5 ms·

'Fleet of UFOs' Followed US Aircraft, Navy Pilot Says (2019)

collinmanderson 7y ago
Found this via "The Villager and the F-18" article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006595
exception_e 7y ago
I'm very passionate about the UFO subject ("ufology" as some call it) and am happy that we're getting more "official" reports like this which leads to public awareness. I follow the subject pretty closely and 90% of it is all about book sales so it's annoying/pushes it back from being taken seriously in terms of science. As far as I'm concerned this ^ and the Phoenix Lights are the most credible UFO sightings. Personal note: I'll never forget the first time I saw a UFO and it was with my Dad! We couldn't believe it - my cheap Virgin Mobile flip phone camera was not capable of... well anything, unfortunate. I have seen 2 or 3 UFOs since then (one with an ex-partner so I wasn't just seeing things). BTW, I'm you're typical "smart" logical programmer and don't just believe whatever I hear... I'm betting on more of these reports coming out and hope that science starts to factor into the subject. 🛸🛸🛸
- throw1234651234 7y ago
  What about the Tehran UFO incident?
  - exception_e 7y ago
    Ah good one. I only wrote in the ones that are very obviously but... - Kecksburg UFO incident - Chilean Navy UFO incident Kecksburg is a stretch for most people, but I lived around there and heard first-hand reports. Not that that really matters.
- gccxsse 7y ago
  Thoughts on the roswell ufo incident?
  - throw1234651234 7y ago
    I saw no compelling evidence of anything. Too long ago, too easy to cover up / make things up. That's just my .05 though.
  - rrmm 7y ago
    (serious question) Was covering up 'Project Mogul' explanation not adequate?
- SomeoneFromCA 7y ago
  I think the TPTB decided that a next pandemy may wipe the whole humanity off, and decided that it is the time to start giving out the information, piece by piece.
modzu 7y ago
I've been following this story since 2015 and the same incomplete story (only the most salacious parts, none of the context or criticism) keeps getting recycled by the media over and over and over
- rrmm 7y ago
  There isn't much more than the salacious bits is there?
  - lucas_membrane 7y ago
    There may be some substrate of psychology at work on the US Navy aircraft carriers. Those are amongst the biggest and baddest machines of death ever -- floating cities of death, powerful enough to act like kings of the world if invulnerable. There is reason to fear that carriers cannot successfully defend themselves against a large swarm of drones, and it is entirely possible that several other countries are doing serious R&D to thereby end the reign of the carriers as masters of the seas.
    - rrmm 7y ago
      Carriers have always been relatively vulnerable. That's why they have picket ships and carrier groups. I'm not sure drones increase that. They might lower the barrier to entry for an attack. But considering the barrier is a small boat with a bomber a la USS Cole attack. It'll be interesting to see if/how CIWS will be adapted.
    - throw1234651234 7y ago
      A drone is unlikely to be a threat to a carrier battle group. Drones are far too slow and munitions they carry are far too slow. The only legitimate threats to carrier battle groups are supersonic Anti ship missiles (AShMs), such as the USSR P-800, the Brahmos 2, etc. These come in low (under the CBGs radar horizon) and fast on final approach to ship and maneuver. They can be nuclear-tipped. Right now the defense pattern is this: * There is an AWACS plane off of the carrier providing over-the-horizon (OTH) radar coverage. * Once it detects a missile, the info is data-linked to the AEGIS cruisers (carrier battle group / CBG) surrounding the carrier * These fire anti-missile missiles (SM-6 and similar) * If missiles get through, close range missiles, radar chaff is deployed, and CIWS miniguns spray the target (or chaff released by friendlies, and consequently the friendlies) * As a last line of defense, the carrier itself has some CIWS There has been no true demonstration of AshMs being stopped in any significant number.
Shivetya 7y ago
A couple of things, there is not enough story here to get a clear picture. Namely did more than one pilot in the same flight capture these on RADAR and infrared and while the one pilot says he did not capture it on his helmet camera did any other pilots even see them with their own eyes? If its just via sensors, even in the same flight, could it be some test program that just gets activated under the right conditions? Is there more story that goes into detail about how many pilots per flight saw them?
AndrewKemendo 7y ago
Within aviation and specifically military aviation, "UFO" means exactly what it says on the tin, an object that is airborne (flying) but has not been identified to be a known craft type by radio signals or visual recognition. That's all. It doesn't imply anything about what it is, only what it isn't, namely identified. There are tons of these on radar, HF etc all the time.
Gravityloss 7y ago
Always good to read the Bad UFOs take. https://badufos.blogspot.com/2019/05/its-tic-vs-tac-as-media-goes-into-frenzy.html https://badufos.blogspot.com/2019/05/its-tic-vs-tac-as-media...
jimsmart 7y ago
This article, dated May 2019, seems to be discussing the same material as a New York Times article from around that time - previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20018535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20018535
jml7c5 7y ago
(2019)
secfirstmd 7y ago
The articles when they first came out really blew me away. Initially I thought though that this might be an interesting reason that explained it. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28640/could-some-of-the-ufos-navy-pilots-are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectors https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28640/could-some-of-th...
joosymoosy 7y ago
Russia shows us hyper-sonic rockets we should Russia UFOs
takinola 7y ago
These may not even be "flying" objects. My understanding is the US military has the capability to generate radar "ghosts" ie objects show up on your radar that do not exist. This, as you can imagine, would be advantageous in confusing enemy defenses ("look, the Americans, they're coming from the east", when in fact, they are flying in from another direction. I am really skeptical that these are extra-terrestial in nature or that the US government does not know exactly what they are. Think of the national security implications if there were beings with technological capabilities far beyond ours hanging around our military installations. The government would freak out, and rightly so. The absence of this reaction is the most convincing evidence to me that the origin of these sightings is not a mystery.
- ksaj 6y ago
  They officially use the term 'aerial phenomena' instead of 'objects' for that very reason. I do see in some of the articles that the people in interviews sometimes use the older term, but officially they avoid calling them objects when they could be "reflections" etc. For example, the rotating one that is making its rounds in the official release definitely moves in such a way that it is probably something firmly attached to something else and twisting kinda like a bolt or screw or even a lever does, and somehow ending up on the radar. That rotation it does is definitely not of the aerodynamic kind.

