USS Kidd (and other Ships) "Drones" Encounter, 2019

[jarlrmai]

Not at the altitudes reported.



Just reaching high altitudes would be a significant hassle for a battery powered ship launched drone.They normally fly for minutes if they need to reach such altitudes. Forget 90 min.

Battery breakthrough definitely required with the current publicly known tech.

P.s. Or with an "exotic" design such as a dirigible kinda thing. So something like a small blimp that stays up in a non propulsive way.

That drone is a helicopter style not quadcopter so it's performance might be different to a quadcopter.

 

[Mick West]

Not at the altitudes reported.

Clouds can be at sea level. Marine layer. and a few thousand feet isn't hard:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzozNwvcGVU

 

[JMartJr]

The fact they can't explain it points to extraordinary tech necessarily unless you think the Navy is incompetent at doing its job.

Or they don't want to tell everything they know. Keeping secrets is something military organizations do...

 

[Landru]

Not at the altitudes reported.



Just reaching high altitudes would be a significant hassle for a battery powered ship launched drone.They normally fly for minutes if they need to reach such altitudes. Forget 90 min.

Battery breakthrough definitely required with the current publicly known tech.

P.s. Or with an "exotic" design such as a dirigible kinda thing. So something like a small blimp that stays up in a non propulsive way.

You make a lot of claims. Some evidence would be nice. Can you point to a source that outlines the limitations? Heany555 linked to a source that claims 100+ minute endurance.

 

[gtoffo]

You make a lot of claims. Some evidence would be nice. Can you point to a source that outlines the limitations? Heany555 linked to a source that claims 100+ minute endurance.

As you can see from the video posted above by Mick. The endurance of a consumer drone flying at high altitudes is a couple of minutes.

The helicopter style is more efficient (one engine versus 4 of a quadcopter) so it can achieve longer endurance at sea level. However, the higher you go the less you fly no matter the setup.

You obviously need more energy to climb. I don't think you need a source for that.
Also the air becomes less dense and you need more power to achieve lift with propellers.

To achieve longer endurance you need wings and speed or balloons or more dense energy sources such as jet fuel.

 

[Landru]

As you can see from the video posted above by Mick. The endurance of a consumer drone flying at high altitudes is a couple of minutes.

The helicopter style is more efficient (one engine versus 4 of a quadcopter) so it can achieve longer endurance at sea level. However, the higher you go the less you fly no matter the setup.

You obviously need more energy to climb. I don't think you need a source for that.
Also the air becomes less dense and you need more power to achieve lift with propellers.

To achieve longer endurance you need wings and speed or balloons or more dense energy sources such as jet fuel.

You made claims to extraordinary technology. Military technology can achieve those durations as was linked to by Heany555.

 

[gtoffo]

You made claims to extraordinary technology. Military technology can achieve those durations as was linked to by Heany555.

Not really.

As you will notice the Anduril Ghost linked does not state a maximum altitude. It is meant to fly at low level.
Being a helicopter it is intrinsically unable to fly very high. The higher you fly the less dense the air gets. So propellers don't work as well.

And normal quadcopters struggle to reach altitudes of more than a couple 1000 meters max for very short durations. I suggest you read the link I posted previously about the max height a drone can reach: https://www.technik-consulting.eu/en/analysis/drone.html

Also, sustaining a hover at high altitudes is extremely hard with propellers. Even a jet powered helicopter struggles hovering at high altitudes (and in general with flight at high altitudes).

Turbine-engined helicopters can reach around 25,000 feet. But the maximum height at which a helicopter can hover is much lower - a high performance helicopter like the Agusta A109E can hover at 10,400 feet

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-2666,00.html#:~:text=Turbine-engined helicopters can reach,can hover at 10,400 feet.

When hovering a helicopter loses substantial lift and requires a lot more power.

If a hover was sustained for hours at high altitudes the only current tech I can think of is the good old balloon.

A regular balloon would not be able to move "fast" though:

Dave: What did they look like?
Dave: Did they make noise

We couldn't really see them - just red and green lights. They were pretty fast and far away so definitely not consumer drones

Dave: How did they know for sure it was drones? Cause of the running lights on them?

Yeah and the guys manning the radars and stuff could see they were really small

Fitting every bit of info we have with current tech and understanding why the Navy was not able to identify this is not obvious.

 

[Landru]

---

Not really.

