Han
piscator ψ
No other suggestions; I think you're initial one was correct tbh.
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
From The NY Times: The Pentagon's Secret UFO Program
- Thread starter IsaacKoi
- Start date
No other suggestions; I think you're initial one was correct tbh.
AFAIK:
Source=Jim Slaight, OK-1=His WSO (Weapon systems officer)
OK-2=David Fravor, OK-3=His WSO
OK-4=Pilot of jet that launched well after and took the FLIR footage, OK-5=His WSO
OK-6=Radar operator for the E-2 Hawkeye radar aircraft
“Cheeks” Kurth doesn't seem to be mentioned in the TTSA report at all.
Of those, Source, OK-1, OK-2, OK-3 definitely saw the object. OK-4 and OK-5 may have seen it from so far away that it didn't look like much. Kurth and OK-6 didn't see it visually.
The second set of jets that launched sometime after Source, OK-1, OK-2 and OK-3 had already returned included OK-4 and OK-5 in one jet, plus three other jets. But the Fightersweep article states that those jets separated after launch, so apparently only one went to where the ufo was. So in total there was Kurth in one Hornet and 6 Super Hornets, bringing the total to 7 as that NY Times article states, but it seems of those only three actually saw the ufo.
There were 2 targets: The UFO, that either was definitely an object, or alternatively we have at least 4 persons, who all should at least pay a visit to an eye-doctor and definitely shouldn't be flying. Everything seems to point to the first option. Additionally there was something in the water, which could have been an object (USO), BUT of these let's say "primary sources", only the log actually calls it unidentified object:
(Leaked) event log:
Navy event document 2004 Nov 14.pdf
TTSA report:
2004 USS NIMITZ PILOT WRITTEN REPORT
Fightersweep article:
https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/
And even in that log "object" seems to be more like a generic word in lack of a better one. All of those documents describe that the disturbance in water looked like something had just sunk/submerged and what the pilots guessed it could be, but none of those indicate there were some definite visible edges for an actual object. So there was a UFO, but it's unclear if there actually was a USO as well.
Polterwurst
Paranormal Adept
So I have to admit I didn't really follow the news on this and I didn't read the whole thread, but I don't think the (alleged?) trace of one of the vids to a german film production company has been mentioned. Here's an article in english by a german fringe science news site:
Nimitz UFO-Video: Alleged Trace to German Film Production Company Leads to a Mysterious Dead End
Btw., happy new year everybody.
Nimitz UFO-Video: Alleged Trace to German Film Production Company Leads to a Mysterious Dead End
Btw., happy new year everybody.
Last edited:
It was mentioned earlier, here's my earlier take on it:
According to this forum post from 2007, someone has emailed to the admin address of that company and asked if it's genuine and the answer (it doesn't show who answered) states that a contact in USA uploaded it there:
NEW AMAZING UFO FOOTAGE---From an F4 fighter Bomber
That seems to support the claim made by that ATS poster about the site having an upload functionality. Assuming that email is genuine, someone in that (small) company who had access to the admin email address had such a contact in USA. It could be possible to even find the names of their admins back then if only Internet Archive would have properly indexed the site back then. Unfortunately that does not seem to be the case and the archived site does not work too well:
Vision Unlimited: News
Edit: You can actually find some names if you look at the source codes of those pages in Internet Archive, and one of them is directly associated with that admin address. But I don't think that's that significant at this point, as I don't believe it originated there anyway. And if they thought it was taken by an F4, whoever put it there didn't seem to know the details, so it probably isn't that close to the source.
From that ATS thread from "cometa2":
Fighter Jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal, page 2
That indicates "cometa2" didn't just happen to find it from the server but knew more about its origins.
Later in that thread the original poster "thefinaltheory" made this claim:
That part of "officer names" is interesting, especially considering the log that "cometa2" posted later seems to have been edited with "2 names removed". The log we now have does not contain names.
Last edited:
Looking back at that same ATS thread, when someone states the "link/file isn't downloading", "cometa2" makes an answer that contains the following
And after that also gives instructions on how to configure some details of TCP connections. Sounds like something you could expect a site admin/webmaster to say, doesn't it? Combine that with the fact that both of those nicks who knew each other quite obviously weren't native speakers (although one tried to claim something like that), it seems quite probable they were associated with that German site.
Since it now seems likely they actually had access to file versions that are not publicly available now, it's worth reminding that "thefinaltheory" claimed there's a longer version of the video:
And after that also gives instructions on how to configure some details of TCP connections. Sounds like something you could expect a site admin/webmaster to say, doesn't it? Combine that with the fact that both of those nicks who knew each other quite obviously weren't native speakers (although one tried to claim something like that), it seems quite probable they were associated with that German site.
Since it now seems likely they actually had access to file versions that are not publicly available now, it's worth reminding that "thefinaltheory" claimed there's a longer version of the video:
One more thing:
So that clarifies why the names were different depending on the source. The Fightersweep article uses callsigns and the log has aircraft numbers.
Fighter Jet UFO Footage: The Real Deal, page 10
So that clarifies why the names were different depending on the source. The Fightersweep article uses callsigns and the log has aircraft numbers.
Elendil
Paranormal Maven
What about the other object, the USO? That's the one referred to as being larger than a submarine, mentioned briefly in the NYT article and in the report mike posted on page 20. I can't seem to find much about it in the interviews with Fravor and Slaight, it seems not to be a part of their TV talking points at all, I wonder why. They only mention the airborne object - the so called tic-tac.
Maybe I missed something, anyone caught anything of interest about the first object, the submerged one, in the interviews?
Overall, the Nimitz case really seems to be interesting. While that hack DeLonge and his whole for-profit commercial venture and the usual public benefit PR BS wrapped around TTSA + the links between all of the actors and Senator Reid handing over public money to his buddy Bigelow seem highly suspicious to me, I'd say we at least got an intriguing case on our hands. Let's see how 2018 pans out for this...
BTW, allow me to commend Giuliano a.k.a. uforadio for his efforts and hard work in collecting and archiving all of the MSM stuff on one page. Great job, dude!
Maybe I missed something, anyone caught anything of interest about the first object, the submerged one, in the interviews?
Overall, the Nimitz case really seems to be interesting. While that hack DeLonge and his whole for-profit commercial venture and the usual public benefit PR BS wrapped around TTSA + the links between all of the actors and Senator Reid handing over public money to his buddy Bigelow seem highly suspicious to me, I'd say we at least got an intriguing case on our hands. Let's see how 2018 pans out for this...
BTW, allow me to commend Giuliano a.k.a. uforadio for his efforts and hard work in collecting and archiving all of the MSM stuff on one page. Great job, dude!
From my message above:
It sure does. The internal consistency of all that I have so far seen seems to be at or above the level I would expect considering it happened more than a decade ago and parts of the information are documented and parts from faded memories. It seems evident it's not a hoax or some organized disinfo campaign or such, and Fravor and Slaight seem credible.
It really looks like a case that either could very well be the real deal or some part of the information we have has to be incorrect (most likely honest mistake/misidentification/equipment failures etc.). But which part and on what basis?
This part looks quite decisive to me:
https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/
If that is in fact accurate and could be proven to be so, who could have such tech in 2004?
In my mind I try to keep this Nimitz incident and TTSA in general as separate issues, and I also don't have that much confidence on the latter. They brought the Nimitz event to the attention of the media and me, and at least that was great.
+1. That is valuable work that can prove to be quite useful later too for looking how the story developed within the media and who said what when.
Has anyone tried to take a closer look at the coordinates as specified in the event log?
First of all, how do you read that format, as it doesn't use the typical separators? I tried a couple of alternatives but didn't manage to make that match to what the Fightersweep article states:
I also don't understand how these coordinates later in the log have E prefix, instead of W:
Is there an error?
Last edited:
Ezechiel
Paranormal Adept
GPS Geoplaner online
If you use UTM (Northern Hemisphere) using area 11 (or 10)
117469 (x-ea) and
30508 (y-n)
you end up at the equator .... but 3000508 makes more sense.
Fixed coords... for UTM: (the east/west is always 6 digits. complete with 0 when shorter) and (north/south last 3 digits is fix)
1- CHARTER FISHING BOAT N3000126 E117140 COURSE 030 @ 10-15 KTS AT 1415L.
2- COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT, N3000111 E118030 COURSE 300 @ 5 KTS AT 1430L.
Last edited:
They look like that dd° mm.mmm' notation to me, so the third input box (with orange background) with coordinates 30°50.8 N and 117°46.9 W. That is at least roughly in the right area. The problem is that it is quite a bit further from Tijuana and coast of Baja than what that article indicates. So either that is inaccurate or something else is wrong.
