Would they not plan for recovery before shooting it down? One would think that is of high value to ensure you recover the wreckage of whatever it is
I mean, sure, that's seen as a secondary or tertiary objective, but it's not primary.
Honestly, this isn't like it was in 1958 or when Francis Gary Powers was shot down. The missiles are high explosive, the targets are soft, it's potentially tons of debris falling 20,000 and 40,000 feet. So, now you have debris spreading through wind, dropping at terminal speeds, 40,000 feet of drop....you're talking about debris fields the size of Vermont in an area the size of Yukon. That place is huge.
Alaska? It's -60F with 40 inches of sea ice, ten miles off the coast. You can't fly guys out there. They would have to truck it.... not happening. Now you've got 40 guys in the cold, you'd have to build a camp. You're stepping over a $20.oo bill for a dime, it would be prohibitively expensive.
I'm sure it would be like driving a Cat D9 over my mom's Mini Cooper, then trying to reassemble the CD collection she had in the trunk.
Remember in like 2015 when that plane crashed off of Indonesia or the Philippines? I think it was one of those Airbus disasters. In any case, my point is, that was 100 times larger than these three objects combined, had 300 people on board, and they still didn't find it after 40 or 50 days. I'm not sure they found anything.
Buy on AliExpress.com
