AARO Case Resolution: "Atmospheric Wakes"

UNCLASSIFIED

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office
U.S. Department of Defense

(U) Case: “Atmospheric Wakes”
Case Resolution | 8 May 2023

(U) Case Overview
(U) AARO assesses that the UAP reported in
these three cases almost certainly were not
exhibiting anomalous propulsion or atmospheric
wakes, rather the observed effect was the result
of a sensor artifact in all cases, based on analyses
by AARO’s Intelligence and Science and
Technology (S&T) partners.
 (U) The object in Case One has not been
identified, but AARO is certain that it was not
exhibiting anomalous behaviors.
 (U) In Case Two, one object was almost
certainly a known military aircraft. The second
object appears oblong due to camera
aberration and remains unidentified, but also
was probably a prosaic aircraft as well.

(U) Case Essentials
(U) These reports were submitted after
three different missions in the Middle
East, and the Mediterranean Sea in 2022
and 2023. The reports were filed due to
the potential hazard posed to the
mission and because the videos depict a
potentially anomalous propulsion
signature
(U) Location: Middle East and the
Mediterranean Sea

(U) Date: 2022 and 2023
(U) Altitude: N/A
(U) Shape: N/A

 (U) In Case Three, the object was almost
certainly a known and identified commercial
aircraft, flying along a recognized travel
corridor.

(U) Reporter: Theater UAV operators

(U) Intelligence Assessment

(U) Case Status: Resolved; prosaic
aircraft; the “wake” is a sensor artifact in
each case

(U) Sensor: Infrared (IR)
(U) Behavior: Exhibited potential
anomalous propulsion

(U) AARO’s Intelligence partners assess with high
confidence that the “atmospheric wake” in each
video is a sensor anomaly. AARO’s intelligence
partners were not able to identify the object of Case One, but have high confidence that it is not
displaying any anomalous characteristics and are almost certain it’s a prosaic object based on
thorough review of the evidence.

1
UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED
(U) For the two UAP reported in Case Two, it is assessed that both objects are most likely
aircraft, one military and the other a small but unidentified aircraft. Location data from aircraft in
the vicinity were compared and it was determined that one of the UAP matched closely with a
track of a military aircraft.
 (U) Although a similar match of the second object was not possible, it was assessed with
medium confidence that it was a small aircraft. This assessment was based on line of sight
analysis and comparing it to other known objects.
(U) AARO’s intelligence partners have high confidence that they identified the UAP in Case Three
as a specific Airbus A380 commercial aircraft based on commercial flight data.
 (U) Photogrammetry analysis of the object in Case Three was conducted, which resulted in a
close size estimate to that of an Airbus A380.

(U) Science & Technology Assessment
(U) Two of AARO’s S&T Partners also assessed that the “wakes” observed in these three cases
were sensor artifacts, but did not identify the objects captured on the sensors.
 (U) S&T Partner One assessed the trails were camera artifacts resulting from the object rapidly
traversing the camera’s field of view. It was noted that other objects in the videos also leave a
similar trail.
(U) S&T Partner Two conducted a detailed analysis of the full-motion video and the IR sensor,
reaching the same high confidence conclusion that the wakes were sensor artifacts.
(U) Figure 1: “Atmospheric Wakes” Case Two

2
UNCLASSIFIED