If it's cheap enough, there will probably be youtubers and tiktokers buying them en-masse just "for the lulz".
The deception methods that were applied were truly remarkable, they used decoy tanks and sent people out to imprint fake tank tracks into fields.
They also understood IR and would shield real troops while leaving coal to burn in empty pillboxes and bunkers
There was also the shoot down of the F-117A by what was effectively a rag-tag group of AA who planned the operation and pulled it off
A lot of what was learned in the earlier Bosnia campaign was applied later in '99 - not just the use of decoys and microwaves, but using spotters to track the regular flight paths of incoming fighters and intermittently switching radar off and on (this is how Scott O'Grady was shot down in his F16)
Gen. Wesley Clark was a huge advocate of the doctrine that you could win wars with air power alone and never have to sacrifice ground troops - that thinking changed after '99
[0] note that I in no way condone the overall goal of what took place there and those same family members would be the first to tell you it was horrific
Delusions about winning wars with only air power are very close to a century old now. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_Mafia ) But they seem hugely appealing to parts of human psychology - so "proved horribly wrong, yet again" doesn't do much to cure them.
That said - Gen. Clark was a career Army officer, not Air Force. And "we don't need an army to win" ideas have, ah, limited appeal to career Army folks. My read is that he was a good officer, stuck under a political leader (Pres. Bill Clinton) extremely reluctant to commit ground forces. Clark knew not to contradict his boss, and did what he could within the imposed constraints.
It puts success entirely in the hands of the best funded. You can simply simulate the war and arrive at the outcome.
So as a member of the “losing” side, how do you respond? You only have one choice to win: escalate. Escalate to terrorism, NBC weapons, etc.
Both sides have to bleed in a fair-ish fight to keep wars roughly conventional.
Microwave ovens frequency is 2.45GHz with a narrow spectrum because microwave ovens are under strict RF regulation, like anything that is an intentional or unintentional radiator.
Microwave oven magnetron's power is miserable compared with any AAD radar. Plus, microwave oven is not designed to emit RF energy when it's opened. So, emitted power will be even less.
https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/1254/2017/01/tang264.pdf
The mesh of the door can be simply cut out, or the interlock microswitches pressed down with dowels or tape.
The article you linked shows that there’s frequency drift over time with a microwave, and that different magnetrons have different spectrum profiles.
ECM gear in US warplanes can classify a system based off its emissions and people think they're fooled by a microwave oven?
People often say "nuke" when referring to using a microwave.
I tried growing marijuana with CFL lights in my dorm room. When the cops showed up, I ate the biggest of the 3 plants, a few inches tall, right in front of them.
S band is used for target acquisition a whole lot.
> and are not modulated in any way resembling a missile fire control system
Yup, but when you're deciding whether or not to launch a HARM it's better safe than sorry. In turn, asymmetries accrue.
Indeed, you can't really afford to ignore the microwave oven S-band emitter, because you could use even a literal microwave oven for illumination with passive radar techniques for target acquisition pretty well.
Point being - even if the emissions doesn't match anything you have on record (except possibly a microwave) - would you risk a $100M airplane on it being a decoy?
If this is an actual spy object you also need to factor in the cost of the surveillance. How much money does the military lose due to the sensitive information being lost. Or how much does the military need to spend to regain strategic advantage? That probably costs more than a F22 flight and a missile.
Obviously this depends on the number of objects that one needs to respond to. Cheap surveillance devices can obviously overwhelm this and then you have a war of attrition.
In the example of the article we need to consider the cost of flights being downed (which they down when considering the cost of hitting an object and downing an aircraft. Quite expensive). Flights being canceled and/or delayed is expensive.
...probably around zero dollars. It would be different if it was above say active war zone but in this case it is almost as far from potential warzone as possible so probably absolutely nothing.
It would be naive to believe that military information is only important when bullets are being fired. This would be like saying that your class textbook is only useful when you're taking a test. (A cold war is like you have an upcoming test)
So now our leaders are trigger happy about shooting down any potential new balloons in order to try and save face while looking tough. Meanwhile, I’m sure plenty of Chinese officials are feeling pretty smug at the reaction they were able to cause and pride that they can present themselves as a capable challenger to American hegemony.
I agree that a ballon over Alaska is unlikely to gain much intelligence, but with the right equipment at the right place you can get a lot of useful insights into your enemy's capabilities even at peacetime.
There's a school of thought that says the US won the cold war by convincing the Soviets to bankrupt themselves trying to keep up with the arms race. Now I don't necessarily think that fully explains things, but I do think there's a lot more politics to a "spy" device than the actual photographs, especially outside the context of a hot war.
More to the point, if one side keeps secrets and another doesn't, the secret keepers have an advantage. Its a Prisoner's Dilemma scenario, where secrecy is defection.
Then 100. Then 1000.
By all means, let the US military shoot as many as they want.
Let the propagandists call it "a great military display".
Then, just like the West is doing with Ukraine when it comes to artillery rounds, watch the Western arsenal of A2A missiles drop to critical levels that they won't be able to rebuild with any sort of expediency.
It should be a lesson the US learned a thousand times over, but we just saw them do it again: the aeronautical equivalent of bombing a farmer with an AK-47 and calling it a "victory".
Anyone stupid enough to do it without following FAA rules (assuming launched in the US) is going to find themselves in some serious trouble.
In all seriousness, I have no idea.
Thank heavens pot is legal in so many states now
https://www.weather.gov/bmx/kidscorner_weatherballoons#:~:te....
> Twice a day, every day of the year, weather balloons are released simultaneously from almost 900 locations worldwide! This includes 92 released by the National Weather Service in the US and its territories.
Technically whoever launched this thing saved us money on the target. So the cost was negative.
Think about how much healthcare, food, housing, we are burning up with this nonsense.
I mean, those are IR missiles and such a balloon wouldn't have a great signature.
I assume that “$” is a oops?