As you will notice the Anduril Ghost linked does not state a maximum altitude. It is meant to fly at low level.
Being a helicopter it is intrinsically unable to fly very high. The higher you fly the less dense the air gets. So propellers don't work as well.

And normal quadcopters struggle to reach altitudes of more than a couple 1000 meters max for very short durations. I suggest you read the link I posted previously about the max height a drone can reach: https://www.technik-consulting.eu/en/analysis/drone.html

Also, sustaining a hover at high altitudes is extremely hard with propellers. Even a jet powered helicopter struggles hovering at high altitudes (and in general with flight at high altitudes).

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-2666,00.html#:~:text=Turbine-engined helicopters can reach,can hover at 10,400 feet.

When hovering a helicopter loses substantial lift and requires a lot more power.

If a hover was sustained for hours at high altitudes the only current tech I can think of is the good old balloon.

A regular balloon would not be able to move "fast" though:

Fitting every bit of info we have with current tech and understanding why the Navy was not able to identify this is not obvious.

The only reference to altitude I see is that they "were really high" and flew through cloud cover. As cloud cover in that part of the coast can be really low that's not very definitive.

 

[gtoffo]

---

The only reference to altitude I see is that they "were really high" and flew through cloud cover. As cloud cover in that part of the coast can be really low that's not very definitive.

Yes we don't have enough data for anything in this case.

My assumptions are valid if this was hovering at "high altitudes" (couple of km is sufficient) for a long time and then "moving fast". An exotic design (inflatable/deflatable balloon + fixed wing) might also explain it. Or something else entirely.

But anything of the sort should be identified easily by the Navy's sensors.... all very puzzling.

 

[Easy Muffin]

The log decks make it look like standard practice for the ships was to go 'River City 1' emissions control status. I'm not sure how many of those sensors were active at the time.

 

[gtoffo]

The log decks make it look like standard practice for the ships was to go 'River City 1' emissions control status. I'm not sure how many of those sensors were active at the time.

No no no.

Sensors are how you stay alive. You never turn them off when you are in a tin can in the middle of the sea with no visibility and enemies around. A primary goal of any naval force is to maintain situational awareness and to establish total control over an area.

"River city 1" is an operations security (OPSEC) protocol: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/MCWP 3-40.9.pdf

Prevent the adversary from detecting an indicator. A primary OPSEC goal is to mask or control friendly actions to prevent the collection of CI or indicators. This includes the use of protective measures to create closed information systems, use cryptographic protection, and standardized security procedures. COMSEC and COMPUSEC are effective deterrents that prevent indicator detection. Another OPSEC tool that limits communications is River City. River City conditions provide procedures to control outgoing paths from ships and shore systems (e-mail, web browsing, POTS, cell phones) for the purpose of OPSEC and force protection. Prior to commencing sensitive planning or operations that could be compromised by inadvertent communications/information release, a River City condition should be considered with the following guidance. River City is an OPSEC countermeasure. Implementation of River City requires commands to develop a prioritized information systems users list that identifies users by their need to access systems to perform mission essential duties. The list should not be solely based on rank or pay grade, but based on function, and placed into an appropriate user group to support mission accomplishment. Those users who do not require access to systems to support mission planning or accomplishment should be grouped accordingly. (A complete list of River City conditions can be found in Navy-wide operation task IO.) Physical security may also become involved to thwart access by foreign human intelligence agents.

They didn't want sailors sending videos of unknown stuff (possibly enemies, possibly a friendly black project) home probably. I think a reasonable procedure in such a case.

The reaction was the opposite of turning everything off: deploy SNOOPY teams and collect as much as possible. Throw everything you have to make a positive identification. They have everything they could possible have on those objects: radar, IR, radio, sonar, visible spectrum photos and videos for sure. We just can't see them as they are classified for obvious reasons. This was not a "quick event" where they didn't have time to record and document. SNOOPY teams are there exactly to record and document everything to provide data for subsequent study.

 

[Easy Muffin]

Ah, sorry, I got the terminology mixed up there. I was referring to this part of the blog post

This is noted throughout many of the logs as "River City 1." During the events, the ships often engaged “emissions control,” or EMCON, protocols designed to minimize their electronic emissions profile.

Specifically the last sentence. I take this to mean they enforced both River City comms restrictions plus a number of EMCON protocols, which might have affected a number of their active sensors.

