Back to balloon warfare?

[PeterNSteinmetz]

https://apnews.com/article/47248b0ef2b085620fcd866c105054be

Somewhat reminds me of when the Japanese were sending over balloon bombs during WWII. Not that they did much. My father remembered being told that spring and summer not to pick up any strange items on the street over fears things may have been dropped by the Japanese balloons.

https://www.history.com/news/attack-of-japans-killer-wwii-balloons-70-years-ago

 

[Jim Logajan]

The threat is over inflated.

Seriously though, I'd like to know how the balloon is "lingering" over Montana and not getting blown eastward. I believe one technique is to test the wind direction at different altitudes, some which hopefully flow in opposite directions. Then change altitude to basically move back and forth over the area you want stay over. Or you get lucky and find an area of little wind.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I'd like to know why we aren't capturing it or at least shooting it down?
And what on earth they are doing with it? The Chinese have spy satellites, do they not?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Apparently it is more like an airship than a free balloon since it has propulsion with enough power to perform station keeping under an unknown amount of wind. Probably controlled from the ground once over the US, though could be autonomous since it had to travel over the ocean on its own. But for data transmission back to China there is probably a someone with a ground receiver within line of sight or they use periodic transmission to satellites. Or maybe short wave, but if I were designing it I would only use that as a backup.

Montana doesn't have any restricted airspace so anybody could fly over most of the state and perform low level aerial observation. A balloon/airship doesn't seem to provide anything extra except long term station keeping observation.

 

[Ron Wanttaja]

This is the first time I've seen a claim that the balloon has propulsion, and I'm a bit skeptical. Assuming the picture making the rounds is the actual balloon, it would be tough to make a usable propulsion system. That balloon is massive, and it would take a lot of power to counteract even the 15-30 knot winds it would encounter at 60,000 feet. Can't just put a motor/jet/electronic propulsion on the "gondola"....that's WAY off the center of mass, and will mostly try to rotate the balloon. Would have to position the propulsion system on the envelope itself, which would have its own problems. Big solar arrays, could be electric propulsion, but those have limited thrust and you REALLY need some thrust to pull that off.

Yes, it's "lighter than air"...but air still has mass. If you don't believe me, grab a rope hanging from a typical hot air balloon and try to drag it somewhere.

If they *do* have the capability to station-keep, then they DO have something that most intelligence platforms lack: Loiter capability. Low Earth Orbit satellites pass overhead in a quarter-hour, typical airplanes can hang around hostile territory for a little longer, Geo and Molniya-orbit satellites give you great loiter time, but the ranges are on the order of thousands of miles. If your target is near the coast, you can run a racetrack path with aircraft or butter around with a "fishing trawler." But if it's well inland, you're pretty much stuck.

The typical tactics for countering intelligence platforms are Denial and Deception: You either don't DO the thing they want to collect (e.g., don't transmit, don't roll the plane out of the hangar, etc.) or do things to try to trick the collection process...roll ANOTHER airplane out of the hangar, transmit on frequencies you wouldn't use in wartime, etc. Most of this is pretty well negated if you have a platform that can loiter for days. Depending on how accurate your navigation is and how powerful your propulsion, you could even position yourself in many directional-type transmissions.

As Major Andre could tell you, collecting the data is one thing, getting it back to capitalize on it is another. Plenty of options nowadays. The balloon envelope would well be transparent to radio waves, so uplinks to satellites would work. For that matter, it could just have an ordinary cell phone onboard and could be "phoning home" over our own mobile phone networks.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Jim Logajan]

Here's a link to the WSJ story where I read the claims:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-...95x2pzlxrd5&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

In case that doesn't provide access, some quotes from the article:

China said a balloon that the U.S. military identified as a spy vehicle is in fact a civilian craft designed primarily for meteorological study which blew off course.

“China regrets that the airship strayed into the United States due to force majeure,” said a statement from the Foreign Ministry late Friday in Beijing, referring to natural causes out of its hands. “China will continue to maintain communication with the U.S. to properly handle the unexpected situation caused by force majeure.”
...
The brief English-language statement by China’s Foreign Ministry, which it said was in response to media questions, described the balloon as “a civilian airship used for research, mainly meteorological, purposes.” It noted that the balloon has limited self-steering capability and deviated far from its planned course due to westerlies, prevailing winds that blow west to east.

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

Truman should have listened to MacArthur.

 

[Ron Wanttaja]

Apparently it is more like an airship than a free balloon since it has propulsion with enough power to perform station keeping under an unknown amount of wind. .

Can you point me to a source on this? I've seen it in other places (e.g., Ward Carroll) and would like to see the original Government statement on it.

They're basically saying it's a blimp, not a free balloon, and it doesn't have the the physical characteristics of one. Just the envelope itself, assuming it's filled hydrogen, weighs two and a half tons. Ain't going to be able to stem a 30 MPH wind with a little electric motor.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Jim Logajan]

Can you point me to a source on this? I've seen it in other places (e.g., Ward Carroll) and would like to see the original Government statement on it.

