Jump to content

Last image taken from spry barroon


gwalchmai
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, geeorge said:

Wouldn't that be "Fang Fang Poontang"?

Mmm, might be.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/1934292/chinese-honey-trap-spy-fang-fang/

CHRISTINE Fang, also known as Fang Fang, is allegedly a Chinese honey trap spy who had sex with politicians to infiltrate US government affairs.

Who did she have sex with?

Fang targeted aspiring politicians from 2011 to 2015, with a reported focus on Representative Eric Swalwell.

Swalwell, who has been married since 2016, has not been accused of having a sexual relationship with Fang, nor of any wrongdoing.

Swalwell is one of the youngest members of the House and someone who Fang reportedly helped raise funding for.

Where is Fang Fang now?

Fang fled the United States in mid-2015 as she was being investigated by authorities.

Following the probe of Fang the FBI has heightened the importance of investigations into Chinese intelligence and influence operations.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, janice6 said:

I get those calls wanting me to buy a policy for a car I had four cars ago.............  I tell them that if they can't figure out what my current car is then I don't trust them to protect me either.

Seems all the cars must be “protected” now, as houses and appliances now need such protection. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur that riddling the target with 20 mike mike would basically cause a slow leak.  Little bullets, really big balloon.

It isn't  World War I and the balloon aren't filled with hydrogen so that they explode nicely when shot at with .30 caliber machine guns.

 

Just a note.

The all-knowing pundits that claim that an F-22 cannot intercept a Chinese spy balloon drifting at 70,000 feet are talking through their hats, an old phrase meaning that they are ignorant of the facts that they pretend to present.

The publish ceiling of an F-22 is 50,000 feet.

The published ceiling.

We don't tell our potential adversaries about the capabilities of military aircraft except in vague terms.

Recall that in 1985 an F-15A, another fine   McDonnell Douglas product, shot down an obsolete weather  satellite with an ASM-135 missile.

I don't know if they have any more ASM-135s in inventory.

The US military has had ground-based ASAT missiles since the 1960s -- ground, you know, below where the Chinese spy balloon was drifting along for a week.

If the military has had the capability to destroy a rapidly moving target 200 miles up for the last 50 years, do you think we might have an improved version now?

Those that claim that the US doesn't have the capability, air- or ground-based,  to destroy a slow-moving, very large balloon because it's too high is either ignorant or just lying.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A further note.

In May of 1960, a U2 spy aircraft was shot down by a surface-to-air missile as it flew over the Soviet Union.

The U2 was likely operating at 65- to 70,000 feet.

Again, what is harder to hit?  An aircraft traveling near supersonic velocity at 70,000 feet or a huge balloon drifting along at the same altitude?

If a military could do that 60 years ago, do you think that they can't do it now?

NB the reason the SR-71 was never intercepted was not because it operated at such great altitudes, but because it operated at such great altitudes going really, really fast.  :599c64b15e0f8_thumbsup:

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, gwalchmai said:

I think that depends on what your definition of "We" be... ;)

I'm sure that all of the Executive branch down to the lowest staffer are more than willing to sell military secrets.

They just need to hurry because all of Congress and their staff  want to be millionaires as well.

We used to hang those people.

One usually discovers the other guy's aircraft capabilities when they engage you in air-to-air combat and you exclaim, Holy Cow!   :biggrin:

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The propaganda arm of the hippie Marxists keep reporting that the latest weather balloon was killed by an F-16 launching a Sidewinder (AIM-9) missile and that it missed the first shot.

Why are they engaging an object with little or no heat signature with an IR-guided weapon?

The AIM-9 is a heat-seeker.

What's hot on a balloon and inert payload?

They are pretty close to the $400,000.00 price tag per unit.

 

NB  The AIM-7 Sparrow is a RADAR-guided munition, though the AIM-120 is likely the current choice.

Both are cheaper than the AIM-9,

Raytheon made a lot of AIM-7s, so they are likely still in service for a few years yet.

Unless we give them to the Taliban.

If NORAD can see the return from the metal payload, the AIM-7 can lock it up and kill it.

 

edit:  upon further consideration, the F/A-18E/F search and attack RADARs were programmed to ignore small masses moving slowly.  I could tell you what the gates were, but then I'd have to kill you.  :599c64b322d5b_tongueout:

It is possible that the AIM-7 and AIM-120 can't lock up an object like a slow-moving balloon with a small payload.

But, that still makes me wonder about attacking a basically cold object with an IR-guided weapon.

Mebbe Joe Biden knows.

Or Hunter knows because he sold the specs to all of our weapons to his buddies in communist China, Russia and Ukraine.

Betcha Fang Fang knows.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...