Mendel
Senior Member.
I've quoted General VanHerck on this here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/un...-intercepted-by-us-aircraft.12866/post-287536
Last edited by a moderator:
Speculation: Did the US shoot down its own weather balloons over Alaska/Canada?
- Thread starter Dan_
- Start date
Duke
Senior Member.
What type round would you recommend?
Article: "You can fill a balloon full of bullet holes, and it's going to stay at altitude," David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and fighter pilot, tells the Post. The air pressure that high up doesn't allow helium to freely escape through small holes, even if fighter jets flying by at hundreds of miles per hour can riddle the near-stationary balloon with bullets.
Canada figured that out the hard way in 1998, when it tried to bring down a giant runaway weather balloon launched from Saskatchewan to measure ozone levels, CBC News recalled right after the Chinese spy balloon incident. "Canadian CF-18 fighter jet pilots caught up with the balloon off the coast of Newfoundland and took aim, firing more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition at it. But the balloon survived the assault, soldiering on over the North Atlantic," floating above British, Norwegian, and Russian airspace before finally crashing in Finland.
The British press roasted Canada's Air Force pilots for failing to pop the rogue balloon, but then British and U.S. pilots also tried to shoot it down and failed.
deirdre
Senior Member.
i'm confused, according to this chart the AIM-120 is still a missile, which is what the reporter asked. *
https://samm.dsca.mil/appendix/appendix-1-usml4
*(and 4x more expensive than a AIM-9x.. i mention this only because i thought each missile cost 400,000 but htis chart shows them at 30,000 5 years ago)
Max Phalange
Senior Member
It reads to me as if he's discussing three separate options — AIM-120 (which is a radar guided missile), vs. bullets, vs. AIM-9X (infrared guided).
The balloons perhaps had too little radar cross-section to make the AIM-120 viable. Modern AIM-9s aren't "heat seeking", they just need some infrared variation between the target and background in order to lock on — I think this may have been cited as one of the reasons they needed to wait until daytime to perform the shootdown, but I can't find a source for that right now.
DavidB66
Senior Member.
The British found it very difficult to shoot down German Zeppelins in WWI, even though they were full of inflammable hydrogen. Ordinary bullets just went right through and left a slow leak of hydrogen out of the resulting holes. Even incendiary bullets didn't work, as inside the Zeppelin there was no oxygen to feed combustion. Eventually they found a viable tactic for use by fighters (slow biplanes in those days): first a volley of machine gun bullets concentrated on a small area, creating a larger leak with a mixture of hydrogen and air, followed up by incendiary bullets to ignite the mixture. Of course, that wouldn't work with helium.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
That is a claim that can be tested in a small vacuum chamber. Do you have access to one? If not, do you know the Action Lab guy, as I know he's got one, and he loves doing quick question-answering demonstrations. I suspect it can only be true it the material of the balloon has somehow annealed and lost its elasticity. Does that happen with weather balloons, I don't know? However, if that happens, then it's *not* "the air pressure that high" that doesn't allow the helium to freely escape, it's the lack of elasticity of the balloon, and so technically that would make the claim - as stated - false.
Mathematically, of course, large balloons that don't fail catastrophically can obviously only lose their contained gases slowly, as the rate of loss of volume (a 3D quantity) is limited by the small area (a 2D quantity) of the holes, and thus bigger balloons have a proportionally slower rate of shrinking. So, practically, peppering large ones with small holes that stay small might still be useless as claimed. However, do the small holes stay small? The only weather balloons that I've seen fail have failed very catastrophically, basically turning into a delicate filigree insantaneously upon failure, as there's no ripstop in the design at all. Different materials are available, though, so what I've seen might be irrelevant. However, a claim that they don't fail catastrophically is certainly the claim that counters most people's experience of stretchy inflated things, so I would say is the claim that requires the evidence.
Duke
Senior Member.
The French also used unguided anti-airship/balloon incendiary rockets. They looked like very large bottle rockets and were mounted on the wing struts of their biplane fighters. They were notoriously inaccurate, requiring pilots to fire them at close range. This was particularly dangerous with tethered observation balloons which were usually well protected by ground based AAA and fighters.
Last edited:
Rocky
Active Member
What about flaming arrows? Let's see you 'splain your way out of that one Mick.
