Chinese spy balloon over USA

[Faicon9493 114]

My Senator, Marco Rubio was on a Sunday news program badmouthing how this situation was handled. Right before they cut away, he was told that there were three Chinese balloon overflights while Trump was President and nothing was revealed to the public about it. Rubio's a lucky man. He should have been called out and had his feet held to the fire.

[BIGUN 1,051]

5 hours ago, kallend said:

Only if the moving object stands out thermally from the background.  Also the air-to-air missiles are designed to hit fast moving objects and generally filter out slow stuff as background.

Thanks for the info - didn't know that. 

Quote

Could it be there are things that we aren't being told?

Always. 

[winsor 186]

29 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Thanks for the info - didn't know that. 

Always. 

 

According to Sun Tzu, it's better for an opponent to think you are weak where you are strong, and strong where you are weak.  At least that is more or less what the translation says - my Chinese is remarkably weak.

[Faicon9493 114]

1 hour ago, Slim King said:

This has been debunked already. Name the time date place and what size and type of balloons were floating over the US during Trump .. I'll wait.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/02/04/yes-chinese-spy-balloons-flew-over-the-us-when-president-trump-was-in-office-too/?sh=148adb3e3ea3

[JoeWeber 2,297]

5 hours ago, winsor said:

my Chinese is remarkably weak.

Maybe, but you are scrutable so you have that.

[ryoder 1,381]

C.W. Lemoine is a former F-16 pilot for USAF, and also a former F-18 pilot for USN: Wikipedia: C. W. Lemoine

Here is a video he did on the topic. Around the middle of the video he shows an up close view of the missile strike which appears to have detonated in the vicinity of the payload, and not the envelope:

An article he references: Air Combat Command: F-22 Safely Shoots Down Chinese Spy Balloon Off South Carolina Coast

Missile used was AIM-9X: Wikipedia: AIM-9_Sidewinder

[billvon 2,394]

6 hours ago, Faicon9493 said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattnovak/2023/02/04/yes-chinese-spy-balloons-flew-over-the-us-when-president-trump-was-in-office-too/?sh=148adb3e3ea3

Yeah, but he intentionally overlooked them.  It was a very smart thing for him to do; he's smarter than our generals you know.  No one ignores Chinese spy satellites better than Trump.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

On 2/4/2023 at 7:40 PM, JoeWeber said:

The United Gun States of America can not even shoot down a damn Chinese spy balloon until blows past South Carolina. Yes, they totally owned us but that doesn't mean it wasn't a cool play.

Maybe the idea of debris from it falling over land, where there are people and property was less appealing than shooting it down over the open ocean.

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Maybe the idea of debris from it falling over land, where there are people and property was less appealing than shooting it down over the open ocean.

And more chance of recovering intact equipment to study.

 

A BBC article had a hilarious ‘eyewitness’ quote. An eyewitness on the coast, Hayley Walsh, told BBC News she saw three fighter jets circling before the missile was fired, then "we heard a huge boom, the house shook".

Right, it was 20km up and 10km out over the water but I’m sure that Sidewinder warhead was incredibly loud!

[airdvr 197]

9 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Maybe the idea of debris from it falling over land, where there are people and property was less appealing than shooting it down over the open ocean.

Not to mention some whackjob finding it on his land and demanding a ransom.

[brenthutch 383]

On 2/5/2023 at 5:44 AM, kallend said:

The report is that the missile used was a Sidewinder AIM-9X from an F-22.  

That has a passive IR heat seeking guidance system.  I am surprised that the balloon had a large enough heat signature (unless it was a Rozier).

I was thinking the same thing,  An AIM-120 could have picked up on radar signature of the payload but then it might destroy possible intel value. OTOH a few dozen 20mm rounds through the gas envelope could have brought it down slowly in one piece, but what do I know.

[jakee 1,254]

19 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Thanks for the info - didn't know that. 

The Aim9X in combination with the F22’s Scorpion visor Helmet Mounted Integrated Targeting system can have its seeker head and trajectory controlled by the pilot’s eye movement. They can literally look at where they want it to go. The idea is they can shoot the missile way off track with the target outside the seeker head’s normal field of view and bring it round until the seeker picks up the target and takes over. 

In this case with a big and slow target it doesn’t seem crazy to think that the helmet mounted targeting system could be precise enough to manually guide the missile straight in. Ultimately there must be something for the seeker to be able to see in order to detonate the warhead though I’d imagine.

[normiss 622]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I was thinking the same thing,  An AIM-120 could have picked up on radar signature of the payload but then it might destroy possible intel value. OTOH a few dozen 20mm rounds through the gas envelope could have brought it down slowly in one piece, but what do I know.

