Lex Anteinternet: Monday, August 2, 1909. The United States Army accepted the delivery of a Wright Military Flyer.

Lex Anteinternet: Monday, August 2, 1909. Two firsts.: 

Monday, August 2, 1909. Two firsts.

The United States Army accepted the delivery of a Wright Military Flyer.

Wright Model A.

The Wright brothers were hired at the same time to train the first two pilots,  Lts. Frank P. Lahm and Frederick E. Humphreys

It was just six years after the first flight, and less than a decade before airplanes would become a major weapon of war.

Lex Anteinternet: Monday, June 28, 1943. The bombing of Cologne.

Lex Anteinternet: Monday, June 28, 1943. The bombing of Cologne.: 

Monday, June 28, 1943. The bombing of Cologne.

Today in World War II History—June 28, 1943: Royal Air Force bombs Cologne, Germany, heavily damaging the cathedral and ending the Battle of the Ruhr—total of 872 British bombers have been lost.

From Sarah Sundin's blog.  Other sources would regard the battle as going on through July 31, which is how I would place it.

On this raid, 608 aircraft, including participated of various types, of which 50 were lost. 4,377 Germans, which of course would have been mostly civilians, were killed, about 10,000 injured.  230,000 people were made homeless. Forty-three industrial, six German Army and about 15,000 other buildings were destroyed.

The Germans, on the same day, began construction of rocket launching complexes along the English Channel.  At the Peenemünde Army Research Center, it successfully launched a V2 rocket as Adolf Hitler watched and unsuccessfully launched one which crashed nearby.

The United States Army Air Force changed its aircraft insignia.  It had been:

This insignia had been adopted on May 15, 1942, in order to omit the red ball in the center of the star, which was a feature of the insignia thath predated it. There were fears the red ball could have been mistaken for the Japanese insignia.  A special variant of this insignia had been modified for Operation Torch, which was:

By NiD.29 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19785085

Research had since shown that shapes, rather than colors, were more important for aircraft identification, so on this date, the following insignia was adopted:

In the Pacific, the red border was omitted by some units.

The Report. Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.

Hot off of the Government Printing Office's Press:

Preliminary Assessment:  Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.

Okay, I've said it once, and I'll say it again. The UAP's, or UFO's if you prefer in this instance, have a more mundane original. They're ours.

Let's start with the first sentence of the very short (seven page) report:

The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP.

Uh huh.  That probably tells you about all you really need to know, right there.  It's not high quality, as the source of it, doesn't want it to be.

Well, let's take a look at the rest of the non tome.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The limited amount of high-quality reporting on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) hampers our ability to draw firm conclusions about the nature or intent of UAP. The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force (UAPTF) considered a range of information on UAP described in U.S. military and IC (Intelligence Community) reporting, but because the reporting lacked sufficient specificity, ultimately recognized that a unique, tailored reporting process was required to provide sufficient data for analysis of UAP events. 

• •As a result, the UAPTF concentrated its review on reports that occurred between 2004 and 2021, the majority of which are a result of this new tailored process to better capture UAP events through formalized reporting. 
• •Most of the UAP reported probably do represent physical objects given that a majority of UAP were registered across multiple sensors, to include radar, infrared, electro-optical, weapon seekers, and visual observation. 

In a limited number of incidents, UAP reportedly appeared to exhibit unusual flight characteristics. These observations could be the result of sensor errors, spoofing, or observer misperception and require additional rigorous analysis. There are probably multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations based on the range of appearances and behaviors described in the available reporting. Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or U.S. industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin. 

UAP clearly pose a safety of flight issue and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security. Safety concerns primarily center on aviators contending with an increasingly cluttered air domain. UAP would also represent a national security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a breakthrough or disruptive technology. 

Consistent consolidation of reports from across the federal government, standardized reporting, increased collection and analysis, and a streamlined process for screening all such reports against a broad range of relevant USG data will allow for a more sophisticated analysis of UAP that is likely to deepen our understanding. Some of these steps are resource-intensive and would require additional investment.

 AVAILABLE REPORTING LARGELY INCONCLUSIVE 

Limited Data Leaves Most UAP Unexplained… Limited data and inconsistency in reporting are key challenges to evaluating UAP. No standardized reporting mechanism existed until the Navy established one in March 2019. The Air Force subsequently adopted that mechanism in November 2020, but it remains limited to USG reporting. The UAPTF regularly heard anecdotally during its research about other observations that occurred but which were never captured in formal or informal reporting by those observers. 

