PM ordered take down of an unidentified object that violated Canadian airspace | Hacker News Reader

PM ordered take down of an unidentified object that violated Canadian airspace

twitter.com

42 pointsmzs85 comments

Open articleView on HN

For full context:

We shot down a Chinese spy balloon (confirmed) 8 days ago over the Atlantic ocean.

We then shot down an unknown flying object yesterday over Alaska.

Today we shot down another unknown flying object over Canada.

The government hasn't released any details about the objects shot down either yesterday or today.

I wonder if they are being labeled as 'unknown flying objects' to avoid more political drama with China.

I think, for it to be considered an "identified" flying object, they'd have to know more than just what country sent it — i.e. they'd have to know a class or designation for it and have an associated doctrine for dealing with it.

I remember a trend of people sending up weather balloons with GoPros a few years back. I would imagine having an F-22 come after it would make for a more exciting video than they normally get (although the "edge of space" footage is already pretty cool).

Sounds like they’re just hamming it up after that “spy” balloon.

Or it's politically defensive. A lot of Republicans objected (properly? for political advantage? to encourage contributions?) objected to the way the previous balloon was handled. So this could be a more aggressive stance to avoid that again.

If we get so cavalier about shooting things down, sounds like a good way to make a mistake.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

It was an F-22 that could obviously tell whether or not it was shooting down a commercial airliner.

Are you relaying on the visual approach of the pilot, or claiming the F22 has better indent tech than ground / space based tech?

F22 (and the F35) are optimized for beyond visual range air-to-air combat, so I am not sure if the pilot visually sees the thing before firing.

> so I am not sure if the pilot visually sees the thing before firing.

In all three cases, the pilots have visually confirmed the objects were unmanned. The order to fire has come after that confirmation.

Unlikely to make such a mistake when using air-to-air missiles (not surface to air or sea to air).

You assume that all future shoot downs will use the same technique.

Well, they should have some sort of visual confirmation. A live satellite view would be equally good.

There's an entire category for this thing,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_inc...

Also later episodes from 2020: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines...

and 2014: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

Are you making a slippery slope argument, like if we keep shooting down things that aren’t commercial flights that’s a slippery slope to shooting down things that are commercial flights?

I am not, I am saying what I said, if we make the shoot downs routine, we run the risk of shooting something down that we don’t intend to.

If we start doing patrols with loaded fighters, it greatly increases the chance of an accident.

Perhaps we are unwittingly giving away SIGINT on the weapons used to shoot them down.

If it was indeed an American F-22 that shot it down, he didn't order it, he acquiesced to having it shot down in his territory. As a canadian, I see it as co-operation, like when another dude sees you struggling and offers to open your beer for you.

The announcement is from the PM's twitter account and not an announcement by military leadership, or the Governor General, our head of state, (so no aliens, basically). I'm interpreting our politicians needed to be seen to be involved in this one for some reason. After reading about the first balloon, to me this announcement is like a really nice dinner after forgetting your birthday.

Don't decisions like this, where you have 10ish minutes to make the decision, go all the way to the PM of Canada?

In that case, don't the relevant military authorities ask him to choose between scaring off the object/escorting it/shooting it down?

Speaking of joint efforts, I admit that part of me hopes this unfolding shootdowns situation could lead to a new DEW line effort.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/Distant-Early-Warning-...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distant_Early_Warning_Line

https://rclsa-asrlc.org/stories/the-construction-of-the-dew-...

https://archive.org/details/0575_DEW_Line_Story_20_01_02_00

https://lswilson.dewlineadventures.com/warstories/

(Or maybe just the long-awaited Spies Like Us sequel...)

At this point though it would almost be unsurprising if the conflict somehow escalated from a Chinese balloon shootdown to a UAP/tic tac hot war.

These skies are, unconditionally, ourn.

DEW line still exists, it's just been upgraded: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Warning_System

That's new to me, just coming from the historical DEW Line interest. Seems like it should be fun to learn about, thanks for the link.

