Cannonball Run

If a military jet was launched from a hollow shipping container on the US west coast, carrying only fuel instead of armaments, and only flying low at top speeds, could it cross the continental US without being shot down?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Probably not

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.
    Not enough fuel.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It would burn less fuel at higher altitudes and would require less if it flew from east to west.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >less fuel if it flew from east to west
        no? ground level winds are more influenced by local patterns rather than global circulation or high altitude jetstreams.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no. i'd be surprised if it made it out of the state it started in.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/DMYR7O4.jpeg

      If a military jet was launched from a hollow shipping container on the US west coast, carrying only fuel instead of armaments, and only flying low at top speeds, could it cross the continental US without being shot down?

      Man, if only there were a website one could use to quickly find out that both of these intuitions are very obviously incorrect. You might want to try calling IT and seeing what they think.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >unauthorized jet launches out of cargo container
        >supersonic blasts at low altitude
        tell me why you think this thing isn't getting shot down less than an hour into this joyride?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Flying below radar.
          Can only use jet to jet lock on.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No.

            Even without bothering to go into this moronation at all, it doesn't even matter. The F-22 you picture is in fact about the longest range jet fighter and it "only" has a FERRY range (ie, the absolute idea multiple external fuel tank zero weapons going ideal efficiency speed and altitude, note flying low altitude reduces range) of around 2000 miles. US is at least 2600 miles coast to coast.

            Supersonic kills range, even with supercruise it's not as efficient. So does flying low, and doing maneuvers. And there's no "below radar" range in the US anyway because we've got stuff like the TARS systems. But none of this matters because no fighter has enough range. That's why the US has invested massively in aerial refueling capabilities.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The use has total radar coverage because of tars bros
              >number of TARS built: 11

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Come on TARS!!!!

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            do you honestly think it's going to be hard to find the jet blowing out every window it passes even slightly near?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >do you honestly think it's going to be hard to find the jet blowing out every window it passes even slightly near?
              This gives me an idea for an early warning system.

              Lots of commercial call centres have a dashboard for managers that shows current call volumes, deviation from typical call volumes for that time and similar statistics.
              I'm sure this exists for 911 dispatch centres too and is arguably more important for them as it would indicate a local crisis or event, especially if adjusted for weather/season/time and any other predictable factors.
              If this data were fed into a federal system, in an FBI crisis centre perhaps or even NORAD, you could watch an event moving across the country without anyone experiencing the event even knowing more than that they were in trouble.

              This would track low-speed supersonic flights, marauding kaiju, tornados, zombie plagues, atmospheric firestorms, fast-acting pathogens in general or even shaihalud...

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >If this data were fed into a federal system, in an FBI crisis centre perhaps or even NORAD, you could watch an event moving across the country without anyone experiencing the event even knowing more than that they were in trouble.
                It already is.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You can determine the epicenter of an earthquake with surprising accuracy based off the timing of twitter posts about it. Intelligence agencies are already running most of if not all internet communications through a host of analysis software. I'd be surprised if they weren't already doing something like this, but if they aren't it'd likely be fairly trivial to implement.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You can determine the epicenter of an earthquake with surprising accuracy based off the timing of twitter posts about it
                That makes a lot of sense, I guess a lot of people are going to think "my neighbour will have already called 911, I won't bother" but they'll still post a #same on social media to everyone they know even if it's been said 20 times on their feed already.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Flying over the Cascades and Rockies at tree top height
            they dead

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I could do it. Put me in the wienerpit coach.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          what is awacs?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what is awacs?
            Does the USAF have AWACS on 24/7 patrol over it's shores?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Does the USAF have AWACS on 24/7 patrol over it's shores?
              t. asking for a geopolitical friend

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Why would it need to is this scenario moron? Fighters have jet engines not warp drive.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A fricking spy balloon made it all the way to the Atlantic.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A fricking spy balloon made it all the way to the Atlantic.
            but not because it was invisible. just it wasn't perceived as a significant threat vs whatever risk would come from it crashing down somewhere. so

            see [...], an F-22 can actually ferry a surprisingly long distance. It still wouldn't make it but it'd get a good sight more then halfway.

            Also the "fly below radar" is a stupid approach, flying calming at optimal subsonic ferry speed in a straight line at ferry altitude picking a path that avoids any major city or military site would be the SAFER approach. You'd have fighters on you immediately of course, but the US probably wouldn't shoot you down right away but rather be trying to figure out wtf was going on. They'd be READY to shoot you down right away if you did something at all threatening, but if just cruising across the country they'd likely just wait until you ran out of fuel, trying to communicate and buzz you the whole time maybe.

            >Also the "fly below radar" is a stupid approach, flying calming at optimal subsonic ferry speed in a straight line at ferry altitude picking a path that avoids any major city or military site would be the SAFER approach. You'd have fighters on you immediately of course, but the US probably wouldn't shoot you down right away but rather be trying to figure out wtf was going on. They'd be READY to shoot you down right away if you did something at all threatening, but if just cruising across the country they'd likely just wait until you ran out of fuel, trying to communicate and buzz you the whole time maybe.
            is correct best chance isnt to go supersonic out of cargo it'd literally to be a known disarmed plane and on the radio just be like "hurr its mah dream to cannonball across da usa just tell me if imma gonna hit something and i'll fly a different way!" and airforce would probably just wait until you did something dangerous looking, crashed, ejected, or landed and if you survived then arrest you.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            china seemed very upset that they weren't getting data from it and demanded the wreckage be handed over so they could get data. seems like the threat was handled, and wireless transmissions aren't some unknown technology, that shit got jammed hard and china got real mad that it didn't get anything. don't know if you remember but literally everyone was talking about WHERE the balloon was, the US just didn't shoot it down until then so that they had complete control over the debris field.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are you dumb. It takes more fuel to fly at low altitude than high altitude

