Airliners And F-15s Involved In Bizarre Encounter With Mystery Aircraft Over Oregon

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I really don't have an opinion one way or the other on what it might have been. We have some great minds on here, I was throwing that "coincidence" out there to get some discussion going. The ANG has birds on alert, but never generate the entire wing on short notice, so that struck me as unusual, given the timeframe involved.

Truth be told, I'd want to know from the observing pilots, whether it was leaving a contrail. I'd also want to know exactly when the unknown started broadcasting 0027, and maybe even pull tapes from Anchorage Center to see if there were any anomalies up that way earlier and/or later. Check for any cargo flights that may have left Khabarovsk or Petropavlovsk headed for the West coast or Anchorage that could have masked a "modified" Tu-160 (or something else) and a Midas tanker, if one suspects the Russians. That would also account for the readiness exercises by the West coast ANG wings.

I'd rule out China initially, but you never know. I doubt either country would risk an overflight though,for all the reasons stated here earlier by others. So what does that leave? A wildly irresponsible flight through a busy air traffic corridor by a US agency of some sort.


I doubt we're going to find out anytime soon.

An FOIA request has gotten the actual ATC chatter and its interesting.......

www.thedrive.com...

It might have been a police drone.

Law enforcement have admitted that they're using drones in civilian capacities in the USA.

A Predator drone shell is pretty large and might have been mistaken for an aircraft.

a reply to: babybunnies

A Predator IS an aircraft. But this was identified as traveling at a high rate of speed, at a higher altitude than the Predator can operate at.

a reply to: Zaphod58

and intermittent radar returns too infrequent to even get a whereabouts on. they had to rely on a pair of airlines who had visuals.

big and white. very fast and stealthy. unconcerned about being tracked....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mbkennel

They have no known projects that could do it. They aren't going to risk one flying over CONUS any more than we'd fly our projects over their mainland areas.

We would fly some of our projects over their mainland areas, I think.

Whatever was seen barreling through Wilshire Boulevard could probably go down Tverskaya Street too.

a reply to: mbkennel

There's a very good reason not to. It's not a matter of CAN, it's a matter of WON'T. If it's bleeding edge tech, and fails halfway across Russia and goes down, it's going to be like Christmas for them. Just as it would be for us if it happened to them. Most of what they're trying to get can be found out without going farther than the ADIZ.

No mention of NT-43.


The John Batchelor Show: Large UFO in broad daylight, unsolved. @Thewarzone Tyler Rogoway

a reply to: gariac

calling it a "ufo" is a bit much. unidentified aircraft would be better. the term ufo is too weighted by ET imagery

The War Zone put up a link for actual footage of ATC chatter . On their radar return, you can see the call sign DRAGN92 in the area of interest. Sort of shadowing unknown craft at a distance. Now DRAGN92 comes up as a Navy P8 ISR sub hunter etc. IF , and I say IF, DRAGN92 was a P8, surely they would have been tracking the unknown aircraft ?
Just putting this out there for clarification from the experts( as I am Not )

a reply to: nelloh62

good observations

a reply to: nelloh62

The P-8 isn't an AWACS. They don't have much, if any air to air capability, short of some E/O gear. They MIGHT have been able to get their turret onto it, but all their gear is designed for slow moving surface targets and subs.

a reply to: Zaphod58

you know what I'm thinkin.... ruskie submarine launched fighter jets. think about it. the typhoon must have had a reason for being so big.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks Zaph , so they MIGHT have been able to track it IF they wanted to ?
Sorta makes sense to me if they had that asset in the area, it would have been used to try and identify ( assuming the USAF/NAVY didnt already know what it was )

a reply to: nelloh62

Less if they want to than if they were in the right position, and they probably couldn't for long depending on how fast it's going. They would be able to get some shots of it, but not continuously track it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nelloh62

The P-8 isn't an AWACS. They don't have much, if any air to air capability, short of some E/O gear. They MIGHT have been able to get their turret onto it, but all their gear is designed for slow moving surface targets and subs.

How about they were just flying a P-8 at high speed just to get it to the coast. That is, it wasn't doing any tracking over the land, but just flying to get on target.

a reply to: gariac

That doesn't change the fact that it's not designed to track airborne, high speed targets, such as a supersonic aircraft.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

That doesn't change the fact that it's not designed to track airborne, high speed targets, such as a supersonic aircraft.

Except I didn't say that. Go back and reread my post. The idea is it was try to get to the coast to reach a target. That target could be in the ocean.

Case in point was an incident in the Bay Area. The CHP spots a van parked by the highway. Long story short, it is full of spy gear. It is parked in a location to intercept RF me tween Mare and Diablo. This incident triggered a P-3 flight, which back then was no big rush since we had KNUQ.

a reply to: gariac

And the point of the P-8 being brought up was that it could have possibly tracked the aircraft in question. So what does it flying to the coast have to do with anything? Or are we just throwing whatever out there now for the hell of it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: gariac

And the point of the P-8 being brought up was that it could have possibly tracked the aircraft in question. So what does it flying to the coast have to do with anything? Or are we just throwing whatever out there now for the hell of it.

I guess I have to say this a third time. I didn't say the P-8 was tracking anything in in flight. I said it was heading to a target. That would be a target appropriate for the P-8 to track.

Let me say it again. While the P-8 was over land, it was not tracking anything. Rather it was heading to the coast to do a task.

Going back to the example I just posted, the P-3 was dispatched to look for a sub. It wasn't sent to fly over a surveillance van that the CHP discovered.