Not sure which was first but the thread below got more discussion, including the same ignorant jibes at Canada's air force

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34757042

I wonder if they "shoot" it down with bullets or a missile. Seems to me that bullets would be a lot cheaper. Poking holes in a balloon with bullets will cause it to gradually lose lifting gas, and inevitably come down. It may come down gently, so it can be salvaged and examined.

In WW1, balloon busting was a big deal. Pilots found that riddling them with bullets didn't work that well, as the balloon could be reeled down, patched, refilled and sent back up again. But the lifting gas was hydrogen, so the pilots were then armed with tracer bullets, which set the balloons afire and they came down immediately, completely destroyed.

I was thinking that this was a good opportunity for the military industrial complex to ride the hype and make some money by developing an anti-balloon weapon system. Based on my preliminary research of watching youtube videos of people popping party balloons with 1 watt lasers, a scaled up version may be an option, though an anti-balloon missile modeled after a lawn dart also seems intuitive.

It was shot down with Sidewinder missile like the others.

Hitting balloon with cannon is hard when it is at 60,000 ft and fighter is at 50,000 ft. The second and third objects may not have been balloons. Hitting a car-sized object with gun would be hard even if it was at same altitude.

A sidewinder is heat seeking. What heat is it latching on to? There's no jet engine on a balloon.

Besides, what good is a gun if you can't hit a stationary car-sized object? (And the balloon was much bigger than that.)

The new AIM-9X missile has an imaging sensor which I’m guessing is more sensitive. It works on front of aircraft and missiles. Either it is seeing the reflected light or the object is warmer than space.

The F-22 would be going close to Mach 1 while balloon/object is stationary. The balloon was higher altitude which is harder shot and out of range. Very different from dogfighting the gun is meant for. I don’t think any fighters have gun targeting system since the gun is really a backup.

That sounds like an expensive missile. An enemy could deplete our supply of them just by sending a phalanx of cheap balloons over.

Sidewinder costs $400k. US has 10,000 of them in stock.

I have speculated if rockets could be used. Unguided might be hard to aim. Laser guided might not be any better. It would require different aircraft that might be able to get high enough.

This question got me wondering whether 20mm explosive cannon shells explode when they hit the ground when fired from an aircraft. I was unable to find an answer. Anyone?

Launching weather balloons to have them shot down is going to be the next tiktok trend.

Now every world leader is going to want to shoot down a balloon...

>I am in direct contact with NORCOM and monitoring the latest issue over Havre and the northern border. Airspace is closed due to an object that could interfere with commercial air traffic — the DOD will resume efforts to observe and ground the object in the morning.

7:23 PM · Feb 11, 2023

https://twitter.com/RepRosendale/status/1624579901608034306

> Schumer said he was briefed by the White House's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, on the most recent object shot down over Canada on Saturday. According to Schumer, intelligence officials believe that object as well as the unknown object shot down over Alaska on Friday and the craft downed over South Carolina waters earlier this month were all balloons.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/3-objects-flying-us-canada-b...

