I think we can safely assume that the UFO's the Biden Administration "shoots down" every other day or so aren't Chinese submarines.

And I can guarantee that nobody -- Chinese, American, or Russian -- has the ability to fly a "VW-sized object" at 40,000 ft, in upper reaches of the stratosphere. The fuel alone to do that weighs more than a VW.

And they aren't balloons, either. The amount of gas needed to float a gasbag large enough to make it to 40,000 without popping is larger than a VW.

If anybody in the press had ever taken a physics class, or even bothered to peruse a copy of "Janes All The Worlds Aircraft", it might have occurred to SOMEONE by now to ask the regime to name a single object known to mankind that is the size of a VW and capable of flight at 40,000.

Not counting, Jetson's cartoons, of course.

So what are they shooting down? Shiny objects to distract you from the fact that they let a Chinese spy balloon fly across then entire nation before they decided to do anything about it.

Oh look -- Shiny!

And in other big news, aluminum foil is flying off of the shelves as conspiracy nuts - are feverishly making tinfoil hats. LOL

At 40,000 ft (and another object at 20,000 feet) couldn't we have used a 50cal to shoot it down. One of these "items" took two heat seeking (sidewinder) missiles at 400,000.00 each. A 50cal is as cheap as $3.00 a round.

Not here to argue New Englander. All I was thinking was why send a 5 billion dollar jet fighter up there using probably using over a million dollars in fuel & using a $100,000. missle to pop it, why not use a ground to air Missle, surely it would be a lot cheaper. What do you think?

I'm not here to argue either. The military made the decision how to take it down. I trust their judgement.

Satellites
 

No mention about the use of satellites to observe these objects. If they can read a license plate from outer space, why not these balloons?

Why? Are you suggesting that 50cal doesn't work at high altitudes? That would come as a surprise to the ME-109's that used 20cal to shoot down B-17's at 20,000' in WW2.

Besides, when you're shooting imaginary VW's flying at 40,000 feet, a well-aimed rubber band will do just as good a job as a sidewinder missile!

But it is not nearly as much fun!

"At 40,000 ft (and another object at 20,000 feet) couldn't we have used a 50cal to shoot it down."


Why the U.S. used missiles, not cheap bullets, to shoot down Chinese balloon, 3 unidentified objects


But "the military's ability to respond to balloons and similar craft is constrained by physics and the capabilities of current weapons," The Washington Post reports, and you can't really pop a giant balloon with gunfire at 40,000 feet.

"You can fill a balloon full of bullet holes, and it's going to stay at altitude," David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and fighter pilot, tells the Post. The air pressure that high up doesn't allow helium to freely escape through small holes, even if fighter jets flying by at hundreds of miles per hour can riddle the near-stationary balloon with bullets.

What is being covered up by all the focus on balloons?

My point is that the first object was over 60,000 ft high, and as such a missile was needed. The reason I would propose is that the F22 has a ceiling height of 60,000 feet. We would be pushing the envelope of the planes abilities. The next three unknown aerial objects were at or below 40,000 feet. Can someone explain why we could not have used a 50cal to shoot these three down?

I suspect there are three reasons:
1. These balloons are not like kids balloons, you can't pop them with a pin which is what a 50 cal. round would be like. A nearby explosion was needed to shred the balloon sufficiently.

2. Those rounds need to land somewhere. Even if they hit the balloon they would continue to travel outward. The last thing the military needs is a headline about the house/car/pet/person the rounds hit on the way down.

3. The planes would not need to be nearly as close to the object to hit it with a missile.

Thank you for the response. After the initial post I reached out to my old college roommate who is a career military man. He got back to me yesterday. The balloon is so high that it has a very low internal pressure. A 50 caliber would puncture the balloon but it would not explode as it may at a lower altitude. The concern then becomes the device remaining afloat and entering a slow decline. This prevent them from choosing the location that it would fall to.

As already fully explained in Post #54.

? The F-22 aircraft that shot the first one down has a service ceiling in upwards of 60,000 feet and I assure you is much larger than any VW you've ever seen. An F-15 that I worked on in the late 70's had a 50,000 ceiling. That was nearly a half century ago. Hell they launch missiles from that altitude as long as a VW.

You do realize that high altitude balloons are only partially filled at launch due to less air pressure at operational altitude. It's a sealed system that's actually pretty high tech as opposed something you'd see at the fair with an open bottom getting hot air stuffed in it.
From WIKI High-altitude balloon - Wikipedia
"High-altitude balloons or stratostats are crewed or uncrewed balloons, usually filled with helium or hydrogen, that are released into the stratosphere, generally attaining between 18 and 37 km (11 and 23 mi; 59,000 and 121,000 ft) above sea level. In 2002, a balloon named BU60-1 reached a record altitude of 53.0 km (32.9 mi; 173,900 ft)."

Just off the top of my head...
SR 71, U-2, F-35, F-22, F-25, F-15, F-4. SU 34, 27, 47. MIGs 29, 31, 25.
And many long haul airliners that you may have been in at the time. They often hit 42,000.