Almost undoubtedly because it hasn’t been a need, other than in the hypothetical, until two weeks ago.
But actually, isn’t that what R&D is all about in the military and DoD? That is, think about possible enemy incursions and events and try to develop ideas that might defend against them? I’m still surprised that either 1) we have such capabilities but chose not to deploy them or 2) despite the zillions of dollars spent on weapons and defense, we don’t have a way to do this. I guess this should have been posted in Debates or someplace else. I actually thought there would be a factual answer, but given all the secrecy around these things, I guess I should have figured there would be no definitive answer, despite the brainstorming that’s occurred here. Thanks, Dopers.
Well, yes, but there’s undoubtedly a focus on likely forms of those incursions. Budgets and personnel aren’t unlimited, and it’s likely not feasible to plan against every low-probability thing.
Yes, it’s entirely possible that an enemy could, say, weaponize bats (it’s been tried), but just because something is possible, doesn’t mean that the military will have specifically planned out a way to respond (and, even moreso, in this case, developed a special technological program dedicated to countering it).
We need something like this.
I imagine with something like drones. The atmosphere is thin up there, so there’s no way a copter-based drone would function, but that’s why smaller balloon. The balloon provides lift, little propellers providing just enough propulsion to control the balloons and get them there.
Though I’m not an aeronautical engineer; maybe this wouldn’t work for some reason. But I strongly suspect that actual aeronautical engineers could come up with something that would work, it just might take a while to develop.
I thought spy balloons were a thing that has been around for a long time, since even before high-altitude spy planes and satellites were a thing. I suppose if this IS the case, it means that experts thought the same thing I did: why would anyone use balloons for spying now, when there’s satellites?
Ingenuity (the Mars copter) operates in an atmosphere thinner than that at 60k feet on Earth–so that in itself, may not be the top challenge. Having enough energy density to make it up that high would be difficult, though.
And considering this proposal centers on the idea of adding enough mass to the invading balloon to cause it to sink, a tiny Ingenuity-type thin-atmosphere drone would have essentially no effect on the target. You could probably build such a device that would be capable of reaching the balloon or its payload and attaching itself, but you’d need a giant swarm of the things doing that to achieve the desired result of bringing it down.
I’m just going to say that’s a very clever idea.
“Mr President, we must not allow a balloon poke gap!”
maybe a self-deploying package that you drop out of a U2 (or similar high altitude plane) in the proximity of the “hostile” balloon? … at least you’d be in the ballpark with your “James Bond parasite-balloon”
quite probably yes … but ideally limited budgets will go to projects being ranked by “probability of occurrence of the event times worst case impact of the event” … and I assume this balloon event was out-ranked by higher priority-scenarios/projects …
I suppose a lot depends on whether to want to recover the payload intact or just destroy it.
How about something caustic? Create some much larger holes that way.
First think I thought of, bolo net.
Particularly if the hole is more or less on the lower half of the balloon, which is the only way a fighter jet could conceivably have shot it.
Human-rated gas ascent balloons, like the type seen in the film Around The World In Eighty Days, aren’t even sealed at the bottom. The buoyancy of gas keeps it from leaking out of the bag. The same is obviously true of hot air balloons, which wouldn’t work at all, otherwise.
Any hit that made a hole in the bottom would also make a hole in the top.
It would depend on the angle of attack, though, wouldn’t it? To get the “exit wound” where you’d want it, the plane would have to be pointing steeply upward (I don’t know enough about fighter planes to know what its capabilities are in that regard).
In the end, the plane that did shoot the balloon down was almost level with it at the time, and I have to admit that I didn’t know that fighter jets could operate at such high altitudes. We could have blasted the balloon at any time, as we eventually did do, but I don’t think we could have easily just “poked a few leaks in it” and force it down slowly.
quick and related physics Q:
in a traditional fixed-wing airplane, I assume, there is a relationship between speed and service ceiling …
IOW … the higher you want to get up there, the faster you have to fly (to create lift in the ever thinner medium), right?
… so a slow-fly-by at 65.000 ft is not in the cards with a traditional airplane
just wondering…
and would a “blown wing” do any better? (under the same conditions)?
What’s a “blown wing”?
“Blown flaps, or jet flaps, are powered aerodynamic high-lift devices used on the wings of certain aircraft to improve their low-speed flight characteristics. They use air blown through nozzles to shape the airflow over the rear edge of the wing, directing the flow downward to increase the lift coefficient. There are a variety of methods to achieve this airflow, most of which use jet exhaust or high-pressure air bled off of a jet engine’s compressor and then redirected to follow the line of trailing-edge flaps.”
I recall an article from Smithsonian Air & Space magazine back in the 1980s about the Dash-80, a Boeing prototype jet aircraft. A proper full-sized four-engine airliner with a 130’ wingspan and a 550-MPH cruising speed, it’s probably most famous for its test pilot having performed a barrel roll in it. Twice. But one of other amazing facts about this plane that I recall from the article was that it had been fitted with blown flaps and other lift-enhancing devices that enabled it to sustain level flight at speeds as low as 80 MPH (most commercial jetliners land at nearly twice that speed).
you get lift not only from your moving relatively to the surrounding air, but have propellers forcing air above your wing even when standing still, and creating some sort of (additional) lift
the logic is that you can fly slower, as the propellers force air over the wing and creating the same amount of lift you’d have at higher speeds.
.
… and then again, there is the FIESELER STORCH
… with a stall-speed of below 50km/h (30mph).
those were well known for people to hop on and off, by running next to them (in headwind) … but yes, the service ceiling is quite low 
You can do a barrel roll in any aircraft at all, if you start with enough altitude. Do it right, and your passengers won’t even spill their drinks.