edit: https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_3_4885.html

> FDC 3/4885 ZMP PART 1 OF 3 WI..AIRSPACE LAKE MICHIGAN, WI..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS. PURSUANT TO 49 USC 40103(B)(3), THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION (FAA) CLASSIFIES THE AIRSPACE DEFINED IN THIS NOTAM AS 'NTL DEFENSE AIRSPACE'. PILOTS WHO DO NOT ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING PROC MAY BE INTERCEPTED, DETAINED AND INTERVIEWED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT/ SECURITY PERSONNEL. ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL ACTIONS MAY ALSO BE TAKEN AGAINST A PILOT WHO DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RQMNTS OR ANY SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR PROC ANNOUNCED IN THIS NOTAM: A) THE FAA MAY TAKE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING IMPOSING CIVIL PENALTIES AND THE SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF AIRMEN CERTIFICATES; OR B) THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MAY PURSUE CRIMINAL CHARGES, INCLUDING CHARGES UNDER 49 USC SECTION 46307; C) THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT MAY USE DEADLY FORCE AGAINST THE AIRBORNE ACFT, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT THE ACFT POSES AN IMMINENT SECURITY THREAT; OR D) UAS OPERATORS WHO DO NOT COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE AIRSPACE 2302121730-PERM END PART 1 OF 3 FDC 3/4885 ZMP PART 2 OF 3 WI..AIRSPACE LAKE MICHIGAN, WI..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE WARNED THAT PURSUANT TO 10 U.S.C. SECTION 130I AND 6 U.S.C. SECTION 124N, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD), THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) OR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) MAY TAKE SECURITY ACTION THAT RESULTS IN THE INTERFERENCE, DISRUPTION, SEIZURE, DAMAGING, OR DESTRUCTION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT DEEMED TO POSE A CREDIBLE SAFETY OR SECURITY THREAT TO PROTECTED PERSONNEL, FACILITIES, OR ASSETS. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR 99.7, SPECIAL SECURITY INSTRUCTIONS, ALL ACFT FLT OPS ARE PROHIBITED: WI AN AREA DEFINED AS 454714N0872341W TO 454714N0853619W TO 443222N0853729W TO 443222N0872231W TO THE POINT OF ORIGIN. SFC-30,000' MSL EFFECTIVE 2302121730 UNTIL PERM. EXCEPTIONS: A) NATIONAL SECURITY ACFT OPS UNDER DIRECTION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND 2302121730-PERM END PART 2 OF 3 FDC 3/4885 ZMP PART 3 OF 3 WI..AIRSPACE LAKE MICHIGAN, WI..TEMPORARY FLIGHT B) LAW ENFORCEMENT, AIR AMBULANCE, AND OTHER URGENT GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSE ACFT OPS WITH AUTHORIZATION FROM ATC (ATC MUST SECURE PRE-APPROVAL BY THE ON DUTY NATIONAL TACTICAL SECURITY OPERATIONS AIR TRAFFIC SECURITY COORDINATOR). ALL AIRCRAFT, WHICH ARE ALREADY AIRBORNE WITHIN THE DEFINED AIRSPACE WHEN THIS TFR BECOMES EFFECTIVE, MUST EXIT THE AREA USING THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS ROUTE CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY AND IN COORDINATION WITH ATC AS APPROPRIATE. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TEL 850-283-5242 IS THE CDN FACILITY. 2302121730-PERM END PART 3 OF 3

This article's lede is interesting, that the it's only recently that we've been globally tracking this balloon program:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/us-balloon-tracking-...

An interesting set of variables here:

- The balloons have been known about for years

- They are spying, by all credible accounts, on a variety of countries

- The US has a lot to lose in such conditions, but has done virtually nothing public about it, until the public raised a cry

This makes me wonder how much intel or other leverage the US may have, directly, from the internals of the PLA program itself.

Kinda amusing that the PM of Canada "ordered" an American jet to shoot down a UFO.

NORAD is a binational agreement where both militaries share power and command. The U.S. military is the stronger partner but the relationship isn’t one-way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAD

NORAD is a thing, and not just an American one. Mostly, but not only.

Shooting down something over a foreign country generally requires permission of that country. Even flying an armed aircraft across a border requires permission. But the lines between order, instruction and permission are blurry when dealing with coalition forces.

Leader orders shoot-down. Order goes to NORAD, which tasks jets to intercept. USAF jets get there first, conduct shoot-down.

shows how weak the usa is perceived, that our allies feel comfortable implying that they ordered our military to do something. not really amusing.

It’s mostly a Justin Trudeau issue. He constantly puts foot in mouth.

where do you get this stuff?

It's a basic understanding of politics and power dynamics

In this case, you are deeply wrong.

Anyone looking at NATO and NORAD right now, and thinking - hmmm. Them Americans are weak... are not paying very much attention to the current state of the world.

>By more than a two-to-one margin, Americans say their country’s influence in the world has been getting weaker rather than stronger in recent years (47% vs. 19%), according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted this past spring.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/12/22/far-more-am...

