Printable View
Apparently, they are unreliable against $12 balloons. You would think when we invest $500,000 in them they would work. Took two to take down the Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade’s Pico balloon over Alaska.
All humor aside, as this really isn't all that funny, why not use the gatling or did they make the mistake of not including guns on our fighter aircraft again?
You know, there are all sorts of target servo parameters contained in those missiles programming. They need to make the missile distinguish between objects the size of a duck and an aircraft, for instance. Think about how many parameters make a balloon different from a missile or an airliner or a Bear prop aircraft or a fighter jet and how coarse those differences are. Now in this day and age, one would think a modicum of targeting parameters could be adjusted on the ground. But how fine or coarse adjustments are available? Did anyone really think we'd be going back to Frank Luke in this generation? Remember, you are always re-fighting the last war. But Frank's war was, what, seven major conflicts ago?
My bets are that someone, somewhere is frantically revising the number and breadth of parameters that are adjustable in the field, even as we speak. We are on AIM9x at this point. Expect an AIM9y any day.
Bob
Sidewinders are heat seekers. Go figure.
Did some checking: An internally mounted M61A2 Vulcan 20 mm rotary cannon is embedded in the airplane's right wing root with the muzzle covered by a retractable door. The radar projection of the cannon fire's path is displayed on the pilot's head-up display.
Why are they firing missiles at balloons?
I agree, would seem way easier and way cheaper to shoot it down using the method you described with a 20 mm. Something else has to be behind that decision I would imagine
Like everything else they've been doing the last three years..."Look over here"...to cover what they're actually up to.Quote:
Originally Posted by jond41403
Very plausible excuse to test missiles as well as a pilot got to fire a very expensive piece of military equipment, which mightn't be possible under normal budget restraints.
Why not use blue tip inert rounds to pop the balloon.
First at that altitude the balloon is not going to just " pop " . The closing rate at that speed makes a slow balloon a hard target . The sidewinder is more that a heat seeker , it works in thermal imaging using temperature differences . Also maybe the military did want some practice as they knew what it was .
I have no expertise or knowledge so excuse if this is impossible, but couldn't the pilot fly just above the balloon then hit the afterburner to destroy it, it would be cheaper! :madsmile:
Sucking it up in the air intake would be a real good idea .
Maybe it was close to its stores use by date and they experimented with programing the missiles ability to track and lock onto the balloon.
Not that the balloon was going to fast but in the realms of target acquisition and recognition, they could have used an SR-71's pointy nose to pop it if they had them flying again......:madsmile:
Be a bit of a train wreck but hitting the balloon at Mach 2.5+.
You certainly wouldn't want to end up with a Chinese 'sticky beak' balloon with an F22 kill symbol on it as the flamed out F22 becomes reacquainted with gravity!Quote:
Originally Posted by bob q
The difficulty in getting a guns firing solution on a slow moving object at high altitude is not without its dangers, they probably thought an Aim9X would be a suitable pin for the job!
Because at the height it was at, it was too far away to use the cannon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
The cannon can't be used above 50,000ft from what I understand, hence the the use of the prox fused AIM-9X being used.
They had to fly a U-2 to recce it as it was the only thing that could get up that high and see from close in.
GeeRAM do you know why the cannon cannot be used @50,000', seems odd as if you've run out of missiles you cannot hit back, though in todays world it seems its an out of sight engagement or who has the best missiles.
---------- Post added at 10:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------
Seems friendship only goes so far bit like the C130 gunships the USA did not sell any of those to any one either.
Why America never sold the F-22 Raptor to foreign countries - Sandboxx
I was wondering the same thing cinders. I wonder if it has something to do with drag on the projectiles? I do know from watching U2 plane videos, that the higher the U2 flies, the faster it has to go because of its wing design to stay controllable. I wonder if the same thing happens to projectiles? I just wonder what the performance differences would be at extreme high altitude between projectiles fired from a 20 mm cannon
The cannon is behind a door in the fuselage likely to do with the stealth design, and the door can only be opened to operate the cannon below 50k feet.Quote:
Originally Posted by CINDERS
With the air density up at those heights, you'd not want to be trying to engage in a guns fight anyway, if you've run out of missiles, you'd be bugging out pdq.
I have a vague recollection that there was an altitude limitation on using the cannon on some older RAF stuff as well?