Would the Montana Governor legally be allowed to order the destruction of the China Spy balloon?
Does the Montana National Guard have the capability and weapons to carry out such a mission?
No and Oh Hell No.
It appears they specialize in airlift.
(a) Sovereignty and Public Right of Transit.—
(1)
The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.
If the Montana Air National Guard’s fighter jets are still based on the F-16 (ceiling of 50,000 feet) they might have had difficulty taking down the Chinese balloon, which was at 60,000 feet.
But C-130s definitely wouldn’t have a play.
They used to fly the F-106. Too bad they replaced it with the F-16. They could get up in the 58,000 or so range.
Oh Yeah! My favorite airplane, the Delta Dart. We had one at Lewis Research Center for a variety of tests including lightning strikes. I think the F-106 might still hold the single engine speed record? It was set in the late 1950s! We had the Global Air Sampling Program (GASP) installed when Mt St Helens blew. The plane tracked the debris cloud until it got to Europe.
One famous incident occurred when a Delta Dart driver had to eject at altitude. The plane leveled out and flew itself into a field and made such a good landing it was barely damaged.
The “cornfield bomber.” Also in Montana.
Nothing like the SIX.
What does that mean? The aircraft won’t perform well or the engine absolutely won’t take it up that far? I can imagine a plane being limited because of cabin compressor, engine unable to reach a decent power for combat, etc.
I wondered why they didn’t just shoot it with machine guns if they could reach that altitude - put a moderate leak in the balloon and have it come down slowly.
The Sidewinder has a limited range, but if Montanan F-16s had been carrying AIM-120 AMRAAM, that might have been able to hit a 65,000 foot altitude object?
Nitpick: F-16s are armed with cannon, not machine guns. But yeah, an F-16 in a steep climb would get close enough to take out a balloon with cannon fire. Probably not at 65K, but certainly at 60K. Too bad that is screamingly illegal, immoral and would get the Montana National Guard taken away from the governor in a millisecond. Not to mention royally screwing the careers of everybody in the Command chain.
AMRAAM are radar-homing, which is contraindicated, as that means it would target the balloons instrument package, not the balloon itself.
The pressure difference between the inside of the balloon and the outside atmosphere is apparently too small for a few bullet holes to cause deflation. In 1998 Canada lost control of a weather balloon and over 1000 rounds from CF-18s failed to bring it down.
data point that the recent lower flying object shot down over Lake Huron was done so by the MN National Guard. WHich does answer the question that they do have the capability, at least for lower flying objects.
I had a couple of surplus weather balloons at one time. I don’t know how big they were 20’ at least. We blew one up outdoors and it took many hours of blowing from the shop vac. Even when fairly taut you could look into the 3" fill nozzle and the air just blew gently past you. I could see the pile of loose talcum powder on the bottom. However, when it rolled into the house and hit the gutter it still exploded with an impressive bang. Everything was covered with powder.
I blew up the other one in my brother’s bedroom. It filled every nook and cranny of the room and presented a solid rubber wall at the doorway (I blew it up through a window). It was not taut enough to pop despite my brother’s best efforts. It took a long time to deflate. Hilarious!
I started a new thread in MPSIMS abouthow I think these could be balloons launched by civilians for fun and entertainment.
Not sure if I can or should promote that, but its gotten zero responses.
Probably because its pointless…or maybe just a stupid idea.
My first thought about something that first appears crossing Lake Huron was that it could be drug smuggling, although the retrieval end would probably be difficult.
The “thousand of rounds” is a little misleading since it appears they were fired from a very long way away which means I suppose that most of them missed.
A fighter jet had a ceiling of about 60,000 feet, he recalled and “the balloon, of course, was a lot higher than that”.
Hoping to save the research, he asked them to shoot upwards and aim for the suspension point,
Which answers to ceiling question. Plus, the balloon was presumably about 250’ high, so 4 times the height, therefore we assume about 64 times the volume of the first Chinese balloon. And it did deflate over 9 days. Someone commenting on TV about using missiles mentioned “Do we really want to spend $500,000 every time we have to take down an unknown balloon?” I guess the question is how long you want to wait and disrupt air traffic - but once it’s much lower, it’s easier to make even more holes.
It’s unclear from the news photos whether the first balloon was under decent pressure (deflate quicker) or we were simply seeing the bottom view where the elongated balloon looked spherical.
It was about 20,000 feet. Or 6,100 meters, for this thread. Not too high for an F-16.
Low enough to interfere with air traffic, though.
I had a couple of surplus weather balloons at one time. I don’t know how big they were 20’ at least. We blew one up outdoors and it took many hours of blowing from the shop vac. Even when fairly taut you could look into the 3" fill nozzle and the air just blew gently past you. I could see the pile of loose talcum powder on the bottom. However, when it rolled into the house and hit the gutter it still exploded with an impressive bang. Everything was covered with powder.
I blew up the other one in my brother’s bedroom. It filled every nook and cranny of the room and presented a solid rubber wall at the doorway (I blew it up through a window). It was not taut enough to pop despite my brother’s best efforts. It took a long time to deflate. Hilarious!
Can I come over to your house to play?