After carefully considering this information, the UAPTF focused on reports that involved UAP largely witnessed firsthand by military aviators and that were collected from systems we considered to be reliable. These reports describe incidents that occurred between 2004 and 2021, with the majority coming in the last two years as the new reporting mechanism became better known to the military aviation community. We were able to identify one reported UAP with high confidence. In that case, we identified the object as a large, deflating balloon. The others remain unexplained. 

• 144 reports originated from USG sources. Of these, 80 reports involved observation with multiple sensors. 
• Most reports described UAP as objects that interrupted pre-planned training or other military activity.

UAP Collection Challenges 

Sociocultural stigmas and sensor limitations remain obstacles to collecting data on UAP. Although some technical challenges—such as how to appropriately filter out radar clutter to ensure safety of flight for military and civilian aircraft—are longstanding in the aviation community, while others are unique to the UAP problem set. 

• Narratives from aviators in the operational community and analysts from the military and IC describe disparagement associated with observing UAP, reporting it, or attempting to discuss it with colleagues. Although the effects of these stigmas have lessened as senior members of the scientific, policy, military, and intelligence communities engage on the topic seriously n public, reputational risk may keep many observers silent, complicating scientific pursuit of the topic.
• The sensors mounted on U.S. military platforms are typically designed to fulfill specific missions. As a result, those sensors are not generally suited for identifying UAP. 
• Sensor vantage points and the numbers of sensors concurrently observing an object play substantial roles in distinguishing UAP from known objects and determining whether a UAP demonstrates breakthrough aerospace capabilities. Optical sensors have the benefit of providing some insight into relative size, shape, and structure. Radiofrequency sensors provide more accurate velocity and range information

But Some Potential Patterns Do Emerge 

Although there was wide variability in the reports and the dataset is currently too limited to allow for detailed trend or pattern analysis, there was some clustering of UAP observations regarding shape, size, and, particularly, propulsion. UAP sightings also tended to cluster around U.S. training and testing grounds, but we assess that this may result from a collection bias as a result of focused attention, greater numbers of latest-generation sensors operating in those areas, unit expectations, and guidance to report anomalies. 

And a Handful of UAP Appear to Demonstrate Advanced Technology 

In 18 incidents, described in 21 reports, observers reported unusual UAP movement patterns or flight characteristics. 

Some UAP appeared to remain stationary in winds aloft, move against the wind, maneuver abruptly, or move at considerable speed, without discernable means of propulsion. In a small number of cases, military aircraft systems processed radio frequency (RF) energy associated with UAP sightings. 

The UAPTF holds a small amount of data that appear to show UAP demonstrating acceleration or a degree of signature management. Additional rigorous analysis are necessary by multiple teams or groups of technical experts to determine the nature and validity of these data. We are conducting further analysis to determine if breakthrough technologies were demonstrated. 

UAP PROBABLY LACK A SINGLE EXPLANATION 

The UAP documented in this limited dataset demonstrate an array of aerial behaviors, reinforcing the possibility there are multiple types of UAP requiring different explanations. Our analysis of the data supports the construct that if and when individual UAP incidents are resolved they will fall into one of five potential explanatory categories: airborne clutter, natural atmospheric phenomena, USG or industry developmental programs, foreign adversary systems, and a catchall “other” bin. With the exception of the one instance where we determined with high confidence that the reported UAP was airborne clutter, specifically a deflating balloon, we currently lack sufficient information in our dataset to attribute incidents to specific explanations. 

Airborne Clutter: These objects include birds, balloons, recreational unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), or airborne debris like plastic bags that muddle a scene and affect an operator’s ability to identify true targets, such as enemy aircraft. 

Natural Atmospheric Phenomena: Natural atmospheric phenomena includes ice crystals, moisture, and thermal fluctuations that may register on some infrared and radar systems. 

USG or Industry Developmental Programs: Some UAP observations could be attributable to developments and classified programs by U.S. entities. We were unable to confirm, however, that these systems accounted for any of the UAP reports we collected. 

Foreign Adversary Systems: Some UAP may be technologies deployed by China, Russia, another nation, or a non-governmental entity.

