It costs over 100x more than the spy balloon to shoot it down!! x_x

[Tuur]

Bullets worked in the day when balloons were filled with hydrogen, since the bullets would ignite the hydrogen gas. Unfortunately, with helium balloons, the gas is inert and merely slowly leaks out of the holes, allowing the balloon to remain in the air for several more days.

Umm...I think that they had to use incendiary rounds to touch off the hydrogen. Regular rounds just punched holes, but didn't set off the hydrogen.

 

[Tuur]

You don't need a target lock on to fire the gun. Aiming and firing the gun is done manually. There's only a computer-calculated moving reticule at the plane's Heads Up Display (HUD) to help you 'lead aim' the target and improve chance of hitting it.

The reticule may change in appearance and may have audible signal (like a target lock) when the target is in range but you can fire the gun before that and it doesn't really lock the gun to the target. The HUD is very similar in function to a gun sight, only way bigger and displays far more information for other things as well like helping you fly the plane, not just for aiming weapons.

You want a lower cost means to shoot down balloons. That's reasonable. What, though are the costs to develop, stock, and deploy such a means? Shooting down balloons with Sidewinder missiles may be the most cost effective solution.

 

[timewerx]

You want a lower cost means to shoot down balloons. That's reasonable. What, though are the costs to develop, stock, and deploy such a means? Shooting down balloons with Sidewinder missiles may be the most cost effective solution.

You can lower R&D cost dramatically if you eliminate the 'kiss butt' politics and bureaucracy in the equation

You only need a laser powerful enough to burn through a balloon and figure out a way to mount this laser on a weapon hardpoint on a plane or UCAV. UCAV would be preferred option as UCAV based weapons can be made cheaper.

The solution is really simple but never underestimate politics to make simple matters utterly complicated and expensive.

 

[SimplyMe]

Umm...I think that they had to use incendiary rounds to touch off the hydrogen. Regular rounds just punched holes, but didn't set off the hydrogen.

From what I've read, incendiary rounds were not being used. In WW1, when there was more "balloon warfare," apparently it was largely only the British that had incendiary bullets. On top of this, the bullets only "burned" for a few hundred feet, closer than a WWI plane wanted to be to a balloon when attempting to shoot it down. It helps to remember that in WWI they were using hydrogen, which is highly flammable.

 

[Tuur]

From what I've read, incendiary rounds were not being used. In WW1, when there was more "balloon warfare," apparently it was largely only the British that had incendiary bullets. On top of this, the bullets only "burned" for a few hundred feet, closer than a WWI plane wanted to be to a balloon when attempting to shoot it down. It helps to remember that in WWI they were using hydrogen, which is highly flammable.

I think the range was 350 something. Maybe 350 yards. It was something from WWI that had me think of the incendiary bullets.