Third High-Altitude Airborne Object Shot Down By US Fighter Jet

One day after the US shot down a 'cylindrical, silverish gray' object in the northeast arctic region of Alaska, another unidentified airborne object was shot down by the US military over northern Canada on Saturday - making it the third time in just over a week that jets were deployed to neutralize foreign craft.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command said earlier on Saturday that it had identified the high-altitude object, after which Canadian and US craft were scrambled, and a US F-22 filter jet took it down over the Yukon, according to a tweet by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Bloomberg reports.

"I ordered the take down of an unidentified object that violated Canadian airspace. @NORADCommand shot down the object over the Yukon."

Third High-Altitude Airborne Object Shot Down By US Fighter Jet

Well...

I ordered the take down of an unidentified object that violated Canadian airspace. @NORADCommand shot down the object over the Yukon. Canadian and U.S. aircraft were scrambled, and a U.S. F-22 successfully fired at the object.

— Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) February 11, 2023

So, this is becoming relatively commonplace now?

The question is - how long can they avoid giving us a clear understanding of what it is that they have been shooting down?

It’s unclear what the latest object is and where it originated. But the US has accused China of a years-long surveillance program in which it deployed spy balloons across the globe, a claim rejected by Beijing.

So far we have heard... "a balloon the size of a school bus" and an object described as "not an aircraft per se" and now a smaller car-sized object...

At least they're not telling us it was an alien UFO. But still, is this a new "emergency" in the making?

i t w a s only a ...
anyway
we
will see
that
govt. employees have to keep their fkn mouths shut

Yeah it's really weird isn't it.

Maybe this is the effect of our public officials being pathalogically incapable, or unwilling, to tell the truth about ANY topic at all.

There was an incident in Montana too, which, I'm sure, we'll be given scant information on.a reply to: Maxmars

North Korea Spy Balloons (cylindical).
They like attention...and are piggy-backing on the China Spy balloon hullabaloo.

"Ruh Roh Raggy " Project Blue Beam about to be initialized.....

Whoever sends the high altitude something and we send an F-22 that cost $85,000 an hour to operate (AIM-9x $380,000 for the shoot down) not to mention all the support aircraft. The Atlantic shoot down was estimated at 2 Million + direct cost.

originally posted by: 727Sky
Whoever sends the high altitude something and we send an F-22 that cost $85,000 an hour to operate (AIM-9x $380,000 for the shoot down) not to mention all the support aircraft. The Atlantic shoot down was estimated at 2 Million + direct cost.

My thought was, doesn’t Canada have an air force?

originally posted by: 727Sky
Whoever sends the high altitude something and we send an F-22 that cost $85,000 an hour to operate (AIM-9x $380,000 for the shoot down) not to mention all the support aircraft. The Atlantic shoot down was estimated at 2 Million + direct cost.

hey
usaf guy here
people don't know what you said


keep posting the truth

i wonder if japan naval was ordered not to shout down
here we see not china, but north korea as a threat

a reply to: Bluntone22

That question should be well known.
How else could they actively have had airborne assets actively assisting the U.S. airforce in this endeavor?

originally posted by: Bluntone22

My thought was, doesn’t Canada have an air force?

Canada and US military forces have always benefited from mutual support (generally speaking.)

I'm not surprised about the US Air Force's involvement in the operation... technically, air defense is something most neighbor states need to cooperate on.

Operational costs are part of the budget... that money was borrowed 'on our behalf' by politicians, and not using it doesn't mean we wouldn't have to pay the debt anyway.

Fox news just had an interview with a Montana congressman.

The second and third object shot down were not balloons, like the first. They don't know what they are yet.

A fourth object, not a balloon, is over Montana now and they are unable to target it in the dark. They are going after it tomorrow when they can see it.

a reply to: 727Sky

Those aircraft were going to fly anyway. The money for their operations for the year was already paid at the start of the fiscal year. Any aircraft that were not scheduled to fly that day will simply have a day taken off the schedule to balance it out if necessary.

a reply to: Maxmars

Has anyone CONFIRMED these intercepts and actions, or is this just a diversion?

Considering our current political and socioeconomic climate and all those felons and worse in the white house, I'm just not falling for it anymore.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: Bluntone22

That question should be well known.
How else could they actively have had airborne assets actively assisting the U.S. airforce in this endeavor?

I’m well aware of the Canadian Air Force.
They should shoot it down over their own territory.

Could some state actors be testing North Command's response and readiness with these "objects?"

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: Maxmars

Has anyone CONFIRMED these intercepts and actions, or is this just a diversion?

Considering our current political and socioeconomic climate and all those felons and worse in the white house, I'm just not falling for it anymore.

NORAD is saying there is no Montana UAP

Some pilots said the object "interfered with their sensors" on the planes...
Some pilots also claimed to have seen no identifiable propulsion on the object, and could not explain how it was staying in the air, despite the object cruising at an altitude of 40,000 feet.

Source

originally posted by: EternalShadow
a reply to: Maxmars

Has anyone CONFIRMED these intercepts and actions, or is this just a diversion?

I find it a little sad that we find ourselves in the position of having to grant that yours is a very valid question.

How long can they string this out, and who would actually be able to say "We shouldn't tell the public" at this point?

I fear for the 'diversion' aspect of it though... this is a rather bold attempt to undertake for just a diversion. And of course, the logical follow-up question... a diversion for what?

originally posted by: majesticgent
Could some state actors be testing North Command's response and readiness with these "objects?"

There has to be a small possibility we are doing this to test ourselves...

apnews.com...

F-22 fighter jets have now taken out three objects in the airspace above the U.S. and Canada over seven days, a stunning development that is raising questions on just what, exactly, is hovering overhead and who has sent them.

At least one of the objects downed was believed to be a spy balloon from China, but the other two had not yet been publicly identified. While Trudeau described the object Saturday as “unidentified,” a NORAD spokesman, Maj. Olivier Gallant, said the military had determined what it was but would not reveal details.

Trudeau said Canadian forces would recover the wreckage for study. The Yukon is westernmost Canadian territory and the among the least populated part of Canada.

Just about a day earlier, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said an object roughly the size of a small car was shot out of the skies above remote Alaska. Officials couldn’t say if it contained any surveillance equipment, where it came from or what purpose it had.

Kirby said it was shot down because it was flying at about 40,000 feet (13,000 meters) and posed a “reasonable threat” to the safety of civilian flights, not because of any knowledge that it was engaged in surveillance.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Canada and the US have always interoperated when it comes to North American defense. The F-22 was more capable than the F-18s the RCAF uses, so NORAD (which has a Canadian component) called on an F-22 to do the mission.