Soviet Anti Balloon technology of the Cold War

Can someone explain to me about this Chinese Spy Balloon that the US shot down? What is going on? Do it belong to China and why would China do something like this?


https://www.yahoo.com/gma/us-tracking-large-chinese-spy-221300297.html

So the various SAM systems like Patriot that NATO is sending to Ukraine are not even good enough to shoot down a balloon over water. A fighter jet had to be send to do the job.

Can someone explain to me about this Chinese Spy Balloon that the US shot down? What is going on? Do it belong to China and why would China do something like this?

They claim it is a weather balloon... they might be taking the piss or it might be genuine... the US is treating it as a spy platform which is no real surprise because most of their weather balloons were spy platforms...

Not really on topic on this thread however.

So the various SAM systems like Patriot that NATO is sending to Ukraine are not even good enough to shoot down a balloon over water. A fighter jet had to be send to do the job.

To be fair balloons are normally rather tricky targets, the soviets developed a special range of specialist platforms designed to shoot them down.

GarryB wrote:To be fair balloons are normally rather tricky targets, the soviets developed a special range of specialist platforms designed to shoot them down.

You can shift this discussion to the appropriate thread. What weapons did the USSR use to neutralize such "spy balloons"?

Americans managed to send a F-22 that cost $85,325 an hour to fly and fired a $350K AIM-9X to bring down a $1000 balloon.

So despite the posts are about a Chinese balloon shot down after flying over US territory this thread is about Soviet anti balloon technology of the cold war.

Balloons drift very slowly and are difficult targets to detect and track for radar, which is why the US and the west used them to send spy platforms across the Soviet Union before they could use satellites.

The Japanese also sent balloons to cross the Pacific Ocean to attack the US by starting forest fires... this would not normally be very practical except that the coast of the US is enormous so launching enormous numbers of balloons should result in some hits and cause problems.

The main problems of interception is a high closing speed with a fighter aircraft and a drifting balloon, many Soviet attempted solutions included aircraft with 23mm cannon using very special 23mm cannon shells that had very very sensitive nose fuses.

The problem was normal shells would pass through the balloon without exploding and make tiny puncture holes that would take days to effect the balloons height.

The new shells exploded on impact with the balloons skin but were so sensitive they could explode if fired in the rain.

Low altitude balloons were used as well of course...

Versions of the An-2 and various fighter aircraft and the aircraft that eventually became the M-17 were fitted with dorsal mounted cannon and optimised to fly at altitude for the job of shooting down balloons.

It was a dead end technology however as satellites replaced them for intel gathering.

Sujoy wrote:So the various SAM systems like Patriot that NATO is sending to Ukraine are not even good enough to shoot down a balloon over water. A fighter jet had to be send to do the job.

The US generally doesn't use SAMs for domestic air defense, they rely on aircraft for that. Outside of some places like Washington, DC, there are no active SAM sites.

GarryB wrote:Balloons drift very slowly and are difficult targets to detect and track for radar, which is why the US and the west used them to send spy platforms across the Soviet Union before they could use satellites.

High-altitude balloons, despite being massive can have a surprisingly low signature, which creates guidance problems for missiles. If something is moving very slowly, the radar will either not detect it or dynamically filter out the target, depending on its mode and capabilities. Radar fuze systems will probably be more problematic than laser types under these conditions.

It should have been intercepted over Aleutian islands

But the balloon changed direction - surprising NORAD

FAA issued multiple NOTAMS so they did see it

But it seems NORAD did not expect overflight over US territory

This balloon was 200 feet tall, and carried a 1 ton payload

Zircon would devastate the continental US and Russian and Chinese, hell even Koreans and Iran can conclude there are gaps in the GBI defense system

This thing flew over unpopulated areas of the US , and they could only intercept over south east Atlantic?

There were communication issues between intelligence and the command

Meaning any decapitation of US leadership would cause havoc in their response

They noticed this balloon, but missed four previous ones.

Problems with slow targets is mainly to do with low flying targets.

To remove the enormous reflection of the ground or water things that are not moving are removed from the display.

Very slow moving targets are also removed to eliminate cars and birds from the display.

High altitude radar following targets above 14km can be set to show everything... No ground reflections and no birds.

Their newer missiles made high altitude planes unnecessary, along with the shift to satellites so balloons would be a rather rare problem.

A MiG-31 has a 23mm cannon and can easily fly to such altitudes... I would guess they keep the sensitive ammo just in case.

Sujoy wrote:High-altitude balloons, despite being massive can have a surprisingly low signature, which creates guidance problems for missiles. If something is moving very slowly, the radar will either not detect it or dynamically filter out the target, depending on its mode and capabilities. Radar fuze systems will probably be more problematic than laser types under these conditions.

During the 50's - long before the M-17 project - the Soviets looked into developing the Yak-25RV high altitude reconnaissance plane into a balloon interceptor. The aircraft was known as the Yak-25PA but the program was abandoned due to the lack of a suitable engine to power the larger and heavier aircraft.

In the seventies Objekt 34 Chaika was developed in total secrecy. It was supposed to carry two air-to-air missiles and the GSh-23 twin barrel canon, but the US abandoned their spy balloon programs in favour of spy satellites and the A-12(SR-71). The Object 34 prototype crashed when it had to lift off during a taxi run and was destroyed in the accident.

The Object 34 design was then developed into the M-17 Stratosfera high altitude reconnaissance aircraft but it retained the dorsal canon to shoot down any "weather balloons" over Soviet territory. The balloon interceptor idea was finally abandoned in the late 80's and the M-17 was in turn developed into the twin engine M-17RN - later known as the M-55 Geophysica. A small number of these magnificent aircraft are still operating as high altitude research laboratories.

These US spy balloons were launched from several friendly countries to spy on Chinese and especially Soviet territory. They traveled at altitudes between 20-25 kilometers and had altimeters installed to keep it from loosing altitude. The balloon exterior was very thin and notoriously difficult for radars to spot. The spy equipment was also painted blue to make it hard for interceptor pilots to spot causing a number of accidents. Apparently 1956 was a particular busy year with over 500 balloons launched!

The An-2 balloon interceptor version that GarryB mentioned was apparently known as the An-3 (first use of the designation) but to be honest I can't see how this plane could have ever reached altitudes anywhere near the stratosphere armed with a canon and a spotlight!