COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — U.S. Air Force Gen. Glen VanHerck, based in Colorado Springs as commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, took questions last week at the Pentagon about the suspected Chinese spy balloon that Northern Command shot down off the Carolina coast after it traversed sensitive military sites across North America.
The Chinese government said the balloon was a civilian aircraft that drifted into American airspace accidentally.
Among other things, VanHerck said the balloon offered America an "intel gain opportunity."
"It gave us the opportunity to assess what they were actually doing, what kind of capabilities existed on the balloon, what kind of transmission capabilities existed, and I think you'll see in the future that the time frame was well worth its value to collect," he said.
Among reporters present was Jamie McIntyre of The Gazette's sister newspaper, the Washington Examiner.
This Q&A has been edited for brevity and clarity.
Q. As the balloon was still transiting across the U.S., what sort of protective measures did you take to make sure that it did not collect any U.S. intelligence? … Were you able to block the balloon from transmitting anything?
A. Yes, so, I'm not going to talk about any ongoing operations that occurred, such as attempts to use non-kinetic effects. Those are things that I need to go to Congress to talk about.
What I will tell you is we took maximum precaution to prevent any intel collection. I was in close coordination with the commander of the United States Strategic Command, and we provided counterintelligence messages out of our intelligence shop across the entire Department of Defense and the interagency so that we could take maximum protective measures while the balloon transited across the United States.
We did not assess that it presented a significant collection hazard beyond what already exists in actionable technical means from the Chinese.
Q. And on the prior balloons, was Northcom involved in tracking the balloon that was at the early stage of the Biden administration and also the three that transited during the Trump administration, and what can you tell us about those that were different?
A. So, every day as a NORAD commander, it's my responsibility to detect threats to North America. I will tell you that we did not detect those threats. And that's a domain awareness gap that we have to figure out. But I don't want to go into further detail.
The intel community — after the fact, I believe has been briefed already — … made us aware of those balloons that were previously approaching North America or transited North America. I hope that answers your question.
Q. Can you say the F-22 that shot down the balloon — will it get a balloon decal to signify the victory?
A. I'll defer to the First Fighter Wing. I will say I'm really incredibly proud of everybody that took place in this. But the F-22 was remarkable. I'd remind everybody that the call sign of the first flight was Frank 01. The second flight of F-22s was Luke 01, a flight of two.
Frank Luke, Medal of Honor winner, World War I, for his activities that he conducted against observation balloons. So, how fitting is it that Frank 01 took down this balloon in sovereign air space of the United States of America within our territorial waters.
Q. Could you give us an estimate of how big the balloon was? We saw that it had solar panels and it also potentially had a recording device on it.
A. Yes, so the balloon assessment was up to 200 feet tall for the actual balloon. The payload itself, I would categorize that as a jet airliner type of size, maybe a regional jet, such as a ERJ or something like that. Probably weighed in excess of a couple thousand pounds. From a safety standpoint, picture yourself with large debris weighing hundreds if not thousands of pounds falling out of the sky. That's really what we're kind of talking about.
So, glass off of solar panels potentially hazardous material — such as material that is required for batteries to operate in such an environment as this and even the potential for explosives to detonate and destroy the balloon that could have been present.
Q. There's been a lot made in recent days still about why this was not shot down after it crossed or neared the Aleutian Islands? Can you just explain what you were watching then, what you were thinking then? What the decision-making process was. And why … you didn't have enough time to do so, if that was the case?
A. It wasn't time. The domain awareness was there as it approached Alaska. It was my assessment that this balloon did not present a physical military threat to North America. This is under my NORAD hat. And, therefore, I could not take immediate action because it was not demonstrating hostile act or hostile intent. From there, certainly, (we) provided information on the status of the whereabouts of the balloon, and, moving forward, kept the department and the government of Canada in the loop. With NORAD, I have a boss in Canada, as well.
Q. Is it true you had U-2 spy planes around the balloon as it crossed the continental U.S. and that was another way that you could collect on the balloon?