Meanwhile in Russia, America is winning a war it's not even fighting in - at least according to the russian press. In all seriousness, using a fraction of the USA's military backlog and supplies, Ukraine is holding Russia at bay. A comparative alliance is taking place in the Pacific. Everyone wants to be in the NATO club (more or less, American protectorates, but with a lot more democracy) while The US economy is steamrolling through what everyone assumed would be a bad recesion, and people are starting to talk about Peak China.

So yeah, MSNBC and Fox are good at pointing out everything wrong, but the facts on the ground are very very different at this moment.

In matters of perception, it doesn't matter what the facts are, only what people believe.

Everyone's perception was that Russia was the "second army" of the world before February last year. How did that go for them?

51% stronger or staying the same, 47% FJB.

or NORAD

>I ordered the take down.... U.S. aircraft were scrambled

For anyone else seeing this, the above is carefully edited to give the wrong impression. Here’s the full quote:

> I ordered the take down of an unidentified object that violated Canadian airspace. @NORADCommand shot down the object over the Yukon. Canadian and U.S. aircraft were scrambled, and a U.S. F-22 successfully fired at the object. https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1624527579116871681

It doesn't give the wrong impression. The core of the sentence is Trudeau ordering, and people, including U.S. resources responded.

Your decision to edit the quote to remove mention of NORAD and the joint response gives a very different impression. Rewrite it without the names which trigger you and it sounds pretty anodyne:

“The joint-defense organization detected an unauthorized object. Following seven decades of policy, joint forces responded. As the leader of the country whose airspace was violated, I approved shooting it down.“

Your average person doesn't know about the organizational structure of NORAD. Your average person sees "Trudeau ordered... US responded." The fact that you can't see that shows your mind blindness to the average person's perception. That and using the word "anodyne" as if it is a common word.

The average person sees “Canadian and U.S. aircraft were scrambled” because the news media is quoting his statement in full. If you were really worried about confusion, you wouldn’t be quoting like a creationist to create that confusion.

>like a creationist

lol wow, you are warped my friend. no wonder you're having such a difficult time here.

Why couldn’t the Canadian airforce take down a slow moving air balloon

The flying object was shot down over northern Canada where the Alaska airbase is closer than the Canadian alternatives (most of Canada's population and airbases are in southern Canada).

Cold Lake, Alberta is one of the two permanent bases for CF-18s, not terribly southern.

You realize that Cold Lake is over 1000km from the closest part of the Yukon? If the UFO was near the alaska border it would be nearly 2000km from cold lake. Eielson afb is less than 500km from the Yukon border.

Also the F-22 can super cruise whereas the F-18 cannot.

You realize the distance Cold Lake is from the Yukon doesn’t have a whole lot to do with how southern Cold Lake is relative to the rest of Canada right? There’s a reason the base is where it is.

I’m well aware of the CF-188 or F/A-18’s capabilities (or lack thereof compared to the F-22), from when I worked on them, sometimes in Cold Lake. ;)

I was born in Cold Lake so now I have just as useless of a claim to knowledge as you do

We both win! Or lose.

Being born in Cold Lake is definitely a loss lol

Fully 2000 km from Cold Lake to Tuktoyaktuk. Depending where the object was, there's a lot more distance in the way.

2500km away from the Yukon.

Well he doesn’t say that it’s a slow moving air balloon. But, I’m guessing it’s simply a matter of the US F-22(s) got there first (they’re quite fast).

Why waste the munitions if the US is willing?

$450k per missile.

Couldn't the US force use a laser, like the one they used during their demo for intercepting missiles?

Possibly. But it's worth wasting a few missiles if it doesn't let the Chinese know that. Let them waste their money making a balloon armada, and if war breaks out zap them all with a laser.

The YAL-1 was a test platform mounting laser on 747. It was retired in 2014. The US is further developing airborne lasers but still working on prototype.

What’s with the hate. It’s a legitimate question. Canada is a developed country and RCAF has f18 and budget to train pilots

Surely it stands out that the prime minister asked another country to enter the Canadian airspace to shoot down an object.

I mean wouldn’t a politician consider the optics

Reply on news.ycombinator.com