You can measure the distance with Google maps by searching for "30°50.8, -117°46.9" and right clicking the marker, and selecting Measure distance and then click on Tijuana.
Last edited:
Han
piscator ψ
What about this bit?:
NEITHER FAST EAGLES 110 OR 100 COULD ACHIEVE RADAR LOCK OR ANY OTHER MEANS OF POSITIVE ID. FAST EAGLE 100 WAS FLYING HIGH COVER AND SAW THE ENGAGEMENT BY FAST EAGLE 110. FAST EAGLE 100 CONFIRMS 110 VISUAL ID; 100 LOST CONTACT IN HAZE AS WELL.
CPA OF ACFT 110 FROM CONTACT 4000-5000 FT.
FAST EAGLES, DEVILS AND HOBOS PERFORMED ADEX IN MULLET AFTER VECTOR FROM PRINCETON TOWARD UNID CONTACT. EACH PERFORMED 1X RUN. FAST EAGLE VID 2X GROUPS:
1X SIM F8, WINGS CLEAN
1X SIM F8, WINGS CLEAN. RTB
BMB
3A2,3B1
105/106, 204/200
FAST EAGLES AND CAMELOTS PERFORMED BMB AT 2507. EACH DROPPED 4X MK-82. FAST EAGLES PERFORMED 3X RUNS; CAMELOTS 2X RUNS
SSC
2E2
503
RAVEN PERFORMED SSC AT NM/OK. 2X CONTACTS; NO PHOTO’S:
1- CHARTER FISHING BOAT N3126 E11714 COURSE 030 @ 10-15 KTS AT 1415L.
2- COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT, N3111 E11803 COURSE 300 @ 5 KTS AT 1430L.
LOG/PG
2H1
616
INDIAN PERFORMED LOG (3X PACKAGE RUNS TO PRINCETON), DLQ’S ON PRINCETON AND PLANE GUARD IN VA.
TOTAL ORDNANCE EXPENDED: NONE
I think that this says that they dropped some bombs (MK-82's) during event #3 but it also states that ordnance used = 0 (or no bombs expended)
I might have got my wires crossed but I think ADEX is Air Defence EXercise and that "AFTER VECTOR" means after being directed to a target (By Princeton) and that "BMB" is bomb (bombing run) I think that MK-82 can be dropped 'dumb' (without radar lock).
It would be great if someone with the relevant expertise could translate it from 'Navy/Airforce' speak into English. For example SSC could mean a lot of things...
Maybe my guessing is way off, but I think they might have tried to bomb an USO?
NEITHER FAST EAGLES 110 OR 100 COULD ACHIEVE RADAR LOCK OR ANY OTHER MEANS OF POSITIVE ID. FAST EAGLE 100 WAS FLYING HIGH COVER AND SAW THE ENGAGEMENT BY FAST EAGLE 110. FAST EAGLE 100 CONFIRMS 110 VISUAL ID; 100 LOST CONTACT IN HAZE AS WELL.
CPA OF ACFT 110 FROM CONTACT 4000-5000 FT.
FAST EAGLES, DEVILS AND HOBOS PERFORMED ADEX IN MULLET AFTER VECTOR FROM PRINCETON TOWARD UNID CONTACT. EACH PERFORMED 1X RUN. FAST EAGLE VID 2X GROUPS:
1X SIM F8, WINGS CLEAN
1X SIM F8, WINGS CLEAN. RTB
BMB
3A2,3B1
105/106, 204/200
FAST EAGLES AND CAMELOTS PERFORMED BMB AT 2507. EACH DROPPED 4X MK-82. FAST EAGLES PERFORMED 3X RUNS; CAMELOTS 2X RUNS
SSC
2E2
503
RAVEN PERFORMED SSC AT NM/OK. 2X CONTACTS; NO PHOTO’S:
1- CHARTER FISHING BOAT N3126 E11714 COURSE 030 @ 10-15 KTS AT 1415L.
2- COMMERCIAL FISHING BOAT, N3111 E11803 COURSE 300 @ 5 KTS AT 1430L.
LOG/PG
2H1
616
INDIAN PERFORMED LOG (3X PACKAGE RUNS TO PRINCETON), DLQ’S ON PRINCETON AND PLANE GUARD IN VA.
