4 ms·
People talk about the millions of dollars of missiles like it is even a little significant to the USAF. They'll just write it off as live fire training.
by AnIdiotOnTheNet 4y ago
People talk about the millions of dollars of missiles like it is even a little significant to the USAF. They'll just write it off as live fire training.
- boomboomsubban 4y agoFiring these four missiles isn't a significant use of their budget. If they start firing four missiles to destroy every three balloons out there it very quickly will be a massive cost.
- wongarsu 4y agoAt that point they might remember they have 20mm gatling cannons on the F16 and F22. Not as cool or long range as missiles, but I imagine significantly cheaper to fire in short bursts.
- throwaway67743 4y agoRequires being able to aim, fighter or politics both shit out of luck ;)
- asdff 4y agothese balloons are too high up sometimes to get in cannon range. then there's the question of where the bullets fall after they rip through the balloon, hopefully not on anyones house.
- rootusrootus 4y agoAssuming they're using exploding shells, there ought not to be pieces heavy enough to be a serious threat.
- shagie 4y agoBullets fired still land somewhere and are difficult to stop once they leave the gun. The F16 and F22 are somewhere in the 110 to 160 knot range for stall speed. The balloon, for all practical purposes, is 0 knots. Shooting at something straight ahead that isn't moving while you're moving at 160 knots may pose some more challenges than locking into it with a missile. A zero pressure balloon ( https://www.nasa.gov/scientific-balloons/types-of-balloons https://www.nasa.gov/scientific-balloons/types-of-balloons ) is roughly equal pressure on the inside and outside. These balloons do not "pop" as such when punctured and may cause additional hazards as they descend uncontrolled.
- rootusrootus 4y agoHobby balloons, though, are not zero pressure balloons. It's part of how they control their own flight time, by intentionally bursting when they reach a high enough altitude. So a 20mm cannon would probably have a reasonable chance of success, though it would be spreading a lot of lead downrange that would eventually hit the ground, and could annoy people in the path.
- asdff 4y agoPlus, if they started getting so many balloons where this is no longer feasible in cost as a method of bringing them down, it will create a lot of incentive to develop cheaper methods that wouldn't have been developed otherwise, and no other nation can keep up with the level of investment the U.S. can deliver on warmaking. Maybe it would have been better for you if you just didn't poke the bear and get it started on all these projects that are now undoubtedly going on behind the scenes because of all of this.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> and no other nation can keep up with the level of investment the U.S. can deliver on warmaking From wikipedia: US GDP: USD$25 trillion Chinese GDP: USD$18 trillion Chinese GDP (PPP): USD$30 trillion
- jessaustin 4y agoMaybe we should say, "no other nation would be that stupid".
- 867-5309 4y ago>four missiles to destroy every three a much welcome subtle jab. lest we forget even the world's "most advanced army", or, at least the most populous / funded, still has the same error-prone monkeys as every other army
- boomboomsubban 4y agoI am full of criticism for the military, but a 75% success rate in such situations seems fair. A plane moving hundreds of miles per hour is firing a missile traveling similar speeds at a fairly small object likely miles away that is heavily influenced by the strong winds. Comparatively, professional soccer players regularly miss the net.
- csours 4y ago> They'll just write it off as live fire training. And then someone will complain. "If you're explaining yourself, you've already lost."