 

[gtoffo]

This is a good analysis pointing towards military drones (probably form China): https://sofrep.com/amp/news/navy-knows-more-about-2019-mystery-drones-incident-than-it-says/

 

[Easy Muffin]

This is a good analysis pointing towards military drones (probably form China): https://sofrep.com/amp/news/navy-knows-more-about-2019-mystery-drones-incident-than-it-says/

The Navy vessels immediately set for Emissions Control or “EMCON.” Under EMCON anything emitting any electromagnetic signals aboard the ship, like radios and radar, is turned off and the ship goes dark. The question then becomes, why did the ships shut off all their emitters? The answer is two-fold.

First, this reduces the emissions signature of the vessels which can otherwise be detected many miles away by their radios and radars’ transmissions. It’s obvious the Navy ships were depriving these mystery drones of any ability to detect and record their frequencies for later analysis by whoever launched them.

This is essentially what I've been trying to say in my posts (albeit much more succintly put!).

 

[AZshot]

I just joined to debunk some of the assumptions about Navy shipborne operations. As a former Electronic Warfare Technician, I was in charge of EMCON conditions on my ship (a tin can). Radiation is commonly turned off so we can steam undetected. Then you are back to just 3 sensors in the dark. ESM (detecting other radars - good for azimuth but not range detection), Sonar (similar, under water azimuth location), and lookouts. The officers hated Emcon, and would try to "sneak a peak" and turn on a radar for a couple minutes to check out what a lookout saw. And my EW system would instantly detect them, and call the bridge to shut it down. We would often cross entire oceans, totally with everything turned off so the enemy couldn't see us. There was no super secret method to avoid ships....we just used lookouts. Barely trained cooks and such, but remarkably few collisions at sea. Though I was involved with one in a battle group once. Yes, we were in Emcon.

A Snoopy team is a glorified lookout. How do I know? I was one of those too. I had the ships cameras, ran the darkroom, and took many photos of Soviet ships, planes, and surfaced subs back in the 80s when I was in. Was I highly trained to photograph? Um...no. The guy leaving the ship gave me the camera kit, showed me the darkroom, and left. 15 min talk, I was on the team! But as an EW I knew a lot about Intel, that's kind of what we do.

Strange lights at sea happen. It's no big deal. Today if the TAO or bridge officers were concerned about it, they would have lit off the surface and air search radars. Maybe they did.

And the "high altitude" discussion is kind of silly too. A few thousand feet is low altitude, VFR rules stuff. 15,000 or higher? You won't see a drone. Maybe it's lights....maybe. So it's a paradox, either the drone wasn't that high, or it was something else. But we'd commonly have helos and LARGE target drones fly over us at 5,000 feet or so. And you can see them well in the day. At night...nothing but lights.

 

[gtoffo]

I just joined to debunk some of the assumptions about Navy shipborne operations. As a former Electronic Warfare Technician, I was in charge of EMCON conditions on my ship (a tin can). Radiation is commonly turned off so we can steam undetected. Then you are back to just 3 sensors in the dark. ESM (detecting other radars - good for azimuth but not range detection), Sonar (similar, under water azimuth location), and lookouts. The officers hated Emcon, and would try to "sneak a peak" and turn on a radar for a couple minutes to check out what a lookout saw. And my EW system would instantly detect them, and call the bridge to shut it down. We would often cross entire oceans, totally with everything turned off so the enemy couldn't see us. There was no super secret method to avoid ships....we just used lookouts. Barely trained cooks and such, but remarkably few collisions at sea. Though I was involved with one in a battle group once. Yes, we were in Emcon.

A Snoopy team is a glorified lookout. How do I know? I was one of those too. I had the ships cameras, ran the darkroom, and took many photos of Soviet ships, planes, and surfaced subs back in the 80s when I was in. Was I highly trained to photograph? Um...no. The guy leaving the ship gave me the camera kit, showed me the darkroom, and left. 15 min talk, I was on the team! But as an EW I knew a lot about Intel, that's kind of what we do.

Strange lights at sea happen. It's no big deal. Today if the TAO or bridge officers were concerned about it, they would have lit off the surface and air search radars. Maybe they did.

And the "high altitude" discussion is kind of silly too. A few thousand feet is low altitude, VFR rules stuff. 15,000 or higher? You won't see a drone. Maybe it's lights....maybe. So it's a paradox, either the drone wasn't that high, or it was something else. But we'd commonly have helos and LARGE target drones fly over us at 5,000 feet or so. And you can see them well in the day. At night...nothing but lights.

Interesting thanks.

In this case entering EMCON would mean the intel guys were trying to collect signals from the drones or were afraid the drones would snoop their own signals right? Or do you think there could be another reason in such a scenario.

