all 56 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 50 points 5 months ago (1 child)

Maybe they should leave...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I swear I've seen this idea floated in !noncredibledefense@piefed.social (in one incarnation or another) before. Not too hard to come up with it independently but I'd like to imagine some engineer on break browsing NCD for inspiration.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago

    Maybe don't attack your neighbors then? FAFO, right?

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Not sure if cyberpunk or WW1 anymore. CyberSteamPunk?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Cry more Ruskies, your tears are delicious.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    FAFO,. now in the finding out stage

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    Complaint noted.

  • source
  • [+] 10 points 5 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    If it can find and approach the balloon close enough to set off a grenade, I'd probably want to target the UAV more than the balloon. If the UAV is still functional when the balloon is shredded, it could potentially just be deployed early and find a target of opportunity on the way down. Which leads to another point, if a hostile is detected inbound, they again could just launch the UAV and find something for it to go after - it wouldn't surprise me if there was a list of contingency targets along the projected route.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    If it can find and approach the balloon close enough to set off a grenade,

    That is the problem. Weather balloons usually fly between 18-37km above sea level. That is hard to impossible to reach for even a fighter jet, which have service ceilings of 18km. Simpler cheaper aircraft can not fly that high. With the guns range being somewhat limited, you basically need to fire a missile at the balloon. That however is too expensive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    The "hard to counter" thing is arguable, because yeah, anything that's up there reflecting radar can theoretically be shot down (and probably by something cheaper yet). They might not be set up to detect and attack balloons right now, though. I mean, even NORAD famously wasn't for a while.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Shot down with something cheaper than a balloon?

    Brother, handgun rounds probably cost more than balloons, and I can't think of anything cheaper, offhand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    A small arms round costs cents at scale. A big balloon like that costs hundreds of dollars, and the drone hundreds more. The bigger question is if a bullet would do enough damage.

    For targeting the balloon, the eventual best weapon might just be a sickle-ish blade, either on a rod or rope. Melee weapons worked for most of human history, and if your target has airspeed zero, why not? If you're hitting the drone, you'll need something more heavy-duty; small arms, a small mine or a powered blade. I suppose just tangling it or lassoing on a drogue chute could work.

    The obvious choice for interceptor drone is a small blimp. It's faster then an unpowered balloon, but still very stable and capable of extreme altitudes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Bullets indeed do essentially nothing against weather balloon type craft. Bullets from ground level, even less so unless they're significantly larger rounds. Oh, and you don't want to be downrange of all those misses either.

    Flak would probably be the "cheapest best bet" for ensuring damage to the balloons' payload, but the collateral damage from debris could be significant. They will probably use some small missile to do the job, which is the only way to be sure, really. However, that's not ideal from a cost ratio standpoint, which leaves them wide open to the fact that;

    Those balloons are also probably cheaper than you estimate, when produced at the same scale as the rounds of which you speak.

    Which means that when and if the Russians put something in place to attempt to stop the balloons, the Ukrainians can simply send arse-loads of decoy balloons to waste Russian ammo supplies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    It might be tens of dollars rather than hundreds, that information is harder to come by, but it's not going to be cents. It's a lot of area of material, even if it's cheap material, and hydrogen isn't free either (helium is much much more yet). Plus, the drone costs what the drone costs.

    Shooting from ground level probably isn't going to be the solution, because a balloon can fly higher than any heavier-than-air craft. Maybe bigger AA guns could be developed, but it's going to get less mobile, and eventually there's a fundamental limit to muzzle velocity set by the speed of sound in whatever detonation. Plus, if you're using large specialty rounds and a lot of them per hit we're right back to cost.

    but the collateral damage from debris could be significant.

    How so? There's a lot of empty farmland in the area, and it's wartime. It seems like unless the Ukrainians (or Russians; this will be copied) can still steer and reliably detonate the drone it's no longer an effective weapon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    How so? You think Ukraine will stop where they are with those, seeing the success they're having? lmao

    They'll be hanging over Moscow like party balloons given the right wind conditions, what with Russia laying into Kyiv with anything and everything they have.

    Given that they're sticking Pantsir launchers on the roofs in Moscow, Russia are indeed expecting it to get worse yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    When your balloon needs to lift 15 kg to 5 km, it suddenly becomes significantly expensive. According to the internetβ„’, you need 14 cubic meters of helium, which alone would be like $700. You will also expect to lose half of them to random winds, so you need to launch at least 20.

    Also, 15 kg drone is not that much destructive, it only carries 5 kg of payload, while Shahed typically carries 50 kg.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    For this application hydrogen makes more sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah I thought the same thing, but no. People who actually launch weather balloons swear off hydrogen like a plague, because apparently it explodes while you are filling the balloon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    That makes sense, although in wartime it would matter less. You can also generate it fairly portably with ferrosilicon and acid.

    It's worth mentioning a football field or whatever of Mylar won't be free. Big balloons retail for hundreds on their own according to a quick search.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Your math seems off. A generic search says it costs like $500 to run a hot ait baloon on helium, which would be carrying significantly more weight eith 4-5 humans.

