William
Jul 6, 2022 10 tweets 3 min read Read on X
I'm not sure people realize how big of a deal this is. High-altitude balloons might not be as sexy as autonomous weapons or hypersonics but I think they have the potential to be just as revolutionary for warfare, if not more so. 🧵 1/10
Balloons can basically do everything satellites do but better. No rocket launch means lower cost. Closer proximity gets better performance from sensors and comms. They can offer persistence measured in months. It's like a GEO satellite at lower altitude. 2/10
But the real benefit though is survivability. Balloon material doesn't reflect radar and the payloads tend to be small (the RCS of the payload can be further reduced with LO features like RAM). They're also hard to spot optically or with IR. 3/10
If a balloon is found they're still not easy to take out. Balloons are generally be cheaper than SAMs that can reach such high altitudes. It's also difficult to distinguish between a slow-moving balloon and chaff. 4/10
If they get hit, they don't pop like a party balloon. Rather they slowly leak coolant and can remain in the air for days. Once F-18s fired 1000 20mm rounds into a rogue weather balloon and it didn't come down for six days. 5/10
So why aren't they being used already? Unlike satellites or aircraft, balloons will just go where the wind takes them. Unless they're tethered but as we saw with JLENS the tether can break. Now modern ML algorithms allow balloons to control where they go using the wind. 6/10
In the stratosphere there's always a wind going in the direction you want it's just a matter of adjusting altitude. Sounds simple but it wasn't possible until recently. It's pretty amazing what these algorithms can do. 7/10
bbc.com/future/article…
So now these balloons can create a C4ISR network that's far more resilient, persistent, and effective than a satellite constellation. Since modern warfare is all about information, this is a big deal especially as space assets grow more vulnerable. 8/10
Balloons could also carry missiles, bombs, or loitering munitions for strike missions. Their slow speed means they can't replace aircraft but they could come in handy for missions that require persistence or low cost. 9/10
thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3…
Balloons can't fully replace satellites due to issues like overflight rules, but they still have a huge amount of potential that I think deserves more attention. If you'd like to know more these papers are really good. 10/10
apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA43…
apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA53…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with William "Balloon Guy" Kim

William

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @TheKimulation

Apr 8, 2023
Thing is that an invasion of Taiwan would inherently lead to immense economic disruption for China (which the article notes) regardless of the sanctions regime. If that's baked in, I'm skeptical that the threat of some sanctions on top will be much of a deterrent.
In other words, if Beijing decides to invade Taiwan it means they're willing to stomach an extraordinary amount of economic pain. I doubt we can add enough additional pain to change their calculus if indeed they come to that decision.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the proposal is bad. I like the idea of an institution to plan for the economic fallout of a Taiwan contingency. Also we may want a single group coordinating efforts to limit Chinese power via sanctions/export controls.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 7, 2023
@LouisMVezian Well as said I wouldn't have much a problem with it if the ROC spent way, way more on defense. But with the budget they have now they need to make hard choices and heavily prioritize asymmetry because that's what they need against the truly existential threat.
@LouisMVezian If Canada was stronger than the US and was claiming it as its rightful territory, it wouldn't make a ton of sense for the US to be buying LPDs for the defense of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands.
@LouisMVezian This isn't to say that Taiwan should abandon the defense of the outer islands, at the very least AShM batteries there slow the PLA down. But using LPDs for that mission makes no sense, as I said LPDs are for power projection not resupplying islands 100 miles or so away.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 7, 2023
Peacetime resupply could be done with smaller LST/LCU-type transports at much lower cost. The critique of Yushan isn't that the ROCN doesn't need amphibious transports, it's that an LPD isn't a very cost-effective way of meeting their needs compared to alternatives. 1/5
In fact, the US Army recently tried to auction off a couple of its General Frank S. Besson-class LSVs and they originally were built for $26 million to give you an idea of cost. ROCN could've put in an offer or built similar craft domestically. 2/5 thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2…
LPDs are used for expeditionary warfare and power projection. Moving stuff to islands within a few hundred miles during peacetime does not require that kind of capability (before you bring up Itu Aba it has a harbor so it doesn't need amphibs for resupply). 3/5
Read 5 tweets
Feb 23, 2023
Very interesting report from @StaciePettyjohn and @hannahddennis examining escalation in a Taiwan war. The most eye-opening takeaway for me is that China will have more options for graduated nuclear use than the US. 🧵 1/16
s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org…
China could employ low-yield nukes against a number of critical US military targets that are on allied or noncontiguous US territory (Guam being the notable example). In contrast, most key PLA targets are on the mainland so nuking them would be a bigger escalation. 2/16
This is an issue that I had't seen much analysis on before. After all, it really wasn't a problem when China's small arsenal meant that its limited nuclear use options were, well, limited. But that' changing as China's nuclear arsenal expands and diversifies. 3/16
Read 16 tweets
Feb 4, 2023
Thread on the downing of the Chinese spy balloon 1/10
First off the bat, it took the USAF much less time to shoot it down than I had anticipated. Y'all have probably seen me share the story of when it took six days for CF-18s to down a weather balloon. What explains the discrepancy? 2/10
Based off of footage I've seen it looks like they used an air-to-air missile. CF-18s used guns only and deliberately avoided using AAMs. Not too surprising that a missile with a 20-40lb blast frag warhead did the job quicker. 3/10
Read 10 tweets
Feb 3, 2023
To everyone saying "shoot it down" it's a lot harder than it sounds.
One thing I left out in the original thread is that balloons are so slow it's hard to distinguish them from chaff that modern SAMs are designed to ignore. It's a problem made worse if they actually carry chaff.
Also keep in mind that you'd be using a multi-million dollar SAM to shoot down a balloon that probably costs low six figures or less. Might be worth shooting down this one for the intel but we don't have enough Patriots or SM-6s to do this on the reg.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(