More importantly, what you don't know.

Like where the 20mm rounds end up, much less the impact they would have - or wouldn't.

 

[lippy 771]

29 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

OTOH a few dozen 20mm rounds through the gas envelope could have brought it down slowly in one piece, but what do I know.

Typical Brent: guns are your solution for everything....

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

35 minutes ago, normiss said:

More importantly, what you don't know.

Like where the 20mm rounds end up, much less the impact they would have - or wouldn't.

 

One more reason to not shoot it down over land.

 

Almost like the military knew what they were doing.

Go figure.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

10 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Maybe the idea of debris from it falling over land, where there are people and property was less appealing than shooting it down over the open ocean.

Maybe you should start seeing the irony and humor in it all and also check out all of the uninhabited land in America. Even more hilarious, the party balloon was popped by our vaunted $200,000,000 F-22 for it's first air-to-air kill. That's even funnier than our spectacular $90,000,000 F-35 which is on the scoreboard with 2 unmanned drones. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by JoeWeber

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I was thinking the same thing,  An AIM-120 could have picked up on radar signature of the payload but then it might destroy possible intel value. OTOH a few dozen 20mm rounds through the gas envelope could have brought it down slowly in one piece, but what do I know.

How accurate are 20MM rounds over approx. 10,000 feet? My understanding is the range is about 6,000 feet for that caliber.

[brenthutch 383]

17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

How accurate are 20MM rounds over approx. 10,000 feet? My understanding is the range is about 6,000 feet for that caliber.

The reported altitude of the balloon was 60,000 feet a F-15 has a service ceiling of 65,000 feet, I imagine a F-22 is at least as capable.  20mm $30 per round, AIM-9X $400,000 per round 

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

The reported altitude of the balloon was 60,000 feet a F-15 has a service ceiling of 65,000 feet, I imagine a F-22 is at least as capable.  20mm $30 per round, AIM-9X $400,000 per round 

Wiki says service ceiling for f-22 is 50,000 feet.

[ryoder 1,381]

Post #34, at 4:20 he already addressed the idea of using 20mm rounds:

 

[ryoder 1,381]

7 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Wiki says service ceiling for f-22 is 50,000 feet.

I see 65,000' here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications_(F-22A)

On this page it just says "above 50,000'": https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 minute ago, ryoder said:

I see 65,000' here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications_(F-22A)

On this page it just says "above 50,000'": https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/

Yep and DoD says the F22 was at 58,000 feet and the balloon between 60,000 and 65,000. At 65,000 it would be at the far outer edge of range for 20mm cannons and really not a very viable option. Imagine missing and the shitstorm that would follow from that.....

[jakee 1,254]

13 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I see 65,000' here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications_(F-22A)

On this page it just says "above 50,000'": https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104506/f-22-raptor/

Exact performance envelope numbers for any current fighter are highly classified. Anything available online is either an approximation or a guess. 
 

Also, being able to reach 65,000ft isn’t the same as having precise enough control for gun targeting at 65000ft. Plus it’s a very big balloon and gun rounds are quite small and would almost certainly go straight through without exploding. If it then comes down so slowly it drifts over deep water in the meantime you’ll end up spending way more looking for the bits than you’ve saved saved on the price of a missile.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Maybe you should start seeing the irony and humor in it all and also check out all of the uninhabited land in America. Even more hilarious, the party balloon was popped by our vaunted $200,000,000 F-22 for it's first air-to-air kill. That's even funnier than our spectacular $90,000,000 F-35 which is on the scoreboard with 2 unmanned drones. 

Lol.
 

Joe every other freakin day: Why doesn’t everyone else spend as much on defence as we do!!!? You guys all suck and your cheap military equipment is shit and you should be spending way more to catch up!!

 

Joe today: Our military equipment is way too expensive, why are we wasting money on this useless crap?

[billvon 2,394]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

Also, being able to reach 65,000ft isn’t the same as having precise enough control for gun targeting at 65000ft. 

Exactly.  

During the 1950's and 1960's a lot of high performance jets were getting high in the stratosphere by climbing as hard and as fast as they could, then coasting through the top of the arc.  Actually not coasting, their engines were still running, but they had to throttle back significantly to avoid compressor stalls.   They were well within the 'coffin corner' at that altitude - had they tried to level out, their aircraft would have stalled, so they had to keep angle of attack (and lift) low to coast back down to denser air. 

That is NOT a good flight regime to be in when you are trying to aim at something.  You basically get one chance for the few seconds when your nose is dropping past the balloon.