Other: Although most of the UAP described in our dataset probably remain unidentified due to limited data or challenges to collection processing or analysis, we may require additional scientific knowledge to successfully collect on, analyze and characterize some of them. We would group such objects in this category pending scientific advances that allowed us to better understand them. The UAPTF intends to focus additional analysis on the small number of cases where a UAP appeared to display unusual flight characteristics or signature management. 

UAP THREATEN FLIGHT SAFETY AND, POSSIBLY, NATIONAL SECURITY 

UAP pose a hazard to safety of flight and could pose a broader danger if some instances represent sophisticated collection against U.S. military activities by a foreign government or demonstrate a breakthrough aerospace technology by a potential adversary. 

Ongoing Airspace Concerns 

When aviators encounter safety hazards, they are required to report these concerns. Depending on the location, volume, and behavior of hazards during incursions on ranges, pilots may cease their tests and/or training and land their aircraft, which has a deterrent effect on reporting. 

• The UAPTF has 11 reports of documented instances in which pilots reported near misses with a UAP. 

Potential National Security Challenges 

We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary. We continue to monitor for evidence of such programs given the counter intelligence challenge they would pose, particularly as some UAP have been detected near military facilities or by aircraft carrying the USG’s most advanced sensor systems. 

EXPLAINING UAP WILL REQUIRE ANALYTIC, COLLECTION AND RESOURCE INVESTMENT 

Standardize the Reporting, Consolidate the Data, and Deepen the Analysis 

In line with the provisions of Senate Report 116-233, accompanying the IAA for FY 2021, the UAPTF’s long-term goal is to widen the scope of its work to include additional UAP events documented by a broader swath of USG personnel and technical systems in its analysis. As the dataset increases, the UAPTF’s ability to employ data analytics to detect trends will also improve. The initial focus will be to employ artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithms to cluster and recognize similarities and patterns in features of the data points. As the database accumulates information from known aerial objects such as weather balloons, high-altitude or super-pressure balloons, and wildlife, machine learning can add efficiency by pre-assessing UAP reports to see if those records match similar events already in the database.

• The UAPTF has begun to develop interagency analytical and processing workflows to ensure both collection and analysis will be well informed and coordinated.

The majority of UAP data is from U.S. Navy reporting, but efforts are underway to standardize incident reporting across U.S. military services and other government agencies to ensure all relevant data is captured with respect to particular incidents and any U.S. activities that might be relevant. The UAPTF is currently working to acquire additional reporting, including from the U.S. Air Force (USAF), and has begun receiving data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

• Although USAF data collection has been limited historically the USAF began a sixmonth pilot program in November 2020 to collect in the most likely areas to encounter UAP and is evaluating how to normalize future collection, reporting, and analysis across the entire Air Force. • 
• The FAA captures data related to UAP during the normal course of managing air traffic operations. The FAA generally ingests this data when pilots and other airspace users report unusual or unexpected events to the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization. • 
• In addition, the FAA continuously monitors its systems for anomalies, generating additional information that may be of use to the UAPTF. The FAA is able to isolate data of interest to the UAPTF and make it available. The FAA has a robust and effective outreach program that can help the UAPTF reach members of the aviation community to highlight the importance of reporting UAP. 

Expand Collection 

The UAPTF is looking for novel ways to increase collection of UAP cluster areas when U.S. forces are not present as a way to baseline “standard” UAP activity and mitigate the collection bias in the dataset. One proposal is to use advanced algorithms to search historical data captured and stored by radars. The UAPTF also plans to update its current interagency UAP collection strategy in order bring to bear relevant collection platforms and methods from the DoD and the IC. 

Increase Investment in Research and Development 

The UAPTF has indicated that additional funding for research and development could further the future study of the topics laid out in this report. Such investments should be guided by a UAP Collection Strategy, UAP R&D Technical Roadmap, and a UAP Program Plan. 

APPENDIX A - Definition of Key Terms 

This report and UAPTF databases use the following defining terms: 

Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP): Airborne objects not immediately identifiable. The acronym UAP represents the broadest category of airborne objects reviewed for analysis. 

UAP Event: A holistic description of an occurrence during which a pilot or aircrew witnessed (or detected) a UAP. 

UAP Incident: A specific part of the event. 

UAP Report: Documentation of a UAP event, to include verified chains of custody and basic information such as the time, date, location, and description of the UAP. UAP reports include Range Fouler1 reports and other reporting

Okay, what can we take away from all of that?

