Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Stefouch t1_j9xnpk0 wrote

Well, they probably would have spend this money on a routine exercise. But that day they had a real target to train!

237

chipperlew t1_j9y6t69 wrote

Came here to say this. The missed sidewinder is probably the only cost. Those planes would have been flying anyway. Possibly even shooting expensive missiles at dummy targets.

65

Only_Razzmatazz_4498 t1_j9ycbot wrote

And even the firing of an actual sidewinder is probably worth it to get operational data. I’m sure they have to do some of those from time to time to make sure the systems are working.

29

chipperlew t1_j9ycqbg wrote

Also, the whole operation, including the miss costs about the same as a single cruise missile. No coincidence there.

12

dontsheeple t1_ja1mroz wrote

Even the sidewinder was bought and paid for years ago. The stockpile will be used up by missions or training and the remaining will be decommissioned after a certain date. They will just order more to maintain the stockpile minimums.

1

Siggi_pop t1_j9yl573 wrote

"Finally i get to fire a missile" is probably what the pilot was thinking. Otherwise just a boring day at the office.

9

ramriot t1_j9ygsjb wrote

Yup, except the "real target" was quite probably a perfectly legal pico-baloon hobby project from the Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade that had already circumnavigated the planet a number of times.

So sure, let's have the military do exercises & shoot up private property.

−16

WorldsGreatestPoop t1_j9xxnkh wrote

I’m sure there’s a significant amount of sunk cost built in these numbers. The systems being used would still be costing money while idle. Missiles don’t get replaced by the single missile used. If the whole budget needs to be reworked because new balloons need to be shot at regularly that’s one thing; but a single event isn’t going to register on the bottom line.

140

pbmadman t1_j9zqngv wrote

This is how it worked when I was in the military. We had an annual requirement to train anyways and any time we did something like this (we sunk an abandoned fishing vessel) we counted it as training. So sure, it seemed expensive when analyzed the way this post did it, but that money was already allocated and spent and not doing it wasn’t going to save money.

10

Malohdek t1_ja22i5l wrote

This is an inherent flaw of government. Though I understand why.

It's like when you budget for food, you're not going to spend $80 when you gave yourself $100 unless you've got the presence of mind to ration the food you spent $80 on instead of being comfortable with $100 of food.

2

pbmadman t1_ja2vzkx wrote

I’m not sure I quite understand your point, but what I do understand seems like the exact opposite of my experience.

We were required to fire a certain number of rounds through the gun I worked on to satisfy our training requirements. Let’s say it was 100/year.

We planned to fire 20 per quarter in the first 3 quarters of the year and then the remaining 40 as close to the end of the year as possible.

That way if we actually needed to use the gun for something “real” we were less likely to go over the allotted amount.

In fact, in all the budgets we had, never going over was hugely important. So was never being under which is maybe what you are referencing. In all of our budgets we would always pinch every possible penny for the first 3 quarters and then make sure to spend exactly 100% of the budget in the last few months of the year.

But this phenomenon isn’t exactly unique to government.

5

Albertsongman t1_j9xyrzj wrote

Nena predicts 98 more luft balloons!! 🎈🎈🎈…😁

48

goj-145 t1_j9xlw7x wrote

1 out of 2 hit rate for half million dollar seeking missiles versus a balloon... What a joke

40

DM-me-ur-tits-plz- t1_j9xoe57 wrote

The Sidewinder is 70 year old technology. It's still used by nearly every NATO military to this day because it's the best at what it does.

No joke.

47

coolguymark t1_j9xot2w wrote

It’s been upgraded numerous times and the latest aim9x version is the best or very close to the best high of bore sight short range infrared missile in the world.

25

DM-me-ur-tits-plz- t1_j9xovwz wrote

Yeah definitely, the 9x is nothing like the 9a from the 50s. Just saying that calling it a joke is ridiculous when it's the single most tried and true short range missile on the planet.

17

BUSFULOFNUNS t1_j9xycj5 wrote

Can it hit a 50 cent balloon on the first attempt?

3

iveoles t1_j9y20g7 wrote

It’s not designed to hit 50 cent balloons. That’d be a bigger waste of money.

16

Siggi_pop t1_j9yluxe wrote

Yeah it's like saying Ford F-series is a 1948 technology.