TOTAL ORDNANCE EXPENDED: NONE
I think that this says that they dropped some bombs (MK-82's) during event #3 but it also states that ordnance used = 0 (or no bombs expended)
I might have got my wires crossed but I think ADEX is Air Defence EXercise and that "AFTER VECTOR" means after being directed to a target (By Princeton) and that "BMB" is bomb (bombing run) I think that MK-82 can be dropped 'dumb' (without radar lock).
It would be great if someone with the relevant expertise could translate it from 'Navy/Airforce' speak into English. For example SSC could mean a lot of things...
Maybe my guessing is way off, but I think they might have tried to bomb an USO?
That is interesting. according to the popular mechanics article they were only loaded with dummy munitions
According to the Times, in 2004 two F/A-18F (twin seater) Super Hornets from the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz were flying 100 miles off the coast of San Diego when a nearby U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser, the USS Princeton, contacted them and asked what weapons they were carrying. The Super Hornets replied they were carrying dummy AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles that could not be fired.
The Mk-82 is a drop bomb, although the newer ones are more sophisticated than the originals.
The Mk 82 and its variants are 500-pound (227 kg) class, low-drag, general-purpose aircraft bombs containing 89 kg of high explosive. Originally dropped as an unguided bomb (sometimes referred to as an ‘iron’ or ‘dumb’ bomb), early versions of the Mk 82 were only able to hit their target 5.5% of the time, requiring large numbers of bombs to be dropped (Blackwelder, 1993). Guided versions, such as the GBU-12 and the GBU-49, now have a CEP of less than 4 m, indicating very high precision. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the laser-guided GBU-12 was reported as striking its targets 88% of the time, with most targets being single vehicles (Blackwelder, 1993). The introduction of PGMs, means that targets can be destroyed with a relatively small and precise strike, reducing the risk of aircrew losses.
The Mk 82 aircraft bomb has been used by the US military and various other nations since the 1950s, and saw extensive deployment in South East Asia during the Vietnam war. The Mk 82 remains relevant in current and recent conflicts
My guess is the planes were only carrying dummy munitions, these are used to check the systems work and to maintain the proper fuel and performance data. For many weapons there is a limit to the length of time they can be flown (e.g. because of vibration damage); after this their safety or effectiveness is not guaranteed, so dummy's are used instead.
Technically they were not carrying any ordnance so none were expended. As to why they might have dropped the Mk-82's ? i imagine it would give a small fuel range boost and reduce drag and thus increase performance of the aircraft.
According to the Times, in 2004 two F/A-18F (twin seater) Super Hornets from the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz were flying 100 miles off the coast of San Diego when a nearby U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser, the USS Princeton, contacted them and asked what weapons they were carrying. The Super Hornets replied they were carrying dummy AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles that could not be fired.
The Mk-82 is a drop bomb, although the newer ones are more sophisticated than the originals.
The Mk 82 and its variants are 500-pound (227 kg) class, low-drag, general-purpose aircraft bombs containing 89 kg of high explosive. Originally dropped as an unguided bomb (sometimes referred to as an ‘iron’ or ‘dumb’ bomb), early versions of the Mk 82 were only able to hit their target 5.5% of the time, requiring large numbers of bombs to be dropped (Blackwelder, 1993). Guided versions, such as the GBU-12 and the GBU-49, now have a CEP of less than 4 m, indicating very high precision. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the laser-guided GBU-12 was reported as striking its targets 88% of the time, with most targets being single vehicles (Blackwelder, 1993). The introduction of PGMs, means that targets can be destroyed with a relatively small and precise strike, reducing the risk of aircrew losses.
The Mk 82 aircraft bomb has been used by the US military and various other nations since the 1950s, and saw extensive deployment in South East Asia during the Vietnam war. The Mk 82 remains relevant in current and recent conflicts
My guess is the planes were only carrying dummy munitions, these are used to check the systems work and to maintain the proper fuel and performance data. For many weapons there is a limit to the length of time they can be flown (e.g. because of vibration damage); after this their safety or effectiveness is not guaranteed, so dummy's are used instead.
Technically they were not carrying any ordnance so none were expended. As to why they might have dropped the Mk-82's ? i imagine it would give a small fuel range boost and reduce drag and thus increase performance of the aircraft.
I took a better look at those coordinates, and I think I got it now:
The coordinates are given as latitude and longitude in dd° mm.m format as I suspected earlier.
