3 ms·

Guns on planes are deliberately made to spray over a certain area to increase the odds of a kill, which is good when you're in a fight to the death and you're a

by jjk166 4y ago

Guns on planes are deliberately made to spray over a certain area to increase the odds of a kill, which is good when you're in a fight to the death and you're all out of other options, which is the scenario the gun was made for. Using guns here would risk damaging the payload which they want to recover for study, both to see what exactly was observed and to get a better understanding of the device. The balloon was brought down with a missile that had the primary explosive removed, it basically just flew through the balloon. This being the F-22's first air-to-air kill after nearly 2 decades in service, it's not like these missiles are a precious resource to be conserved. It also would be quite embarrassing to attempt to shoot down the balloon and fail, so it makes sense to go for a guaranteed kill. Finally, it should be noted that the balloon was at approximately 60,000 ft. The F-22's flight ceiling is above 50,000 ft, but the exact value is classified. It is possible that the F-22 simply could not get up high enough to engage with guns even if that was desirable, or it's also possible that the F-22 is capable of flying that high but the US did not want to confirm that to a potential foreign adversary. In general it is also just good practice to keep some distance between your most capable assets and foreign espionage devices. As one can see from video of the encounter, it was very effective in bringing the balloon down in a controlled manner. It's one thing to monday-morning quarterback a failure, but this is ridiculous.

zombielinux 4y ago
F22 unclass service ceiling is 65,000ft
apaprocki 4y ago
Per what I read, the F-22 was operating at 58,000 ft and shot the balloon that was at the time at 65,000 ft. A missile was used because it had to elevate ~7,000 ft to hit the target. The balloon fell in 47 ft of water, 6 mi from the coast. edit source: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3288543/f-22-safely-shoots-down-chinese-spy-balloon-off-south-carolina-coast/ https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/32...
leokennis 4y ago
I know absolutely nothing about planes and missiles etc. but the "measure thrice, cut once, build in failsafes and leave loads of margin for error" approach seems very plausible for a bureaucratic and highly public organization like the US Army.
- philwelch 4y ago
  I know I’m being pedantic but the Air Force is completely separate from the Army
euler_angles 4y ago
> The balloon was brought down with a missile that had the primary explosive removed The missile fused and was a normal AIM-9X. You can see result of the war cranium detonation in the videos as a cloud of black smoke. It's just that things are happening so fast that it looks like the missile just sails right on through. > This being the F-22's first air-to-air kill after nearly 2 decades in service, it's not like these missiles are a precious resource to be conserved. The first clause of your sentence here is not logically related to the second clause. These acquisitions programs are separate. While missile purchase quantities are adjusted based on projected needs, it is not as if there is a quantity in inventory earmarked specifically for the F-22 only. > It is possible that the F-22 simply could not get up high enough to engage with guns even if that was desirable It wasn't desirable, based on the experience the Royal Canadian Air Force had trying to shoot down a wayward weather balloon in 1988. https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb Over 1000 rounds fired without bringing the balloon down.
- jjk166 4y ago
  > You can see result of the war cranium detonation in the videos as a cloud of black smoke. That's the tiny self destruct fuse going off after it's already gone through the balloon. An AIM-9X actually going off is substantially larger. > The first clause of your sentence here is not logically related to the second clause. These acquisitions programs are separate. While missile purchase quantities are adjusted based on projected needs, it is not as if there is a quantity in inventory earmarked specifically for the F-22 only. There is most certainly an inventory of munitions earmarked for the F-22. They are stored on the bases with the F-22, the pilots train with these munitions, if there was a need to deploy them they would deploy with these munitions. They could potentially be used by other planes, but only if they were urgently needed, which was the actual point I was making: these are air-to-air missiles, used only for an aircraft to shoot down another aircraft, something which has been a very rare occurrence for quite some time. Not only was this the first A2A kill for the F22, it was merely the second A2A kill for the US in the 21st century. This lack of aerial combat is the reason why the F-22 has been so rarely used.
  - 4y ago
mlindner 4y ago
> The balloon was brought down with a missile that had the primary explosive removed Please stop reciting this fake and incorrect information.
- jjk166 4y ago
  You got a source saying that it did have a warhead?
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Is there any reputable source saying it didn't? The closest anyone's come in this thread is "this YouTuber said so". I don't have a source proving the cop who pulls me over has real bullets in his gun, but it's safe to assume he does, because that's the normal scenario. If you claim he's carrying a water pistol (highly unusual!) burden of proof is on you. edit: Here. Debate settled. https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3289888/gen-glen-vanherck-commander-north-american-aerospace-defense-command-and-united/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/... > GEN. VANHERCK: 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.
  - mlindner 4y ago
    Find ANY source that says you can remove a missile's warhead and have it still work (excluding missiles designed to have no warheads).