    I get its not 1:1, but $700 for 15kg seems high.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    700/14 gives a price of $50/m^3^ or so, and 14 m^3^ makes sense because air weighs around 1kg/m^3^ at sea level (where the helium is measured for trade). Unfortunately, some fucker named a cryptocurrency "Helium" so it's hard to find, but I did turn up this. Due to the situation in the Middle East it could even be multiple times that right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    "deep in the rear" sounds fitting.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    While I love this for Ukraine. This is very bad news for countries down wind of hostile powers. I.E. China. They could launch hundreds of thousands of these cheap drones and wreak havoc in Japan and the US.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Jellyfish UAP

  • source
  • I wonder how well you could do if you brought up a glider with explosives this way. Get it in deep/high then let it glide super far.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Yeah, noted, we'll get right on that.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (22 children)

    shouldn't a few rounds from a mig 29 be able to bring a balloon down without any effort? Sounds like a skill issue.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    As well as what the other commenter says, a balloon cost a lot less than the jet fuel to scramble a jet and get it to where the balloon is, and then the jet can't be somewhere else. The goal isn't to make an undefeatable weapon, it's to cost the enemy enough money that they've got no choice but to give up on the war and go home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago

    Sure. That assumes that this is detected and that the Russians happen to have a fueled up Mig 29 with crew available and time to prep the aircraft and intercept. That requires like a few dozen properly trained people to have actually showed up to work moderately sober that day.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    ofc it should if you know where it is. balloon and ropes are plastic and therefore non-reflective for microwaves. drone is also largerly plastic so the only metal bits are wiring, battery and warhead

    but wait, it gets worse: you can shoot down balloon, but after release drone is still pretty high up but it's now fast, and has just as small radar return as before

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Luckily they developed radar that does not use microwaves about 80 years ago, so that isn't a huge problem. You can see them use it literally every time you turn on the weather broadcast because clouds aren't made of metal either.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Do not underestimate how hard it is to shoot down a lighter-than-air aircraft with projectiles is.

    The holes matter but nowhere near as much as you think.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Couldn't they fire something incendiary? The gas is flammable, a photon torpedo or something should do it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    An AA missile would certainly shoot it down with an airburst, but the point is just poking it full of holes is actually not that quick of a way to shoot one down.

    Janeway said we were really low on photon torpedos and needed to conserve them so idk about using them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Really? Like, I guess there's not too much pressure pushing the gas out in this kind of balloon, but gas is still light and doesn't need much of a push.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    But it's a huge balloon, and it will take a long time for the gas to leak out. The balloon will sag, and drop steadily, but it will still take an extended period of time to actually reach Earth, where the payload may still be dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    shouldn't a few rounds from a mig 29 be able to bring a balloon down without any effort? Sounds like a skill issue.

    So firstly at 5-7km you shoot a balloon it doesn't just deflate and drop. It'll keep floating (slowly returning to earth over days).

    You've been vectored in by ground controllers. You have to spend a heap of time waiting for orders and directions. You can't even see it properly. Its mylar. The FLIR, if its working, isn't showing shit when it comes to mylar.

    Secondly imagine you're doing 800kph in a mig-29. Your radar won't lock onto the balloon.

    So you somehow line up and setup guns for the shot. Bam, your past it before you have time to even think.

    So you line up for another pass. You slow your MIG down to 350kph. This time you have maybe 5-8 seconds before you're pass the target.

    You have no idea if you've hit it. You've probably missed it.

    A couple more passes and now you're running out of fuel and or ammo (tactical fighters usually have enough ammo for a 1-3 second total firing time) and have to return to base.

    Plus all the running cost stuff the other posters have pointed out makes using tactical fighters to shoot down balloons a completely losing proposition.

    When the Americans shot down those Chinese balloons it was a near miracle they were able to do it.

    Of interesting to note is one of the core applications for the Soviet / Russian A-60 airborne was to shoot down American "weather" balloons.

    Really fascinating video (that goes into trainspotting levels of detail) by Not a Pound for Air to Ground

    https://youtu.be/tO2Jk5jjzdE

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    There are two targets - the balloon and the payload. If you shoot down the balloon without disabling the payload, then it just drops and targets whatever was below it. If it's a drone, it may be able to be steered to a proper target anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I guarantee I could bring one of these down with a pencil. The issues are knowing where it is, and getting the pencil to it...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    What other comments seem to be missing (lol) is that Russians are afraid to pull up any aircraft that close to the front and that high, since patriot AA traps set up by Ukrainians a year or two ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    shouldn’t a few rounds from a mig 29 be able to bring a balloon down without any effort?

    Nope. The U.S. did this to the U.S.S.R. constantly during the Cold War and the Soviets had less than a 5% success rate shooting down the balloons.

    The US struggled with the one from China three years back. In the end it took an F-22 and a very expensive missile to get the job done.

  • source
  • parent