I've quoted General VanHerck on this here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/un...-intercepted-by-us-aircraft.12866/post-287536What I don't understand is why are we shooting them down with a $400,000 sidewinder missle when all you have to do is "switch to guns" and use bullets.
Q: Hi, thanks. A missile seems like a particularly destructive weapon to be using if there is a desire to investigate and figure out what these are afterwards. Can you explain why — explain the weapon's choice.
GEN. VANHERCK: Absolutely. Melissa, if you don't mind, I'll take this one. So, first of all, maintaining a radar track on an object this small is very hard. So taking a radar shot such as AIM-120 would be a lower probability of success. We assessed taking a gunshot yesterday in that event, as well as today. And the pilots in each situation felt that that was really unachievable because of the size, especially yesterday in the altitude, and also because of a — the challenge to acquire it visually because it's so small.
It's also potentially a safety of flight issue because you have to get so close to the object before you see it that you potentially could fly into the debris or the actual object. Therefore, in each situation, the AIM-9X, a heat seeking missile or infrared missile that sees contrast, has been the — the weapons of choice against the — the objects was — we've been seeing.
Last edited by a moderator: