FAA closes El Paso and New Mexico airspace for 10 days

[deirdre]

KFOX is affiliated with the FOX network.

this convo is a bit off topic but it's kinda important info i often share for our foreign readers:

being a fox network affiliate doesnt necessarily (or maybe ever) mean what you think it means. You cant assume a fox station is right leaning. fox tv runs fluff shows like those chef reality shows and The Simpsons. They basically let these stations air their content, [NOT Fox News stuff ever] but they arent owned or operated by Fox Corp.

ex fox61 in connecticut is owned and operated by Tegna. its basically those fluff shows, your local news, maybe some sports. it's like easy listening tv. at least in Connecticut it is, we get zero political input from our local news (or the corresponding websites) here. It's quite soothing.

some affiliated stations do tap into Fox Corp for national and world news items, but kfox uses Sinclair for news, it is owned and operated by Sinclair. (which you will also hate because they basically do the same things main stream media does but in reverse-according to mainstream media anyway. )

you probably get fox tv (and the corresponding website) on your rabbit ears tv. i cant remember where you are specifically. so you'd have to look up who owns your station.
The POINT being though, dont assume if you see fox it automatically means they are right leaning. fox, unlike Fox News, is air wave tv so regulated by the FCC.

 

[Mendel]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sinclair-broadcast-group/

Founded in 1971, the Sinclair Broadcast Group is a publicly-traded American telecommunications company controlled by the family of company founder Julian Sinclair Smith. The company is the largest television station operator in the United States by the number of stations, and largest by total coverage; owning or operating a total of 193 stations across the country in over 100 markets (covering 40% of American households), many of which are located in the South and Midwest.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets), the Sinclair Broadcast Group has donated $1,143,508 or 80% to Republican candidates since 1994.

Overall, we rate Sinclair Broadcast Group Right Biased based on political affiliation with the Republican Party and the direction of network news programming. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to airing news shows with poor fact-check records.

On the inverted V bias/credibility graph, Sinclair would be halfway down the right arm. 4.6 for factual reporting is a poor score for mainstream media. Compare https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/general-news-sources/ , where most sources are rated "high" or "mostly factual".

It is true that many FOX branded TV stations rate "least biased", see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=fox

 

[deirdre]

On the inverted V bias/credibility graph, Sinclair would be halfway down the right arm. 4.6 for factual reporting

But even then, your source says kfox is pretty good as far as factual, and not all that bad on bias.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/kfox-el-paso-news-bias/

 

[Eburacum]

Is that true? I would like to see evidence of this, as I am not agreeing with that statement.

What do you doubt? That bullets follow ballistic courses, and lasers follow geodesic courses? For a laser beam, there would be a certain amount of atmospheric lensing, but that would be the same in both directions so should cancel out.

The other possibility is the use of guided missiles, which correct their course en route, and can be very good at bringing down aircraft. I don't think a guided missile would be very good at targeting a nearby drone, but there may already be missile technology capable of seeking and destroying drones in the Ukrainian theatre of war and elsewhere. Anyone know?

 

[Gary C]

What do you doubt? That bullets follow ballistic courses, and lasers follow geodesic courses? For a laser beam, there would be a certain amount of atmospheric lensing, but that would be the same in both directions so should cancel out.

The issue may be the term 'geodesic' which is not widely used in general discourse.

The other possibility is the use of guided missiles, which correct their course en route, and can be very good at bringing down aircraft. I don't think a guided missile would be very good at targeting a nearby drone, but there may already be missile technology capable of seeking and destroying drones in the Ukrainian theatre of war and elsewhere. Anyone know?

The issue here is that 'drone' covers devices weighing 10 kg and travelling at 40kph and those weighing a few hundred kg and travelling over 200kph. Only the later are typically engaged by expensive missiles in Ukraine as they can carry a considerable warhead or thermal imaging systems able to provide precise targeting information back to the drone's operators for use in directing artillery or missile fire. The smallest ones are being dealt with using everything from shotguns to jammers to reusable hunter-killer drones. No one solution has so far proved optimal across the entire span of the drone menagerie.

 

[jarlrmai]

Also as has been discussed drones are asymmetric, for example a Shahed drone which is basically a cheap unmanned light aircraft with a bomb strapped to it is many time less expensive and quicker to produce than the missile system that might engage it.

And while the target you are protecting might be worth it, eventually it ends up costing many times more to defend it than it does to attack it and you eventually run out of missiles.

Shooting them down with planes costs you maintenance and pilot time and engaging slow moving targets with guns puts jet fighters and pilots at risk and using air to air missiles is expensive.

 

[John J.]

...there may already be missile technology capable of seeking and destroying drones in the Ukrainian theatre of war and elsewhere. Anyone know?

Lots of military drones used by both sides in the Ukraine conflict, and in the Middle East, have been brought down by surface-to-air missiles and air-to-air missiles, some drones have been destroyed by smaller anti-armour missiles.

Starting last year, U.S. Air Force F-16C Vipers have notably been using 70mm laser-guided Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System II (APKWS II) rockets to down drones on missions over and around the Red Sea...

