[HN Gopher] US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
___________________________________________________________________
US aircraft shoots down new airborne object over Canada
Author : vinni2
Score : 53 points
Date : 2023-02-11 22:25 UTC (34 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| marcell wrote:
| How much if this is just awareness bias, where the media reports
| commonplace events that were previously ignored?
| mancerayder wrote:
| It's much more likely that the US government is wanting to tell
| the press, leak to the press and get the spin cycle going.
| There are spy events all the time, it's rare something gets
| actually reported proportionally.
| avalys wrote:
| The response is certainly novel. The F-22 had zero recorded
| air-to-air kills a week ago, and as of today has three.
|
| Whether these intrusions by unknown objects were commonplace
| and previously had been ignored, is something I've wondered
| about myself.
| jpalomaki wrote:
| Based on quick search, these have been happening also before.
|
| "an official revealed during a briefing on Saturday that the
| U.S. was aware of three other instances during the prior
| administration and one instance earlier in the Biden
| administration that such an apparatus "transited" the country."
|
| [1] https://thehill.com/policy/defense/3844511-chinese-
| balloons-...
| POiNTx wrote:
| I wonder what the cost is of sending such a balloon vs shooting
| it down. If I was China I would be sending thousands of these.
| It's not going to cause an all out war, but it does impose some
| security threat which should be dealt with and can't be ignored.
| digdigdag wrote:
| I don't see how China would willfully continue send these
| balloons without expecting a symmetrical escalation. Sure, they
| managed to send a few relatively undetected until the past
| recent weeks, but continued attempts would surely produce a
| physical response from NATO states, whether that's sending
| balloons of their own or overflying Chinese territory with
| other aircraft, or increased signals intelligence operations.
| interestica wrote:
| >symmetrical escalation
|
| So like what, a similar but bigger balloon?
| anigbrowl wrote:
| More colors, unlike the boring monochrome available under
| Communism
| babyshake wrote:
| "Mr. President, we must not allow a balloon gap!"
| legitster wrote:
| The last two objects shot down were not balloons.
| infradig wrote:
| Source for that?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| The press conference yesterday, the WH spokesman explicitly
| corrected someone who called the second object a balloon.
| They're being a bit cagey about whatever it actually is
| anigbrowl wrote:
| This is the wrong question. Large militaries spend a fortune
| anyway on firing ordnance anyway for training purposes. Doing
| so in actually uncertain conditions is in many ways more
| valuable than pre-planned exercises. There's also a political
| attention focusing effect that allows rapid realignment of
| priorities away from status0quo maintenance towards novel
| readiness postures. So in strategic terms, it can be a net
| benefit rather than a net cost.
|
| The flip side of this is adversarial observer(s) can learn all
| sorts of things about readiness, detection networks, response
| times, and tactical doctrine if well-prepared in advance to
| acquire and integrate that information.
|
| Kinda wish I had a way to bet on the popularity of search terms
| because I can practically hear the rattle of doctrinal articles
| being furiously drafted at military institutions of higher
| learning right now.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I've not looked into it - but it's possible there is zero or
| negative cost to shooting down a small number of balloons.
| Imagine each pilot needs X hours of training or to fire Y
| missiles in training. A couple balloon missions could just
| replace training exercises, on net saving money because we
| wouldn't need to setup the target.
| abduhl wrote:
| So the F-22 is now 3-0 against balloons? And people had the
| audacity to call this plane a "failure"!
| deadlydose wrote:
| Would you prefer they only shoot down living targets or are you
| just here for the snark?
| drekipus wrote:
| I think it was a joke dude.
| vba616 wrote:
| Who called the F-22 a failure? Are you thinking of the F-35?
|
| And anyway, isn't the F-22 due to be retired before the end of
| the decade, so wouldn't debating its merits be beating a dead
| horse?
| none_to_remain wrote:
| So how long has the CCP been sending these balloons and what
| caused the USG to start talking about them?
| colechristensen wrote:
| There was a big one easily observed by ordinary people which
| got news attention. This is why it's being talked about now.
| [deleted]
| userbinator wrote:
| ...with Canada's permission; I think that should be said
| explicitly.
