I wish they would at least honestly write the headline:
“Biden blamed for spy flights during Trump Administration”
Maybe it was BOTH a weather balloon and spy balloon? Then if detected, they could say it was the one that is most benign at the time. And what’s to prevent a balloon from gathering both intelligence and atmospheric data? Some of the equipment could be shared – recording, radio facilities, etc.
That can’t possible be written by the real Trump. It has far too many complete thoughts and sentences with both nouns and verbs.
It’s not a blimp.
It’s not a billion dollars.
It does not have the most sophisticated equipment in the world.
It was not that big.
It was not flying in a complex pattern.
It was not manned.
It’s not a spacecraft.
There was no possibility of negotiation.
Other than that, Trump nailed it!
U-2 spy planes flying above the balloon on the monitoring detail.
"The ability of the U-2 to get above the balloon is critical for a number of reasons. Just surveilling it from a top-down perspective using various sensors could provide additional intelligence as to its design and capabilities. Even what could have been hidden within its envelope would have been important to find out. But most importantly, it would provide a way to intercept directional satellite communications from the balloon with greater reliability. This is a critical form of intelligence collection on such a long-range and sensor-laden device like this.
Finally, the U-2 possesses a highly capable electronic warfare suite. Flying in relatively close proximity to the balloon, and especially above it, it’s possible it may have been able to jam any communications being sent to satellites above."
His customary accuracy strikes again.
RACHEL CAMPOS-DUFFY: Yeah, there’s a lot in that laptop that might have something to do with this response as well
I was thinking there was more to it; it’s not like there were more people on the ground in Alaska, that part of Canada, Montana, a large part of Nebraska (esp. the western 3/4ths), or Missouri, than there probably were in boats offshore near North Carolina. There had to be some reason they let it go; shooting it down with a Sidewinder missile from a F-22 is pretty trivial as well.
Description and audio/transcription of intercept. And lots of obscure jargon to this reader.
Mach 1.3 sounds awfully fast for interception closure speed. One would have thought that the ideal thing to do would be to fly the Raptor as slowly as possible, so as to maximize the time the target is in the HUD and not rush things. Maybe because of the high altitude, it had to go really fast to maintain altitude/lift?
If something is slung under a balloon it will travel with the wind, it won’t actually feel the wind. When you’re in a balloon the air seems still, even as you travel along with it.
What it comes down to is that those “strong winds up there” will not be providing additional cooling to anything carried by the balloon
Not being privy to military intelligence I don’t know either way, but it wouldn’t surprise me if this sort of thing happens more often than we civilians know about.
Pretty sure not allowing local yokels to get ahold of bits and pieces figured into the shoot-down equation.
It’s quite common for spy missions to loiter around the borders of a nation, in international airspace (or international waters, if by boat) where there is not legal basis for shoot-downs. What’s different here was that the balloon was clearly in US airspace, which by treaties signed as far back as 1919, allows the US to do whatever they want with it.
'Cause eventually all balloons come down. Or maybe the Chinese felt they could get more out of a lower altitude even if the risk of shoot-down was greater. Or, if there were prior balloons allowed to proceed unmolested they assumed the same would apply for this one. Or something else.
The only thing I know for sure is that we don’t have the full story here.
Just goes to show, no matter how silly you try to make a post, you can’t out-silly FOX.
For those interested in the legality of shooting down the balloon this is interesting and well done.
Tl;Dw: It was almost certainly legal and all parties know it (even if they pretend otherwise) but there actually is a surprising amount of international agreements that bear on the topic.
Also the whole balloon affair (or “barroon” as certain “clever” folks in the GOP have labeled it) has caused Anthony Blinken to postpone his trip to China, something they apparently wanted to happen. So why would they cause this incident to happen and scuttle the trip intentionally?
I’m remembering the embarrassment Mathias Rust caused the Soviets when he flew from Bergen to Moscow…
I’m not going to read the entire thread so forgive me if this has already been broached, but does anyone know why they chose to shoot the balloon down using missiles as opposed to bullets?
A somewhat more measured (pun intended) response from the DoD:
The weather balloon presented “a potential opportunity for us to collect intel where we had gaps on prior balloons,” and that could help NORAD more quickly detect future spy attempts, NORAD and NORTHCOM head Gen. Glen David VanHerck told reporters at the Pentagon.
“We did not assess that it presented a significant collection hazard beyond what already exists in actual technical means from the Chinese,” he said.
“You always have to balance [the act of shooting down] with the intel-gain opportunity,” he said. “And so there was a potential opportunity for us to collect intel where we had gaps on prior balloons. And so I would defer to the intel community, but this gave us the opportunity to assess what [the Chinese] were actually doing, what kind of capabilities existed on the balloon, what kind of transmission capabilities exist on it and I think you’ll see in the future that that timeframe was well worth its value to collect.”
A missile is far more controllable.
A sidewinder is heat seeking, although there has been some discussion here what heat it could see.
The F-22 has a 20mm rotary cannon that could chew up a balloon.
IANAFP, but having listened to the ATC chatter posted upthread, it seems like the danger of falling debris, to planes and ships below, was a consideration. So perhaps the AIM-9X missile was chosen to allow the pilot a greater, and safer, range. The transcript and recording does indicate that the missile was the preferred weapon, but that other weapons were authorized if needed.