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

US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 864 posts

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#611

Post by idonotknowwhy »

nikcub wrote: post #605
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was supposedly done during the US bombing of yugoslavia... open microwaves transmit pulsed radiation, automatic systems think it's a radar and bomb the site.

Can confirm this and that it happen in both Bosnia and the Serbia campaigns. I had family members who were involved [0]. The deception methods that were applied were truly remarkable, they used decoy tanks and sent people out to imprint fake tank tracks into fields. They also understood IR and would shield real troops while leaving coal to burn in empty pillboxes and bunkers There was also the shoot down of the F-117…

Where can one read more about this+

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#612

Post by nikcub »

lamontcg wrote: post #541
Koshkin wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1/40,000,000 of the Earth’s circumference does not make sense to me, but the foot does. (As does the school bus.)

The foot is just a light nanosecond, it makes perfect sense.

it isn't precisely a light nanosecond either, it's about 5mm off. today the standard foot as used in the USA is ironically just defined as 0.3048 meters

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#613

Post by sundvor »

cardamomo wrote: post #608
mensetmanusman wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some scenarios, balloons are more difficult to shoot down than aircraft.

Can you expand on this? What scenarios are you thinking of?

The IR signature/target profile of a balloon contraption is very different to that of a jet exhaust, for one. Far less friction heat of movement etc + no engine.

Although the X is an all aspect missile, the parameters would still be quite different.

I think this is would all be firmly in the "not public domain" bucket of details though, as I haven't seen much of this modelled in DCS.

(I suppose they could also have used eg a radar guided AIM-120, but they are primarily for BVR, more expensive at ~$1.1, and far, far more scope for erroneous target locking, so why risk it when the 9X obviously gets the job done. Again, from the point of view of an armchair - or a rig to be precise - sim pilot. I claim no credentials beyond this interest).

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#614

Post by nikcub »

ascotan wrote: post #591
snake_doc wrote: post #345

F-22 entered service 2005 Air to air kills since entered service: 2005-2022: 0 2023: 2

Do you become an ace after 5 ballons or do the ballons need to shoot back?

I was also wondering if those jets now have stencil paintings of balloons on them with big X's marked across them as kill markers

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#615

Post by kccqzy »

macintux wrote: post #560
meepmorp wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Shooting down satellites is a very different thing.

China hasn’t indicated it cares a great deal about international law. (One could make the same argument for the U.S., but that’s not the open question at the moment.)

If China didn't care about international law it would've said it sent the balloon on purpose. Instead it found a cover story of some civilian balloon gone awry. They cared enough about international law to lie.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#616

Post by nikcub »

jcrites wrote: post #292
cm2187 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big balloon from earlier this month was more like a satellite hanging from a balloon. Not sure it was that cheap. The problem is what can you fly that has a cannon and can reach those altitudes. Apparently only the F22 and F15 could, and that was their very limit.

The shootdowns did not involve using airplane guns/cannons. Those are less accurate, especially at the engagement range (the aircraft were at 40,000 ft., IIRC, and shooting at 60,000 ft. balloons), and would have likely damaged the payload. The shoot-downs used AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles (per TFA). We also don’t know the ceiling altitude of the F-22 since it’s classified. However, the F-22 can carry the AIM-120 Advanc…

I'm going to ask what might seem like a naive question - but how do you get a sidewinder to lock onto the balloon part of the balloon and not hit the payload?

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#617

Post by graz »

blululu wrote: post #603
paranoidrobot wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your payload weight. Some random searching found a 300g payload baloon for USD$30[1]. That excludes filling costs and other bits. Anyone stupid enough to do it without following FAA rules (assuming launched in the US) is going to find themselves in some serious trouble. [1] https://www.highaltitudescience.com/collections/all

The helium is generally the biggest cost for a launch. You generally need welding grade helium instead of the party balloon variety which costs more. The price fluctuates a lot because of some complicated economics related to natural gas production, but getting that high can easily set you back $400.

Why not hydrogen instead of helium? It's much cheaper and lighter.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#618

Post by electrondood »

nycdatasci wrote: post #527
Ninjinka wrote: post #4

I mean maybe I'm just not up to date on recent history, but when was the last time we shot down anything in our our airspace prior to last week?

[flagged]

Technically 4th, since there were 3 other Chinese spy balloons during the Trump presidency that they didn't even know about until later.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#619

Post by anonymousiam »

projectazorian wrote: post #407
anonymousiam wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the oldest tricks in the (SIGINT) book is to trick the enemy into activating their radar and/or trigger a response to an incursion to collect all of the resulting signals intelligence.

Kind of have to wonder if after the last shootdown the PLA sent out a more specialized collection platform in the hopes that the US would take the bait yet again. I’m sure that NORAD doesn’t use their most advanced sensor platforms in such a circumstance, but there could be all kinds of interesting close range data to collect on the aircraft and weapons systems used to respond.

I wouldn't be so sure that NORAD doesn't use their "most advanced" sensor platforms. How would they be able to determine whether or not the threat was "real" before turning on their sensors? Are you suggesting that they have two tiers of sensor networks, and hold the "good" ones back for "real" threats?

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#620

Post by pard68 »

graz wrote: post #617
blululu wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The helium is generally the biggest cost for a launch. You generally need welding grade helium instead of the party balloon variety which costs more. The price fluctuates a lot because of some complicated economics related to natural gas production, but getting that high can easily set you back $400.

Why not hydrogen instead of helium? It's much cheaper and lighter.

If I recall rightly, hydrogen leaks out of the balloon so fast because of the change in pressure at high altitudes. Not a problem at lower ones, but way up I seem to recall that it is.
Post reply on HN