7

tubaleiter t1_j9xmjw7 wrote

Small target, very little heat signature - not too surprising

29

chemolz9 t1_j9ybufm wrote

Small target compared to what? The balloon was 75 meters wide and carrying a payload of a couple thousand pounds.

−7

_Cody_ t1_j9ycype wrote

You're confused with the balloon the F22 shot down. The balloon shot down by the F16 was more akin to a larger party balloon

25

chemolz9 t1_j9yd9vl wrote

Ahh, I see, thanks for clarification.

4

ferrel_hadley t1_j9xpx15 wrote

>1 out of 2 hit rate for half million dollar seeking missiles versus a balloon

A heat seeking missile hitting an object that would be only a few degrees above ambient air temperatures.

>What a joke

Who is laughing. The worlds second largest military and the US defined pacing threat thought their balloons were near undetectable and untouchable. Here the US pilots are taking pictures of these balloons from above.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/our-best-look-yet-at-the-chinese-spy-balloons-massive-payload

The US then had to look at and bring down some random sky trash just to be sure there were not other spy assets using the flight profile of abandoned balloons. It looked silly but again they showed capabilities that surprised some pretty seasoned observers.

The incident will be forgotten in a few weeks. China's "super secret" years long spying on various countries by balloons that were unreachable has now been retired.

http://www.hisutton.com/Chinese-Navy-High-Altitude-Spy-Balloons.html

13

goj-145 t1_j9yw9sl wrote

The world is laughing at the US. Especially when the US also uses high altitude balloon surveillance. Going nuts and shooting down high school science projects, rushing to military action for everything, it's the perfect American story.

−11

hadesthief t1_j9zfkqr wrote

If they were in any rush to pop the balloon it wouldn't have taken a few days

1

NInjamaster600 t1_j9y1nqi wrote

I’m wondering where the first missile went then lmao

3

chipperlew t1_j9y735g wrote

They’re programmed to destruct before hitting the ground. Fighters also use self depleting rounds that disintegrate.

8

Darthaerith t1_j9xw986 wrote

A lot of people are missing the salient point here.

In shooting it down over shallow water and recovering it, the US military will analyze what they were looking for. Discover weaknesses in their own networks and look for solutions to upgrade their information security.

It also gives them an idea of what a near peer adversary was looking for specifically.

23

Slggyqo t1_j9y8lzv wrote

And come up with a better weapon for shooting down balloons.

I don’t think anyone believe that an infrared missile is the best possible option for shooting down a spy balloon, it’s just the best one that we have.

Hell, an airplane with a stall speed of over 200 knots really isn’t a great tool for taking out a slow moving balloon.

NASA has flown propeller drones at that altitude, maybe something like that …

9

SelfLord t1_j9yo37y wrote

I feel you, but you're upset about money that has already been spent. The problem starts way before the missile is fired.

2

Darthaerith t1_j9y9mgp wrote

That's an interesting point. I wonder if the laser technology they're experimenting with for ship defense against missiles would have an application here.

1

worst_user_name_ever t1_j9ymafd wrote

It might be that we have space lasers that could assassinate a person from a satellite in space. Might be bullshit. But we don't want to show our weaponry on a balloon where we aren't even sure it's not Jim Bob Michigander doing a science experiment.

1

bearsnchairs t1_j9z5414 wrote

Different ballon. That one was shot down over the Atlantic by an F22. This is one of the smaller objects in the following days that was shot down over Lake Huron.

1

kooby95 t1_j9y4dx4 wrote

Yeah, that balloon was most likely a hobbyist balloon so…

−9

hello_hellno t1_j9ybnxr wrote

What.... news sources have you been following? And what hobbyist flies 3 bus wide balloons over the ocean and military sites in another country? Just.... what?

Wtf could ever suggest to you this was some "hobbyist"?

This is such a mind-blowing comment on so many levels.

2

BluePadlock t1_j9ydubz wrote

Read the post… this is about the balloon taken down over Lake Huron, not the Chinese spy balloon taken down off the Carolina coast.

4

hello_hellno t1_ja1ysae wrote

Thanks for the correction- I was Def thinking of the wrong incident but point still stands that there is nothing suggesting it was a hobbyist balloon. The military doesn't shoot down things without clear indication it needs to be taken down

1

kooby95 t1_j9yeoq5 wrote

You’re thinking of the wrong balloon, calm down.