Found this via "The Villager and the F-18" article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006595 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006595

exception_e 7y ago

I'm very passionate about the UFO subject ("ufology" as some call it) and am happy that we're getting more "official" reports like this which leads to public awareness. I follow the subject pretty closely and 90% of it is all about book sales so it's annoying/pushes it back from being taken seriously in terms of science. As far as I'm concerned this ^ and the Phoenix Lights are the most credible UFO sightings. Personal note: I'll never forget the first time I saw a UFO and it was with my Dad! We couldn't believe it - my cheap Virgin Mobile flip phone camera was not capable of... well anything, unfortunate. I have seen 2 or 3 UFOs since then (one with an ex-partner so I wasn't just seeing things). BTW, I'm you're typical "smart" logical programmer and don't just believe whatever I hear... I'm betting on more of these reports coming out and hope that science starts to factor into the subject. 🛸🛸🛸

throw1234651234 7y ago
What about the Tehran UFO incident?
- exception_e 7y ago
  Ah good one. I only wrote in the ones that are very obviously but... - Kecksburg UFO incident - Chilean Navy UFO incident Kecksburg is a stretch for most people, but I lived around there and heard first-hand reports. Not that that really matters.
gccxsse 7y ago
Thoughts on the roswell ufo incident?
- throw1234651234 7y ago
  I saw no compelling evidence of anything. Too long ago, too easy to cover up / make things up. That's just my .05 though.
- rrmm 7y ago
  (serious question) Was covering up 'Project Mogul' explanation not adequate?
SomeoneFromCA 7y ago
I think the TPTB decided that a next pandemy may wipe the whole humanity off, and decided that it is the time to start giving out the information, piece by piece.