They're basically saying it's a blimp, not a free balloon, and it doesn't have the the physical characteristics of one. Just the envelope itself, assuming it's filled hydrogen, weighs two and a half tons. Ain't going to be able to stem a 30 MPH wind with a little electric motor.

Ron Wanttaja

My post above includes a quote from the Wall Street Journal which in turn quotes the Chinese foreign ministry that used the word airship, not balloon. After it was shot down the Chinese foreign ministry again used the term airship: "The Chinese side has repeatedly informed the US side after verification that the airship is for civilian use and entered the US due to force majeure - it was completely an accident."
(Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64524105)

The Chinese government is likely using the FAA definitions:
Airship means an engine-driven lighter-than-air aircraft that can be steered.
Balloon means a lighter-than-air aircraft that is not engine driven, and that sustains flight through the use of either gas buoyancy or an airborne heater.

Wind doesn't appear in the definitions.

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

My post above includes a quote from the Wall Street Journal which in turn quotes the Chinese foreign ministry that used the word airship, not balloon. After it was shot down the Chinese foreign ministry again used the term airship: "The Chinese side has repeatedly informed the US side after verification that the airship is for civilian use and entered the US due to force majeure - it was completely an accident."
(Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64524105)

The Chinese government is likely using the FAA definitions:
Airship means an engine-driven lighter-than-air aircraft that can be steered.
Balloon means a lighter-than-air aircraft that is not engine driven, and that sustains flight through the use of either gas buoyancy or an airborne heater.

Wind doesn't appear in the definitions.

Well... we are talking about the commie Chinese here, so I wouldn't put too much stock in the veracity of anything they said.

The balloon, by whatever name, wouldn't need very much in the way of maneuvering ability to accomplish its surveillance mission, which likely was the actual purpose. (There would be no reason for secrecy if it were an actual meteorological mission, especially given the current administration's kinder, gentler stance toward China.) It would have been launched when the weather favored the winds aloft carrying it more or less where it needed to go. In that case, a solar-powered electric motor might be enough to move it laterally to get the best views, while the wind itself moved it forward.

 

[Ron Wanttaja]

Then again, "Airship" could just be a translation issue. Perhaps "balloon" in Chinese implies a children's toy.

Seems like propulsion would be difficult with a spherical balloon. The pictures show no streamlining, no fins. Santos-Dumont figured that out 120 years ago. Totally asymmetrical thrust, if the propeller is mounted on the "gondola". Eleven THOUSAND square feet of flat--plate area. Winds are relatively light at the operational altitude, but still would need ~15-30 MPH capability to remain motionless. Balloons such as this vary their altitude to find favorable winds for where they want to go. And those winds, especially at the lower altitudes, are far worse and the type of propulsion system a spherical balloon is going to be over-taxed.

Want it to fly over Montana? Doable, given enough time. Want it to fly over Bozeman? Not as likely. Want it to fly over Minuteman Silo A-43? No way.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Jim Logajan]

Then again, "Airship" could just be a translation issue. Perhaps "balloon" in Chinese implies a children's toy.

Seems like propulsion would be difficult with a spherical balloon. The pictures show no streamlining, no fins. Santos-Dumont figured that out 120 years ago. Totally asymmetrical thrust, if the propeller is mounted on the "gondola". Eleven THOUSAND square feet of flat--plate area. Winds are relatively light at the operational altitude, but still would need ~15-30 MPH capability to remain motionless. Balloons such as this vary their altitude to find favorable winds for where they want to go. And those winds, especially at the lower altitudes, are far worse and the type of propulsion system a spherical balloon is going to be over-taxed.

Want it to fly over Montana? Doable, given enough time. Want it to fly over Bozeman? Not as likely. Want it to fly over Minuteman Silo A-43? No way.

Ron Wanttaja

I agree with all that except the idea there is some translation issue. The foreign ministry is going to employ and use correct language since that is their stock in trade. My limited experience with Chinese is that while many know English well enough to humorously butcher it, the people who use it a lot can be quite impeccable in its use - better sometimes than even native speakers.[*] I found it telling that they properly employed the term "force majeure," which I have seen used by countries to evade blame for some event. The UN even has this on its meaning and use in international law:

Article 23 Force majeure​

1. The wrongfulness of an act of a State not in conformity with an international obligation of that State is precluded if the act is due to force majeure, that is the occurrence of an irresistible force or of an unforeseen event, beyond the control of the State, making it materially impossible in the circumstances to perform the obligation.
2. Paragraph 1 does not apply if:
(a) the situation of force majeure is due, either alone or in combination with other factors, to the conduct of the State invoking it; or
(b) the State has assumed the risk of that situation occurring.