Well, most of these UAP events are explainable. Some aren't, but its very few, and they're not telling you what they are. and they need more money.

In short, they don't want to panic people that they're "aliens" from outer space, and they don't want to reveal what they really are. And the reason for the latter, as we've said before, is that these almost certainly represent a U.S. government program of some sort, and its a military one. Either we have a high tech technology that we want to leak just a little, or we want our adversaries to believe we do.

Does that mean that the military is lying to Congress?  Not necessarily. The report says so little, it likely contains no real lies, just no real information.

Why Unidentified Aerial Phenomena are almost certainly not aliens.

 Allow me to have a large element of skepticism.

If you follow the news at all, you've been reading of "leaked" Navy videos of UFOs, followed by official confirmation from Navy pilots along the lines "gosh, we don't know what the heck those things are".

Yeah. . . well. . . 

What we know for sure is that in recent years, Unidentified Aerial Phenomena have been interacting with ships of the U.S. Navy as well as Navy aircraft.  Video of them has been steadily "leaked" for several years, and the service, which normally likes to keep the most mundane things secret, has been pretty active in babbling about it.

Oh. . . and not just that.

The Navy also has applied for a patent for technology that appears to offer impossible high speed drives for aircraft, and acting to force through the patents when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office looked like it was going to say "oh bull".  The patenting Navy agent, moreover, a mysteriously named and mysterious scientist, has written babbly papers that are out there, but not well circulated.

So, what's going on?

Gaslighting, most likely.

To those who follow international developments, the US and the Peoples Republic of China are, quite frankly, sliding towards war in a way that reminiscent of Imperial Japan and the US in the late 1930s and early 1940s.  China acts like a late 19th Century imperial power and is building up its naval forces in an alarming way.  China is a land power and has no real need whatsoever for a defensive navy.  The only real use of a navy for China is offensive, or to pose a threat as it could be offensive.

And China has been busy posing a threat.  It's using its navy to muscle in on anything it can in the region.  It's constantly at odds with Vietnam off the latter's coast.  It's threatening the Philippines, whose erratic president shows no signs of backing down to China, and its been so concerning to Japan that Japan is now revising its defense posture.  Most of all, it's been threatening to Taiwan, which it regards as a breakaway province which it sort of is.

The problem with a nation flexing its naval muscle is that sooner or later, it goes from flexing to "I wonder how this stuff really works?"  Almost all totalitarian powers with big navies get to that point and there's no reason to believe that China won't.  Given that, the US (and as noted Japan) have been planning to fight China.  

This has resulted in a plan to overhaul the Marine Corps with a Chinese war specifically in mind, and the Navy, upon whom the brunt of any Chinese action would fall, at least initially, has been planning for that as well. And the Navy is worried.

As it should be.

The United States Navy has been a aircraft carrier centric navy ever since December 7, 1941 when it became one by default.  And its been the world's most power navy as a carrier based navy.  Carries have allowed the United States to project power around the world in a way that no other country can.  But in the age of missiles, a real question now exists and is being debated on whether the age of carriers is ending.

Plenty of defense analysts say no, but plenty say yes.  Truth is, we just don't know, and absent a major naval contest with a major naval power, which right now there isn't, we won't know.  But China is attempting to become that power and it has the ability to act pretty stoutly in its own region right now.

So how does this relate to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena?

The U.S. military has a long history of using the UFO phenomena/fandom for disinformation.  It notoriously did this in a pretty cruel way in at least one instance in the 60s/70s in which it completely wrecked the psychological health of a victim of a disinformation campaign that it got rolling, even planting a bogus crashed UFO to keep it rolling.  Beyond that, it's been pretty willing to use the stories of "weird alien craft" to cover its own developments, with plenty of the weird alien craft simply being developments in the US aerospace industry.

Given that, and the fact that at the same time the service purports to be taking this really seriously, it continually leaks information about it, and it doesn't seem really all that bothered, the best evidence here is something else is going on, of which there are a lot of possibilities.  These range from the service developing some really high tech drones and testing them against the same Navy units (they're usually the same ones) again and again to just having the ability to make this stuff all up.

So why the leaks?

If the service is experimenting with high tech drones, and if the experiment is going well, leaking the information may serve as a warning to potential enemies, notably the PRC, that "look, we have something so nifty our own Navy can't do squat about it. . .let alone yours".  Being vague about it probably serves the US  interest better than simply coming out with "Nanner, nanner. . surface fleets are obsolete . . .".  After all, once we admit we have them, at that point the race to figure them out is really on.

