High altitude object shot down
I don't have an issue with shooting down a Chinese balloon, especially if there is suspicion that it is conducting surveillance, although I would suggest it is far better to down the balloon before it is able to trek all across the country taking pictures and hoovering up EW emissions.
But I do take issue at the shoot first policy which seems to be in place for UFO, because that is what they have so far admitted the second two objects are. As I said before, maybe they did know more than they are saying, and the use of force is justified. But the use of force should be a last resort, not the first, as seems to be the case here for, what seems to me, largely political reasons.
But I do take issue at the shoot first policy which seems to be in place for UFO, because that is what they have so far admitted the second two objects are. As I said before, maybe they did know more than they are saying, and the use of force is justified. But the use of force should be a last resort, not the first, as seems to be the case here for, what seems to me, largely political reasons.
The media are being told they are unidentified. Whether that is strictly true is debatable. If I had to place a bet I'd say that US intelligence knows a lot about them and this informed the decisions to shoot them down.
???
What would be the benefit of one nuclear bomb dropped from a balloon???
The immediate response would be hundreds of ICBM strikes and would likely impede the initial attackers possibilities for second strike!? You couldn't conceive anything much more suicidal than this.
What would be the benefit of one nuclear bomb dropped from a balloon???
The immediate response would be hundreds of ICBM strikes and would likely impede the initial attackers possibilities for second strike!? You couldn't conceive anything much more suicidal than this.
It seems the Chinese also are having good time themselves...and even the russians two weeks ago around Siberian nite skies
So...not American, not chinese, not russians...time to open our minds...or do you think my "callsign" here for many years its "Janet" by the grace of God ?
Peace...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is probably a good time to order 309 AMARG to start reactivation of F-4s and whatever else they have cheap and in good numbers. Scrambling F22s and F35s every time to shoot down a cheap target is not economical.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
simple - it cost nothing and it is expendable. Since there were no conventional wars for so long time, Air Force all around the world (except few) got it wrong by placing the bets on uber technology, which worked well against enemies with no AF and no air defence. Ask Israelis how much it cost to maintain Iron Dome against attacks by home made $5 rockets. Ask USAF how much it costs to expend a full B2 load in Helmend to destroy a 50 meters tunnel. Chinese friends can produce and launch those balloons in thousands. What was AIM9 costs, round about 0,5m plus delivery. Let me bet the balloon is $5k at the best. Go figure
Makes a lot of sense. They are a pretty cheap and easy way to record the way an intercept takes place and relay that data via an uplink for later analysis.
Besides, according to the occupants of the outrage bus, I thought that was why they’re paying 250K pa to the ex RAF pilots….,.
The value to China of knowing EXACTLY how these things are being shot down is high. Knowing the fine details of how these things are being intercepted and shot down gives China a golden opportunity to develop countermeasures. I can't think of a cheaper or more effective way of getting solid data like this. may also explain why a relatively "dumb" missile was used to down the first one. Might have been the best weapon for the job. Then again it could have been a weapon that was so old and well understood that there was no risk of China obtaining data it didn't already have.
It isn't an original thought of mine, but there is a lot more involved in an interception than simply knowing the type of aircraft and the missile being used. There are all sorts of emissions and communications from (and between) ground radars, AWACS, fighters and weapons. This is all of interest to a potential adversary and not that easy to get hold of by other means.
The following users liked this post:
Why not?
Would the attacking aircraft use a completely different sensor suite specially reserved for balloons?
Would the weapons used be special ones with completely different target acquisition and homing sensors only reserved for use against balloons?
Being able to receive and immediately uplink loads of data from both the aircraft and weapon sensors, during a live attack, has a hell of a high value.
The following users liked this post:
In terms of emissions and data, it isn't that different. The radars in the AWACS and fighters are identical the guidance systems in the weapons are identical, the encryption and frequencies for comms and data-link are the same. Obviously a very different in terms of challenge and tactics for the aircrew, but that wouldn't be what the potential adversary would be trying to discover in this scenario.
And the reason for multiple bogeys would be???