(Source: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/9_6_2001.pdf)


[*] Around 1970 my oldest brother shared a college dorm with a fellow from Hong Kong who was invited to our house during one vacation. For some reason we started talking about the TV commercial for Winston cigarettes that had the jingle "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should." As kids we didn't see a problem with it. Our new Hong Kong friend said it was improper English. It should have been "Winston tastes good as a cigarette should." At the time I thought it crazy that he was better at English than us native speakers.

(Big segue: anybody else old enough to recall the parody of the jingle? "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should: no filter, no flavor, just cotton-picken' paper!")

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

Then again, "Airship" could just be a translation issue. Perhaps "balloon" in Chinese implies a children's toy.

Seems like propulsion would be difficult with a spherical balloon. The pictures show no streamlining, no fins. Santos-Dumont figured that out 120 years ago. Totally asymmetrical thrust, if the propeller is mounted on the "gondola". Eleven THOUSAND square feet of flat--plate area. Winds are relatively light at the operational altitude, but still would need ~15-30 MPH capability to remain motionless. Balloons such as this vary their altitude to find favorable winds for where they want to go. And those winds, especially at the lower altitudes, are far worse and the type of propulsion system a spherical balloon is going to be over-taxed.

Want it to fly over Montana? Doable, given enough time. Want it to fly over Bozeman? Not as likely. Want it to fly over Minuteman Silo A-43? No way.

Ron Wanttaja

Perhaps it used a set of four props on vertical spindles with rotation direction paired diagonally, as on quadcopter drones. No fins required. Yaw, pitch, and roll are all controlled by varying the speeds of the props relative to each other. Lateral and vertical movement are propelled by the airfoils, and yaw is achieved by varying the relative propeller torque.

Bernoulli and Newton play well together.

As for wind compensation when loitering, I have a drone that weighs 2.58 pounds powered by a 7100mAh battery that can hover for almost half an hour in 30mph winds if I wanted it to, typically with less than a foot of variation in any plane depending on the gusts.

Granted, a drone doesn't have a whole lot of surface area for the wind to exert pressure against. But the balloon's gondola has been described as being about the size of a regional airliner; so I'd say there was more than enough room for batteries that could loiter the balloon when necessary, and allow them to recharge using solar power while passively riding the wind in between areas of interest.

 

[Ron Wanttaja]

Perhaps it used a set of four props on vertical spindles with rotation direction paired diagonally, as on quadcopter drones. No fins required. Yaw, pitch, and roll are all controlled by varying the speeds of the props relative to each other. Lateral and vertical movement are propelled by the airfoils, and yaw is achieved by varying the relative propeller torque.

News tonight quoting government sources stating it had propellers and a rudder.

As for wind compensation when loitering, I have a drone that weighs 2.58 pounds powered by a 7100mAh battery that can hover for almost half an hour in 30mph winds if I wanted it to, typically with less than a foot of variation in any plane depending on the gusts.

Granted, a drone doesn't have a whole lot of surface area for the wind to exert pressure against. But the balloon's gondola has been described as being about the size of a regional airliner; so I'd say there was more than enough room for batteries that could loiter the balloon when necessary, and allow them to recharge using solar power while passively riding the wind in between areas of interest.

News tonight also said the balloon was 200 feet across. That's a flat-plate area of 31,000 square feet. That's the equivalent of approximately 175 feet square. Would'a need some really good motors and propellers.

Also, this time of year, the night is 14 hours long...even longer on the Alaskan leg of its journey. Gonna take a good set of batteries.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

News tonight quoting government sources stating it had propellers and a rudder.

News tonight also said the balloon was 200 feet across. That's a flat-plate area of 31,000 square feet. That's the equivalent of approximately 175 feet square. Would'a need some really good motors and propellers.

Also, this time of year, the night is 14 hours long...even longer on the Alaskan leg of its journey. Gonna take a good set of batteries.

Ron Wanttaja

It wouldn't have to maneuver very much if it were timed so the wind would carry it over the general vicinity of the places of interest.

As for the batteries, hydrogen fuel cells could be used in addition to or instead of solar panels to charge LiPo cells, which would reduce the size of the fuel cells and the amount of hydrogen needed. The batteries would provide high current when needed.

BBC has had an article up for about five hours with the size of the balloon. It's pretty massive. It didn't mention the propellers and rudders the last time I checked it.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Seems they are trying to collect the debris - https://www.flyingmag.com/u-s-military-collecting-debris-from-downed-spy-balloon/

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

I do think their path was purposely built,” he said. “They utilized the winds and it’s a maneuverable platform as well, but they utilize their maneuverability to strategically position themselves to utilize the winds to traverse portions of countries that they want to see for collection purposes.

Damn. Sounds like the kind of thing I would say.

 

[Ron Wanttaja]

Seems they are trying to collect the debris - https://www.flyingmag.com/u-s-military-collecting-debris-from-downed-spy-balloon/

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Jim Logajan]

They need a bigger boat.

 

[RandomDroneGuy]

They need a bigger boat.

I think they're all in Ukraine.