A. So, I'm not going to get into details of the operation, what planes. What I'd tell you … is that we utilized multiple capabilities to ensure we collected and utilized the opportunity to close intel gaps. I'll defer to the department. I don't want to get in front of my discussions with Congress or others about specific details for collection.
I would point out — and I think it's important to talk about is — day to day we do not have the authority to collect intelligence within the United States of America. In this case, specific authorities were granted to collect intelligence against the balloon, specifically, and we utilized specific capabilities to do that.
Q. Can you give us the names of some of the sensitive military sites that were in range of the balloon's sensors as it crossed the U.S.? And that debris field you're describing is radically smaller than the predicted debris field that was 20 miles by 20 miles. What accounts for that? Were your models off? Did you figure out a different way to shoot it down? Was there a warhead in that missile?
A. I'm not going to get in front of the department on specific locations, flight path. I would just tell you we took every precaution to ensure any sites in the way were covered and that we minimized any collection. So, let us talk to Congress and provide those specific details.
As far as the actual site, the 20 by 20 was … an area that we cleared out from the maritime or the notice to mariners for safety. We wanted to clear that box out. I cleared another box out that was 150 miles by 150 miles for air traffic to ensure that there was no air traffic that was potentially involved to minimize risks to all personnel and infrastructure.
Q. Could you answer the question about whether there was a warhead in the missile?
A. Yeah, absolutely. There was a warhead in the missile. You can see that explosion on TV as it goes through the lower part of the balloon and right there through the superstructure.
Q. Was there ever any thought or planning to try and potentially capture the balloon as opposed to using a, you know, a Sidewinder? And how was that munition chosen? And lastly, at what point did you learn about these other balloons if you weren't detecting them at the time? Was it all kind of retrospective upon the discovery of this one?
A. So, I'm not going to get into the technical details. I will just tell you there were multiple options considered and asked for at multiple levels. The decisions that were made were based on safety first, and then effectiveness and being able to take the balloon down within our sovereign airspace and territorial waters. Again, I'll go back … I'm going to reserve that (until) I talk to Congress, (until) I talked to others who have interest in the specific details.
Q. You had said you didn't think as you watched the balloon that it posed a military or kinetic threat. Did you, at first, believe this was a weather balloon or did you believe all along it was a surveillance balloon? And then I was just wondering what you can say about the condition of the wreckage of the debris? Is it in relatively good condition? Is there an estimate on how many pieces it's in? And is there an estimate on weight or mass of what there is to collect from this?
A. On your second question, I can't give you that right now. I don't know the numbers . I expect later on today we'll have additional fidelity on what debris looks like, size of pieces, weights of pieces, those kinds of things. On your first question, with regards to that, you know, my job as the commander of NORAD is to identify everything that approaches North America.
In this case, I would tell you, we had a good indication that it was a surveillance balloon from the beginning. I was able to corroborate that with my domain awareness capabilities and provided an assessment as such.
Q. You said that the balloon potentially carried explosives to detonate and destroy the balloon. Can you just clarify those comments? What exactly was the nature of those explosives? Were they to destroy itself? And then if it carried explosives, what was the assessment based on that it was not a threat?
A. Anytime you down something like this, we make an assumption that that potential exists. We did not associate the potential of having explosives with a threat to dropping weapons, those kinds of things, but out of a precaution, abundance of safety for not only our military people and the public, we have to make assumptions such as that. I hope that answers your questions.
———
By the numbers
Gen. Glenn VanHerck provided some rough estimates of the size of the Chinese balloon and the scale of the recovery effort roughly 6 miles off the coast of South Carolina in U.S. territorial waters.
200 — Balloon height in feet
1 — Payload weight in tons (maybe more)
10 — Square miles searched to find balloon wreckage
50 — Ocean depth in feet where wreckage was found
15 — Number of football fields, squared, to approximate the size of the debris field
9 — Ships involved in recovery effort, including an oceanographic survey ship, three Coast Guard cutters, and at least one unmanned underwater vehicle
———