by jjk166 4y ago

zombielinux 4y ago

F22 unclass service ceiling is 65,000ft

apaprocki 4y ago

Per what I read, the F-22 was operating at 58,000 ft and shot the balloon that was at the time at 65,000 ft. A missile was used because it had to elevate ~7,000 ft to hit the target. The balloon fell in 47 ft of water, 6 mi from the coast. edit source: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3288543/f-22-safely-shoots-down-chinese-spy-balloon-off-south-carolina-coast/ https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/32...

leokennis 4y ago

I know absolutely nothing about planes and missiles etc. but the "measure thrice, cut once, build in failsafes and leave loads of margin for error" approach seems very plausible for a bureaucratic and highly public organization like the US Army.

philwelch 4y ago
I know I’m being pedantic but the Air Force is completely separate from the Army

euler_angles 4y ago

> The balloon was brought down with a missile that had the primary explosive removed The missile fused and was a normal AIM-9X. You can see result of the war cranium detonation in the videos as a cloud of black smoke. It's just that things are happening so fast that it looks like the missile just sails right on through. > This being the F-22's first air-to-air kill after nearly 2 decades in service, it's not like these missiles are a precious resource to be conserved. The first clause of your sentence here is not logically related to the second clause. These acquisitions programs are separate. While missile purchase quantities are adjusted based on projected needs, it is not as if there is a quantity in inventory earmarked specifically for the F-22 only. > It is possible that the F-22 simply could not get up high enough to engage with guns even if that was desirable It wasn't desirable, based on the experience the Royal Canadian Air Force had trying to shoot down a wayward weather balloon in 1988. https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb Over 1000 rounds fired without bringing the balloon down.

jjk166 4y ago
> You can see result of the war cranium detonation in the videos as a cloud of black smoke. That's the tiny self destruct fuse going off after it's already gone through the balloon. An AIM-9X actually going off is substantially larger. > The first clause of your sentence here is not logically related to the second clause. These acquisitions programs are separate. While missile purchase quantities are adjusted based on projected needs, it is not as if there is a quantity in inventory earmarked specifically for the F-22 only. There is most certainly an inventory of munitions earmarked for the F-22. They are stored on the bases with the F-22, the pilots train with these munitions, if there was a need to deploy them they would deploy with these munitions. They could potentially be used by other planes, but only if they were urgently needed, which was the actual point I was making: these are air-to-air missiles, used only for an aircraft to shoot down another aircraft, something which has been a very rare occurrence for quite some time. Not only was this the first A2A kill for the F22, it was merely the second A2A kill for the US in the 21st century. This lack of aerial combat is the reason why the F-22 has been so rarely used.
- 4y ago

mlindner 4y ago

> The balloon was brought down with a missile that had the primary explosive removed Please stop reciting this fake and incorrect information.

jjk166 4y ago
You got a source saying that it did have a warhead?
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  Is there any reputable source saying it didn't? The closest anyone's come in this thread is "this YouTuber said so". I don't have a source proving the cop who pulls me over has real bullets in his gun, but it's safe to assume he does, because that's the normal scenario. If you claim he's carrying a water pistol (highly unusual!) burden of proof is on you. edit: Here. Debate settled. https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3289888/gen-glen-vanherck-commander-north-american-aerospace-defense-command-and-united/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/... > GEN. VANHERCK: 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.
- mlindner 4y ago
  Find ANY source that says you can remove a missile's warhead and have it still work (excluding missiles designed to have no warheads).