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

481–490 of 526 posts

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#481

Post by Sporktacular »

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…

"But the US public saw this massive balloon and demanded it be shot down"

You mean saw with their eyes or on the news? If it was with their eyes then it wouldn't lead to public demand since as you say "weather balloons fly through our airspace all the time." and there's no way to attribute it to another country. If it's on the news then physical size is not relevant but detectability and newsworthiness are. People would have cared.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#482

Post by crazygringo »

bmitc wrote: post #165
stevenhuang wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I know this is Hollywood magic thinking, but in the the spirit of no dumb questions, for an object like this, are there no capture devices besides just letting it crash?

I've had the same question, and it seems like there aren't really.

It's too high for helicopters or rotor drones so there's no kind of aircraft that can get their quickly and just hover next to it and retrieve it. (And sending an airship would be so slow and hard to control I'm not sure you could ever get it to reliably intercept in a reasonable amount of time.)

So since you've necessary got to launch something at speed, the only conceivable capture device would seem to necessarily involve 1) a missile to puncture and deflate the balloon/buoyant part, 2) a giant net to wrap the entire thing, and 3) a parachute attached to the net to let it down gently.

But I can't even begin to imagine how you'd get all three elements working together reliably, rather than interfering with each other.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#483

Post by irthomasthomas »

BobbyJo wrote: post #461
irthomasthomas wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Given that they have allowed free passage of such weather balloons for decades previously.

It wasn't a weather balloon. Weather balloon don't do high precision EM signals collection, so your reasoning here is completely made up.

Evidence etc?

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#484

Post by IAmGraydon »

belter wrote: post #162
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…

The second object has not been called a balloon by US Air Command. Most interesting are some reports of pilots saying the object “interfered with their sensors” on the planes. [1] Interfering with F-22 sensors? If they sent an airborne jamming platform over US space it's serious. On a more positive note, now that private observers report the skies over the Artic, Northern Canada and Alaska border, have a constant pre…

"Some pilots said the object “interfered with their sensors” on the planes, but not all pilots reported experiencing that.

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."

This article and any other that mentions these two things has absolutely no source for the statement. There is a 0.0% chance F22 pilots are talking to the press, so I really believe this is a complete fabrication.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#485

Post by CameronNemo »

dirtyid wrote: post #101
jjtheblunt wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not feasible to cover CONUS with network of ground based laser for forseeable future.

It is also not feasible to keep using million dollar missiles to shoot down thousand dollar balloons.

I kind of doubt that the planes are cheaper than ground based lasers. Even so, a mobile ground station could avoid giving away the US position and allow them to cover more area. Not sure how feasible that is.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#486

Post by joemazerino »

Animats wrote: post #432
ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are totally clueless about the PRC's objective to say whether they erred. One plausible (though entirely speculative) explanation could be they wanted the US to react this way. Now we will waste our military resources responding to these balloons and they in turn will learn about our military readiness. They could be intentionally probing and start sending smaller and smaller balloons to figure out where our detec…

> We are totally clueless about the PRC's objective to say whether they erred. We don't even know if it was the PRC's object. The PRC has taken responsibility for the first balloon, but denies involvement with this one. This isn't a big-budget project. A startup company or a university could launch some balloon-borne instrument package. It's going to be embarrassing if it turns out to be somebody's solar telescope or…

Science balloons have to go through a rigorous, and constant, check with DOD to ensure no mis communicating happens. I have first hand experience with this. We had to constantly ping our DOD channels to make sure they knew where we were and how long we would be staying there or risk being shot down.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#487

Post by BobbyJo »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #483
BobbyJo wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't a weather balloon. Weather balloon don't do high precision EM signals collection, so your reasoning here is completely made up.

Evidence etc?

> "It had multiple antennas to include an array likely capable of collecting and geolocating communications," the official added.

https://www.ft.com/content/96992b83-58f7-4cdb-9900-a2bc59677...

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#488

Post by nuggets_ »

irthomasthomas wrote: post #483
BobbyJo wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't a weather balloon. Weather balloon don't do high precision EM signals collection, so your reasoning here is completely made up.

Evidence etc?

I recommend that you expend the tiny bit of effort required to inform yourself, rather than asking others to spoon-feed you.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#489

Post by dirtyid »

anon7725 wrote: post #426
dirtyid wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US warplanners considers sending 100,000s of bombs on PRC mainland targets in case of TW scenario all the time. Is that 10D thinking? It's basic escalation dynamics of recipricating homeland attacks with home land attacks, the difference is up until recently CONUS has been shielded from both precise and volume of long range strikes from her adversaries, largely due to technologic limitations, enabling US to project p…

If you send 100,000 bomb-balloons at your nuclear-triad-possessing enemy you have telegraphed the world’s worst sneak attack. You’d better get it over with and try your first strike after launching your balloons because your enemy will probably initiate one against you.

Balloons won't be used for sneak attacks, hypersonics might. Regardless, nuclear powers also don't launch on warning post second strike, PRC has no first use, US has launch on attack, both postures has built in allowances for conventional war. PRC isn't going to nuke US for homeland strikes and vice versa until things get existential. And the greater purpose is in deterrence - give PRC option to move on TW with relative military impunity like RU on UKR or US in middle east.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#490

Post by dirtyid »

int0x2e wrote: post #438
dirtyid wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US warplanners considers sending 100,000s of bombs on PRC mainland targets in case of TW scenario all the time. Is that 10D thinking? It's basic escalation dynamics of recipricating homeland attacks with home land attacks, the difference is up until recently CONUS has been shielded from both precise and volume of long range strikes from her adversaries, largely due to technologic limitations, enabling US to project p…

I think this is a neat idea in theory, but for any long term value to be gained, a military power would need to practice generating at least medium-scale sorties many times to know if this strategy was really viable, and specifically, since this strategy is so reliant on scale and weather - you would need to also test launching at some scale at your actual target (even with dummy payloads) prior to the real attack (i…

US seems invested in interceding in PRC-TW scenario, nuclear deterent will set ceiling of escalation but conventional deterrent raises floor of US particapation. PRC needs credible conventional CONUS vunerability to deter US conventional intervention in first place instead of relying on nuclear to limit scope of conventional war that current US admin/blob still thinks can be fought.
Post reply on HN