Apologies, I edited for clarity so the wording from my post is all changed around. I probably managed to actually make it less clear as well. Been that kind of day.
> The Alert Five aircraft does (the aircraft they scramble to intercept).
> It does get followed up by another aircraft a few minutes later, though.
Thanks for the correction. It seems the initial encounter was with 2 aircraft diverted from the training exercise and the follow-up was indeed a single aircraft (during which the publically-available FLIR footage was recorded)
> It's has one or two seat versions. The second seat is not a pilot seat.
These were two-seaters. The WSO is also a pilot in common parlance (they have flight controls back there for emergencies) but not in Navy parlance (they are flight officers). I try to remember to use the more general term of "aviators" but sometimes I use it interchangeably with "pilot" which is not strictly correct.
Perhaps most relevantly, the WSO's training focuses even more on operating and comprehending the output of sensors (FLIR, radar, etc) than the pilot's training.
> The camera can do it's own contrast based tracking or be slewed
> to follow another sensor such as radar, navigation data, or
> datalink from another aircraft.
Yeah. So just to be clear, any "misconception" about the motion of the UAP(s) would involve misconceptions on the part of six aviators, one radar and its associated crew (the one on the Princeton) and possibly multiple additional radars (aboard the 3? Hornets that may or may not have been been directing the FLIR)
The most relevant thing, I think, is that there's no way the Princeton could have vectored the Hornets to a UAP ~60 miles away unless the Princeton's radar had an accurate reading of the UAP's speed and direction.
That's why (for that particular aspect of the story) it seems like there's no possible middle ground. They are not mistaken. They are either lying in a coordinated and consistent way (possible; it's the military) or they are telling the truth.
> The Alert Five aircraft does (the aircraft they scramble to intercept). > It does get followed up by another aircraft a few minutes later, though.
Thanks for the correction. It seems the initial encounter was with 2 aircraft diverted from the training exercise and the follow-up was indeed a single aircraft (during which the publically-available FLIR footage was recorded)
> It's has one or two seat versions. The second seat is not a pilot seat.
These were two-seaters. The WSO is also a pilot in common parlance (they have flight controls back there for emergencies) but not in Navy parlance (they are flight officers). I try to remember to use the more general term of "aviators" but sometimes I use it interchangeably with "pilot" which is not strictly correct.
Perhaps most relevantly, the WSO's training focuses even more on operating and comprehending the output of sensors (FLIR, radar, etc) than the pilot's training.
> The camera can do it's own contrast based tracking or be slewed > to follow another sensor such as radar, navigation data, or > datalink from another aircraft.
Yeah. So just to be clear, any "misconception" about the motion of the UAP(s) would involve misconceptions on the part of six aviators, one radar and its associated crew (the one on the Princeton) and possibly multiple additional radars (aboard the 3? Hornets that may or may not have been been directing the FLIR)
The most relevant thing, I think, is that there's no way the Princeton could have vectored the Hornets to a UAP ~60 miles away unless the Princeton's radar had an accurate reading of the UAP's speed and direction.
That's why (for that particular aspect of the story) it seems like there's no possible middle ground. They are not mistaken. They are either lying in a coordinated and consistent way (possible; it's the military) or they are telling the truth.
As for what the UAP was, I don't have an opinion.