Rocky
Active Member
You forgot to end your reply with a sarcasm emoji. But for the record, I think we should've used flaming arrows instead.
deirdre
Senior Member.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Neither of those quotes explicitly says they actually hit the balloon, only that they tried. I've seen the accuracy of Star Wars' Imperial Stormtroopers - a thousand shots means nothing.
deirdre
Senior Member.
so for the experiment...you want someone to poke holes in mylar helium balloon and then put it ina vaccuum chamber (and one not in a vacuum chamber) to see which balloon deflates slower?
lots of balloons in vacuum chambers on youtube but i see no mylar balloons (one guy tried but the size of the mylar balloon wasnt big enough for it to float...which was what he was testing...so he couldnt use them and had to use latex). So size of the chamber might be an issue.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Indeed, I would expect a mylar balloon to make very little effort to deflate, as the pressure would equalise over its surface, and there'd be very little reason for gas to be more likely to go out than come in. So the gas being lighter inside would keep it buoyant for a long time. (I have no idea if "long" is hours, days, weeks, or anything at the moment for a big balloon - it just has no reason to be quick.)
Regarding the large balllon:
180 Pa is about 0.002 x atmospheric pressure at sea level, and about 0.015 (1.5%) of the pressure at 50,000 feet. No not a lot. Obviously if you shoot enough holes in it it will eventually collapse, but that could take quite some time.
Article: he balloon is designed to fly at a specific pressure altitude with a known mass of payload hanging from the balloon. When the balloon reaches the desired float altitude, the extra helium is not vented off, but fills out the shape and pressurizes the balloon. The amount of helium in the balloon is determined by how much is needed to lift the entire flight system plus some extra to provide an upward force. This extra helium is enough to pressurize the balloon when it reaches the float altitude and also to over pressurize the balloon to the design limits. The Super Pressure Balloon is designed to fly with a positive internal pressure at all times. As the sun heats up the balloon during the day, the internal pressure (differential pressure) increases, and at night when the balloon cools down, the differential pressure significantly decreases, but still above ambient, hence maintaining super pressure condition at all times. The differential pressure range is up to 180 Pa (0.0261 psi). This is a very small internal pressure, but it is enough to keep this balloon flying through the night!
180 Pa is about 0.002 x atmospheric pressure at sea level, and about 0.015 (1.5%) of the pressure at 50,000 feet. No not a lot. Obviously if you shoot enough holes in it it will eventually collapse, but that could take quite some time.
Rocky
Active Member
Pew Pew Pew. Storm troopers couldn't hit the broad side of a Death Star.
Duke
Senior Member.
It was meant as a straightforward question. All active USAF and USN fighters are armed with a 20mm Vulcan cannon that can fire different types of rounds. Each type presents a different hazard to those on the ground after they punch through the thin latex envelope of the balloon. For example, high explosive incendiary rounds will explode and burn on contact with whatever they eventually hit. Even ball rounds designed to inflict damage strictly through kinetic energy at impact can be deadly and do a lot of damage.
DavidB66
Senior Member.
So we are using alien technology! And hiding it in plain sight...
Rocky
Active Member
Well then you should've replied with suggestions. Did you just assume I was in the military or an ammunitions expert? I am neither. But to Micks post I don't think any type of bullet would've taken it down. Except an explosive device like a missile.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Vulcan, Roman god of fire, metalworking, and the forge
Duke
Senior Member.
You said "...when all you have to do is 'switch to guns' and use bullets." So yes, I assumed you knew what you were talking about. My mistake.
Greene
Member
FWIW the F-35A carries a 25mm GAU-22/A instead of the 20mm M61.
The B & C do not have an internal gun but do have the ability to carry an external pod featuring the same gun.
As for the M61 carried by the F-22 & F-16 that were involved in the interceptions; to the best of my knowledge the only ammunition currently in use is modernized HEI round (PGU-28 A/B specifically & not counting training ammunition).
I'm wondering if the envelope of the balloon envelope would even ignite the fuse....or if the round would act like ball & pass right through.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
I expect it would be impossible to transport the ordnance safely if that were the case.
Rocky
Active Member
I was making a sly reference to the movie Top Gun. So I guess I am an expert in bullets. Heck I bet I can fly an F14 Tomcat. Talk to me Goose.
Duke
Senior Member.
That's right, I should have remembered that. I was supporting the JSF JPO when that decision was made.
And had a surprisingly limited effect on the aircraft stealthiness, or so it was claimed.
I think it would go right through it without detonation.
Greene
Member
That is my suspicion as well.
A gun run in the thin air at 60k is probably also a bit more complicated than it's being given credit for.
Mendel
Senior Member.
The
And I wonder how well an A-A missile controls itself aerodynamically at that altitude.
Greene
Member
Sorry, yeah I'm mixing threads. Was thinking more about the criticism over the cost of the initial intercept.
#2 & #3 are claimed to have been around 40k
#4 around 20k
Mendel
Senior Member.
I expect the retrieval operation (and everything that went with it) cost more than the one missile.
Hevach
Senior Member.
A lot of the cost of intercepting the balloons is money already spent. The planes and pilots are already there and they already have to do a certain amount of flying.
This is why they'll fly over a football game without bulling the NFL $infinity million to cover the cost. A regular training flight is to be in formation over X point at exactly Y time, and they will just do that with X being the stadium instead of some arbitrary point in the desert.