| le-mark wrote:
| This is third shoot down we've been told about. First was the
| Chinese balloon, second was the small less maneuverable vehicle
| off of Alaska, and this third one in Canadian airspace. Feels
| like some cold conflict we've been unaware of is heating up.
| rgbrenner wrote:
| I think China erred by sending such a large balloon that was
| visible to the naked eye, causing the American public to demand
| it be shot down.
|
| There's no hard rule about where national airspace ends and space
| begins.. a lot of times they fly too high for planes to reach,
| and under certain circumstances balloons are allowed through
| national airspace.. so if the balloon isn't causing a problem
| (like being a hazard to air traffic), people just ignore it...
| weather balloons fly through our airspace all the time.
|
| But the US public saw this massive balloon and demanded it be
| shot down, even if it caused an international incident.. and
| luckily nothing serious happened. So now that the cat is out of
| the bag, we're going to shoot down every balloon that hasnt filed
| all of the required paperwork that enters out airspace that's
| reachable by our aircraft... because 1) the public demands it; 2)
| it'll become political fodder if the white house doesn't; and 3)
| the international issue it generates is easier for the white
| house to handle than the political criticism.
|
| If China never sent that large balloon.. they could have sent a
| dozen more small ones and no one would have cared.. just like we
| never cared about the 3 during the previous administration.
| cebu wrote:
| Jets seem to be eclipsing balloons as the dominant air combatant
| FormerBandmate wrote:
| Those Wright Brothers might be onto something. Wonder if you
| could use their "aeroplane" to travel across the world
| Multicomp wrote:
| Surely this is not the world's slowest declaration of war?
|
| Whoever country is sending whatever these artificial objects are,
| what can they possibly gain from this?
| enra wrote:
| Could be for observing the response of US.
|
| Russia did, and I guess still does, this a lot. Flying their
| planes constantly in European airspace to see if what the
| response is and also make it more normal occurrence. If they
| one day attack it's harder to tell if this again one of those
| random times or an actual attack
| partiallypro wrote:
| That is one of the reasons the US left the Open Skies treaty,
| Russia kept breaking the agreement doing things like that
| making the entire thing a handicap to the US.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| Trolling is cheap
| drekipus wrote:
| Trolling is a art
| lsh123 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Genetrix
| bullfightonmars wrote:
| War? Chill with the historonics. Surveillance is not war.
| bagels wrote:
| Shooting missiles at aircraft can be though.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| I was joking in the other thread, that soon people will be
| buying weather baloons and setting them off "for the lulz"
| (youtube videos, tiktok, or whatever) :)
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I would watch a TikTok of "F22 shoots down my balloon."
| zabzonk wrote:
| usa vs canada!
|
| it has happened before.
| option wrote:
| are Canada's air forces non existent?
| capableweb wrote:
| Second paragraph:
|
| > Both Canadian and US aircraft were scrambled to track down
| the object which Trudeau says was taken out by a US F-22.
|
| So clearly not.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| The article answers the question pretty early on: both air
| forces scrambled fighters.
|
| NORAD is NORAD. They collaborate very closely and it becomes
| kind of moot who specifically does what.
| berkut wrote:
| Their F-18s can't fly as high (without doing zoom climbs) as
| the F-22 (which has very large control surfaces which help with
| this).
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Does the plane have to be at the same altitude to launch the
| missiles?
| arecurrence wrote:
| It was shot down in the Yukon, jets from Alaska were likely the
| closest to the target.
| version_five wrote:
| Canada contributes to North American air defence and it's F-18s
| (to become F-35s) fly norad missions. Americans also
| contribute, and obviosuly have more fighters. The article says
| both countries dispatched planes, the americans ended up
| shooting it down. It was over the Yukon which is very close to
| Alaska so not surprising both were present. It would have been
| a bit odd if it was over saskatoon or something
| kzrdude wrote:
| Compare with UK and Ireland, where Ireland indeed has a non
| existant air force and UK a right to defend.
| lom wrote:
| In the article it said both forces scrambled to down it, but it
| seems like the americans just got luckier.
| Yoric wrote:
| According to the article, they were also dispatched.
|
| I guess the US air forces received order to shoot earlier?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-02-11 23:00 UTC)