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

151–160 of 526 posts

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#151

Post by partiallypro »

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…

They are now saying they don't know how it was staying airborne (no visible balloon or propulsion) and when they approached to observe it interfered with instrumentation.

Source: https://twitter.com/ZaidSabah/status/1624527081026486274

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#152

Post by [deleted] »

oceliker wrote: post #141
ksherlock wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's no hard rule about where national airspace ends and space begins What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? There's no hard rule about when life begins but killing a 5 year old isn't a 22nd trimester abortion, it's murder. 18-60'000 feet is class A, controlled airspace in the US and Canada. When the US sent U2s over the USSR, the rationale wasn't that 70,000 feet was "space", it was that it w…

> What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? What does this mean? I don’t see a reference to tea in the comment you are replying to.

[deleted]

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#153

Post by cdot2 »

partiallypro wrote: post #68
jpalomaki wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on quick search, these have been happening also before. "an official revealed during a briefing on Saturday that the U.S. was aware of three other instances during the prior administration and one instance earlier in the Biden administration that such an apparatus “transited” the country." [1] https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3844511-chinese-balloons-...

Yeah, but if you read, they didn't know about the incidents until well after they happened; also, they never shared if they were over US coastal waters or over actual US soil.

Also the source was anonymous "a senior U.S. defense official" while ranking members of the previous administration publicly denied that any such incident occurred.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#154

Post by sleepybrett »

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.

Sure, but those have wings. A cylinder would have to maintain altitude with some kind of thrust. Lets imagine something like a jet engine oriented vertically. How much flight time do you think that could manage?

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#156

Post by partiallypro »

cdot2 wrote: post #153
partiallypro wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but if you read, they didn't know about the incidents until well after they happened; also, they never shared if they were over US coastal waters or over actual US soil.

Also the source was anonymous "a senior U.S. defense official" while ranking members of the previous administration publicly denied that any such incident occurred.

It wasn't anonymous, it was confirmed by committee members that deal with this topic. The White House/DoD has also offered to brief the previous administration members on the topic. The entire premise is that the previous administration just didn't know about it because they only just discovered this occurred (I assume by putting together multiple pieces of evidence from the various intelligence apparatus.) Keep in mind there are various new programs dealing with this exact topic to monitor unknown arial crafts over US assets. So of course, the previous administration could confidently deny they were briefed on it, because no one has even claimed the previous administration was ever briefed on it.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#158

Post by golem14 »

dirtyid wrote: post #61
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…

>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 actually wonder why not burn holes in them by laser… maybe the US doesn’t want to show their capabilities, but that was the first thing that came to mind

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#159

Post by benatkin »

kylehotchkiss wrote: post #67
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…

Weather balloons are tiny, enough so they need to attach a specific device to reflect radar signals properly and these massive payloads are not innocent climate collection devices

Maybe in the near future you won't be able to attach a full tube of toothpaste to a weather balloon and send it high up into the air, just a 3 oz size.

Re: US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada

#160

Post by BobbyJo »

throwaway4good wrote: post #135
BobbyJo wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you honestly think shooting down a balloon in your own airspace is an aggressive act?

Three public shoot downs certainly signals something new.

New, yes, but that doesn't answer my question.

I don't see this as anymore aggressive than yearly war games, and significantly less aggressive than claiming islands and ocean territories that are contested and building military installations on them...

Post reply on HN