On the other hand, maybe we're just making the whole thing up.  We have been worried in the past about other nations development super high tech aircraft, notably the Soviet Union, then Russia post USSR, and now China.  Running around patenting mysterious things and having weird things going on may be a disinformation campaign designed to make a potential enemy a little hesitant.  And they'd hesitate, because. . . .

Maybe we really have developed some super high tech craft, either manned or unmanned, that are now so advanced that we feel pretty comfortable testing them against a control set, that being, at first, the same U.S. Navy units again and again.  A recent report indicates that other navies are now experiencing the same thing, and we might frankly be doing the same thing with them.  There's no reason to believe that a nation that would do U2 overflights over hostile nations in the 60s, and then SR71 flights the same way, which tested the spread of biological weapons by actually spreading biological agents off of the coast of California, and which tested the intelligence use of LSD by giving it to unsuspecting CIA employees, might not do this.  

Indeed, it'd make for a pretty good test.

Lex Anteinternet: Some controversial topics for a new Biden Administion.

Lex Anteinternet: Some controversial topics for a new Biden Administ...: 

Some controversial topics for a new Biden Administration. The Space Force is stupid and ought to go.

Joe Biden will not, I'm sure, take advice from me.  I've offered him some already, but I doubt he's one of the 200 to 800 people who stop in here on any particular day.

Still, if he is. . . 

Star Trekesque emblem of the U.S. Space Force.

If you want to read an enthusiastic view of the Space Force read the Smithsonian's Air & Space magazine.  It's an excellent publication anyway and it loves the space force. The last issue had an article on the "black hat squadron" of the now one year old Space Force and what it does.

My view?

M'eh.

The Space Force was basically the Air Force's Space Command and it should revert to it.  The Space Force can't and won't be doing any real mission that Space Command was not, but it will have its own budget, its own seat at the Joint Chiefs, and its own bloated budget.  Given the habit of the current U.S. military, it won't share anything that it could in terms of obviously common items with the other services, and will have to have its own unique everything.

The Space Force/Space Command really has a mission that's simply auxiliary to the Air Forces and therefore the creation of what essentially is a branch of the military that does nothing other than to deal with menacing Russian satellites and the potential militarization of space is really grossly overweighting that mission and massively trespassing on something the Air Force already does and does well.  The Air Force has been in space, frankly, in a militarized way since the launch of the first ballistic missiles that excited the atmosphere and so they've been at this a long, long time. If the Space Force having a seat at the Joint Chiefs makes sense, and its own very special budget, giving the Civil Air Patrol a seat there does as well.

Moreover both balkanization and mission inflation is a problem in the U.S. military as it is.  The Air Force itself was once, and rightly, part of the Army but has been busy trying to forget its ground support role ever since it became a separate service, which was a massive military mistake in the first place.  Double balkanization of a role that should have just remained with the Army is not help.

Moreover, this recalls the example of the Marine Corps, which I have another thread in the hopper on.  I'm not opposed to the Marine Corps by any means and I worry about its current direction towards a new role, but its hard not to recall that the Marine Corps is properly part of the Department of the Navy but since the Second World War its freakishly expanded into its own service in a way.  And its one that has developed the habit of never using anything, right down to boots, that other branches of the service do.

All these services, moreover, get a chair with the Joint Chiefs of Staff which now is starting to look as large as a high school graduating class.  The Army, Air Force, Space Force, Marine Corps, and the Navy all have seats at the Joint Chiefs and the National Guard gets its own as well.   

This is now way overdone.   The Marines ought to really revert fully to being part of the Department of the Navy.  If they can't do that, they're really just a second Army in disguise.  The Air Force ought to revert to being part of the Department of the Army.  I'm so so about the National Guard having a seat at the table, but I'd leave that alone for the time being.

At a bare minimum, the Space Force ought to go and on day one of the Biden Administration.  If I were he, I'd not only sign an executive order doing away with it immediately on day one, but I'd frankly reduce any officer in grade by one grade if they were foolish enough to go along with this silliness and I'd shift those enlisted men who volunteered for this transfer (and not all of them did) over to the Army rather than the Air Force.  They'd have their same jobs, but if they want to be playing musical services they can be in one that might, perhaps, have to call on them to be a "guardian" in the old fashioned way.