"F-35C Naval Joint Strike Fighters Have Been Shooting Down Houthi Drones", TWZ, 25 April 2025, Joseph Trevithik https://www.twz.com/air/f-35c-naval-joint-strike-fighters-have-been-shooting-down-houthi-drones

In the past, we have looked at how Saudi Arabia has used AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles, or AMRAAMs, to tackle the threat posed by drones operated by the Houthi militia...
While we don't know what weapons were used by the Israeli F-35Is to down the two Iranian drones, these jets are similarly armed with AMRAAMs, as well as short-range AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles... However, the limited thermal signature of small drones means an infrared-guided missile like an AIM-9 is often considered a less reliable means of scoring a kill compared to a radar-guided weapon like the AIM-120.

"Israel Shows The F-35's First Aerial Kill In Newly Declassified Video", TWZ, 8 March 2022, Thomas Newdick https://www.twz.com/44609/israel-shows-the-f-35s-first-aerial-kill-in-newly-declassified-video

"Moment RAF F-35 jet shoots down Iranian drone over Middle East" (using an air-to-air missile), The Independent 03 March 2026
https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/uk-raf-fighter-jet-iran-drone-middle-east-war-b2931385.html, also
"RAF F-35 shoots down Iranian-designed drones over Jordan", which adds

"...an RAF Typhoon operating with the joint UK-Qatar 12 Squadron shot down an Iranian one-way attack drone directed at Qatar using an air-to-air missile on Monday," added the MoD. ...The UK is deploying HMS Dragon, a Type 45 air-defence destroyer, to the Eastern Mediterranean, along with Wildcat helicopters equipped with Martlet missiles for counter-drone defence.

Aerospace Global News, 03 March 2026, Joanna Bailey https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/news/royal-air-force-raf-f-35-iran-drone-shootdown/

"US Army AH-64 Apache Helicopters Shoot Down Drones With Hellfire Missiles During Exercise In Saudi Arabia", Simple Flying, 03 October 2024, Luke Bodell https://simpleflying.com/us-army-ah-64-shoot-down-drones-hellfire-missiles-saudi-arabia/

"'132 of 137 ballistic missiles intercepted & destroyed, 195 drones shot down': Which air defence systems does the UAE use?"

The UAE intercepted 132 of 137 Iranian ballistic missiles and 195 drones using a multi-layered defence network. Systems like THAAD, Patriot PAC-3, and Pantsir-S1 successfully neutralised the threats, limiting impacts to minor material damage.

THAAD and Patriot are surface-to-air missile systems, Pantsir-S1 uses SAMs and autocannon.
Wionews.com, Abhinav Yadav (complete with silly AI-manufactured image; at least it's identified as such), https://www.wionews.com/photos/-132...-does-the-uae-use-1772347852802/1772347852803

"In first, IDF says ship-mounted Iron Dome downs hostile drone over Eilat", The Times of Israel, 09 April 2024, Emanuel Fabien https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-fi...iron-dome-downs-suspicious-target-over-eilat/

The Iron Dome, developed after the 2006 "Summer War" between Israel and Hezbollah, is the most battle-tested air defence system in the world. ...For years it has shot down short-range rockets and drones fired at Israel mainly from the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon.

"Is Israel's Iron Dome impenetrable - and why have the US sent more air defences?", The Independent, 16 October 2024, Tom Watling https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-israel-missiles-iron-dome-b2629791.html

The situation within the USA is very different to Ukraine or the Middle East, drones carrying substantial explosive payloads are perhaps an unlikely threat. As with the Chinese balloon of Jan-Feb 2023, the use of SAMs or AAMs would probably be a greater physical hazard to people on the ground than any immediate hazard posed by drones being used for illegal purposes within the USA.

Lasers might offer a safer option, in that the only debris falling is the drone itself. As this thread and many of its posts demonstrate, "safer" is relative; any weapon system that has a risk of being used against an incorrect aerial target might be considered a greater risk to the public than an unintercepted quadcopter.

 

[Ravi]

What do you doubt? That bullets follow ballistic courses, and lasers follow geodesic courses? For a laser beam, there would be a certain amount of atmospheric lensing, but that would be the same in both directions so should cancel out.

The other possibility is the use of guided missiles, which correct their course en route, and can be very good at bringing down aircraft. I don't think a guided missile would be very good at targeting a nearby drone, but there may already be missile technology capable of seeking and destroying drones in the Ukrainian theatre of war and elsewhere. Anyone know?

But these are two different things, guiding a missile, or shooting them with laser power.
My point is it may seem simple (not your word, agreed) to "just shoot with a laser". It involves not only atmospheric adaptive optics correction (focus), but also it needs to anticipate where the missile goes before it is there, before it can fire. All in all my message is generally, that it is far from easy to just "hit it with a laser".

 

[Ann K]

But these are two different things, guiding a missile, or shooting them with laser power.
My point is it may seem simple (not your word, agreed) to "just shoot with a laser". It involves not only atmospheric adaptive optics correction (focus), but also it needs to anticipate where the missile goes before it is there, before it can fire. All in all my message is generally, that it is far from easy to just "hit it with a laser".

A laser, however, goes at the speed of light, while any physical projectile has a measurable time of travel that must be accounted for in the calculation.

 

[Mendel]

It involves not only atmospheric adaptive optics correction (focus), but also it needs to anticipate where the missile goes before it is there, before it can fire.

citation needed.

a target 30km away requires a lead time of 0.2ms; if it was travelling at the speed of sound, it would move about 7 cm or 3 inches in that time.