In Sudden Narrative Shift, Pentagon Admits Mystery Objects 'Probably' Private Craft Not Tied To Spying

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...ivate-craft-not-tied

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
In Sudden Narrative Shift, Pentagon Admits Mystery Objects 'Probably' Private Craft Not Tied To Spying

Big floppy clown shoes. They don't know what they're doing, their actions are not consistent, they don't know how to address the issue honestly with the American public, and they come off looking incompetent and dishonest.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Nearly impossible to shot down a balloon while the plane is traveling at a high rate of speed. The gun is fixed in the plane and even the slightest deviation of a fraction of a degree cause great variances downrange.


It's been tried by other countries and it's just a waste of ammo and effort.

I just don't understand this narrative that a slow moving or stationary object is too hard to shoot down. How can a plane that is doing high speed evasive maneuvers be easier to hit than a slow moving non-maneuvering balloon. Got to be absolute bull shit. Especially if the shooting plane is approaching directly in the line of flight (either coming or going) of the balloon.

Now it may be hard to do enough damage to the balloon itself to bring it down in a timely manner with cannon rounds. Maybe that is what the reporters are meaning to say, but harder to hit it? Again, bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

Question for the pilots, is stall speed affected by altitude?

Yes and no. Over-simplifying this, stall speed is a function of IAS (Indicated Air Speed), which is affected by density altitude.

TAS (True Air Speed) is not directly related to stall speed.

TAS is calculated by correcting IAS for density altitude and some other stuff.

TAS is generally higher (faster) than IAS, and the difference between TAS and IAS increases as density altitude increases.

At lower altitudes, such as the altitudes that airplanes like the v-tail use, a rough rule of thumb is: add 2% to the IAS for each thousand feet of altitude, to get an approximate TAS. Example: Flying at 8,000 feet, TAS would be approximately 16% higher than IAS.

quote:

Originally posted by straightshooter01:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Nearly impossible to shot down a balloon while the plane is traveling at a high rate of speed. The gun is fixed in the plane and even the slightest deviation of a fraction of a degree cause great variances downrange.


It's been tried by other countries and it's just a waste of ammo and effort.

I just don't understand this narrative that a slow moving or stationary object is too hard to shoot down. How can a plane that is doing high speed evasive maneuvers be easier to hit than a slow moving non-maneuvering balloon. Got to be absolute bull shit. Especially if the shooting plane is approaching directly in the line of flight (either coming or going) of the balloon.

Now it may be hard to do enough damage to the balloon itself to bring it down in a timely manner with cannon rounds. Maybe that is what the reporters are meaning to say, but harder to hit it? Again, bullshit.

The effective range of the 20mm Vulcan gun on the F22 is about 600 meters, as others have said.

If the plan is flying right about stall speed of around 200 mph, the plane will end up being right on top of the balloon. Fire at 600 meters away and then figure the distance closed at 200 mph. That math is pretty simple. The gun isn't effective in this scenario. It's just not the right tool for this job.

quote:

How can a plane that is doing high speed evasive maneuvers be easier to hit than a slow moving non-maneuvering balloon.

Why is it hard to understand? If you're closing on a stationary target at 300 kts, your relative speed is 300 kts. If you're pursuing another plane also going 300 kts, your relative speed is zero. The moving target is actually stationary, relative to you, therefore easier to hit.

quote:

Why are we wasting millions of dollars firing a guided missile at them when both the F22 and F16 have cannons?

The technical considerations being addressed, as far as the fiscal...$400,000 a shot may seem like a lot, but in the big scheme of things it's one of the cheaper options. Also, I believe that missiles are subject to a relatively short shelf life, and so older units must be taken out of rotation at some point anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Question for the pilots, is stall speed affected by altitude?

I would think air density would affect stall speed and air density would be quite a bit less at 60,000' than sea level.

As already stated, yes and no. But it is complicated by very high altitude.

A wing "feels" a certain amount of aerodynamic force that is a factor of air density and true speed. Thinner air means less aerodynamic force for any specific speed. So the stall speed up high is at a faster real speed but at the same indicated speed. Assuming straight and level flight.

Mach 1 depends on air temperature. The higher you go, the colder the air, and thus the slower the speed of sound. Any wing has a maximum Mach speed before things go weird and unstable, and/or drag goes way up.

So going up high means your real speed (true airspeed) where you stall is much faster due to air density, but your Mach speed is much higher (getting closer to bad Mach effects) due to cold air. Your stall and Mach can converge, and that is very bad, at the maximum altitude.

Adding any turning will make bad things happen sooner. Trying to aggressively turn at high altitude can cause stall or Mach problems instantly. It is quite impressive. The radius of turn is huge at high altitudes due to all of these factors.

So apparently we are just blasting weather balloons and other shit out of the sky at whim now I guess??

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
$400K to bring down one balloon?

The bigger question is why in the fuck do these things cost $400,000? There's probably a couple hundred's worth of parts in them.

Yeah yeah yeah...capitalism. Bunk.

The military spends $500 for a hammer and $600 for a fargin toilet seat (not adjusted for 30 years worth of inflation).

And we wonder why our taxes are so high.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:


The bigger question is why in the fuck do these things cost $400,000? There's probably a couple hundred's worth of parts in them.

It's the million pages of specifications that every component and process of assembly have to follow during manufacture.

I am really concerned that we apparently are downing objects that we have no idea what are or who they belong to. Identification should come before annihilation.

flashguy

Well... Maybe approach it just above stall speed and then go to afterburner? Would that do the job?

quote:

The bigger question is why in the fuck do these things cost $400,000? There's probably a couple hundred's worth of parts in them.

As someone who used to work in that industry, I can assure you- it costs that much. In fact, that's not particularly expensive.

quote:

Originally posted by kkina:

quote:

The bigger question is why in the fuck do these things cost $400,000? There's probably a couple hundred's worth of parts in them.

As someone who used to work in that industry, I can assure you- it costs that much. In fact, that's not particularly expensive.

The small anti-air/artillery shells (76mm)we used in the CG were $1700/ea in 2000. And they could hit aircraft at 30,000-40,000 ft.

Military ordnance is expensive because of the rigorous requirements to make them. It takes many man hours to make one little shell, exponentially more time to correctly a missile that will be guaranteed to work every time.

I have a picture of one, but it is difficult to discern what it is. 6-8, oval shapes in a horizontal circle, large enough to be seen from far away. A structure or connecting mechanism is clearly tying the oval shapes (which are vibrant white, like the Chinese balloon) together. Nothing is visible in the center of the craft in this picture.

If it was six ballon envelopes holding up a circular structure, I could buy that. The structure cannot be seen in the blurry, far-away picture.

I'm not buying the alien story yet, due to the timing of global events.

We also chased off some Russian Bears last night (TU-95). Which is rather stupid timing for the usual game they play with us...if these probes aren't coming from Russia.

Guys, you need to read the thread. This is- what- the fifth time that stuff has been posted?

The joke has been done to death in this thread. I don't want to see it anymore in this thread.