3

hello_hellno t1_ja1yn9a wrote

It's been pointed out a few times I sounded harsh in my original comment- wasn't my intention or even my mindset. Just wanted to correct misinformation which I still think your comment encourages until you provide some credible source that backs it. But I apologize if I sounded harsh and appreciate getting it pointed out so I can be more careful when replying. Again, if you got any source on it being a"hobbyist" balloon I'd love to read into it, and I did not mean to come off demeaning or rude.

0

torchma t1_j9yvpcq wrote

How about you get informed yourself before throwing a fit about someone's (reasonable) comment? Holy shit.

0

hello_hellno t1_ja1xqyx wrote

Inform myself,with both you and op's super sources? Not throwing a fit, but a ridiculous take is a ridiculous take and allowing blind misinformation to just be is detrimental to everyone. Now if you got something to suggest comment is correct, more than willing to read into it but what we know is that 1) China c knowledge it was theirs 2) they were mad US shot it down 3) several others have been found 4) they were specifically flying over military sites 5) the US felt it enough of a threat to shoot it down

What a i missing? Seriously, if you got any legit source that still claims it's a hobbyist balloon I'd love to read into it. Otherwise just spewing what you think is harmful. There's no "alternative facts" in the real-world.

−1

Attilashorde t1_j9yezq8 wrote

I live by an air force base. They are constantly training so instead of spending the money on training that day they had a real mission.

17

RolandSnowdust t1_j9y6jeo wrote

That’s a rounding error for the US defense budget.

12

odrea t1_j9xq1px wrote

Isnt a bullet more efficient? Why would they launch a missile?

Like it's a balloon ffs, if the surface is punctured it'll go down really fast i believe

9

NoNameImagination t1_j9xrql2 wrote

Two example of why it's not.

In 1998 Canada tried to shoot down a weather balloon, it took 1000 rounds of ammunition and 6 days to do it.

During WW1 zeppelins were extremely difficult to shoot down using machine guns as they only made small holes that didn't leak much gas. It wasn't until incendiary ammunition was brought in that they could be shot down by planes.

29

ferrel_hadley t1_j9xrwms wrote

Balloons you are used to tend to be over pressured so burst when a small tear happens (pin prick). Balloons designed to operate at altitudes like that are at an equal pressure with the air around them, so bullets pass through, making small holes that slowly replace the helium with air thus making them heavy and slowly falling.

The missile warhead generates a big pressure and heat wave that disrupts the balloon tearing it apart. Officially they were worried about damage on the ground, in reality they wanted it to land in water and at a spot they could get to quickly so they could recover it.

21

Londonforce t1_j9y2nzy wrote

>it'll go down really fast i believe

Narrator: it won't.

10

UsefulEngine1 t1_j9yucne wrote

Key on your last two words here.

You obviously believe that you're smarter than the actual military professionals who worked on this problem every one of whom apparently had never seen an actual balloon before. You believe if you had been sent up there on a paraglider with a nail on the end of a stick you could have brought it down for $300. You believe if you could just get your brilliant ideas out there to the People In Charge rather than in Reddit comments the world would run smoothly.

I believe you may be wrong

5

pm_me_ur_ephemerides t1_j9zf34y wrote

lol, I know some paraglider pilots. It would be really entertaining to see this. However, I think the altitude of the balloons is a little high for a paraglider

1

druffischnuffi t1_j9xsjto wrote

Bullets don't make it that high due to air resistance. If you point a gun to the sky, the bullets will not surpass 15000 ft or so. You either need an active propulsion or your projectile needs to be shot with extreme velocity like the ones of rail guns for example

−9

Retsek860 t1_j9yd9de wrote

The US government has sent $25 billion dollars to Ukraine but you are upset about $2.1 million being spent to protect your own airspace?

6

irregular_caffeine t1_ja2x7aw wrote

The US government spends $857.9 billion on defense in 2023 and you are upset about dismantling the Russian military on the cheap?

−3

Metalytiq OP t1_j9v3bdd wrote

Data Source:

Speaking Security Newsletter

ADSB Exchange

Tool: Tableau, Clip Studio Paint

On February 12, 2023, the U.S. government spent an estimated $2.1 million to shoot down and recover an alleged spy balloon over Lake Huron. The object was one of three objects identified by U.S. military intelligence as "most likely balloons" within the span of one week.

