They shot it down ,,,,,
Watching it falling, now on TV ,,,,,,, Sic-em
Saying now U S missile took it down or fighter plane.
A white ‘contrail’ in the background.
Uncle Joe just said (1.29pm MST), he told the military to shoot it down Wednesday, and the military said to wait until over water.
-
Junkballer: 33165078605211/comments/33165119977115
https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11377815#Comment_11377815
Made China's day too, they now know our F-22 fighter can easily climb to 55,000 + feet 😠
All they had to do was look at Wikipedia to learn it's ceiling is 65,000 feet.
3 -
It was probably more difficult to hit that balloon with a Sidewinder than hitting another jet. In an air-air engagement, you are (ideally) behind the other guy and he's not pulling away or you are not gaining with a lot of speed. But against a balloon, your closing speed is whatever you're doing: 500 knots or so. So your time to engage is short. Then there's the problem with heat signature. The Sidewinder is a heat seeker, and you'd only have the very small instrument package giving off any heat for it to lock on.
In the video, the missile hit the instrument package dead center. Kudos to both the pilot and the missile folks.
BTW, hitting the balloon itself would have been pointless. The missile or cannon shells would have passed right through without detonating, making only tiny holes. It would not "pop" like a birthday balloon, just very slowly leak.
6 -
I doubt anyone expected the balloon to "POP" but 400-500 30MM holes in/out would most certainly have resulted in more than a 'slow leak' scenario. If those holes had been punched well out over the Pacific, the entire scenario wouldn't even made news.
6 -
If you read the article I linked to in the other thread, you'd have learned that in the past, a smaller balloon survived hundreds of 20mm holes for a long time. This thing was huge - an entire football stadium would have fit inside. It would take thousands if not tens of thousands of holes to bring it down.
And fired from what?
3 -
Rocky, I thought the Sidewinder used and "annular ring" which would explain the huge hole in the balloon and leave the instrument package relatively intact for inspection.
0 -
It does, IIRC. But the video I watched showed a direct impact on the instrument package. At least that's what I thought I saw. Detonating the warhead that close to the balloon envelope would have caused enough shock wave/overpressure to rupture it. Which flying through the balloon would not have done.
I don't know if the current Sidewinder requires an impact to detonate as the early versions did. If there is a proximity fuse in addition to contact, then even a near miss would fire the warhead.
0 -
A closer look. Brandon allowed China to complete their flyover of the entire US before destroying the balloon
3 -
Rocky Raab: 33165078605211/comments/33165123341595
If you read the article I linked to in the other thread, you'd have learned that in the past, a smaller balloon survived hundreds of 20mm holes for a long time. This thing was huge - an entire football stadium would have fit inside. It would take thousands if not tens of thousands of holes to bring it down.
And fired from what?
I was reading this morning, about an incident several years ago. I didn't read what article you posted . Maybe they are the same. It was about a balloon that the Canadians tried to shoot down. They hit it with over 1,000 rounds and it was still operational, to a degree. It slowly let out the helium and came down after a while.
In your opinion, What would have been better to bring down the balloon, besides a sidewinder?? I don't know, because I was never in the military . Thank you. Oak
0 -
That's about the best option. If you could get to the same altitude, you could probably rip the balloon skin by flying past it VERY close at high speed. Your wingtip vortex and engine turbulence might do it. You could probably even fly through it without doing any damage to your jet, but I don't know who'd be willing to try. The actual balloon skin is thinner than Saran Wrap.
The story you read was the same as I posted. Even a whole bunch of small holes doesn't hurt these things - at least immediately.
0 -
15 -
I just learned more. According to Ward Carroll (an ex Navy F-14 guy) on Youtube, the Sidewinder used carried no warhead to minimize damage to the potentially valuable instrument package. It also uses light variability rather than heat signature. Meaning it can guide to a difference in light/dark and can be "aimed" by the pilot before launch. Watch the vid if you want to know more...
3 -
Yeah...........Biden in all of his wisdom..........let it completely traverse the country (transmitting data) and then used a multi-million dollar missile to pop it............way to go BRANDON.
9 -
Geez, which way do you want it? Shoot it down or not? And if so, with what if not a missile?
6 -
Interesting vid Rocky.
0 -
A few of my Navy pilot friends don't think much of Ward Carroll, and he doesn't say where he got his information, so we might want to take that video with a few grains of salt. But it IS interesting.
0 -
Rocky Raab: 33165078605211/comments/33165169185307
Geez, which way do you want it? Shoot it down or not? And if so, with what if not a missile?
