High altitude object shot down
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
If it is at 100k have we anything that can get up there?
Shooting down a balloon is not as easy as it sounds, said Kim.
Kim recalled that in 1998 the Canadian air force sent up F-18 fighter jets to try and shoot down a rogue weather balloon.
"They fired a thousand 20-millimeter cannon rounds into it. And it still took six days before it finally came down. These are not things that explode or pop when you shoot at them."
Kim recalled that in 1998 the Canadian air force sent up F-18 fighter jets to try and shoot down a rogue weather balloon.
"They fired a thousand 20-millimeter cannon rounds into it. And it still took six days before it finally came down. These are not things that explode or pop when you shoot at them."
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
What size is the beaten zone on the ground for a thousand round burst from a Vulcan cannon at 40K feet, travelling at fast miles an hour?
The balloon eventually landed in Finland.
The following users liked this post:
I figured there was a clear arc, but quite a few people have suggested guns as a cheap option without thinking where rounds might land.
The following users liked this post:
from 40,000 feet the shells would have stopped flying ballistically and would tumble out of the sky at a nominal terminal velocity of probably well under 100 miles an hour. I think the projectiles are around 100g, for comparison a large pigeon is > 350g
Michael, I have been hit by a baseball that was thrown at about 75 miles per hour;
I'd not like to be hit by a metal object falling at about 100 miles per hour (and me with no batting helmet)
Is this where I observe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Maybe ET really wants to phone home.
Pun intended or not, still got a chuckle out of me.
That quote still gets mileage. I wonder if it's in Bartlett's Familiar quotations yet.
For fltlt: About 40 years ago, speaking of high tech radars tracking things, I got to watch the CIWS (Vulcan Phalanx) on a USN cruiser continuously track / adjust its barrels toward my helicopter as we were doing some cargo hook transfers from our ship to theirs.
It was a bit un nerving, even though I knew that it wasn't in "auto" mode. I asked the Weapons officer on our ship (a destroyer) about it after we landed.
He shrugged, and said that it was tracking the tips of our rotor blades.
I'd not like to be hit by a metal object falling at about 100 miles per hour (and me with no batting helmet)
Is this where I observe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Maybe ET really wants to phone home.
Pun intended or not, still got a chuckle out of me.
That quote still gets mileage. I wonder if it's in Bartlett's Familiar quotations yet.
For fltlt: About 40 years ago, speaking of high tech radars tracking things, I got to watch the CIWS (Vulcan Phalanx) on a USN cruiser continuously track / adjust its barrels toward my helicopter as we were doing some cargo hook transfers from our ship to theirs.
It was a bit un nerving, even though I knew that it wasn't in "auto" mode. I asked the Weapons officer on our ship (a destroyer) about it after we landed.
He shrugged, and said that it was tracking the tips of our rotor blades.
I made an error by adding an extra “what.” The quote is/was:
So, when they said there is no surveillance aircraft over China, my antenna went up.
Not that I expect them to tell us what they are doing or what they know.
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
Even at the time, I was immediately suspicious of a politician saying, “There is no…”So, when they said there is no surveillance aircraft over China, my antenna went up.
Not that I expect them to tell us what they are doing or what they know.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mostly in my own imagination
Posts: 477
Received 329 Likes
on
152 Posts
What I don't understand is that they said one of the subsequent three was "cylindrical in shape"
I guess another balloon could be cylindrical, but other than that ... how could a shape like that remain aloft?
I guess another balloon could be cylindrical, but other than that ... how could a shape like that remain aloft?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Shapes … someone is testing different designs?
Surely any shape gas filled will float, so perhaps exploring steerability?
Surely any shape gas filled will float, so perhaps exploring steerability?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
haha … fair point. But IIRC they weren’t all at 100,000 ft.
Anyway, my theory can be filed along with Aliens and North Korea as the culprits! 😆
Anyway, my theory can be filed along with Aliens and North Korea as the culprits! 😆
By and large, jet streams are to be found in the 20,000ft to 45,000ft band.
I never needed to know much about greater heights but I suspect that very high level jets may be theoretically possible but short-lived. Not much atmosphere for a Met person to play with.
Any modern knowledgeable correction welcomed of course.
I never needed to know much about greater heights but I suspect that very high level jets may be theoretically possible but short-lived. Not much atmosphere for a Met person to play with.
Any modern knowledgeable correction welcomed of course.
And meanwhile in Eastern Europe...
https://abcnews.go.com/International...skies-97199725
And after that they simply vanished in the air...it is so funny after all these days people still believe in weather balloons... Basically my mom every time she look at the sky, now she can see a weather balloon... Much more fun that having advanced fighters such the F22, the F16, etc, fully equipped with recs devices, not a single, i repeat, not even a single pic of what they saw in Alaska, lake Huron, etc... Not even a single piece of clip recorded... However any time we intercept any Russian plane or even the infamous Chinese balloon the media and web were flooded by pics and videos... And most of them released officially by our air forces.
Of course many of you still joking about my way of thinking... But sometimes it's better to be the last laughing... Peace 🙏
BTW.. Credits to site TheDrive... Of course we are talking about balloons... Script of the two 16Viper pilots at lake Huron.
"
The object that one of the F-16s shot down using an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, at an altitude of approximately 20,000 feet, has been described by U.S. officials as an “octagonal structure” with strings attached to it.
Until that wreckage is recovered, the U.S. military is saying that it won’t rule out any explanation for what the object actually is. The same goes for previous flying objects shot down by U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor jets over Alaska and the Canadian Yukon in recent days, which followed the shooting down of a Chinese high-altitude balloon a week ago.