Coordinates for the UFO: 30°50.8, -117°46.9
Coordinates of Nimitz at the time: 31°29.3, -117°52.8
If you search both of those in Bing Maps, you can see them at the same time and measure the distances. The vector 160@40NM from Nimitz to UFO matches, that is 40 nautical miles, 160 degrees (measured clockwise from north).
The Fightersweep article claims that:
So I believe there's a surprising amount of errors and inaccuracies. But except for that small mistake in the coordinates of those fishing boats, the log may be mostly accurate.
So if it is true that the radar detected those targets for several days (even for a couple of weeks depending on the source), and always at the same spot (have other sources supported that claim?), why there? Is there anything special in that location? Has there been any other sightings or other significant events? How deep is the ocean? Does the seafloor have features that would for example make it particularly suitable to hide a sub/uso? Can we find a map that would show that?
The coordinates are given as latitude and longitude in dd° mm.m format as I suspected earlier.
Coordinates for the UFO: 30°50.8, -117°46.9
Coordinates of Nimitz at the time: 31°29.3, -117°52.8
If you search both of those in Bing Maps, you can see them at the same time and measure the distances. The vector 160@40NM from Nimitz to UFO matches, that is 40 nautical miles, 160 degrees (measured clockwise from north).
The Fightersweep article claims that:
That has to be incorrect. The distance not from the UFO but from Nimitz to the outskirts of Tijuana equals that 70 nautical miles, and it is southwest as stated. And that 30 nautical miles to the coast has to be incorrect, the real distance seems to be about double that. I also doubt their radar could actually show them descend all the way down to 50 feet, so that is probably inaccurate as well, and reflects just that one instance they actually saw it close to water. Those fishing vessels that the log mentions were close by, but the E (eastern) in those coordinates has to be an error and should be W (western).
So I believe there's a surprising amount of errors and inaccuracies. But except for that small mistake in the coordinates of those fishing boats, the log may be mostly accurate.
So if it is true that the radar detected those targets for several days (even for a couple of weeks depending on the source), and always at the same spot (have other sources supported that claim?), why there? Is there anything special in that location? Has there been any other sightings or other significant events? How deep is the ocean? Does the seafloor have features that would for example make it particularly suitable to hide a sub/uso? Can we find a map that would show that?
Han
piscator ψ
I wonder if the words Drop and Jettison are interchangeable? or have the same Navy/Airforce 'Acronym' ?
I may be wrongly assuming that 'drop' implies aiming it at a specific location.
I suppose they call the extra fuel tanks they sometimes carry "drop tanks" even though they are 'jettisoned' /shed/cast off as opposed as being directed at a target.
As you might have guessed I am no expert
I am not sure how it works these days, but I have read of older accounts (WWII era) of CV based Bombers preferring to land 'empty' (to reduce the risk of said bombs exploding in the event of a crash landing to both Plane and Ship) so they used to jettison anything they were carrying a safe distance from the ship.
Again I am no expert but I wonder if there is a MK-82 bomb version specifically designed for use against Sea targets? Also I think that the Radar may have different modes for Land/Air/Sea targets? and would this effect they type of bomb/ordinance that could be used. For example an Anti ship missile like a "Harpoon" AGM-84* would that require a radar lock to be used?
What we really need is an expert..... Someone who knows about Jargon and logs and payloads etc.
It gets more confusing each time I look: for example: I believe that 'practice'/dummy variants of the MK-82 are referred to as "BDU-45"**
Upon reading further I think that the BMB mentioned in the log could mean BOMBEX (BOMBing EXercises) (see text from book in following link) :
Specifically from the paragraph starting with "Anti-Surface Warfare":
Southern California Range Complex
*Harpoon (missile) - Wikipedia
**"Used to simulate the MK82 in Low Drag configuration."
Bomb BDU-45B | Encyclopedia of Arms and Ammunition
I may be wrongly assuming that 'drop' implies aiming it at a specific location.
I suppose they call the extra fuel tanks they sometimes carry "drop tanks" even though they are 'jettisoned' /shed/cast off as opposed as being directed at a target.
As you might have guessed I am no expert
I am not sure how it works these days, but I have read of older accounts (WWII era) of CV based Bombers preferring to land 'empty' (to reduce the risk of said bombs exploding in the event of a crash landing to both Plane and Ship) so they used to jettison anything they were carrying a safe distance from the ship.
