3 ms·

Using expensive missiles is a form of power projection. It tells the adversary we are willing to outspend them 1000 to 1. Sometimes there is a logical answer to

Using expensive missiles is a form of power projection. It tells the adversary we are willing to outspend them 1000 to 1. Sometimes there is a logical answer to why we are spending too much money. Also bullets work just fine, they just cause slow leaks that could take hours to ground the craft, which might not be what you want.

Phlarp 4y ago
Arguments around force projection are certainly going to be popular inside the beltway. At a certain point the deficit does become a national security concern, and announcing to our adversaries that they can exacerbate that timeline with incredibly inexpensive balloons is no longer "projecting" anything that resembles "power" Jingoism isn't power.
- labster 4y ago
  My brother in Uncle Sam, we’re only one week into this “crisis”, which is widely overinflated. China is posturing about balloons in its own South China Sea, while America is gassed up about balloons over the Alaskan heartland. This is the posturing phase, and a missile or three is a rounding error in the US defense budget. I don’t see the economy losing buoyancy yet.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Nevermind that the training value of firing a live AIM-9X at a live but odd target is probably worth more than $400k on it's own.
nradov 4y ago
Bullets (20 mm cannon shells) could work to an extent. But they are short ranged and require the fighter aircraft to get close to the target at a high closure rate. This creates some risk of a mid-air collision. Using guided missiles is much safer.
cpgxiii 4y ago
Canon rounds aren't great for balloon targets. It's quite likely that a balloon doesn't offer enough resistance to trigger the fuzes, which leaves you with a bunch of live rounds falling ~40k feet and hitting whatever is below. While self-destructing rounds do exist for the M61 20mm canon, they aren't cleared for aircraft use, only for ground-based use.

Phlarp 4y ago

Arguments around force projection are certainly going to be popular inside the beltway. At a certain point the deficit does become a national security concern, and announcing to our adversaries that they can exacerbate that timeline with incredibly inexpensive balloons is no longer "projecting" anything that resembles "power" Jingoism isn't power.

labster 4y ago
My brother in Uncle Sam, we’re only one week into this “crisis”, which is widely overinflated. China is posturing about balloons in its own South China Sea, while America is gassed up about balloons over the Alaskan heartland. This is the posturing phase, and a missile or three is a rounding error in the US defense budget. I don’t see the economy losing buoyancy yet.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Nevermind that the training value of firing a live AIM-9X at a live but odd target is probably worth more than $400k on it's own.

nradov 4y ago

Bullets (20 mm cannon shells) could work to an extent. But they are short ranged and require the fighter aircraft to get close to the target at a high closure rate. This creates some risk of a mid-air collision. Using guided missiles is much safer.

cpgxiii 4y ago

Canon rounds aren't great for balloon targets. It's quite likely that a balloon doesn't offer enough resistance to trigger the fuzes, which leaves you with a bunch of live rounds falling ~40k feet and hitting whatever is below. While self-destructing rounds do exist for the M61 20mm canon, they aren't cleared for aircraft use, only for ground-based use.