Most interesting is the fact that the Viper pilots had a tough time definitively describing the object.
“I wouldn’t really call it a balloon… I don’t know what… I can see it outside with my eyes,” one of the pilots says. “Looks like something… there’s some kind of object that’s distended… it’s hard to tell, it’s pretty small.”
“I’m gonna call it a balloon,” one of the pilots later adds.
“The size of it, that would be challenging, it’s so slow and so small, I just can’t see it,” one of the pilots says. “Definitely smaller than a car,” is the judgment of one of the pilots. At one point, one Viper pilot seems to say it was about the size of “four-wheeler,” likely referring to a recreational all-terrain vehicle. There is also an indication that the pilots were worried about a possible collision with the mystery craft as it could only be seen at very close range.
“Looking outside it’s like a black-ish, I’m gonna call it like a container, can’t really tell though what the shape is,” one pilot says. “I’ve got a tone,” he adds, indicating that the AIM-9X locked on and that he has a “good track but can’t see through the glare of the cockpit.”
“It looks dark, but I can get a pretty good sun glint off of it,” the other pilot remarks.
https://abcnews.go.com/International...skies-97199725
And after that they simply vanished in the air...it is so funny after all these days people still believe in weather balloons... Basically my mom every time she look at the sky, now she can see a weather balloon... Much more fun that having advanced fighters such the F22, the F16, etc, fully equipped with recs devices, not a single, i repeat, not even a single pic of what they saw in Alaska, lake Huron, etc... Not even a single piece of clip recorded... However any time we intercept any Russian plane or even the infamous Chinese balloon the media and web were flooded by pics and videos... And most of them released officially by our air forces.
Of course many of you still joking about my way of thinking... But sometimes it's better to be the last laughing... Peace 🙏
BTW.. Credits to site TheDrive... Of course we are talking about balloons... Script of the two 16Viper pilots at lake Huron.
"
The object that one of the F-16s shot down using an AIM-9X Sidewinder missile, at an altitude of approximately 20,000 feet, has been described by U.S. officials as an “octagonal structure” with strings attached to it.
Until that wreckage is recovered, the U.S. military is saying that it won’t rule out any explanation for what the object actually is. The same goes for previous flying objects shot down by U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor jets over Alaska and the Canadian Yukon in recent days, which followed the shooting down of a Chinese high-altitude balloon a week ago.
Most interesting is the fact that the Viper pilots had a tough time definitively describing the object.
“I wouldn’t really call it a balloon… I don’t know what… I can see it outside with my eyes,” one of the pilots says. “Looks like something… there’s some kind of object that’s distended… it’s hard to tell, it’s pretty small.”
“I’m gonna call it a balloon,” one of the pilots later adds.
“The size of it, that would be challenging, it’s so slow and so small, I just can’t see it,” one of the pilots says. “Definitely smaller than a car,” is the judgment of one of the pilots. At one point, one Viper pilot seems to say it was about the size of “four-wheeler,” likely referring to a recreational all-terrain vehicle. There is also an indication that the pilots were worried about a possible collision with the mystery craft as it could only be seen at very close range.
“Looking outside it’s like a black-ish, I’m gonna call it like a container, can’t really tell though what the shape is,” one pilot says. “I’ve got a tone,” he adds, indicating that the AIM-9X locked on and that he has a “good track but can’t see through the glare of the cockpit.”
“It looks dark, but I can get a pretty good sun glint off of it,” the other pilot remarks.
Last edited by JanetFlight; 14th Feb 2023 at 22:58.
Michael, I have been hit by a baseball that was thrown at about 75 miles per hour;
I'd not like to be hit by a metal object falling at about 100 miles per hour (and me with no batting helmet)
Is this where I observe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Maybe ET really wants to phone home.
Pun intended or not, still got a chuckle out of me.
That quote still gets mileage. I wonder if it's in Bartlett's Familiar quotations yet.
For fltlt: About 40 years ago, speaking of high tech radars tracking things, I got to watch the CIWS (Vulcan Phalanx) on a USN cruiser continuously track / adjust its barrels toward my helicopter as we were doing some cargo hook transfers from our ship to theirs.
It was a bit un nerving, even though I knew that it wasn't in "auto" mode. I asked the Weapons officer on our ship (a destroyer) about it after we landed.
He shrugged, and said that it was tracking the tips of our rotor blades.
I'd not like to be hit by a metal object falling at about 100 miles per hour (and me with no batting helmet)
Is this where I observe that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? Maybe ET really wants to phone home.
Pun intended or not, still got a chuckle out of me.
That quote still gets mileage. I wonder if it's in Bartlett's Familiar quotations yet.
For fltlt: About 40 years ago, speaking of high tech radars tracking things, I got to watch the CIWS (Vulcan Phalanx) on a USN cruiser continuously track / adjust its barrels toward my helicopter as we were doing some cargo hook transfers from our ship to theirs.
It was a bit un nerving, even though I knew that it wasn't in "auto" mode. I asked the Weapons officer on our ship (a destroyer) about it after we landed.
He shrugged, and said that it was tracking the tips of our rotor blades.
That seems pretty slow. But I'm no terminal velocity expert. Hence my next sentence :
I did a quick search online (the guaranteed way to find accurate information
), with the result being this : The terminal velocity of a baseball is 95 mph. Only one way to find out I guess. Who's got some spare time tomorrow to go downtown with a few baseballs to drop off from the top of your local tall building? Where's Doc Brown when you need him?
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts