Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 864 posts

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#321

Post by cm2187 »

oceanplexian wrote: post #259
cm2187 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big balloon from earlier this month was more like a satellite hanging from a balloon. Not sure it was that cheap. The problem is what can you fly that has a cannon and can reach those altitudes. Apparently only the F22 and F15 could, and that was their very limit.

That’s definitely not their limit since they can shoot down satellites at the altitude of the International Space Station. And that’s the stuff we’re allowed to know about.

Yeah but not with cannons. We are talking about a cheap way to shoot it down, ie not with a missile.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#322

Post by jacobsenscott »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #313
Ninjinka wrote: post #4

I mean maybe I'm just not up to date on recent history, but when was the last time we shot down anything in our our airspace prior to last week?

Why did you think it would be publicized if we had?

Because blowing shit up is awesome, and gets votes.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#323

Post by mistermann »

JohnBooty wrote: post #274
themodelplumber wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, though tbh it seems like there are cheaper ways to cause the US to spend gobs of cash. I even hesitate to mention some ideas that immediately come to mind that would be easier/more efficient to really nail than the Pringles can idea. Plus many of the more prominent base-personnel sightings land quite a bit far from that particular ballpark. Take a look into the Rendlesham Forest incident for example. The probl…

Funny, though tbh it seems like there are cheaper ways to cause the US to spend gobs of cash. Yeah. My best understanding based on watching a lot of retired military personnel is that isolated incidents cost the US almost exactly zero additional dollars. The way an Air Force base works is this: there is a budget. This covers the (considerable) costs of the base itself, the personnel, the equipment, and so on. Active-…

A potential flaw in this plan: while everything you say may be true, it is not broadly known. If China (or whoever) was to keep floating these things our way and we kept shooting them down at a don't worry about it, we're pot committed rate of ~$400k per incident, maybe people's blind faith in the military and politicians might be replaced with some rare curiosity, and maybe even displeasure! (Though: it's not like they have an alternative to vote for, but that too is not immutable, it only seems that way.)

Keeping people immersed in a complex narrative is a lot easier than one would think, but it is also a very tricky balancing act that can get upset by the weirdest things.

Personally, I'm all for it - anything that has the potential to wake up the American/Western public from their dream state is a good thing in my books, plus it makes for good entertainment.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#324

Post by fnordpiglet »

anigbrowl wrote: post #188
consumer451 wrote: post #47

> Officials said the object was far smaller than the previous balloon, did not appear to be maneuverable and was traveling at a much lower altitude. "Not maneuverable" and "previous balloon" so is it fair to assume that it's a balloon as well?

No, it is just as likely to be a reporter's garbled understanding of an explanation. In mysterious matters wait until you have 2 or 3 datapoints before using a heuristic.

I’d love to use that heuristic but I need 1-2 more data points.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#326

Post by cm2187 »

jcrites wrote: post #292
cm2187 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big balloon from earlier this month was more like a satellite hanging from a balloon. Not sure it was that cheap. The problem is what can you fly that has a cannon and can reach those altitudes. Apparently only the F22 and F15 could, and that was their very limit.

The shootdowns did not involve using airplane guns/cannons. Those are less accurate, especially at the engagement range (the aircraft were at 40,000 ft., IIRC, and shooting at 60,000 ft. balloons), and would have likely damaged the payload. The shoot-downs used AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles (per TFA). We also don’t know the ceiling altitude of the F-22 since it’s classified. However, the F-22 can carry the AIM-120 Advanc…

Yeah but none of those things are cheap. A cannon is.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#327

Post by XorNot »

robswc wrote: post #306
oceanplexian wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s definitely not their limit since they can shoot down satellites at the altitude of the International Space Station. And that’s the stuff we’re allowed to know about.

Could they shoot down the ISS, if they wanted? Isn't that thing moving insanely fast? haha. Not a space guy but always found it interesting.

ASAT weapons already exist, so most countries could kill the ISS if they wanted.

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#328

Post by Overtonwindow »

Part of me thinks they wanted to shoot down the first balloon, but the president was kind of incapacitated and unable to give the order. That's the only thing I can think of for why they didn't shoot the first one down when it was over Alaska, but they shoot this one down when it is

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#329

Post by JohnBooty »

XorNot wrote: post #318
JohnBooty wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mission accomplished. The previously published ceiling of the F-22 was 50K feet. The Pentagon said it (edit: by "it" I mean the F-22) was flying at 58K feet when it shot down the first balloon. Guess it can do (at least) 58K. This was probably not entirely groundbreaking news to anybody including China. Everybody knows that the published specs of military hardware are intentionally distorted in one direction or anoth…

Most US missiles can shoot above the operational height of their planes.

Sorry. I should have been clearer with that "it." The Pentagon said the F-22 was flying at 58K feet and the balloon was at 60-65,000 feet.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/32...

Of course, that could be a lie too!

Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast

#330

Post by r3trohack3r »

GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #238
themodelplumber wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny, though tbh it seems like there are cheaper ways to cause the US to spend gobs of cash. I even hesitate to mention some ideas that immediately come to mind that would be easier/more efficient to really nail than the Pringles can idea. Plus many of the more prominent base-personnel sightings land quite a bit far from that particular ballpark. Take a look into the Rendlesham Forest incident for example. The probl…

If you know something about how the USAF responds to incidents, the idea of the deputy base commander and disaster preparedness running around in the middle of the night chasing UFO's is hilarious. It's obviously a practical joke that got out of hand.

Just watched some interviews. The guys claiming to have “downloaded” an alien signal by touching the craft.

The signal was transmitted in binary and just happened to be ASCII encoded English. Odd that a ship from 8100 transmitted data in an archaic dialect of an ancient language using an ancient encoding that just happened to match the language and encoding in widespread use during this guys lifetime.

Having a hard time with this.

Post reply on HN