(I'm British and so not a US tax payer, just a spectator, but would argue the same here)
It's a crying shame the F-22 production line was shut down, so it's great to see it performing well.
(Speaking as a DCS sim pilot with a long time interest in military aviation).
Clearly a baloon is so hard to dispose target that making sure the aircraft indeed can be up to this task is worth any money!
Although the X is an all aspect missile, the parameters would still be quite different.
I think this is would all be firmly in the "not public domain" bucket of details though, as I haven't seen much of this modelled in DCS.
(I suppose they could also have used eg a radar guided AIM-120, but they are primarily for BVR, more expensive at ~$1.1, and far, far more scope for erroneous target locking, so why risk it when the 9X obviously gets the job done. Again, from the point of view of an armchair - or a rig to be precise - sim pilot. I claim no credentials beyond this interest).
Air to air missiles cost on the order of $300,000.00 weather balloons cost and order of magnitude less.
We'll all have bigger problems if that day comes than the pesky billion or two it will cost from the US $773B DoD budget.
It might be possible to shoot down balloons with unguided rockets. It depends on how close the fighter can get and how accurate the rockets are. Rockets are super 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.
It was tested in 2008 to destroy failed recon satellite.
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.
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 Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM) which has a disclosed engagement altitude of 70,000 feet - capable of engaging even higher altitude balloons than these. As I understand it, the Extended Range AMRAAM-ER is believed to have an engagement ceiling of 85,000 feet.
Meanwhile, the US also has the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system, an air defense system capable of engaging targets at very high altitude. While its capabilities are classified, its max engagement altitude is at least 490,000 ft. or 93 miles … though using it to attack a balloon is like swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. THAAD is mobile and could be deployed in response to a high altitude balloon threat (some of which can fly 120,000 ft.)
Even if the ceiling of the F-22 is substantially higher than 40,000 ft. (which I think is plausible), and is close enough to effectively engage these balloons, then I doubt that the Air Force would choose to make the tradeoff of disclosing the F-22’s performance capabilities to adversaries in order to save the cost of an AIM-9; the F-22’s performance is a secret and classified.
If we were faced with defending against a large number of high-flying objects then the reasoning might be different.
[1] https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/1045...
600m is likely the default battle-zero, but it is nowhere near the maximum range of a 30mm round.
This seems like conjecture. Is there any reliable data on how much said balloon cost?
It's conjecture for me to presume the sky is blue without looking out of my window, but it's a safe bet on days with good weather.
Unless this balloon -- or whatever it was -- was diamond-bedazzled and platinum-plated and filled with alien technology it's a safe bet that it was a fair amount cheaper to produce/launch/maintain than sortieing one of the most expensive and exclusive modern aircraft in the world and shooting off a missile that costs 600k/ea -- and that's not even considering collateral costs associated to the action.
This seems like what amounts to a training program to me, unless a lot more start coming.
That’s all before bringing up that the person I quoted claimed off-hand that it’s an order of magnitude difference. They’re probably rather similar in cost.
Anything needing bus-sized solar array gonna have some fancy equipment on board. All of that needs engineering to not fail at the temperature range up above and code to make it do what is needed
See also:
F-22 Shoots Down Chinese Spy Balloon Off Carolinas With Missile (Updated) https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-22-shoots-down-chine...
U-2 Spy Planes Snooped On Chinese Surveillance Balloon https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/u-2-spy-planes-snooped...
F-22 Shoots Down “Object” Flying High Over Alaskan Waters https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-22-shoots-down-new-o...
The Soviets Built Bespoke Balloon-Killer Planes During The Cold War https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-soviets-built-besp...
With a missile, the pilot can shoot from several miles out and never has to fly directly at the target. So, it's much safer.
I've seen this claim often, but I'm still finding it hard to picture. I realize it's not going to "pop like a balloon", but days or weeks seems incredibly long. The weight of the payload causes at least some pressure on at least the top of the balloon, right?
Is the issue just the size of the hole versus total volume? Or maybe it's that the bouyancy increases as it starts to descend? Do you have a link that would make this clearer? I searched a little, but what I found were just assertions of fact.
I did find the 1998 story of the failed Canadian attempt to shoot down a balloon with fighter jets firing bullets (https://apnews.com/article/268893fddde785d029d5a51b136951eb). This makes me inclined to believe the conclusion, but it's still not intuitive to me.
The airforce would have thousands of missiles. Assuming they have some FIFO system they would use missiles heading for expiry.
Not sure how pilot training goes but would assume they have training hours requirement. If a mission covers those hours all the better for more real experience on what they would be flying anyway.
Anyway I don't know this as an expert, but logically seems costs are largely sunk regardless of an infrequent balloon incident.
Seriously, the concept of weighing the cost of an action vs the cost of inaction was not... exactly invented by Eve Online players. The entire point of warfare is to make waging war more expensive to your opponent than to yourself, whether in terms of men, materiel, dollars, or popular support. And the concept of a Pyrrhic victory is likely as old as war itself – even our very term for it derives from a battle fought 2300 years ago!
And if you think that I didn't say anything… I suggest re-reading my comment.
The world will run out of helium before the US runs out of missiles.
Probably fits nicely in the training budget.