The object in question first appeared over Montana on February 11th, flying at about 20,000 feet. The following day, an E-3B Sentry aircraft and a KC-135 Stratotanker were tracked flying through Lake Huron along with two F-16 Fighting Falcons. Confirmed by the Pentagon, it took two Sidewinder missiles to bring down the object after the first F-16 missed.

The following day, the recovery of the object was underway, as a HC-130J Combat King II was tracked going to Lake Huron.

4

quarkman t1_j9xwu6v wrote

From what I recall, only the first balloon was thought to be an actual spy balloon. Every other object was considered a likely commercial or hobbyist in nature, especially given their altitude.

4

DSYS83 t1_j9y5opi wrote

Time to release 10,000,000 more balloons.

3

Regulai t1_j9y27pu wrote

How much of these costs are salaries paid anyway?

2

marsze12 t1_j9y5xrg wrote

why didn't the drag him down?

2

Galaxy999 t1_j9yc77h wrote

Felix political muscle. Priceless.

2

AhRedditAhHumanity t1_j9yi16t wrote

I don’t know why anyone would care how much it cost, except if they were reaching for reasons to confirm their disdain for the president who made the call.

2

BigWeld38 t1_j9yrky7 wrote

How tf do you miss a balloon??

2

Dukisjones t1_j9z3bum wrote

How the fuck do you miss and where did that missile wind up?

2

emmytau t1_j9zm1qc wrote

The missile explodes in the air if it does not find the target. And its heatseeking, so the fact it could find the balloon at all is kind of impressive. Its designed to look for a jet engine.

1

Sobbin-Robin t1_j9zh06s wrote

Talking about the US’s military budget, 2 million is practically pocket change

2

HPmoni t1_j9zz6yx wrote

Thanks, Obama...er, Biden!

2

hairyliberal t1_ja55txd wrote

All this illustrates to me is how expensive it is to maintain and fund an air force/military. How much do you think it costs to maintain these planes when they're just sitting in the hangar? And train and pay the pilots and support crews?

2

RPGnosh t1_j9y95ry wrote

I thought the cats were swords at first. It took me a second to see the airplane.

1

techhouseliving t1_j9z157a wrote

How TF does a high cost high tech missile miss a slow moving balloon?

1

BallisticMango t1_j9zk3n4 wrote

They're designed to track the hot engines of another aircraft, not a balloon that's almost the same temperature as the air.

3

BlackLandon t1_j9zle3q wrote

Eh, alot cheaper than I expected.

1

Sid15666 t1_j9znqpi wrote

Why shot it with a missile? Do they not have conventional guns onboard?

1

xstarxstar t1_j9zoltr wrote

More meaningful would be the marginal cost of the operation.

1

CrazyCaper t1_ja0zrgp wrote

Attack American with balloons. Chance of missing high

1

Hannibal_Barca_ t1_ja1j8u4 wrote

The US should just send a fleet of balloons to drop pamphlets with information that is highly censored in China and a picture of Winnie the Poo.

1

Turbulent-Mango-2698 t1_ja1n3tt wrote

Some intrinsic value as a training opportunity over the usual boring stuff.

1

EvgenyThe2nd t1_ja62ox0 wrote

Its a spy aircraft in our airspace? What you suggest leave it be? Liberal lunatics.

1

ThermalOW t1_j9xue8u wrote

Anyone know what happens to the pilot that missed? Does he get reprimanded, extra training, or does he just get made fun of by the pilot that actually could hit it

0

wilderop t1_j9xxz97 wrote

Nothing happens.

6

chipperlew t1_j9y6v20 wrote

They absolutely get made fun of by the other pilots.

15

covfefe-boy t1_j9yanr2 wrote

I remember a post saying the most unrealistic part of Top Gun is that they all generally have cool call-signs, the only realistic one was Hang Man for leaving his wing men out to dry.