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      WAY more.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And who exactly has the capability to put this fighter into a shipping container and inconspicuously transport them to our coast? Pretty sure we would know this sort of thing was being built before it would happen, as there would be tons of news articles warning of “[Insert Adversary]’s new dangerous hidden plane could launch surprise attack against the US”

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    little aviation 101 for you anon, you burn a lot more fuel when you're flying low

    so anyway no, a fighter usually carries about 20.000 lbs of gas give or take a couple thousand lbs depending on the fighter type and that might get them half way under the most optimal conditions(ie not flying low)

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      see

      No.

      Even without bothering to go into this moronation at all, it doesn't even matter. The F-22 you picture is in fact about the longest range jet fighter and it "only" has a FERRY range (ie, the absolute idea multiple external fuel tank zero weapons going ideal efficiency speed and altitude, note flying low altitude reduces range) of around 2000 miles. US is at least 2600 miles coast to coast.

      Supersonic kills range, even with supercruise it's not as efficient. So does flying low, and doing maneuvers. And there's no "below radar" range in the US anyway because we've got stuff like the TARS systems. But none of this matters because no fighter has enough range. That's why the US has invested massively in aerial refueling capabilities.

      , an F-22 can actually ferry a surprisingly long distance. It still wouldn't make it but it'd get a good sight more then halfway.

      Also the "fly below radar" is a stupid approach, flying calming at optimal subsonic ferry speed in a straight line at ferry altitude picking a path that avoids any major city or military site would be the SAFER approach. You'd have fighters on you immediately of course, but the US probably wouldn't shoot you down right away but rather be trying to figure out wtf was going on. They'd be READY to shoot you down right away if you did something at all threatening, but if just cruising across the country they'd likely just wait until you ran out of fuel, trying to communicate and buzz you the whole time maybe.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        fair enough I was just making a rough guestimate based on my company's aircraft which have a similar fuel capacity(albeit obviously nowhere near the capabilities) and Denver is about as far as we can get out of New York. I was more just laughing about the thought of trying to do long range flying low, which as a flight dispatcher who handles a lot of shit out of New York I am VERY familiar with fuel burns at low altitude thanks to low level escape routes

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah afterburning turbofans specifically have very very high fuel consumption when flying at full burner (aka what you need to hit max speed) at low altitude. As an example for shits and giggles of a very low drag plane built for going fast, the F-104G with absolute max fuel (wingtip tanks and underwing tanks) could hold 1784 gallons of jet fuel. At top sea level speed with max burner the fuel flow rate was ~131 gallons per minute. You get 13 minutes of gas before you're completely dry at that alt.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah that's pure noair idiocy and very funny, more so if it's SUPERSANIC SPEED lol. I mean, even putting aside the whole "whoops who put that high tension line there" bit.

          Of course the US does have a variety of downward looking air monitoring assets specifically designed for "low and slow" too, though now that I think about it mostly the static stuff like tars is all concentrated at the southern border. I think there is a site up north as well but since they only cover like 200-300 mile circles each they'd be avoidable just by staying more central. They are neat. And I assume a bunch of AWACS would go up (along with fighters that don't have to worry about sipping their fuel of course). Anyway, OP is a homosexual 100% of the time but good excuse to post tars, I love that even now we do still have some small military use for dirigibles. Makes the chinks big mad over by the philippines too or at least did iirc.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            They are very big.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        For a single plane flying casually across US airspace, they'd probably think it was a warbird in private ownership with a comms failure.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >could it cross the continental US without being shot down?
    Yes. We don't shoot down our own planes.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No because math.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fast and low is one of the most fuel inefficient regimes. There's a reason cruising altitude exists and even at that no foghters have the range to cover all of the USA.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >hollow shipping container
    no plane would fit in there but a large low observable cruise missile could certainly do that, especially during peacetime

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Wake me up

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No, you need a balloon for that.

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Do you even know what the west coast, and the inland west is built out of? Gigantic empty spaces and huge military installations
    I would imagine near immediate detection, planes in the air 10-15 minutes later, and interception within the hour unless they think it's a big enough problem to belt out something really scary out of the desert at much faster than the speed of sound. A single west coast state could be sprinted across pretty fast but that's it.
    Probably near immediate clear to engage too, what with the threat to some grazing cows underneath being a low priority across most of the west.
    Interesting scenario for sure, flying low at top speeds is a dead giveaway something needs to be dealt with immediately though and is hard to be stealthy when you are blowing the windows out of the few scattered houses out in the middle of nowhere.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You could do it, but the military jet would have to be a B-2/B-21. It has the range and the stealth. Just fly at night and have a map with major radar installations so you don't literally overfly them and you're good.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No. Ground air or sat would pick them up at any altitude. Sats if they flew low would see them plus fuel and civilians. Going high and extremely fast is the only way and I'm talking approaching 20,000 kph per hour.

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    This kind of thought would have been the inception of 9/11

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >A fighter jet with 5,600 mi ferry range and carrying weapons that can STOL out of a shipping container
    No.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *