5 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > An AIM-9X actually going off is substantially larger. No; the resulting exploding plane full of fuel is. The actual explosion from the missile is small; you can see it at 0:54 or so on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ. As with a fragmentation grenade, they're shrapnel generators. https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-trending/grenades-movies-real-life-difference/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-trending/grenades-movi...
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Yeah, there isn't any explosion even that large. Perhaps you are mistaking the cloud of vapor as the balloon pops? Again, the goal was to preserve as much intact as possible, shrapnel production runs completely counter to that objective. I'm basing my comments off this source [0], which admittedly is just some guy on the internet, though I have not been able to find any source claiming the missile carried a munition, if you have one please share it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xz21HvLs8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xz21HvLs8
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      > Perhaps you are mistaking the cloud of vapor as the balloon pops? No. Two clouds are visible. One (white) clearly from the balloon envelope, and one (darker) clearly from the missile. https://imgur.com/a/y386kLU https://imgur.com/a/y386kLU It's also very clear from the video that they targeted/hit below the balloon's envelope. > shrapnel production runs completely counter to that objective So does missing it, and they're already dropping it from 65k feet. They'll be prepared to piece things together. > I have not been able to find any source claiming the missile carried a munition... This is a pretty silly inversion of burden of proof. Between "some guy on the internet said something no one else reputable is corroborating" and "the Pentagon typically doesn't use dummy rockets to shoot enemy aircraft down", I know which side I fall on.
lr1970 4y ago
> You can see result of the war cranium detonation "war cranium"? Is it you, ChatGPT?
- thrill 4y ago
  Saying "head" in fighter pilot circles historically had an immediate sexual connotation. Who knows what's considered funny any longer.
- euler_angles 4y ago
  What the other person replying to you said. They even use this terminology in official documents. So I do, too, for laughs.

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.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> An AIM-9X actually going off is substantially larger. No; the resulting exploding plane full of fuel is. The actual explosion from the missile is small; you can see it at 0:54 or so on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMSfg26YSQ. As with a fragmentation grenade, they're shrapnel generators. https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-trending/grenades-movies-real-life-difference/ https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-trending/grenades-movi...
- jjk166 4y ago
  Yeah, there isn't any explosion even that large. Perhaps you are mistaking the cloud of vapor as the balloon pops? Again, the goal was to preserve as much intact as possible, shrapnel production runs completely counter to that objective. I'm basing my comments off this source [0], which admittedly is just some guy on the internet, though I have not been able to find any source claiming the missile carried a munition, if you have one please share it. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xz21HvLs8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xz21HvLs8
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > Perhaps you are mistaking the cloud of vapor as the balloon pops? No. Two clouds are visible. One (white) clearly from the balloon envelope, and one (darker) clearly from the missile. https://imgur.com/a/y386kLU https://imgur.com/a/y386kLU It's also very clear from the video that they targeted/hit below the balloon's envelope. > shrapnel production runs completely counter to that objective So does missing it, and they're already dropping it from 65k feet. They'll be prepared to piece things together. > I have not been able to find any source claiming the missile carried a munition... This is a pretty silly inversion of burden of proof. Between "some guy on the internet said something no one else reputable is corroborating" and "the Pentagon typically doesn't use dummy rockets to shoot enemy aircraft down", I know which side I fall on.

lr1970 4y ago

> You can see result of the war cranium detonation "war cranium"? Is it you, ChatGPT?

thrill 4y ago
Saying "head" in fighter pilot circles historically had an immediate sexual connotation. Who knows what's considered funny any longer.
euler_angles 4y ago
What the other person replying to you said. They even use this terminology in official documents. So I do, too, for laughs.