Round Object Changed Course in Front of Military Operator
The sensor displayed it as a white dot. Then it turned sharply, again and again.
The sensor displayed it as a white dot. Then it turned sharply, again and again.
A military operator tracked a round object over the Gulf of Aden. It appeared white on the sensor, changed direction sharply several times, and remained unidentified.
A single-page U.S. Navy 'Range Fouler Reporting Form' documenting an 8-minute IR sensor track of a UAP over the Gulf of Aden on 4 September 2020 (21:09Z to 21:17Z). The reporting aircrew, an O-3 in the 'VFA' (squadron field reads '11/2 ATKS' or similar) flying an ISR mission at 23,819 feet, tracked a single round, cold contact at 168 degrees / 277 mph that made 'a few abrupt directional changes.' The IR sensor was set to 'black hot' and the object appeared 'bright white.' Sensor geometry: aimed -39 degrees below altitude, slant range 6.1? NM, ground range 8.81 KM. Identifying information for aircrew/squadron is redacted; the form notes SPEAR sanitizes such data.
From 21:09Z to 21:17Z on 04 SEP 2020, while at 23,819 feet HAT over the Gulf of Aden on a night ISR mission, the aircrew tracked a single round, cold object on IR. The contact traveled 168 degrees at 277 mph and made a few abrupt directional changes during the 8-minute contact. Sensor was aimed -39 degrees below the aircraft's altitude with a slant range of 6.1? NM and ground range of 8.81 KM. IR set to 'black hot'; object appeared 'bright white.' MGRS location partly redacted (38P L+? area). Form indicates: stable trackfile (checked), tally NOT achieved, AIM-9X self-track and ATFLIR autotrack NOT checked, 1 contact in group, shape round, no markings/wings/airframe/apparent propulsion observed, no EA/ECM indications.
"Contact at 21:09z to 21:17z 04SEP2020."
Why it matters: Establishes precise UTC window of the 8-minute encounter.
Page 1
"While at 23,819 HAT over the ~ulf of Aden we tracked a round, cold object in IR traveling 168 degrees at 277 mph."
Why it matters: Core observation: round, cold IR contact with specific heading/speed.
Page 1
"It made a few abrupt dir~ctional changes during the 8 minute contact."
Why it matters: Document-flagged anomalous flight behavior.
Page 1
"Our sensor was aimed -39 degrees below our altitude w th a slant range of 6.1?NM and ground range of 8.81 KM."
Why it matters: Sensor geometry establishing contact's relative position below the aircraft.
Page 1
"The IR sensor was set to black hot and the obj ct in question was a bright white."
Why it matters: In black-hot polarity, bright white indicates a cold object relative to background, consistent with the 'cold object' description.
Page 1
"Absolutely no identifying information for aircrew or squadr, n will be recorded for analysis."
Why it matters: Documents the SPEAR sanitization protocol governing this reporting channel.
Page 1
Gulf of Aden
Page 1
1172 ATKS (as transcribed; squadron field, possibly OCR-degraded)
U.S. Navy · Page 1
ATFLIR (referenced as autotrack option on form)
sensor · Page 1
AIM-9X (referenced as self-track option on form)
sensor · Page 1
IR sensor (black hot mode, used to track contact)
sensor · Page 1
JMPS (recommended for lat/long derivation)
ground · Page 1
Last Name, First Name field
Likely reason: Personnel privacy (aircrew identity); form policy explicitly removes identifying info
SfPR Email Address field
Likely reason: Personnel privacy
Side No. and Buno (aircraft tail/bureau number) fields
Likely reason: Operational/unit identifying information
MGRS location of contact: '38P L+?(...)' — coordinates partially redacted under (b)(1)1.4a marking
Likely reason: Classified national-security information (b)(1)1.4a — military plans/operations)
Estimated lat/long of contact, redacted under (b)(1)1.4a
Likely reason: Classified geolocation
Submission email address(es) and troubleshooting phone number
Likely reason: (b)(6) personal information / internal contact info
Repository upload link
Likely reason: (b)(6) / internal system reference
Single-page Navy Range Fouler Reporting Form (USCENTCOM Bates 26.0028; release stamp 03/16/26). Companion to slug 076 (DOW-UAP-D75, Gulf of Aden, July 2024). Some text fields show OCR/scan artifacts (e.g., 'Won,-ing' for 'Working', 'beating' for 'bearing', 'cJete<;t;on' for 'detection', '11/2 ATKS' / '1172 ATKS' for the squadron designation, '6.1?NM' for what is likely '6.17 NM'). Reporter rank field reads 'O-3'. Mission was night ISR; LFE field marked appears to be 'N' (no Large Force Exercise). Form explicitly states SPEAR sanitizes all reports of identifying information.
It's unknown. The white describes its appearance on the sensor display, not necessarily its color to the naked eye.
No. The record describes the changes in direction but does not explain them or identify the object.
A US military operator tracked a round object over the Gulf of Aden. On their sensor, it appeared as a bright white dot. Then the object suddenly changed direction several times.
The tracking lasted eight minutes, but the record doesn't state what happened afterward. It also doesn't identify the object. What it does describe is an intriguing discrepancy: the operator described it as cold, yet saw it as white on the screen.
The operator used a heat-sensing sensor. The sensor displays an image based on the differences it detects, so the white color on the screen isn't necessarily the color the object would have appeared to the naked eye. In the report, the dot appeared bright white on the display.
The operator described the object as round and cold. These are descriptions of what was seen through the sensor, not measurements proving what the object was made of or its temperature. The record does not specify how the object appeared without the sensor.
While the operator tracked it, the object made several sudden changes in direction. The report doesn't just describe smooth movement in one direction: the course changed sharply more than once.
For eight minutes, the object remained under surveillance. The record does not specify what caused the turns, or if the operator saw the object in any other way. It documents their description at the time of the event, not an explanation for the movement.
It is unknown what the object was or what caused it to change course. The record offers no conventional explanation, nor does it contain enough information to investigate what caused the turns. It emphasizes that the description reflects the operator's assessment at that time, not a definitive determination of the object's characteristics.
Eight minutes of tracking, and the object is still unnamed.