Those training flights don't involve shooting real missiles but seeing as the pilot who did the Lake Huron intercept allegedly missed his first shot it shows that the action still has value independent of the target.
One of the advantages of spending all the money on a standing peacetime military is that a lot of nominally expensive things are effectively free, as your forces would be doing something of equal cost regardless and you can just have them do that at a designated location instead.
This is why they'll fly over a football game without bulling the NFL $infinity million to cover the cost. A regular training flight is to be in formation over X point at exactly Y time, and they will just do that with X being the stadium instead of some arbitrary point in the desert.
Those training flights don't involve shooting real missiles but seeing as the pilot who did the Lake Huron intercept allegedly missed his first shot it shows that the action still has value independent of the target.
One of the advantages of spending all the money on a standing peacetime military is that a lot of nominally expensive things are effectively free, as your forces would be doing something of equal cost regardless and you can just have them do that at a designated location instead.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
You want suggestions? How about this solution from the 17th century:
Designed for, amongst other things, ripping sails. What about delivery, you ask? I'll let my honourable colleague downthread answer that.
(Personally, if the balloon's latex I think I'd consider a chemical approach - hydrocarbons are notorious for rotting latex, so how about cropspraying it with fuel?)
JMartJr
Senior Member.
Rats, I was coming to post about chain shot, bar shot or grape shot as projectiles possibly suitable for shredding an balloon. Too slow again!
But I am unsure if any of that is readily available for use in fighter aircraft...
Edited to add: I suppose a missile that fragments into a shower of metal rods is the functional equivalent of grapeshot.
But I am unsure if any of that is readily available for use in fighter aircraft...
Edited to add: I suppose a missile that fragments into a shower of metal rods is the functional equivalent of grapeshot.
Last edited:
Duke
Senior Member.
In effect, the proximity fused, blast fragmentation of the Sidewinder warhead creates a shot-like result. "Shedding" is how I'd describe what we saw in the Chinese balloon take down.
Creating a shot round for a fighter aircraft mounted, rifled cannon barrel would, I'd think, be a challenge. Maybe some type of sabot munition, but the amount of "shot" you'd get out a round designed to be fired from a 20mm or 25mm cannon would be limited. A better approach might be a fragmentation round with a proximity fuse, but to my knowledge no such round exists for relative small caliber cannons. Might also be useful against smaller drones when fired from ground based AAA guns.
In early WW1, there was a Russian scout pilot who dropped a suspended grappling hook to snag and rip apart the relatively flimsy German aircraft of the day. I remember reading he succeeded at least once in bringing down an enemy aircraft in this manner. In fact, there is a well known aviation art print of this unique "combat."
deirdre
Senior Member.
and apparently ammunition, including missiles have a shelf life. not sure what the 9x shelf life is..saw this but it says "Block", not sure what that means
Article: There is a 20-year service life assumption for the AIM-9X Block I AUR and a 13-year service life assumption for the CATM. The AIM-9X Block I system included a warranty period that accounted for missile repair costs. The AIM-9X Block II system does not include a warranty and was estimated accordingly
Article: WASHINGTON — The Pentagon plans to destroy more than $1 billion worth of ammunition although some of those bullets and missiles could still be used by troops, according to the Pentagon and congressional sources.
It's impossible to know what portion of the arsenal slated for destruction — valued at $1.2 billion by the Pentagon — remains viable because the Defense Department's inventory systems can't share data effectively, according to a Government Accountability Office report obtained by USA TODAY.
Article: The improved warhead uses new explosive material that is less sensitive to high temperature and has a longer shelf life.
Apart from the reasons that have been already mentioned (Helium leak, size, speed etc)
Why get close to the balloon to start with? What if the balloon had explosives as well? Never mind offensive explosives, just for self destruction to wipe evidence in case it was shot or crashed down?
If there is a 0.1% chance of that, why risk losing a pilot/life, a very-very expensive aircraft and get ridiculed as well just to save a missile? makes no sense.
US Airforce even thought of using the balloon as a training exercise, combining Gen 4 and Gen 5 aircrafts, you think they didnt thought every other single detail or dangers? They knew exactly what they were doing.
Why get close to the balloon to start with? What if the balloon had explosives as well? Never mind offensive explosives, just for self destruction to wipe evidence in case it was shot or crashed down?
If there is a 0.1% chance of that, why risk losing a pilot/life, a very-very expensive aircraft and get ridiculed as well just to save a missile? makes no sense.
US Airforce even thought of using the balloon as a training exercise, combining Gen 4 and Gen 5 aircrafts, you think they didnt thought every other single detail or dangers? They knew exactly what they were doing.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
White orb over arizona that "zips into space", video from tiktok
- Latest: NorCal Dave
-
-
