[dead]
US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast
381–390 of 864 posts
Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast
#382Earlier quoted context omitted.
hindenburg disaster comes to mind
I realize that, but the Hindenburg disaster happened when it landed, and a balloon that's not carrying cargo or people doesn't need to land gently. It can jettison the hydrogen before it gets too close to the ground.
Is it dangerous to fill a balloon with hydrogen if you don’t know what the fuck you’re doing? Because that’s me. Helium just seems like I’m more likely to keep my hair and eyebrows long term.
Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast
#383My first thought was maybe it was something like an unmanned survey drone owned by an oil company or some resident's experimental aircraft. But... The Air Force chases off manned Russian aircraft with some regularity. Maybe Russia decided to go unmanned to see how far they could push into our airspace instead of flying something like a Tupolev Tu-95 like they normally do.
A Tu-95 Bear coming anywhere close to a U.S. ADIZ is very likely to get an introduction to Mr. Sidewinder or Mr. AMRAAM, considering their primary role is to deliver nuclear ordnance.
I feel like I’m reading a very upsetting children’s book.
Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast
#384Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mick Wests videos on the topic have been thoroughly debunked by fighter pilots and experienced aviators. I have never seen a counter-analysis. Can you explain why you think this? It's not common knowledge that the observations of Mick West has been "debunked"...at least not as commonly known or easy to find as the Mick West analysis or the source videos.
Well Lemmino's video on the topic had a source for an interview with a specialist for the pod optics who disputes it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fefUZAGtCO4&t=310s Regardless I think the simplest counter argument is that if that were really the case, you'd see these damn things on every flight facing the sun and people would know to ignore them. Lens flares also don't show up on radar and on pilot's eyes. No cra…
> No crazy analysis needed.
That's unnecessarily pejorative. Presenting something as evidence, requires some amount of rigor. This is why an in-depth analysis is valued. Presenting as strong a case as possible for either side, is the method by which we can best decide on what is known.
> Regardless I think the simplest counter argument is that if that were really the case, you'd see these damn things on every flight facing the sun and people would know to ignore them
I don't believe that's a counter-argument, as it applies to both conclusions. A unique coincidence does not imply it's common. ie If the gimbal video was a UFO, you'd see these damn things on every flight, etc.
> Lens flares also don't show up on radar and on pilot's eyes.
Mick West's analysis video does not contend that the object is only a lens flare, but an object with a lens flare (or lens artifact) overlaying it. There is no dispute that the pilots saw a group of objects with targeting information on a singular physical object from the video source.
Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast
#385My first thought was maybe it was something like an unmanned survey drone owned by an oil company or some resident's experimental aircraft. But... The Air Force chases off manned Russian aircraft with some regularity. Maybe Russia decided to go unmanned to see how far they could push into our airspace instead of flying something like a Tupolev Tu-95 like they normally do.
A Tu-95 Bear coming anywhere close to a U.S. ADIZ is very likely to get an introduction to Mr. Sidewinder or Mr. AMRAAM, considering their primary role is to deliver nuclear ordnance.
Happens all the time. Here was one last October: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-f-16s-intercept-two-russian-...
Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast
#386https://archive.ph/6ZYLp My pull quotes: > The Pentagon downed an unidentified object over Alaska on Friday at the order of President Biden, according to U.S. officials. > Mr. Kirby said the object was traveling at 40,000 feet. He said officials were describing it as an object because that was the best description they had of it. > A recovery effort on the debris will be made, Mr. Kirby said. He said the object was “…
[deleted]
Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast
#387Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be an air to air missile like a sidewinder which still costs $400k. Just scrambling a couple jets would cost tens of thousands on top of that I’m sure.
More than tens of thousands of dollars, military aircraft are incredibly expensive to operate and maintain. Beyond the obvious fuel costs, every hour of flight time is followed up by N hours of service. If I remember correctly, the F-22 Raptor is the champ in terms of highest ratio of service required per hour of flight (40:1). The F-35 clocks in at 4-8 hours of service per hour flown (6:1). One example from the arti…
Ya but surely responding to an alarm counts as credit for some training drill that would have otherwise been scheduled.
It's not like they leave their best toys in the toybox all year.
Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast
#388Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those UFOs were lens flares. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsEjV8DdSbs Turns out we like to spend gobs of money even when we're just chasing our shadow.
why does every debunking focus on the footage and ignore the fact the objects were also confirmed on radar? Do they just assume the Navy is filled with morons who decided to report this through the chain of command based on nothing but footage and didn't consider a lens flare?
We haven't been provided proof that anything was confirmed on radar, nor what "confirmation" means. This is the same military that has a history of using alien/UFO conspiracy theories to obfuscate sightings of classified aircraft. It's not a case of the Navy being morons, but whether or not the military is being truthful.
My assumption is that sensationalized UAPs are illusions, but the reason the military keeps putting out press releases about them is not because they're aliens. The first reason is that there are unidentified aircraft entering US airspace. They're likely cheap attempts at both intelligence collecting and psychological warfare on behalf of US adversaries. Drones are easily mass produced and a nation flying a handful of drones in US airspace can easily send hundreds/thousands/millions because of how cheap and easy they are to make and deploy.
Since drones can vary in size and be flown in a ton of different conditions/patterns/scenarios/etc, they might be hard to detect. The mainstreaming of the "UAP mystery" narrative encourages civilians to look for, record and massively platform adversarial drones should they be seen by people, but go undetected by systems that are looking for them. The narrative also neuters whatever attempt at intimidation or psyops adversaries are waging against the public/military/etc. "Our militaries can send whatever we want into your airspace and there's nothing you can do about it" can be a powerful message that was effectively neutered with "maybe they're aliens lol".
Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast
#389Earlier 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.
The ISS orbits at ~420 KM.
Epotential = mgh = 420,000m * 9.8 m/s^2 * mass ~= 4,200,000 m^2/s^2 * mass
To reach that altitude, ignoring air resistance, you'd need kinetic energy, provided by the formula:
Ekinetic = (mv^2)/2
Solving for v, we get v = sqrt(8,400,000 m^2/s^2) ~= 2.900 m/s ~= Mach 9
That's the minimum muzzle velocity you need to send a projectile up into the ISS's path (Add a few more mach numbers due to air resistance).
It's certainly easier than getting into orbit, a single-stage missile could do it without any trouble.
Re: US jet shoots down unknown object flying off Alaska coast
#390Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing was visible to the naked eye, and so was its demise. I don’t see any reason to believe there was some agenda at play on the US side. They couldn’t have covered it up if they wanted to.
I dunno, AFAICT the previous 3 or 4 balloons over the US weren't noticed by the general public
According to CNN that’s because they weren’t noticed by anyone at the time. The US discovered them by examining retrospective satellite data for signals we found emanating from a recent (2021) balloon. Presumably that one didn’t travel over populated areas or it would have been noticed by the public as well. https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/10/politics/us-balloon-tracking-...