 

[AZshot]

You turn off your radars so others can't detect you, or learn their parameters. Just like when police radar started being "instant on", those with radar detectors didn't know the cop was over the hill. If you blast it out all the time, you can be picked up from very far away. If they were in EMCON it was because that was the mode they were in that night for training. USN sailors that do Elint can still collect it whether the radars are on of off.

 

[Mick West]

This relates to the "Pyramid" thread, and I originally posted it on Twitter:

I'm starting to think the recent US Navy drone flap might actually have more misidentified aircraft than I suspected. @Manning123Sm asked me to check the air traffic around the USS Russell sightings, Jul 15 2019, @21:40 local time PDT. I didn't expect much. Used this log page


So I was surprised when entering the Russell's lat/lon of 32° 33.3'N, 119° 35.2' W, that it was EXACTLY in line with the incoming pacific traffic. Like about a mile off most of the planes. So they were going straight for it. So would look like they were hovering.


And the initial shot from the pyramid video, it shows at least three lights, with the higher ones brighter. Exactly what you would expect looking towards the oncoming traffic.

then the "pyramid" that flies past with its blinking navigation lights. That's also exactly what you'd expect from a plane flying past within a mile or so. nearly overhead. People mistake that type of thing for drones.

And it's happened before, Jan 2, 2020 in colorado. Reported by local law enforcement, including the Sherrif, who misidentified a 737 at 23,000 feet as a drone at 500 feet. Maybe heightened alertness and weather conditions made people find drones when they looked for them.


Relevant video:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akn0VbZHJj8

 

[gtoffo]

I think this is an interesting "coincidence" and one that might explain some of the lights observed/videos.

However: if this was the only phenomena observed, and given the equipment available, the utter incompetence required for the Navy to consider this unknown and even to start an investigation would be unimaginable.

We know from the emails that confusion lasted at least days and that an investigation was launched.

An airliner (or more) would have been the first thing they would have seen on all radar recordings and they would have excluded them.

But I am assuming the Navy is competent at what they do. I might be wrong.
But this would be spectacular failure by the most powerful armed force in the world (with nuclear weapons at their disposal!!!) or purposeful misinformation.

 

[Ravi]

But I am assuming the Navy is competent at what they do. I might be wrong.
But this would be spectacular failure by the most powerful armed force in the world (with nuclear weapons at their disposal!!!) or purposeful misinformation.

How stupid it may sound, but I think this can be one of the explanations. What if the Navy wants the "enemy" to believe they cannot detect simple things?

 

[Mick West]

But I am assuming the Navy is competent at what they do. I might be wrong.

Competence does not mean never making mistakes.

 

[Mauro]

And one wonders why enemy high-tech spy drones would sport green and red lights like normal airplanes. Misidentified ordinary phenomena, q.e.d.

 

[LorentzHall]

Incorrect public statements can be the result of either mistakes or intentional disinformation. Ruling out the second is not wise, especially if a pattern can be established, and a motive identified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_hangout

 

[Mick West]

Let's try to avoid opinionated speculation about motives. Much is unknown.

 

[Ravi]

Agreed. Best to keep things factual.

 

[Brian Dunning]

This week the Navy is holding the week-long "Unmanned Integrated Battle Problem 21" in this same patch of water involving many of the same ships as were in this incident. It includes both the MQ-8 and MQ-9 UAVs. I point this out as the MQ-8 can obviously perfectly fulfill all the reported behavior in this incident, though the Navy has publicly denied it and that's confirmed by their internal communications responsive to the FOIA requests. Personally I don't believe it was likely to be involved, but someone else here is likely to suggest it (if it hasn't been already). https://twitter.com/UXSIBP to follow the exercise, #uxsibp21

 

[Mauro]

Brian Dunning has just posted his (excellent as usual) take on the USS Kidd accident on skeptoid.com. These are his conclusions:

We do, in fact, know for certain that misidentification of ordinary lights in the sky explains at least part of this incident. One of the most frenzied drone reports came from the USS Russell on July 15. At least 8 drones were reported WSW of their position between 9pm and 10pm. Writing on the Metabunk website, researcher Mick West found the ship's reported location was directly under the Pacific approach to southern California airports, and inputting that time and location into the Flight Aware website, he found a line of incoming airliners heading directly toward and overflying the ship. From Russell's perspective, they would have appeared as stationary, hovering lights. West even referenced a similar case of misidentification from Colorado in 2020, when a sheriff mistook an oncoming 737 at 23,000 feet for a drone hovering at 500 feet. Again, recall that no amount of observation training can circumvent geometry. No observer, trained or otherwise, can reliably determine the distance of a single point of light in the sky.


