How much do short range (just a few kilometers) encoded transponders cost? Something that could be heard by an interceptor and checked against a database before wasting a missile on it. If they are cheap enough, maybe all flying objects should be required to carry one.
True, but why would you want unguided munitions (only suitable for area suppression) on a multi-gazillion $$$ aircraft? Air to ground rockets are used for close air support typically mounted to an attack helicopter, Blackhawk, A-10 or similar. An F22 isn’t going anywhere near the ground where it’s stealth is jeopardized by some guy visually seeing it and shooting it with a machine gun.
The JDAMs are a precision guided weapon with a range of up to 15 nautical miles.
The small diameter bombs are also precision guided and can hit targets (moving up to 28 miles) and static up to 69+ miles. That would seem to cover the air to ground precision attack mission.
Sorry - I meant missiles, not rockets. Something like the AGM-65 Maverick, which has been used by the F-15, F-16 and F-18. As one of their successors, I’d expect the F-22 to use it (or something similar) too.
What’s the distinction between a missile and a rocket?
As it applies to munitions, traditionally “rocket” = unguided, “missile” = guided. And both are powered munitions, not mere gravity-powered “bombs” or gun-launched “shells”.
However as folks get ever more clever with electronics, we’ve added guidance to “bombs” to produce “smart bombs”, and more recently this cool invention*
is turning traditionally unguided rockets into guided rockets.
So the terms are getting a bit blurry these days.
And coming full circle back to this thread, the APKWS has already been tested in a low altitude counter-drone mode since it’s vastly cheaper per round than any air-to-air or ground-to-air missile. I’d imagine that given a laser designator that could illuminate a balloon in flight, the APKWS is probably the path of least resistance for a quickie low-cost counter-balloon capability too. At least at moderate altitudes.
* Full disclosure / brag: my wife was an engineer on the team that didn’t win this competition. She has a really cool coffee mug with the project logo on it.
Didn’t that orange guy build a wall to stop this sort of thing ?
It looks like Northern Command “did not locate debris” from the objects shot down over Lake Huron and N. Canada. Are we confident ‘they’ would tell us what they found?
I think they’d tell the truth as far as “we found the wreckage” or “We found nothing.” NO need to fake those two announcements.
If what they found was disturbing enough they’d keep it a secret. If it was highly embarrassing they’d like to keep it a secret but would probably fail. If it was something mundane, they’d tell us if for no other reason than to slow down the CT wackos.
Who would then claim there’s no way the government was telling the truth no matter what they had said.
There’s just no useful thinking, no logical results, and just no winning once you (any you) decide to declare any/everything the government says or doesn’t say to be a fabrication.
Perhaps if it were a hobbyist balloon, it was blown into very tiny pieces.
I sort of figured that. The AGM-65 is close air support; taking out tanks, vehicles, some laser guided versions can be used against buildings/bunkers/magazines. The F22 IS NOT A CLOSE AIR SUPPORT aircraft. The USAF will not risk this asset against piddly tanks. It’s designed to penetrate deep into heavily defended enemy air space at altitude to attack high value targets whether in the air (AWACS/TANKER/ COMMAND) aircraft; or on the ground like command centers, radar installations, missile launch facilities, etc… It has air to air missiles to defend itself and take down high value aerial targets (balloons???). The F22 is not going anywhere near the ground unless an emergency.
The JADM and small diameter bomb both outrange the Maverick which is key. Also no missile smoke trail to lead back to the F22’s position. Incorporation of the small diameter bomb allows the F22s to hit 8 independent targets.
Less workload for the pilot. The Mavericks have to be independently cued to an observed target. The F22 at 50-60,000 ft. isn’t seeing much in the way of individual tanks. The JADM and SDB have target coordinates entered prior to drop. The pilot doesn’t need to see anything.
I thought the F-22 was able to replace the A-10 according to the USAF. Am I thinking of the F-35?
Yep.
The F-22 was bred as an air supremacy fighter, while the F-35 was bred to be a jack-of-all-trades.
My personal experiences with having an A-10 over my shoulder, and my personal opinions about the F-35 are for a different thread.
Tripler
We’d never have had a problem with all these balloons if we’d only floated coastal patrols of laser-equipped ill-tempered sea bass.
Some Australians figured it would be a good idea to import a bunch of rabbits.
As I understand it, the objects were probably civilian/commercial. Has anyone complained that the US/Canada shot down my research airship, or my advertisement?
everybody is keeping their head down, as nobody wants to get hit with a 3-trillion-dollar invoice for that military operation - I guess…
Good luck strapping them to a flock of wild geese… although that would be useful for avoiding bird strikes.
There is a lot of stuff up there, that’s one of the problems here.
There’s a group of hobbyists who think their balloon might have been one of the objects shot down, but I haven’t heard anything more about it for a couple days.
The F-15 was also bred as an air supremacy fighter, but it ended up a jack-of-all trades. I guess they didn’t want the F-22 to follow the same path.
NPR Story on that here:
But it doesn’t give much more detail.
Thar’s obviously not the problem being addressed here. The airforce isn’t shooting at flocks of birds, the hardiest of whom rarely exceed 20,000 feet. They are shooing at artifacts that they do not know are belligerent or benign. One way the military and air traffic monitors usually make that distinction is with transponders.
Radar that picks up small, slow moving balloons will also pick up things like flocks of geese. Software, as well as radar operator training, intended to separate the two is far from perfect.
Agreed that one way to help with this is to install some sort of device on legitimate balloons that makes them more visible. Preferably something relatively inexpensive to remove that potential barrier to use, since these would not need to have the sophistication of transponders for manned aircraft.
Transponders, though, will not be the only solution needed.