to fly them higher, US can keep shooting them down... possible until they can't, both will reveal US capabilities. At minimum, finding out f22 + missile ceiling is worth the cost. PRC isn't going to stop program just because US domestic politics goes full retard, if anything,…

You could just pop them with a laser instead of bothering to scramble jets and missiles, I’d think.

You could but confirming US has that capability is significant. The purpose is to gather intelligence after all.

E: Lunar ranging = ground stations. Not feasible to cover CONUS with network of ground based laser for forseeable future. If anything, balloons will try to bait responses from SHiELD/air based laser ABL interception (YAL1) that can be extrapolated to IndoPac theatre.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#102

Post by dogma1138 »

detrites wrote: post #77

Is there a plausible explanation as to why the US government has not announced objects 2 & 3 are balloons, if they are balloons? They call them "objects", yet must know what they are. They wouldn't randomly missile unknowns. If it's for reasons of secrecy, why announce it at all? The second one was in the middle of nowhere, it could easily have been ignored, or dismissed as a military exercise if anyone had made a fu…

Because at least the 2nd object wasn’t, it was described as a cylinder about the size of a car which is where all the UFO tic-tac victory mark memes came from.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#103

Post by dirtyid »

Vecr wrote: post #92
dirtyid wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>erred by sending such a large I surmise you need large balloon to carry required instruments on one platform. Going forward IMO PRC just going to fly them higher, US can keep shooting them down... possible until they can't, both will reveal US capabilities. At minimum, finding out f22 + missile ceiling is worth the cost. PRC isn't going to stop program just because US domestic politics goes full retard, if anything,…

I don't think they can send a balloon the US can't shoot down, but the problem with using ground or sea based interceptors, or longer range jet-launched missiles launched from below is identification and proper targeting. The US might not want to take the risk of hitting the wrong thing/a misidentified object.

Bug reason why PRC aviation / airspace is stressed is because PLA has priority intercepting US recon. If balloons cause comparable stress on commercial US aviation then problems with ID becomes part of the strategy. Exposing CONUS vunerability and fallout of domestic politics might be the point.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#104

Post by sokoloff »

dirtyid wrote: post #89
Overtonwindow wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: was there ever any doubt that US military could shoot something down out of the sky no matter how high it flies? If they are doing this to determine capabilities, it's like staking at a grocery store to see if it sells milk.

Removing doubt has value. If US has to shift to another platform to hit 80k feet ballon reveals specific capabilities. Like if US has to start using advanced ground based interceptors, it will inform PRC on constraints relevant in IndoPac scenario. If US has to break out asat tier weapons, ASM135 cost 5B for ~15 missiles then PRC can start developing capabilities to accordingly to shift strategic math. Imagine if bal…

US has flown F-15 (and F-104 for that matter) to over 100K feet MSL. China knows this already.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#105

Post by dogma1138 »

consumer451 wrote: post #93
yumraj wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be Drones?

Drones have relatively limited range.

MALE/HALE UAVs have an endurance of 30> hours and a range of nearly 4-5000 (7000km>) nautical miles without aerial refueling.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#106

Post by stevenhuang »

detrites wrote: post #77

Is there a plausible explanation as to why the US government has not announced objects 2 & 3 are balloons, if they are balloons? They call them "objects", yet must know what they are. They wouldn't randomly missile unknowns. If it's for reasons of secrecy, why announce it at all? The second one was in the middle of nowhere, it could easily have been ignored, or dismissed as a military exercise if anyone had made a fu…

Could be they thought it was a balloon originally hence the immediate press conference, but now they've received conflicting accounts from the pilots (some reported experiencing sensor interference for example) so they're not sure what they are anymore.

Apparently the Alaska object shattered upon impact against the ice. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/02/pentagon-shoots-down...

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#108

Post by consumer451 »

dogma1138 wrote: post #105
consumer451 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drones have relatively limited range.

MALE/HALE UAVs have an endurance of 30> hours and a range of nearly 4-5000 (7000km>) nautical miles without aerial refueling.

Thanks, I didn't realize the extent of the range. Although, if launched from mainland China a round-trip to Canada is still pretty darn far, eh?

But now I am playing the guessing game a bit too much for my own liking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium-altitude_long-endurance...

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#109

Post by throwaway4good »

rgbrenner wrote: post #38

I think China erred by sending such a large balloon that was visible to the naked eye, causing the American public to demand it be shot down. There's no hard rule about where national airspace ends and space begins.. a lot of times they fly too high for planes to reach, and under certain circumstances balloons are allowed through national airspace.. so if the balloon isn't causing a problem (like being a hazard to ai…

[flagged]

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#110

Post by Alifatisk »

PonySoldier wrote: post #100
brindidrip wrote: post #66

I don't know why everyone is so quick to label these other objects as balloons.

Seriously! All official statements so far have been pretty clear that they're not labeling it a balloon (yet). A CNN correspondent [0] just claimed that there were conflicting statements from the pilots that it interfered with their sensors as they approached it. And that they couldn't figure out how it was staying in the air. I have no idea where she got those updates, but it certainly adds mystery to the situation.…

That’s little scary
Post reply on HN