And that, unsatisfyingly, is where we have to leave our investigation of this event. The only part of it that we can identify with the data in hand has been identified as commercial air traffic, and all the rest of the data lacks sufficient details to rule out any more of the same. We cannot make any claim that all the sailors saw were aircraft and other normal lights, and we also can't make any claim that such lights are inconsistent with the rest of the recorded sightings. And so, with apologies to those who insist that the USS Kidd incident must be either proof of our military's failure to defend itself, or proof of alien visitation, I'm going to set this one down in the column of UFO reports that offer insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. If the Navy surprises us with more data, nobody will be more pleased than myself to re-open the case.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4777

 

[gtoffo]

And so, with apologies to those who insist that the USS Kidd incident must be either proof of our military's failure to defend itself, or proof of alien visitation, I'm going to set this one down in the column of UFO reports that offer insufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. If the Navy surprises us with more data, nobody will be more pleased than myself to re-open the case.

I don't see any other explanation though :-D

military's failure to defend itself

• chasing for days ordinary lights in the sky such as stars or balloons or airliners or similar
• enemy spying with impunity or similar
• civilian drones buzzing Navy ships with impunity or similar

proof of alien visitation

• anything else? It may not be aliens but some sort of new physical phenomena but let's say in general something "out of the ordinary".

What other option is there? I don't understand that ending @Brian Dunning it is not logical.

 

[Mauro]

I don't see any other explanation though :-D

military's failure to defend itself

• chasing for days ordinary lights in the sky such as stars or balloons or airliners or similar
• enemy spying with impunity or similar
• civilian drones buzzing Navy ships with impunity or similar

proof of alien visitation

• anything else? It may not be aliens but some sort of new physical phenomena but let's say in general something "out of the ordinary".

What other option is there? I don't understand that ending @Brian Dunning it is not logical.

He is instead quite logical. The reasoning is: among the 'USS Kidd' sightings a sub-set has been identified as 'ordinary phenomena, misidentified' (airplane lights). The unexplained ones could have been any kind of other ordinary phenomena (more planes light, ships lights, planets, stars, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.) but, having no data at all, we cannot positively identify them. Being them just yet another case of 'light in the skies' and having no means to discriminate between innumerable possible ordinary causes (and extraordinary too, if you want unnecessarily add them to the mix), they deserve no further consideration. Should more data come in, we will see.

Also, 'chasing for days ordinary lights in the sky such as stars or balloons or similar' does not qualify as 'failure to defend itself', it's better qualified as 'taking the most cautious and safe approach'.

 

[jackfrostvc]

There is a drone airfield on San Clemente Island which the US seem to hide somewhat - it shows up on Google Maps as a derelict airstrip and has for decades. However from the aerial pics/video, it seems it was fixed up and seemingly operational since at least 2018

This is why I think the drones came from San Clemenete given it's used for NAVY training inc fleet readiness operations

UAV airfield. Ends of airstrip say UAV, centre says Manned Aircraft Prohibited.

See this 2018 aerial survey:


Source: https://youtu.be/9h1MgyHnnHU?t=78



And this is what you see on Google Maps today:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/S...51f8cd5!8m2!3d32.9028812!4d-118.4980744?hl=en




As it was in 2006:




There are also two other fields on the island. The main airfield is on the north end of the island. There is another one on the south end - unknown use ie the one below. Note the name of the south end Cove and Head- Pyramid Cove and Pyramid Head. Hmmmmm I'm sure that's just an odd coincidence that Corbell keeps saying the document he saw for the Pyramid UFO mentioned Pyramid throughout

 

[gtoffo]

Also, 'chasing for days ordinary lights in the sky such as stars or balloons or similar' does not qualify as 'failure to defend itself', it's better qualified as 'taking the most cautious and safe approach'.

Sure let's spend a couple of days figuring out we are looking at an airliner. That's gonna work great during a war against drones, stealth fighters, nuclear ICBM etc.

We got all the time in the world to figure it out "taking the most cautious and safe approach." Worked great during Pearl Harbour after all.

Sorry but this is a ridiculous take and completely illogical. Either the military can identify objects reliably and as instantly as possible. Or in the modern battlefield it is useless.