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

originally posted by: putnam6

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...

I am curious to learn about these "objects" that have no visible means of propulsion yet are loitering at 40k feet going around 20-40 MPH, but are not balloons. Giant kites?!

What did china learn while being allowed to float a balloon through our airspace?

Much like WW2, Hitler could read the paper the next day to se where his long range attacks hit, likewise we are broadcasting where we picked these up and shot them down….maybe our enemy will fine tune their objects to not be seen.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Unable to target in the dark? ROFL....are they serious?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Was the more capable aircraft needed to shoot down a balloon with no propulsion or ability to evade?
Serious question, this target doesn’t exactly seem like something out of the Canadians ability to eliminate.

a reply to: matafuchs

It's not that they're unable to target in the dark, it's significantly harder. A balloon is largely impervious to radar, as it will go through. Any IR signature is going to fade rapidly as the air cools even more than it already is at that altitude. Waiting until daylight, to determine if there is an actual target there makes sense, as it's going to be able to be seen visually.

a reply to: Bluntone22

The F22 is far more capable in almost every aspect.
There is a reason we don't export the F22 to any country to the best of my knowledge.
Zaph can answer this question much better than I.

a reply to: Bluntone22

If it's available, why not use it? Their sensors could gather more data as they were tracking it, and they could get a better idea of any payload. Far more than any F-18 could.

How do we know that all these new high-altitude objects being spotted now aren't just homemade Go-Pro balloons, like Dwayne Kellum's back in Feb. 2017?



Seems like just about anybody could pull something like this off these days.

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.

On the first balloon, do you think we would have paid a spy 1,000,000 for blueprints on an alleged spy balloon? How much to have it delivered.

Then, would we spend a few million to send a message? We’ve done it before.

Plus, in your thread the other day you talked about shooting them down over Canada or Alaska. Both have been done, and now we’re talking about a few million out of what kind of budge? And the pilots get practice on a different kind of targets

originally posted by: wdkirk
What did china learn while being allowed to float a balloon through our airspace?

Much like WW2, Hitler could read the paper the next day to se where his long range attacks hit, likewise we are broadcasting where we picked these up and shot them down….maybe our enemy will fine tune their objects to not be seen.

With the proper technology they cold collect information, computer codes on our power grid, paint the location of our military bases, perhaps the location and entrances to deep underground military bases.
All of this information would be helpful while planning a first strike.

I smell a high altitude inflatable rat...

First it was one...then it was a bunch when Trump was POTUS...now we shoot one down every freakin day. Sorry, I don't think so. I think jo jo needs some positive optics and whats better than pre-fab terror balloons?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

There have been others, but the computers filter them out. Now they aren't using the filters, so they're seeing more of them, along with some false targets.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's what I've been thinking.

Civilian projects for a tiktok video or something, homemade engineering projects.

These threads need more descriptive titles....1st / 2nd / 3rd / 4th / 5th, etc., AIRBORNE OBJECT is too vague.

For example, which one is THIS describing?: www.foxnews.com...

Biden told Justin Trudeau he wanted the United States to shoot it down because he (Biden) was seen (correctly) as a dithering, scared, lethargic fool last week, with the Chinese Spy balloon.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's what I've been thinking.

Civilian projects for a tiktok video or something, homemade engineering projects.

You think it's easy?

Try it yourself.


Years ago I was on a team of about a dozen that actually designed, built, transported, permitted, launched, tracked, and recovered a series of balloons with attached payloads.

Among the items required was a full logistics compliment to provide food, drink, sleeping quarters, transport vehicles, power, medical, and launch site cleanup. And due to the payload we carried (FAA regulations), we were also required to bring a van fully equipped with radio and tracking gear.

Easy peasy!

a reply to: Mantiss2021

You were able to do it weren't you?

a reply to: GENERAL EYES


It took the better part of three years before the first launch, but we were persistent.

Yes

a reply to: Mantiss2021

So, technically, is IS feasible?

originally posted by: carewemust
These threads need more descriptive titles....1st / 2nd / 3rd / 4th / 5th, etc., AIRBORNE OBJECT is too vague.

For example, which one is THIS describing?: www.foxnews.com...

Biden told Justin Trudeau he wanted the United States to shoot it down because he (Biden) was seen (correctly) as a dithering, scared, lethargic fool last week, with the Chinese Spy balloon.

I would NEVER TRUST anything coming out of JB's or JT's mouths. Hearing this, just potentiates my suspicion that this is a PsyOp.

My question is why all of a sudden they're finding these objects. You mean to tell me no one was paying attention to the radar before but now they are?

It's as if these things are commonly up there always, and only now they're finding them and shooting them. Why are they telling us that they're shooting down objects but not telling us what the objects looked like or what they think they might be?

THEY have to have a good idea what the hell they are, they're the ones visually identifying them with fighter jets before shooting them down, and they're announcing that they're doing it. But, they're not saying what it might be.

The balloon had pictures, these 2 recent objects are being reported mysteriously, vaguely? Whatever.