A US sailor checks the AIM-9 sidewinder of a F-14 Tomcat aboard the USS Constellation in Gulf waters. © Photographer: LEILA GORCHEV/AFP
Bloomberg: These Are the $439,000 Missiles the US Is Using to Shoot Down Mystery UFOs
(Bloomberg) -- As mysteries continue to swirl around the balloon and three other so-far-unidentified objects shot down by the US in recent days, at least one thing has been clear: the weaponry used to knock them out of the sky.
Be it the original, alleged Chinese surveillance balloon downed off South Carolina, or the objects targeted over Alaska, Michigan and Canada, all have been shot down by the same type of missile — the AIM-9X Sidewinder.
Here’s what you need to know about it:
Read more ....
WNU Editor: This is an expensive miss .... First Sidewinder Missile Targeting Object Over Lake Huron Missed At Cost Of $400,000 (Zero Hedge).
Update: Good question (see tweet below):
The Lake Huron "balloon" (octagonal object) was at just 20,000 feet. So why did our fighters use heat-seeking $400,000 sidewinder missiles to shoot it down when a few cannon rounds could have done the job? Balloons don't have a heat signature and a missile is overkill.
— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) February 14, 2023
A… https://t.co/EuCRr0TEVT
18 comments:
maybe lack of control of where the rounds will land, or
the pilots haven't been trained on the cannon/
also they don't think about cost.
Pilots yes. But these orders came down from the NCA and probably were full of engagement criteria.
Using a missile?
Not making sense. Guns would have been better.
Maybe this is just a big "oopsie" in the afterthought or its just PR; using cannons doesnt look as cool in the media as to shooting a missile.
They learned from a Canadian incident in 1998 that going guns on a big balloon like that doesn't result in a *pop*. It just leaks slowly and makes it all the way to Europe.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/weather-balloon-went-rogue-almost-161314996.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/when-a-weather-balloon-went-rogue-almost-25-years-ago-fighter-jets-fired-1000-rounds-at-it-and-couldnt-bring-it-down/ar-AA1753aW
According to cbc.ca, that weather balloon eventually crashed down in Finland. Keep in mind it was engaged by the Canadian Air Force over Newfoundland.
Interestingly enough, the questions asked back then were the reverse of today's questions: Why weren't missiles used? Today it's "Why not guns?". I think the answer is that neighboring friendly countries compared notes and realized what the method should be in order to be effective.
tl;dr canon rounds would've done the job a bit too slowly. The balloon could've still traveled thousands of miles before finally deflating.
Well...I'd like to see some bits and pieces for my millions plus and counting tax dollars.
@E.M.H
I don't know whats wrong with all of that but with enough High-Explisive rounds that balloon will go down.
Sorry, cant edit for some reason, but *Explosive...
Why would HE rounds detonate? It's hitting fabric that's fractions of an inch thick. There's nothing substantial enough to trigger the fuze. They'd encounter only a tiny bit more resistance than what the air itself provides at that altitude.
Canadian F/A-18s used a thousand rounds back in '98. How much would "enough" be?
Proximity fused rounds would likely work, but that doesn't exist for the M-61A Vulcan used fighters. Maybe the MPT-SD round from the C-RAM would work, but why hasn't it been used already?
The Air Forces know a missile will proximity destruct, so they used them. If we're arguing about $400,000+ shots out of multi-billion dollar budgets, then maybe we should be looking at air shows and sports flyovers first. The missiles that were shot were doing the job they were designed for: Destroying targets. Or at least attempting to, given that one AIM-9x missed. If it's used for air defense, then it's not a waste. And if we're starting to nitpick the military's choice of methods for downing the target, then why aren't we including the context of the 1998 Canadian incident? If a few thousand rounds were a tenth of the cost of a missile, but fails to bring the balloon down in a reasonable amount of time (which means it completes it's mission), then is the savings worth it?
Agreed, I was just speculating on the maybes :D
Oh yeah, I gotcha.
My favorite bit of silliness from the whole thing was the wag who suggested we resurrect the F-105 - or better yet, the SR-71 - with their long needle pitots on their noses for balloon duty. I laughed way to hard at that. I still can't stop imagining one of those flying through these balloons like a dart. :D
just the right weapon. Keep crying
Why not use a laser. Higher up there is less scattering
You can make several passes. Think of it as a chance for weapons development
Ok guys, heard everything so far. 20 mm will poke lots of big holes in the target if the aircraft can get close enough without danger. They probably won't go off but thats ok. Holes are holes. No airborne lasers anymore. Last targets they went after they could not identify easily so use SW instead. The last one might have been a real UFO so they tried anyway. NCA is getting jumpy after all this stuff and the russkeys going all in UK. Defcon 4, maybe 3.
Appreciate the update from a known/verified user ^^^
" No airborne lasers anymore" < I do not understand that statement. Probably out of ignorance.
They had put lasers on 4 engine platform 10 several years ago.
I mentioned laser, because there would be n ordinance falling on civilians. There was the cost ratio of the balloons to the missile.
Using a laser might tip our hand and give the Russians and Chinese information
"Lockheed Martin today revealed that it delivered a compact directed energy weapon to the Air Force Research Lab in February, a key milestone in the service’s effort to equip a tactical fighter jet with a laser capable of shooting down anti-aircraft missiles.
“It is the smallest, lightest, high energy laser of its power class that Lockheed Martin has built to date,” Tyler Griffin, a company executive, told reporters earlier this month in the run up to the Farnborough Air Show. “It is a critical benchmark in developing an operational laser weapon system in the airborne domain.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/07/lockheed-delivers-airborne-laser-lance-to-air-force-research-lab/
v
Not all were balloons, sidewinder may have been the required weapon . Canada shot 1000 rounds into a balloon years ago and it took 6 hours to deflate
I think the tight grouping of the shot pattern by the cannon made sure that perforation of the balloon was et to a minimum. Normally a tight patter is a good thing.
Use LAZERS wespons you du#b @$$€$
Post a Comment