More Mysterious UAPs/Drones Reported in Military Combat Training Areas

[Duke]

Encounters with small unidentified "objects," sometimes in swarm-like groups of as many as eight. Sightings of other objects, including some characterized as drones, flying at altitudes up to 36,000 feet and as fast as Mach 0.75. Another apparent small drone actually hitting the canopy of an F-16 Viper causing damage. These incidents and many more, all occurred in or around various military air combat training ranges in Arizona since January 2020.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...e-things-in-arizonas-military-training-ranges

USAF, not USN, aircrew this time, but sounds somewhat similar to what the USN crews have reported off the US east coast.

I'm still trying to figure out how some object can hit the rear of an F-16 canopy in a midair? We used to joke the slow A-10 was the only USAF aircraft to sustain birds strikes from the rear, but this has me scratching my head.

 

[JMartJr]

Would "while operating" include taxiing?

 

[Scaramanga]

I'm still trying to figure out how some object can hit the rear of an F-16 canopy in a midair? We used to joke the slow A-10 was the only USAF aircraft to sustain birds strikes from the rear, but this has me scratching my head.

The slope angle of the canopy is about 30 degrees, but laterally the rear canopy ( that is to say technically if you look at more than half way back from the front ) does not slope inwards much until one gets to maybe 80% of the way along it. So an object could more easily hit the rear 'side' of the canopy. I assume the slipstream might pull the object in...

 

[Duke]

The slope angle of the canopy is about 30 degrees, but laterally the rear canopy ( that is to say technically if you look at more than half way back from the front ) does not slope inwards much until one gets to maybe 80% of the way along it. So an object could more easily hit the rear 'side' of the canopy. I assume the slipstream might pull the object in...

View attachment 60988

Having worked several F-16 mishap investigations over the years, I'm very familiar with the jet's canopy system. It may be a question of semantics, how "rear of canopy" is bring defined. To me that means the downward sloping area aft of the crown of the polycarbonate transparency, or just immediately aft of where the blood splatter ends on this photo of an F-16 canopy bird strike.

I could maybe see a glancing, off (longitudinal) axis strike hitting that far back. In any event, that will be covered, almost certainly with photos, in the report the guys from "The War Zone" are seeking to obtain (as noted in the article.) In the meantime, I'd not want to see this thread get wrapped around the axle talking about the canopy of a single aircraft. That's on me for having brought it up. The bigger picture of multiple sightings and reporting is far more apropos to the forum.

 

[LilWabbit]

Encounters with small unidentified "objects," sometimes in swarm-like groups of as many as eight. Sightings of other objects, including some characterized as drones, flying at altitudes up to 36,000 feet and as fast as Mach 0.75. Another apparent small drone actually hitting the canopy of an F-16 Viper causing damage. These incidents and many more, all occurred in or around various military air combat training ranges in Arizona since January 2020.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...e-things-in-arizonas-military-training-ranges

USAF, not USN, aircrew this time, but sounds somewhat similar to what the USN crews have reported off the US east coast.

It does indeed and the article itself says the overall picture points to drones.

The incidents of multiple drones or high-performance drones at Air Force training ranges in AZ could be DoD's own UAS and UAS swarm tactical deception tests conducted as part of broader USAF exercises where fighter pilots are the targets of the UAS swarms sent to distract, confuse and overwhelm (a.k.a. tactical deception).

Not only are the fighter pilots meant to be surprised but the UAS swarms' confusion capability must continue to remain classified from any and all UAP investigations in order to preserve their ability to confuse and distract.

That the fighters might think some of them are UFO would render such tests successful.

 

[Mendel]

The bigger picture of multiple sightings and reporting is far more apropos to the forum.

Actually, focusing on single claims of evidence is very much what we usually do here. (Some threads notwithstanding. )

 

[Eburacum]

Alternate explanations for these swarms of drones might include bunches of toy balloons, amateur weather balloons, and flocks of birds. The high speeds observed might not be accurate, depending on the conditions in which the sightings took place.

Not that I want to dismiss the possibility of drones; it seems likely that a successful military drone concept might resemble innocent phenomena such as toy balloons or bird swarms. But a drone capable of Mach 0.75 would be a heavy object full of fuel, and would cause a nasty bump in any canopy it collided with.

 

[Duke]

Actually, focusing on single claims of evidence is very much what we usually do here. (Some threads notwithstanding. )

There is no evidence to focus on until such time as an incident report and/or other official information on the midair between the jet and the drone is obtained. Until that time, we'd be dealing strictly with our speculation based on a somewhat cryptic four line synopsis of the mishap.

The good news is Rogoway and his colleagues at "War Zone" are well known and highly respected in the military aviation industry for their level of detail and thoroughness of reporting on the topics they opt to cover. If additional information on the mishap is obtainable, they will do an updated article to provide what they come up with. Wouldn't surprise me to learn Greenewald is looking into this incident as well.