- Nov 23, 2020
- Reaction score
Hi Max.If it was at 36,000' it's highly unlikely to have been a "cruise missile". To assist in survivability, they tend to operate at very low altitude:
I'm not up to speed with the bewildering new varieties of Cruise. I still think Tomahawk, which has a flight altitude of 30-50m above ground level.Hi Max.
Cruise missiles (not counting air-launched variants, such as Stormshadow) only hug the terrain when they approach their target.
The first part of the flight path for a ground-launched missile, requires a climb to typically between 8km and 20km (to maximise range), which certainly overlaps the altitude of the Airbus.
View attachment 35810
The only one I've had any involvement with was the RAF's Stormshadow mission planning software, but I know that air-launched and surface launched cruise missiles have very different flight paths.
Probably going to open a can of worms here and pretty sure there is already a thread on the matter.Is this the next step in disclosure?
Will the required Pentagon report in June add more information?
See:Probably going to open a can of worms here and pretty sure there is already a thread on the matter. ...
I finally got round to looking at some of the stuff released by the Pentagon. ...
There seems to be a follow up article on the initial website stating the Learjet possibility was investigated but ruled out.The analysis at Metabunk suggests this may have been a Lear Jet 5000 feet above the Airbus.
I'm not entirely convinced - the timings don't quite match up - but whatever it was, it almost certainly wasn't a cruise missile.