modzu 7y ago

I've been following this story since 2015 and the same incomplete story (only the most salacious parts, none of the context or criticism) keeps getting recycled by the media over and over and over

rrmm 7y ago
There isn't much more than the salacious bits is there?
- lucas_membrane 7y ago
  There may be some substrate of psychology at work on the US Navy aircraft carriers. Those are amongst the biggest and baddest machines of death ever -- floating cities of death, powerful enough to act like kings of the world if invulnerable. There is reason to fear that carriers cannot successfully defend themselves against a large swarm of drones, and it is entirely possible that several other countries are doing serious R&D to thereby end the reign of the carriers as masters of the seas.
  - rrmm 7y ago
    Carriers have always been relatively vulnerable. That's why they have picket ships and carrier groups. I'm not sure drones increase that. They might lower the barrier to entry for an attack. But considering the barrier is a small boat with a bomber a la USS Cole attack. It'll be interesting to see if/how CIWS will be adapted.
  - throw1234651234 7y ago
    A drone is unlikely to be a threat to a carrier battle group. Drones are far too slow and munitions they carry are far too slow. The only legitimate threats to carrier battle groups are supersonic Anti ship missiles (AShMs), such as the USSR P-800, the Brahmos 2, etc. These come in low (under the CBGs radar horizon) and fast on final approach to ship and maneuver. They can be nuclear-tipped. Right now the defense pattern is this: * There is an AWACS plane off of the carrier providing over-the-horizon (OTH) radar coverage. * Once it detects a missile, the info is data-linked to the AEGIS cruisers (carrier battle group / CBG) surrounding the carrier * These fire anti-missile missiles (SM-6 and similar) * If missiles get through, close range missiles, radar chaff is deployed, and CIWS miniguns spray the target (or chaff released by friendlies, and consequently the friendlies) * As a last line of defense, the carrier itself has some CIWS There has been no true demonstration of AshMs being stopped in any significant number.

Shivetya 7y ago

A couple of things, there is not enough story here to get a clear picture. Namely did more than one pilot in the same flight capture these on RADAR and infrared and while the one pilot says he did not capture it on his helmet camera did any other pilots even see them with their own eyes? If its just via sensors, even in the same flight, could it be some test program that just gets activated under the right conditions? Is there more story that goes into detail about how many pilots per flight saw them?

AndrewKemendo 7y ago

Within aviation and specifically military aviation, "UFO" means exactly what it says on the tin, an object that is airborne (flying) but has not been identified to be a known craft type by radio signals or visual recognition. That's all. It doesn't imply anything about what it is, only what it isn't, namely identified. There are tons of these on radar, HF etc all the time.

Gravityloss 7y ago

Always good to read the Bad UFOs take. https://badufos.blogspot.com/2019/05/its-tic-vs-tac-as-media-goes-into-frenzy.html https://badufos.blogspot.com/2019/05/its-tic-vs-tac-as-media...

jimsmart 7y ago

This article, dated May 2019, seems to be discussing the same material as a New York Times article from around that time - previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20018535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20018535

jml7c5 7y ago

(2019)

secfirstmd 7y ago

The articles when they first came out really blew me away. Initially I thought though that this might be an interesting reason that explained it. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28640/could-some-of-the-ufos-navy-pilots-are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectors https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28640/could-some-of-th...

joosymoosy 7y ago

Russia shows us hyper-sonic rockets we should Russia UFOs

takinola 7y ago

These may not even be "flying" objects. My understanding is the US military has the capability to generate radar "ghosts" ie objects show up on your radar that do not exist. This, as you can imagine, would be advantageous in confusing enemy defenses ("look, the Americans, they're coming from the east", when in fact, they are flying in from another direction. I am really skeptical that these are extra-terrestial in nature or that the US government does not know exactly what they are. Think of the national security implications if there were beings with technological capabilities far beyond ours hanging around our military installations. The government would freak out, and rightly so. The absence of this reaction is the most convincing evidence to me that the origin of these sightings is not a mystery.

ksaj 6y ago
They officially use the term 'aerial phenomena' instead of 'objects' for that very reason. I do see in some of the articles that the people in interviews sometimes use the older term, but officially they avoid calling them objects when they could be "reflections" etc. For example, the rotating one that is making its rounds in the official release definitely moves in such a way that it is probably something firmly attached to something else and twisting kinda like a bolt or screw or even a lever does, and somehow ending up on the radar. That rotation it does is definitely not of the aerodynamic kind.