Comment by talldayo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by talldayo | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Some action is already being taken; supposedly the GREMLIN program is being rolled out in areas where sightings are most common: https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-ufo-gremlin/

> If no joy on ECW, disassemble them in the sky.

I disagree, for the same reason the US doesn't send an SM-6 up to greet every plane without an IFF turned on. It's an expensive exercise in endangering human lives, not a valiant defense of homeland security. Understanding the battlespace is a crucial part of modern warfare and soldiers aren't going to blind-fire on a weird drone unless it presents an immediate, credible threat.

Take the AIM-120s off your F-16 and put a FLIR pod on it, track the drones to wherever they land. Record the platform, dazzle it if it's got cameras or EO sensors, and send a few decoys out if you want to bait it into revealing last-resort defenses against a JDAM-like weapon. Then, you destroy it. Hell, if it's an unmanned naval platform you could also just send a couple Marines out in a Chinook to lift it to the Pentagon. America's weapons are nice, but we can do a lot more than just blow stuff up.

F-16 seems like overkill for a drone. Send up the Apaches.

Let's not forget it took how many sidewinders to take down the Chinese balloon? More than 1 makes someone look foolish.

You send in a supersonic fighter because no conventional drone is going to escape it. Dogfighting it isn't necessary, it's doubtful they'd detect you at all if your fighter is loitering at 10,000ft. Eventually the drone is going to run out of power, and you can keep sending more fighters to relieve whichever jet is on duty (if necessary).

Apaches are cool and all, but if cost is your concern then it's probably cheaper to send a single pilot in a single-seat F-16 even if the avgas costs more. Even if you gotta wait 4 hours for your target to go home, it's still probably cheaper than a single AMRAAM.

Drones are generally too slow and have too small of a radar footprint to engage with a fighter jet. Helicopters are a better tool. Unless they're very large drones than most missiles on the jet won't really be applicable. You can't shoot down a tiny front with radar or heat seeking missiles.

What it would come down to is that an Air National Guard unit is well prepared to intercept something in the sky (although a slow, low flying drone might be tricky). It's pretty extreme to actually do that, of course, and just observing the thing would always be an option.

An Army National Guard unit might have Apaches available, but putting one in the air in short order to perform air intercepts is not their mission.

A 30mm round plowing through someone’s living room because some bath water IQ nitwit thought they saw an alien is not a valid use of government resources. Even if they’re from Jersey.

F-16s are commonly used as drones. They are called QF-16s. https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/boeing-delivers-las...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com