I want it shot down before it is allowed to traverse the US from NW to SE collecting data and transmitting it for a week. Please tell me that we are capable of using munitions other than a millions of dollars missile.
If not, then our military capability is more messed up than I thought.
0 -
mohawk600: 33165078605211/comments/33165139839643
https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11377891#Comment_11377891
I want it shot down before it is allowed to traverse the US from NW to SE collecting data and transmitting it for a week. Please tell me that we are capable of using munitions other than a millions of dollars missle.
Rocky has explained that several times now in this thread.
0 -
Mr. Perfect: 33165078605211/comments/33165176144667
https://forums.gunbroker.com/discussion/comment/11378037#Comment_11378037
Rocky has explained that several times now in this thread.
Some of my colleagues and I discussed this very thing at work...............it would have been a lot more interesting and a lot cheaper to send up "balloon boy" with a rifle. Just put a redneck in a pressure suit.........a lawn chair and some helium balloons.😁
3 -
A GUN on a JET would be very sufficient to take down that balloon!
They wanted to use a missile, so they did.
They also shot the part that I would ASSUME has/had all the brains. IF that is the case, then that was either very dumb or very deliberate! SMH
Just sayin'
6 -
Sigh... No, a gun would NOT do it. That balloon was big enough to contain an entire football stadium. No amount of holes punched into it would have any serious effect for hours if not days.
I'm not going to explain this again.
3 -
Rocky Raab: 33165078605211/comments/33165158355739
Sigh... No, a gun would NOT do it. That balloon was big enough to contain an entire football stadium. No amount of holes punched into it would have any serious effect for hours if not days.
I'm not going to explain this again.
I’m telling you. The 6.5 Creedmoor could have done it. Every gun magazine and internet article of the last 5 years assures me of it.
I finally picked one up recently. Planning to hunt New Zealand red stag later this year…….from my porch in Georgia. Just got to line up someone to mail me the meat. Hahaha!
9 -
I am not a SME so take this with a grain of salt. Every spy satellite in orbit can and does have the capability of reading a license plate. No need to send a balloon to do that job.
I am wondering if it has been a test of reaction. Launch several, send them over various countries/continents and gauge the fallout. Who shoots, what is sent, how long until noticed, citizen/media hubbub?
ETA: timed just before the State of the Union address being given this evening.
3 -
The F22 packs 480 rounds of 20mm ammo. It seems to me that 960, 3/4 inch holes would leak out a lot of helium.
Plus this would allow the balloon to make a soft landing. If they machine gunned it over the wilderness east of Billings, it would have settled to earth the next day in Missouri.
Well, Rocky, you know more about this stuff than I do, but as an interested bystander, it seems like that would have worked.
3 -
I will never disagree with Rocky Raab when it comes to any type of flying object!😁
Someone may think they have a better solution but a lot of the problem has to do with altitude here.
If there was just a way we could get a few of these guys up there safely!
😁
3 -
Saying that each hole is round, and is .8 inches wide, and using pi r squared, I calculate that, with 960 holes, this would be a total hole of 482 sq. inches.
3.34 square foot hole total.
0 -
In a balloon envelope several hundred feet in diameter, that's negligible. You'd have to work the math for the total square acreage of such a thing, I can't. Surface area of a globe say 400 feet in diameter.
Most people have no clue what flying at 60,000 feet entails. The air is so thin (less than 10% of sea-level pressure) that you cannot slow down or you will stall. Your engines may also quit. So, moving along at roughly 500 mph, and with a cannon range of 2,000 feet or so, you'd have less than one second to aim, fire, and then maneuver to miss the balloon. Which is also less effective in that thin air.
The Sidewinder has a range of two miles or so, which gave the pilot a few - but not many - seconds to acquire, arm, and fire the missile. Much better than using the gun, but still damn tough. It's the fact that target is stationary that presents all the problems.
3 -
We coulda flown by real close like an had someone shoot it with this here harpoon rifle that we got from that feller who hunted JAWS
and then we coulda had one of the guys here on GB use their front bump winch to reel it on down to the ground
Now where did I put that 60000 foot long cable 😁
6 -
According to Brandon a mag full of 9mm should have brought it down.
9 -
Butchdog2: 33165078605211/comments/33165201742747
According to Brandon a mag full of 9mm should have brought it down.
Brandons plan
3 -
400 feet wide. If it were laying flat, it would be 252,000 sq. ft. Of course it is not flat, so it would exceed 300,000 sq. ft.
vs. a 3 sq. ft. hole.
I see what you mean.
3
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
72 comments