I feel like I'm thrown back to the 80s, all this military and fear mongering and propaganda and war.
Except this time, no one under 40 seems to give a shit.
US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
321–330 of 526 posts
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that's how it's supposed to work. The US and Canada work together to defend their combined airspace. They're literally under the same chain of command, hence "NORAD". It would be rather inefficient to set that up and then have both countries redundantly responding everywhere.
I'm familiar with NORAD. Take a look at Canadian media, you'll see they are talking about the fact RCAF could not do it on their own.
Well, if media is our standard for what are appropriate conclusions, we've got a real problem.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#323I was curious about part of the description given by the pilots who shot down the object off the coast of Alaska. It was described as being at about 40000' altitude (12192 m) and moving about 40 mph (64 kph) with no visible means of propulsion. To me, that implies that it was drifting in the wind at that altitude since it had no visible means of propulsion. I took a look at Ventusky (ventusky.com) to try to get an id…
[deleted]
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#324I was curious about part of the description given by the pilots who shot down the object off the coast of Alaska. It was described as being at about 40000' altitude (12192 m) and moving about 40 mph (64 kph) with no visible means of propulsion. To me, that implies that it was drifting in the wind at that altitude since it had no visible means of propulsion. I took a look at Ventusky (ventusky.com) to try to get an id…
Maybe penetration testing, testing response times. Could even be trying to monitor various network traffic and communications signals in relation to activities around responses. Lots of possibilities, it's hard not to speculate.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#325Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because that's how it's supposed to work. The US and Canada work together to defend their combined airspace. They're literally under the same chain of command, hence "NORAD". It would be rather inefficient to set that up and then have both countries redundantly responding everywhere.
I'm familiar with NORAD. Take a look at Canadian media, you'll see they are talking about the fact RCAF could not do it on their own.
But there's no reason for them to be able to do it on their own, because of NORAD.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#326I was curious about part of the description given by the pilots who shot down the object off the coast of Alaska. It was described as being at about 40000' altitude (12192 m) and moving about 40 mph (64 kph) with no visible means of propulsion. To me, that implies that it was drifting in the wind at that altitude since it had no visible means of propulsion. I took a look at Ventusky (ventusky.com) to try to get an id…
“ Another official from the Department of Defense told the New York Times that the object broke into pieces when it hit the frozen sea” - Guardian article on the Alaska downing
How could a balloon break into pieces? Doesn’t it need to be made of flexible material?
Edit: WSJ is now reporting unnamed sources confirmed Alaska was a metallic balloon w suspended payload.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#327"Some pilots said the object “interfered with their sensors” on the planes" "Some pilots also claimed to have seen no identifiable propulsion on the object, and could not explain how it was staying in the air, despite the object cruising at an altitude of 40,000 feet." https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/11/politics/unidentified-object-... "It was described as "cylindrical and silver-ish gray" and seemed to be floating, a U.…
Sounds like an MKV to me. Could be in response to the ICBM.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Of course, if the US expects that the Chinese are using this to test our capabilities, then they could use that to undersell their capabilities. And then the Chinese, knowing the US would use it to undersell capabilities…
Yeah. I'm kind of flabbergasted by 99.9% of the comments on this topic, which assume the US is just chasing these things blindly without taking countermeasures.
The F-22 and other "stealth" jets can carry radar reflectors to intentionally make themselves EXTREMELY visible on radar.
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/82798/how-does-...
Why would they carry such a thing? For one, it helps reduce the risk of accidents during training and other situations where they are flying in friendly skies. Two, helps prevent nosy enemies from learning about the true radar cross section of these planes.
It's hard to find concrete information on the USAF's practices here, for the obvious reasons.
The following is speculation, but: one imagines that the F-22/F-35/etc carry these as standard practice when not flying combat missions/patrols. One also imagines that they can be jettisoned midflight (like drop fuel tanks) in case e.g. a patrol turns into a spicy situation. That's a guess, I don't know if that's true.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#329I was curious about part of the description given by the pilots who shot down the object off the coast of Alaska. It was described as being at about 40000' altitude (12192 m) and moving about 40 mph (64 kph) with no visible means of propulsion. To me, that implies that it was drifting in the wind at that altitude since it had no visible means of propulsion. I took a look at Ventusky (ventusky.com) to try to get an id…
“ Another official from the Department of Defense told the New York Times that the object broke into pieces when it hit the frozen sea” - Guardian article on the Alaska downing How could a balloon break into pieces? Doesn’t it need to be made of flexible material? Edit: WSJ is now reporting unnamed sources confirmed Alaska was a metallic balloon w suspended payload.
The balloon typically suspends hardware that serves the actual function; it was likely that hardware that broke into pieces on the ice.
Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm familiar with NORAD. Take a look at Canadian media, you'll see they are talking about the fact RCAF could not do it on their own.
Which media ?
Ex, for this one: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/norad-shoots-down-unidentified...
for the last one: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/spy-balloon-canada-norad-ques...