Usually the call-sign comes about from something embarrassing and is given by your wing mates, some of the examples I can remember:

  • Legend - definitely badass sounding. But earned by being the first & only pilot to fail some test in the Air Force.
  • Zeus - Zero Effort Unless Supervised. Apparently lied to his commander about a report being done, was asked to pull it up, and then the commander stood over his shoulder for the next half hour until the report was done.
  • Bambi - during takeoff or landing a pregnant deer jumped in front of his plane, and he meat crayoned it across the tarmac.
  • Obi-2: Ewan McGregor played Obi-Wan Kenobi. And his brother was a pilot in the RAF, hence Obi-2. This is a bit unproven but I like to believe.

So I'd imagine the pilot that missed the balloon might be getting a new call sign.

5

wilderop t1_j9y80u8 wrote

I am sure it happens sometimes, but I bet in general the pilots are happy to fly a mission where they get to shoot something, I don't think it's very common outside of training.

2

chipperlew t1_j9y852o wrote

They “train” every day they’re not flying real missions. The idea is that they see everything they shoot as an inanimate object. Wouldn’t want them freezing up when they’re shooting things with humans inside.

2

wilderop t1_j9y8u4u wrote

I know they train every day, I've stood there and had my ears blown out by afterburners daily.

1

BUSFULOFNUNS t1_j9xz26e wrote

SWING, and a miss.

Atta-boy! You'll get the next one.

4

Slggyqo t1_j9y78t2 wrote

I’m surprised sidewinders can even track balloons, frankly. They’re heat seeking missiles, a balloon has to be pretty close to ambient air temperature, unlike a jet engine.

Sidewinder may have been the best option for the job—there’s a general quotes as saying it was—but I don’t think the military actually has any good weapons for taking down balloons. Not exactly a modern battlefield threat.

3

zivlynsbane t1_j9zma0p wrote

Don’t the jets have a targeting system? The balloon, I would think, is pretty immobile.

0

hadukenski t1_j9yaxwg wrote

So China can launch a few dozen balloons every month and make USA spend most of the defence budget just shooting them down.

−1

omsblackelf t1_j9yfjd3 wrote

It's just taxpayers' money, so no real money at all. All the important people don't pay any taxes anyway.

−1

Killawife t1_j9yyf16 wrote

Why not just use the guns? Cost three bucks a round instead. A missile for this seems way way overboard.

−1

quasar1332 t1_j9yi1zb wrote

lol, did they really miss a missile on a balloon?
thats in itself is an achievement

−3

gnomeplanet t1_j9xrpkc wrote

Its lucky the Chinese haven't tried sending barn doors flying over America.

−4

serv23 t1_j9ycjmv wrote

You will think we can have healthcare and social security if it wasn't for the billions in the military. One helicopter and a gunner could have done the job for cheaper. Who is running the military? Because they are burning my tax money!

−4

Chocolate-Then t1_j9yyywl wrote

A helicopter couldn’t get anywhere near one of these spy balloons. They fly higher than most planes can.

6

serv23 t1_j9zyehk wrote

You are right, the balloon had an altitude of 60K ft. The amount of money to take one balloon down is extravagant.

0

jaketesnake55 t1_j9yf4qz wrote

Lol an amount higher than my life’s worth of personal income taxes was spent on missing a balloon

−4

thatvoid_ t1_j9xr7vg wrote

I'm sorry. A sidewinder missed a Balloon !?

−6

Slggyqo t1_j9y6n7g wrote

I’m surprised sidewinders can even track balloons, frankly. They’re heat seeking missiles, a balloon has to be pretty close to ambient air temperature, unlike a jet engine.

10

chipperlew t1_j9y7fsd wrote

They’re not designed for tracking balloons.

5

why_so_serious_now t1_j9y4alp wrote

1/2 a million for missing a balloon with no active manuverability? Think world militaries have oversold themselves lately… disgusting

−7

Hattix t1_j9xo88r wrote

Imagine being the guy who managed to miss a virtually stationary $50 balloon with an AIM-9X.

The Russians will be falling over themselves laughing.

−13

lo_fi_ho t1_j9xpe37 wrote

The AIM-9 was designed to shoot down an aircraft with a high heat signature. The balloon was neither of those.

12

Hattix t1_j9xpq36 wrote

This is the AIM-9X which uses an imaging infrared focal plane array and compatibility with JHMCS equipped helmets. They can lock on to balloons, as balloons would be reflecting solar IR and, besides, the sensor is an imaging sensor not a hotspot detector.

