Don't OFFICIAL ballons have to have transponders?

4 points by mrsofty 3 years ago | 7 comments

Hi all don't know ANYTHING about this so... But I would have thought OFFICIAL ( authorized) balloons have to have transponders/radar reflectors etc and if so WHY did we, seemingly, shoot down hobby and academic balloons? Also why did we use a $400,000 missile to shoot down a balloon? wouldn't a missile's fragments destroy most of the intel platforn?

Someone1234 3 years ago |

The FAA defines what does and does not need a transponder, vehicles under a certain weight, under or overflying commercial airspace, or are unpowered (like manned hot air balloons) do not. Hobbyist balloons are both under-weight AND overfly commercial airspace, so don't need one on at least two grounds.

Plus a transponder, battery pack (that works at those temperatures), and sensors, would likely cost in the excess of $1500~ and weigh more than the hobby balloon as a whole by a lot. A radar reflector isn't really required with a balloon because the entire side of the balloon itself is a radar reflector.

As to why the US used a $400K missile to shoot down a balloon? I'd argue they used a $400K missile to avert political criticism, since the media decided to turn it into a thing.

The reality is that signal intelligence can be gathered on the ground and sent back to China trivially. The US isn't a police state after all, gathering signal intelligence is passive, and shipping it back to China isn't a particularly hard problem. We already know that almost all embassies (including "friendly" ones) do so, and it is likely China has some satellite capability in that area too.

mrsofty 3 years ago | |

Hmm, so this was a big balloon and I assume that we could calculate it's approximate weight. Thus determine if it SHOULD or SHOULD NOT have a transponder and enable a course of action based on that.

as to the $400,000 missile I mention that because it seems to be the WORST approach ( if it was a sidewinder) in this situation. It's a fragmentation package and probably would scrap ANY intel platform PHYSICALLY as I would assume the Chinese bricked the electronics the moment the fighter got close.

Thanks for the reply

bitxbitxbitcoin 3 years ago | | |

What’s official in the US may not be so in China.

h2odragon 3 years ago |

Since they've decided not to recover remains, we'll never be sure what they shot down. However, it seems very likely that they were indeed hobbyist balloons, and that they had radar reflection and radio announcement capabilities as required by existing law.

Probably not a good year to try repeating this stunt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawnchair_Larry_flight

mrsofty 3 years ago | |

Seem rational so, as its a "spy balloon", I would suggest that the Chinese weren't big fans of putting transponders or radar reflectors on it. I'm not a intel analyst but seeing a BIG balloon towing a sophisticated electronics array and creating a LOT of electronic signal traffic MIGHT have been series of red flags.

I think the thing that REALLY pisses me off is the use of a $400,000 missile just for visual effect. Why the hell did they use an F22/F35 for this when we have F16/F18 all over the place in the National guard. Maybe it was the column inches in the media...

Me, just for fun, I would ask if we could have used a Global hawk with a cutter on the front to slash it :-)

docbob4 3 years ago |

Ok- so Lake Huron object was a weather balloon. How about the other two? Wasn’t one of them described as a large cylinder. Also, just because they say the search is off, doesn’t meN it really is. That’s not conspiracy, it’s common sense, especially if one wants the story to disappear.