
'Fleet of UFOs' Followed US Aircraft, Navy Pilot Says (2019) - collinmanderson
https://www.livescience.com/65585-ufo-sightings-us-pilots.html
======
exception_e
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.

🛸🛸🛸

~~~
gccxsse
Thoughts on the roswell ufo incident?

~~~
throw1234651234
I saw no compelling evidence of anything. Too long ago, too easy to cover up /
make things up. That's just my .05 though.

------
AndrewKemendo
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.

------
collinmanderson
Found this via "The Villager and the F-18" article:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006595](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23006595)

------
takinola
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
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.

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

------
modzu
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
There isn't much more than the salacious bits is there?

~~~
lucas_membrane
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.

~~~
throw1234651234
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.

~~~
lucas_membrane
> Drones are far too slow and munitions they carry are far too slow.

Quantity has a quality all its own.

> AEGIS cruisers (carrier battle group / CBG) surrounding the carrier

If you do not know how large or small the drones may be, you may have to
protect against attacks from within that perimeter.

Regardless, for the point of view of the current discussion, the question is
not whether you are correct, it is whether or not the Navy people have reasons
to stay up at night worrying that you may not be 100% correct, worrying at
least enough to lose a little of their rationality when dealing with a new
situation that they are unable to explain. Skeptics say that extraordinary
explanations require extraordinary evidence and that normally only normal
things happen. But that kind of thinking may not prevail when one is trained
to believe the multi-billion dollar radar no matter how odd the display
appears and no matter how many layers of software and hardware between the
antenna and the display must work together flawlessly to put that image on the
screen. Particularly when your own life, thousands of others, and everything
you are working for may be at stake.

------
Shivetya
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?

------
secfirstmd
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-
th...](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28640/could-some-of-the-ufos-
navy-pilots-are-encountering-be-airborne-radar-reflectors)

------
jimsmart
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)

------
joosymoosy
Russia shows us hyper-sonic rockets

we should Russia UFOs

------
jml7c5
(2019)