Even if it was an older AIM-9J or even older, with the passive IR sensor you're thinking of, saying "Yeah but they didn't use the right missile" isn't the endorsement of the air force you think it is!

1

ferrel_hadley t1_j9xqi9r wrote

>s balloons would be reflecting solar IR

Solar IR is a small part of the downwelling solar spectrum.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0823/0287/files/atmospheric-absorption_848x452.png?v=1670339790

And the near infrared is heavily absorbed and emitted by CO2 and H20 so in those wavelengths that would be the ambient IR. The whole sky will look like it is those wavelengths.

You would also have to account for the upwelling radiation (very very very roughly shown here in Khiel and Trenberth 97 https://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/12/10/an-update-to-kiehl-and-trenberth-1997/ )

These wavelengths have always been a huge problem for IR.

Operating in these wavelengths is "the endorsement of the air force you think it is!"

4

chipperlew t1_j9y7p8g wrote

Says the guy hyping up the Russian military. Gtfo here Pavel.

1

Hattix t1_j9y82d4 wrote

Please quote directly where I said anything about the Russian military, Igor.

They're a bunch of useless conscripts and Siberian prisoners sent to fertilise the fields of Ukraine, Igor.

0

chipperlew t1_j9y8cev wrote

So you’re admitting that you’re here to cast doubt on the US while hyping Russia. Just that you have not made that overt statement yet. Thanks for clarifying.

0

Hattix t1_j9zxmqp wrote

Quit sowing discord, comrade, it's transparent. You FSB lot have been doing that for years now, it's old.

1

sA1atji t1_j9xysor wrote

The russians probably have other things to worry about an US pilot missing an balloon. Like not turning into fertilizer in Ukraine.

And based on the pictures of the balloon a lot more that 50$ of stuff was attached to it.

3

chipperlew t1_j9y7ll4 wrote

Bc of one miss? They’ve been missing thousands of times a day for a year. Targets WITH heat signatures. I’m sure they have better things to worry about right now, Valerie.

1

BUSFULOFNUNS t1_j9xy8ur wrote

Hahaha 😂🤣😂 China, with its $10 balloon, is making you Americans look like incompetent idiots.

−13

EOwl_24 t1_j9y176m wrote

Right, you then try to shoot it down, I’ll wait.

5

Slggyqo t1_j9y7g1e wrote

Have you seen the pictures?

Those aren’t 10 dollar balloons with a Huawei phone mounted on them, they’re basically spy satellites…

3

RotisserieChicken007 t1_j9xmmji wrote

Should be in r/coolguides as How to Waste Taxpayers' Money

−15

JetScootr t1_j9xp54j wrote

Gotta train the troops anyway. Even pilots need practice. I consider it a plus, because in all likelihood, that's what they would have been doing anyway, just without a real target to really shoot at.

4

RufusCranium t1_j9xn9l9 wrote

No wasted money here. STOLEN is the word for it. Government and their neverending list of ultra-expensive national emergencies...

−18

FormerHoagie t1_j9xrxbf wrote

Stolen from you? Unlikely you will pay enough taxes in your lifetime to pay the salary of one grunt in the army. Let’s put a lid on how much the average American actually contributes. You live a pretty good life in this country. Stop being so ANTI

8

RufusCranium t1_j9xuq25 wrote

You haven't a clue how much in tax I pay individually, but that's not what I meant anyways. Stolen from USA taxpayers. If we ran our households like the USA government runs the country, bankruptcy would be the only national emergency the government could afford. There are an awful lot of millionaires in congress to be having all these problems AND have the highest prison incarceration rate on the planet. They're horrible at their jobs, corrupt, or a combination thereof.

0

FormerHoagie t1_j9xv3pu wrote

Yes, so leave. It’s horrible. Everything you said has been regurgitated time and time again. You learned it from someone else repeating it. Government consists of a lot of incompetent people just doing a half assed job to get paid. Like everyone else. You, me or anyone reading this doesn’t have an answer. You complaining isn’t accomplishing anything. Run for office if you think you are smarter than those currently in charge. Start a revolution and stop regurgitation.

4

RufusCranium t1_j9y8fce wrote

No. I'll stay. I'm just as much American as any other I learned it from observation. You know nothing about me.

−1