Again I am no expert but I wonder if there is a MK-82 bomb version specifically designed for use against Sea targets? Also I think that the Radar may have different modes for Land/Air/Sea targets? and would this effect they type of bomb/ordinance that could be used. For example an Anti ship missile like a "Harpoon" AGM-84* would that require a radar lock to be used?
What we really need is an expert..... Someone who knows about Jargon and logs and payloads etc.
It gets more confusing each time I look: for example: I believe that 'practice'/dummy variants of the MK-82 are referred to as "BDU-45"**
Upon reading further I think that the BMB mentioned in the log could mean BOMBEX (BOMBing EXercises) (see text from book in following link) :
Specifically from the paragraph starting with "Anti-Surface Warfare":
Southern California Range Complex
*Harpoon (missile) - Wikipedia
**"Used to simulate the MK82 in Low Drag configuration."
Bomb BDU-45B | Encyclopedia of Arms and Ammunition
Yes, that would be very helpful. But let's try to decode what we can find. I agree with those that you said and I believe SSC = Sea Surface Control, which seems plausible given it identified targets on the surface. VID = Visual IDentification?
"CPA OF ACFT 110 FROM CONTACT 4000-5000 FT" I believe means Closest Point of Approach of Aircraft, so basically how close Fravor got to the UFO. I believe Fravor himself has estimated in some recent interviews that the distance was only about half of that or so.
"WINGS CLEAN" probably means there wasn't any weapons under the wings (at least anymore)
RTB=Return to base
OPAREA=Operating area
LOG=Logistics
DLQ=Deck Landing Qualification (makes sense since it was performed by a helicopter)
List of Squadron names and call signs:
F/A-18 Squadron Callsigns - Zone-Five Aircraft Modeling Forums
Relevant parts from that:
VFA-41..................Black Aces......................FAST EAGLE
VFA-94..................Mighty Shrikes..................HOBO
VMFA-232................Red Devils.....................DEVIL
VFA-14..................Tophatters.................... ..CAMELOT
BANGER = Air Wing’s E-2C VAW-117 Hawkeye radar aircraft that worked as the air traffic control.
INDIAN = HH-60 HS-6, NAS North Island, CA (SH-60) (Sikorsky SH-60/MH-60 Seahawk helicopter)
http://www.udxf.nl/MCL.pdf
RAVEN= Probably one of these according to the above document:
RAVEN UH-60 MD ArNG Weide AAF MD
RAVEN A-10C 104th FS, MD ANG, MARTIN STATE MD
RAVEN C-130E 61ST AS, LITTLE ROCK AFB AR
RAVEN OPS CP 189th OG, AR ANG Little Rock AFB, AR
RAVEN OPS CP 104TH FS MD ANG MARTIN STATE MD
RAVEN OPS-US Customs Controller-Inauguration -2009
RAVEN EA-6B VAQ-135, NAS Whidbey Island, WA
RAVEN Helos, US Army 4-3 AVN, Hunter AAF Savannah GA
RAVEN ES-3A US Navy VQ-6, USS Eisenhower
RAVEN KC-135R 4th Wing, SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB, NC
RAVEN CT-114 CANFORCE 17TH WING CFB WINNEPEG
RAVEN F-16C/J 55th FS Shaw AFB SC
RAVEN C-130 328th AS AFRC Niagara Falls IAP NY
Maybe my guessing is way off, but I think they might have tried to bomb an USO?
I don't think so. Considering they first of all didn't even have that target anymore and didn't know what it was (even if it was an object at all), the possibilities and their worst case consequences could have been:
- Gee, we bombed a Russian/Chinese sub in international waters for no good reason -> World War III
- Gee, we bombed actual aliens -> War of the Worlds
- Gee, we bombed our own secret submarine thingy -> Plenty of unwanted publicity
- Gee, we bombed whales -> Sea Shepherd attacks the fleet
Last edited:
No the Mk-82 isnt a good anti ship munition.
Effectiveness of Mk-82s against ships - ED Forums
As it is extremely rare to encounter unguided Mk 82 bombs in current conflicts, the case studies in this report examine the use of guided Mk 82 bomb variants. In 2002, for example, U.S. officials noted that 60 per cent of all munitions employed were PGMs, with these weapons having a claimed effectiveness rate of 90 per cent (Schmitt, 2002). It has proven difficult to find reliable information on the use of Mk 82 variants.
Its more likely that if they were carrying live Mk-82's they would have been laser or optical guided variants, Which are categorized as PGM's. Precision Guided Munitions. Some also use GPS systems. They don't use radar.
