[MrLonzo]

I've been wondering, and I've never heard this asked in the media -- why is it necessary to use a $400,000 missile to take down a high altitude balloon? Couldn't a small puncture using a low caliber bullet be more effective to provide a slow descent with a soft landing thereby providing easy recovery of relatively intact evidence?

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I've been wondering, and I've never heard this asked in the media -- why is it necessary to use a $400,000 missile to take down a high altitude balloon? Couldn't a small puncture using a low caliber bullet be more effective to provide a slow descent with a soft landing thereby providing easy recovery of relatively intact evidence?

Off the top of my head...I'd say...first, you have to get there. Balloons can fly in excess of 170,000 feet. Weather balloons (such as what these chinese gasbags are reported to be) regularly fly in the neighborhood of 100,000 feet. In contrast, the SR-71 Blackbird, America's high-flying spy plane (no longer in service) flew at about 85,000 feet. In other words, you'd be burning a whole lot of Jet fuel to get within maybe three miles of the thing, and then have to shoot a projectile accurately from a vehicle moving at probably well over the speed of sound, to hit the balloon.

Bottom line: missiles are MUCH cheaper. And more accurate.

[Arctic Fox]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I've been wondering, and I've never heard this asked in the media -- why is it necessary to use a $400,000 missile to take down a high altitude balloon? Couldn't a small puncture using a low caliber bullet be more effective to provide a slow descent with a soft landing thereby providing easy recovery of relatively intact evidence?

because it would then land outside territorial waters

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

because it would then land outside territorial waters

Any issue with that besides making recovery more difficult? Didn't all the Apollo capsules splash down outside of territorial waters?

[Arctic Fox]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Any issue with that besides making recovery more difficult? Didn't all the Apollo capsules splash down outside of territorial waters?

The Apollo capsules were US property so the US had every right to recover them.

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

The Apollo capsules were US property so the US had every right to recover them.

Recover it anyway. What are they going to do? Did the Chinese ever admit it was their property?

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I've been wondering, and I've never heard this asked in the media -- why is it necessary to use a $400,000 missile to take down a high altitude balloon? Couldn't a small puncture using a low caliber bullet be more effective to provide a slow descent with a soft landing thereby providing easy recovery of relatively intact evidence?

This scenario was tried by the Canadian Royal Air Force 1998 on a Canadian weather balloon.
Since the balloon went rogue, over 1,000 rounds were fired at it by two Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) CF-18 fighter planes after they spotted it over Newfoundland. The balloon was finally struck by the aircraft, but instead of popping or exploding and falling to the earth, it leaked helium very slowly and remained suspended in the air.

[Arctic Fox]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Did the Chinese ever admit it was their property?

The first one, yes. They claimed very early on that it was one of their weather balloons gone astray. I don't think they've claimed ownership of the later ones.

[Keefelane66]

Originally Posted by Caymus

Any issue with that besides making recovery more difficult? Didn't all the Apollo capsules splash down outside of territorial waters?

Yes it was a scheduled return and recovery vessels were nearby the expected water landing. Just like the last unmanned moon launch where the recovery area was shifted 250 miles south of San Diego due to weather conditions.

[Caymus]

Maybe one of the owners.

Hobby Club’s Missing Balloon Feared Shot Down By USAF | Aviation Week Network

[Bay Kid]

The missile will make the balloon into many little pieces. Harder to put back together.

[Blackbird45]

It's easy to play armchair quarterback. I would venture to guess once this balloon was spotted there was a team put together figuring the best way to deal with this.

What I do believe was the decision not to shoot it down until it was over water had more to do with recovering the payload than the safety of the public.

[terryf484]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Off the top of my head...I'd say...first, you have to get there. Balloons can fly in excess of 170,000 feet. Weather balloons (such as what these chinese gasbags are reported to be) regularly fly in the neighborhood of 100,000 feet. In contrast, the SR-71 Blackbird, America's high-flying spy plane (no longer in service) flew at about 85,000 feet. In other words, you'd be burning a whole lot of Jet fuel to get within maybe three miles of the thing, and then have to shoot a projectile accurately from a vehicle moving at probably well over the speed of sound, to hit the balloon.

Bottom line: missiles are MUCH cheaper. And more accurate.

This balloon was at 60000 feet, not a problem getting to it. I suspect they used a missile to be sure it came down in American waters. Shooting holes in it and hoping for a slow descent might have put the balloon outside of our waters. Just a guess.

[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I've been wondering, and I've never heard this asked in the media -- why is it necessary to use a $400,000 missile to take down a high altitude balloon? Couldn't a small puncture using a low caliber bullet be more effective to provide a slow descent with a soft landing thereby providing easy recovery of relatively intact evidence?

Why not a little hole from a laser beam fired from the ground?

[Pres1939]

Originally Posted by MrLonzo

I've been wondering, and I've never heard this asked in the media -- why is it necessary to use a $400,000 missile to take down a high altitude balloon? Couldn't a small puncture using a low caliber bullet be more effective to provide a slow descent with a soft landing thereby providing easy recovery of relatively intact evidence?

Short answer: Absolutely, we had cheaper alternatives!!

I have no idea why we did bot use them. This action was like using a shotgun to swat a fly!!!