The Aim-9 sidewinder uses infrared targeting and guidance, although some variants do use semi active radar homing systems but these are specifically for taking out enemy radar installations. But the majority of the sidewinders use infrared.
I suspect that they were carrying the BDU-50 A practice (no explosive) version of the Mk 82 bomb body. Since the Vietnam War, United States Navy and United States Marine Corps GP bombs are distinguished by a thick ablative fire-retardant coating, which is designed to delay any potential accidental explosion in the event of a shipboard fire. Land-based air forces typically do not use such coatings, largely because they add some 30 lb (14 kg) to the weight of the complete weapon. Fire is less a danger in a land-based facility, where the personnel can be evacuated with relative ease, and the building be the only loss. At sea, the crew and munitions share a facility (the ship), and thus are in much more danger of fire reaching munitions (which tend to be more closely packed, due to space limitations).
So the Navy version is 14 kilos heavier per shell.
Last edited by a moderator:
So here's how I believe the log should be interpreted:
EVENT 3-6 are somewhat separate events/exercises that happened on that same day. Each of those can contain multiple parts (don't know if they follow each other or can be simultaneous). Those parts are described with a short code that describes their type (Like ADEX=Air Defense EXercise), after that is a list of aircraft numbers (like 110/100 for FAST EAGLE 110/100 in the first part), then there's a narrative what happened (only the first one has a long one, since there's obviously a lot to talk about...).
So my interpretation of that significant EVENT 3 is the following:
Part 1:
ADEX=Air Defense EXercise
Aircraft involved:
3A1,3C1,
3D2
110 (FAST EAGLE 110, call sign FASTEAGLE 01, Fravors plane)/100 (FAST EAGLE 100, call sign FASTEAGLE 02, Slaights plane), 303/305, 401
(Devils=F/A-18 Hornet, Hobos=either Hornets or Super Hornets, so probably all of the above were some kind of hornets)
What happened: "some real X-Files shit"
Part 2:
BMB=BoMBing exercise
Aircraft involved:
3A2,3B1 (CAMELOTS)
105/106, 204/200 (FAST EAGLES)
What happened: All planes dropped 4 dummy bombs
Part 3:
SSC=Sea Surface Control
Aircraft involved:
2E2
503
What happened: A couple of fishing boats were visually identified
Part 4:
LOG/PG=Logistics/Plane Guard
Aircraft involved:
2H1
616
What happened: A helicopter hauled some stuff
Note that:
So Kurth wasn't participating in the actual exercise and his plane is hence not listed in the above. Kurth was CO=Commanding Officer of his squadron and similarly Fravor was the CO of his own, that is VFA-41 Black Aces.
EVENT 3-6 are somewhat separate events/exercises that happened on that same day. Each of those can contain multiple parts (don't know if they follow each other or can be simultaneous). Those parts are described with a short code that describes their type (Like ADEX=Air Defense EXercise), after that is a list of aircraft numbers (like 110/100 for FAST EAGLE 110/100 in the first part), then there's a narrative what happened (only the first one has a long one, since there's obviously a lot to talk about...).
So my interpretation of that significant EVENT 3 is the following:
Part 1:
ADEX=Air Defense EXercise
Aircraft involved:
3A1,3C1,
3D2
110 (FAST EAGLE 110, call sign FASTEAGLE 01, Fravors plane)/100 (FAST EAGLE 100, call sign FASTEAGLE 02, Slaights plane), 303/305, 401
(Devils=F/A-18 Hornet, Hobos=either Hornets or Super Hornets, so probably all of the above were some kind of hornets)
What happened: "some real X-Files shit"
Part 2:
BMB=BoMBing exercise
Aircraft involved:
3A2,3B1 (CAMELOTS)
105/106, 204/200 (FAST EAGLES)
What happened: All planes dropped 4 dummy bombs
Part 3:
SSC=Sea Surface Control
Aircraft involved:
2E2
503
What happened: A couple of fishing boats were visually identified
Part 4:
LOG/PG=Logistics/Plane Guard
Aircraft involved:
2H1
616
What happened: A helicopter hauled some stuff
Note that:
https://fightersweep.com/1460/x-files-edition/
So Kurth wasn't participating in the actual exercise and his plane is hence not listed in the above. Kurth was CO=Commanding Officer of his squadron and similarly Fravor was the CO of his own, that is VFA-41 Black Aces.
Last edited: