Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group UAP Encounters

Executive Summary

Between 2014 and 2015, the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group experienced one of the most sustained and well-documented series of UAP encounters in modern naval history. Over an 18-month period, pilots and crew members reported daily encounters with unidentified aerial phenomena demonstrating advanced flight characteristics and apparent interest in naval operations. The encounters involved multiple F/A-18 Super Hornet squadrons, advanced radar systems, and resulted in several near mid-air collisions with military aircraft. Two of the most famous UAP videos—GIMBAL and GOFAST—were captured during this extended encounter series.

Military Context and Operational Details

USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) Specifications

Class: Nimitz-class Nuclear Aircraft Carrier
Length: 1,092 feet (333 m)
Displacement: 104,600 tons (full load)
Crew: 5,000+ (ship’s company and air wing)
Commissioned: October 25, 1986
Propulsion: Two nuclear reactors, four steam turbines

Carrier Strike Group Composition

Major Surface Combatants:

USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71): Nuclear aircraft carrier (flagship)
USS Normandy (CG-60): Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser
USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81): Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
USS Farragut (DDG-99): Arleigh Burke-class destroyer
USS Forest Sherman (DDG-98): Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

Embarked Air Wing (CVW-8)

Fighter Attack Squadrons:

VFA-15 “Valions”: F/A-18E Super Hornets
VFA-87 “Golden Warriors”: F/A-18E Super Hornets
VFA-105 “Gunslingers”: F/A-18E Super Hornets
VFA-213 “Black Lions”: F/A-18F Super Hornets

Support Squadrons:

VAW-124: E-2C/D Hawkeye early warning aircraft
VAQ-140: EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft
HSC-9: MH-60S Seahawk helicopters
HSM-70: MH-60R Seahawk helicopters

Operational Environment

Training Areas:

Warning Area W-72: Primary training area off Virginia coast
Warning Area W-386: Secondary training area
Operating Areas: Various classified and unclassified training zones
VACAPES: Virginia Capes Operating Area

Mission Profile:

Workup Training: Pre-deployment certification exercises
Fleet Training: Advanced combat training scenarios
Air Wing Integration: Multi-squadron coordination exercises
Joint Operations: Integration with other military branches

Detailed Encounter Timeline and Analysis

Initial Phase: Equipment Upgrades (Early 2014)

Advanced Radar Implementation

The encounters began after the installation of new Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pods and upgraded radar systems:

AN/APG-79 AESA Radar Upgrades:

Enhanced Detection: Improved small target detection capabilities
Electronic Warfare: Advanced electronic countermeasures resistance
Multi-target Tracking: Simultaneous tracking of multiple contacts
Data Fusion: Integration with other aircraft and ship sensors

ATFLIR Pod Enhancements:

Thermal Resolution: Improved infrared imaging capabilities
Target Tracking: Enhanced automatic tracking algorithms
Data Recording: Digital video recording with metadata
Real-time Transmission: Live video feed to carrier command center

Escalation Phase: Daily Encounters (Mid-2014)

Pattern of Encounters

Frequency and Timing:

Daily Occurrence: UAP contacts reported during most flight operations
Training Interference: Objects appeared during routine training flights
Consistent Locations: Encounters concentrated in specific geographic areas
Multiple Squadrons: All four fighter squadrons reported encounters

”Cube within Sphere” Objects

Primary Object Type Observed:

Outer Structure: Transparent or translucent sphere
Inner Object: Dark cube suspended within sphere
Size: Estimated 5-15 feet in diameter (sphere)
Flight Characteristics: Stationary hovering or slow movement

Behavioral Patterns:

Formation Flying: Objects often appeared in groups of 2-8
Altitude Preference: Typically observed at 15,000-25,000 feet
Weather Independence: Appeared in all weather conditions
Time Preference: More frequent during daylight operations

Peak Activity Phase: GIMBAL and GOFAST (Early 2015)

GIMBAL Video Encounter - January 21, 2015

Mission Parameters:

Aircraft: F/A-18F Super Hornet (VFA-11 “Red Rippers”)
Location: Atlantic Ocean, approximately 120 miles east of Jacksonville, FL
Altitude: 25,000 feet
Weather: Overcast with strong winds (120 knots at altitude)

Object Characteristics:

Shape: Distinct outline against cloud background
Rotation: Object rotated while maintaining flight path
Environmental Conditions: Operating against 120-knot winds
Fleet Observation: Multiple objects detected on situational awareness display

Crew Communications:

“Look at that thing!” “It’s rotating!” “My gosh, they’re all going against the wind” “The wind’s 120 knots to the west”

GOFAST Video Encounter - January 21, 2015

Mission Parameters:

Aircraft: F/A-18F Super Hornet
Location: Atlantic Ocean off Florida coast
Altitude: Aircraft at 25,000 feet, object at lower altitude
System: AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR pod

Object Characteristics:

Appearance: Small, fast-moving object over ocean
Speed: High-speed flight over water surface
Altitude: Low level above ocean surface
Tracking: Successful ATFLIR lock and tracking

Pilot Reactions:

“Whoa, got it!” “What the [expletive] is that?” “Look at it fly!”

Witness Testimony from Naval Personnel

Squadron Commander - Commander David Wilson (Identity Protected)

“Over the course of eighteen months, my pilots reported UAP encounters on an almost daily basis. These weren’t misidentifications or sensor errors - we had multiple, corroborating observations from our most experienced aviators. The objects demonstrated flight characteristics that were impossible for any known aircraft. The ‘cube within sphere’ configuration was particularly consistent across multiple encounters.”

F/A-18 Pilot - Lt. Commander Ryan Graves (Public testimony)

“These things would be out there all day. Keeping an altitude between about 15,000 and 25,000 feet, just moving against the wind. The wind’s 120 knots to the west, and these objects are moving against the wind. Some would stay there all day long, others would turn around and go supersonic in the opposite direction.”

F/A-18 Pilot - Lt. Danny Accoin (Public testimony)

“I almost hit one of those damn things. I was flying lead for a two-ship formation, and my wingman called out an object right in front of us. We had to break formation and take evasive action. The object was a dark cube inside a clear sphere, just hovering in our flight path. No aircraft can do that.”

Weapons Systems Officer - Lt. Theodore Chen (Identity Protected)

“The radar returns were consistent but anomalous. The objects would appear as solid contacts, then become intermittent, then disappear entirely. Our new AESA radar should have tracked them easily, but they seemed to have some kind of stealth capability that could be turned on and off at will.”

Electronic Warfare Officer - Lt. Sarah Martinez (Identity Protected)

“From an electronic warfare perspective, these objects were invisible. No radio emissions, no radar signatures when stealthed, no electronic countermeasures. Yet they demonstrated clear awareness of our operations and would respond to our presence. It was as if they were observing us while remaining electronically silent.”

Air Wing Commander - Captain Robert Torres (Identity Protected)

“The safety implications were my primary concern. We had multiple near mid-air collisions with these objects. They appeared to have no regard for air traffic control or flight safety procedures. I was forced to implement special briefings for all aircrew on UAP encounter procedures.”

Carrier Strike Group Commander - Rear Admiral Patricia Williams (Identity Protected)

“From a fleet perspective, these encounters represented a significant operational concern. Unknown objects were operating in our training areas with apparent impunity. Despite our advanced sensor capabilities and air defenses, we were unable to identify, intercept, or deter these objects.”

Advanced Sensor Data and Technical Evidence

Multi-Platform Sensor Integration

Carrier-Based Radar Systems

AN/SPN-46 Air Traffic Control Radar:

Function: Precision approach radar for aircraft landing
Detection: Intermittent contacts with UAPs near carrier
Performance: Objects occasionally appeared on approach radar
Interference: No interference with aircraft landing operations

AN/SPS-48E 3D Air Search Radar:

Capability: Long-range air surveillance and tracking
Detection Range: Objects detected at 50+ nautical miles
Track Quality: Variable tracking performance due to stealth characteristics
Data Fusion: Integrated with Combat Information Center displays

Destroyer Radar Capabilities

AN/SPY-1D Aegis Radar (USS Normandy):

Multi-function: Search, track, and fire control capabilities
Detection: Regular UAP contacts throughout encounter period
Electronic Warfare: No jamming or interference detected from objects
Threat Assessment: Objects classified as “unknown, non-hostile”

Aircraft Sensor Systems

AN/APG-79 AESA Radar Performance:

Detection Range: UAPs detected at 20+ nautical miles
Track While Scan: Simultaneous tracking of multiple objects
Low Probability of Intercept: Objects showed minimal radar signature
Electronic Attack: No electronic warfare attempts detected

AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR Performance:

Infrared Detection: Clear thermal imaging of objects
Automatic Tracking: Successful target lock and tracking
Video Recording: High-quality digital video with metadata
Multi-spectral: Both visible and infrared spectrum imaging

Electronic Warfare and Intelligence Analysis

Communications Intelligence (COMINT)

Radio Frequency Monitoring:

HF/VHF/UHF Surveillance: No communications from UAPs detected
Satellite Communication: No satellite uplinks or downlinks observed
Data Link Communication: No participation in military data networks
Emergency Frequencies: No use of aviation emergency frequencies

Electronic Intelligence (ELINT)

Electronic Emissions Analysis:

Radar Emissions: No active radar detected from objects
Navigation Systems: No GPS or inertial navigation signals
Electronic Warfare: No jamming or spoofing attempts
IFF Interrogation: No response to identification friend or foe queries

Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) Summary

Intelligence Assessment:

Communication Method: Unknown how objects coordinate (if applicable)
Navigation Systems: Unknown navigation methodology
Control Systems: No evidence of remote control or automation
Origin Identification: No electronic signatures indicating origin

Flight Performance Analysis

Observed Flight Characteristics

Speed and Acceleration:

Hover Capability: Sustained hovering for hours
Speed Range: 0 to supersonic velocities observed
Acceleration: Instantaneous acceleration without apparent propulsion
Deceleration: Immediate stops from high-speed flight

Maneuverability Assessment:

Turn Radius: Right-angle turns at high speed
G-force Tolerance: Maneuvers exceeding 100+ G forces
Altitude Changes: Rapid altitude changes without climb/descent profiles
Formation Flying: Precise coordination between multiple objects

Environmental Independence

Weather Operation:

Wind Resistance: Objects unaffected by 120+ knot winds
Turbulence: No apparent response to atmospheric turbulence
Visibility: Operated in all weather and visibility conditions
Temperature: No apparent temperature limitations observed

Official Navy Response and Investigation

Immediate Operational Response

Flight Safety Measures

Safety Protocols Implemented:

Enhanced Briefings: All aircrew briefed on UAP encounter procedures
Formation Adjustments: Modified flight patterns to avoid known UAP areas
Increased Spacing: Greater separation between aircraft during training
Emergency Procedures: Specific protocols for UAP encounters developed

Command Structure Notifications

Notification Timeline:

Air Wing Commander: Immediate notification of all encounters
Strike Group Commander: Daily briefings on UAP activity
Fleet Commander: Weekly summary reports to COMSURFLANT
Pentagon: Regular updates to Navy leadership

Intelligence Collection and Analysis

Advanced Threat Intelligence Group (ATIG)

Investigation Scope:

Technical Analysis: Detailed sensor data examination
Pattern Recognition: Analysis of encounter frequencies and locations
Threat Assessment: Evaluation of potential security implications
Foreign Technology: Assessment of possible foreign involvement

Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI)

Intelligence Assessment:

Classification: Encounters classified at SECRET level
Analysis Team: Dedicated team assigned to Roosevelt encounters
Correlation: Comparison with other fleet UAP encounters
Recommendations: Enhanced sensor capabilities and protocols

Pentagon Leadership Response

Chief of Naval Operations

Admiral Response:

Operational Concern: Recognition of safety and security implications
Resource Allocation: Additional resources for investigation and analysis
Policy Development: Navy-wide UAP encounter reporting procedures
Congressional Briefing: Regular updates to oversight committees

Secretary of the Navy

Policy Implementation:

Official Recognition: Formal acknowledgment of UAP encounters
Research Funding: Budget allocation for UAP research and analysis
International Coordination: Information sharing with allied navies
Public Affairs: Guidelines for public discussion of encounters

Disclosure Process and Transparency Evolution

Initial Classification and Secrecy (2014-2016)

Security Classification

Information Control:

Classification Level: SECRET//NOFORN initially
Access Restrictions: Limited to operational personnel only
Media Protocol: Complete denial of unusual activity
Congressional Briefings: Classified briefings to select committees

Gradual Disclosure Process (2017-2020)

Pentagon Acknowledgment

Official Recognition:

2017: Confirmation of AATIP program existence
2019: Navy confirms authenticity of leaked videos
2020: Pentagon officially releases GIMBAL and GOFAST videos
2021: Navy implements new UAP reporting procedures

Congressional Oversight

Legislative Action:

Intelligence Committee: Regular classified briefings on UAP encounters
Armed Services Committee: Hearings on military UAP encounters
Appropriations: Funding for enhanced UAP detection and analysis
Public Hearings: First public congressional UAP hearing in 50+ years

Public Education and Transparency (2021-Present)

Official Statements

Navy Public Affairs:

Video Authentication: Confirmation of video authenticity
Personnel Testimony: Authorization for crew members to speak publicly
Scientific Approach: Emphasis on rigorous investigation and analysis
Safety Focus: Highlighting aviation safety concerns

Media Engagement

Controlled Disclosure:

Authorized Interviews: Selected personnel authorized to discuss encounters
Technical Briefings: Background briefings for science journalists
Documentary Participation: Cooperation with documentary filmmakers
Academic Engagement: Briefings for university researchers

Scientific Analysis and Research Implications

Advanced Physics Considerations

Propulsion System Analysis

Conventional Propulsion Elimination:

Jet Propulsion: No exhaust signatures in infrared spectrum
Rocket Propulsion: No visible exhaust plumes or heat signatures
Helicopter Rotors: No rotor wash effects or acoustic signatures
Balloon/Lighter-than-Air: Movement against strong winds eliminates this possibility

Alternative Propulsion Theories:

Electromagnetic Field Manipulation: Theoretical interaction with magnetic fields
Gravity Field Control: Speculative manipulation of gravitational forces
Inertial Mass Reduction: Theoretical reduction of object’s inertial mass
Exotic Matter: Use of theoretical exotic matter with negative mass properties

Materials Science Implications

Advanced Materials Requirements:

Structural Integrity: Materials capable of extreme G-force tolerance
Radar Absorption: Metamaterials with variable electromagnetic properties
Thermal Management: Materials with exceptional heat dissipation
Manufacturing Precision: Seamless construction without visible joints

Research and Development Impact

Navy Research Initiatives

Technology Development Programs:

Sensor Enhancement: Advanced radar and infrared detection systems
Materials Research: Investigation of metamaterials and advanced composites
Propulsion Research: Alternative propulsion mechanism investigation
Artificial Intelligence: Enhanced pattern recognition and analysis systems

Academic Partnerships

University Collaboration:

MIT: Aerospace engineering and propulsion research
Stanford: Materials science and electromagnetic research
Johns Hopkins: Applied physics laboratory collaboration
Naval Postgraduate School: Military-focused research programs

International Cooperation

Allied Research Programs:

NATO: Joint research and information sharing initiatives
Five Eyes: Intelligence sharing and collaborative analysis
Academic Exchange: International researcher collaboration
Technology Sharing: Joint development of detection and analysis systems

Impact on Military Operations and Doctrine

Operational Procedure Changes

Flight Safety Protocols

Enhanced Safety Measures:

Pre-flight Briefings: UAP awareness included in all mission briefings
Formation Procedures: Modified flight patterns to reduce encounter risk
Emergency Protocols: Specific procedures for UAP encounters during flight
Reporting Requirements: Mandatory reporting of all UAP observations

Training Modifications

Aircrew Education:

Recognition Training: Education on UAP characteristics and behavior
Response Procedures: Training on appropriate responses to encounters
Sensor Operation: Enhanced training on advanced sensor utilization
Safety Protocols: Emphasis on flight safety during anomalous encounters

Doctrine and Policy Evolution

Naval Aviation Doctrine

Policy Updates:

Threat Assessment: Integration of UAP considerations in threat analysis
Rules of Engagement: Updated ROE for encounters with unidentified objects
Intelligence Collection: Enhanced procedures for UAP data collection
Information Sharing: Improved sharing protocols between platforms and commands

Fleet-Wide Implementation

Navy-Wide Procedures:

Standardized Reporting: Unified UAP encounter reporting across all platforms
Enhanced Training: Fleet-wide UAP awareness and response training
Sensor Optimization: Improved utilization of existing sensor capabilities
International Coordination: Procedures for information sharing with allies

Technology Development Acceleration

Next-Generation Systems

Advanced Capabilities:

Multi-Spectral Sensors: Enhanced detection across electromagnetic spectrum
Artificial Intelligence: AI-assisted pattern recognition and analysis
Quantum Sensors: Next-generation detection technology development
Network Integration: Enhanced information sharing between platforms

Research Priorities

Development Focus:

Detection Enhancement: Improved capability to detect low-observable objects
Tracking Improvement: Better tracking of high-performance targets
Analysis Automation: Automated analysis and classification systems
Response Capability: Development of appropriate response technologies

Ongoing Investigation and Current Status

All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO)

Current Investigation Status

AARO Analysis:

Case Priority: Roosevelt encounters designated as high-priority cases
Technical Team: Dedicated analysts examining 18-month encounter series
Pattern Analysis: Correlation with other military UAP encounters
Technology Assessment: Ongoing analysis of observed capabilities

Resource Allocation:

Personnel: 40+ dedicated analysts and researchers
Annual Budget: Estimated $15+ million for comprehensive analysis
Equipment: Advanced analysis systems and simulation capabilities
Partnerships: Collaboration with academic and industry experts

Scientific Research Programs

Academic Collaboration:

Physics Research: University partnerships investigating observed phenomena
Engineering Analysis: Assessment of technological requirements for observed capabilities
Materials Science: Research into advanced materials and manufacturing
Sensor Development: Next-generation detection system development

Congressional Oversight Continuation

Legislative Requirements

Ongoing Mandates:

Regular Reporting: AARO required to provide regular updates to Congress
Public Disclosure: Commitment to maximum transparency consistent with security
Scientific Approach: Emphasis on rigorous scientific methodology
International Cooperation: Coordination with allied nations and organizations

Future Hearings

Planned Oversight:

Annual Reviews: Regular congressional review of UAP investigation progress
Public Sessions: Continued public hearings on UAP phenomena
Classified Briefings: Detailed briefings on sensitive aspects of investigation
Budget Authorization: Continued funding for research and analysis programs

International Collaboration

Allied Nation Coordination

NATO Partnership:

Information Sharing: Enhanced sharing of UAP encounter data
Joint Analysis: Collaborative investigation of similar encounters
Technology Development: Joint research and development programs
Training Coordination: Shared training and response procedures

Global Research Network

International Cooperation:

Academic Exchange: Global university research collaboration
Scientific Conferences: International conferences on UAP research
Data Sharing: Controlled sharing of technical data and analysis
Technology Transfer: Appropriate sharing of detection and analysis technology

Conclusion and Assessment

The USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group UAP encounters of 2014-2015 represent the most sustained and well-documented series of military UAP encounters in modern history. The 18-month period of daily encounters, multiple sensor confirmations, and extensive witness testimony provide unprecedented insight into the nature and scope of the UAP phenomenon as it relates to military operations.

Key Findings and Significance

Documented Evidence

Sustained Encounters: Daily UAP encounters over 18-month period
Multiple Sensor Systems: Confirmation across radar, infrared, and visual systems
Professional Witnesses: Testimony from highly trained military personnel
Video Documentation: High-quality video evidence (GIMBAL and GOFAST)
Flight Safety Impact: Multiple near mid-air collisions with military aircraft

Technological Implications

Observed Capabilities:

Advanced Propulsion: Silent, efficient propulsion systems
Environmental Independence: Operation regardless of weather conditions
Stealth Technology: Variable radar cross-section and detection avoidance
Structural Engineering: Tolerance for extreme G-forces and maneuvers
Endurance: Extended operation periods without apparent refueling

Strategic Considerations

National Security Impact:

Technology Gap: Demonstrated capabilities far exceed current military technology
Operational Security: Unknown objects monitoring military training operations
Flight Safety: Direct threat to aviation safety and operations
Intelligence Collection: Potential compromise of military capabilities and procedures

Impact on Military Culture and Operations

Cultural Transformation

Paradigm Shift:

Official Recognition: Military acknowledgment of UAP encounters
Reduced Stigma: Decreased stigma for reporting anomalous encounters
Scientific Approach: Emphasis on rigorous documentation and analysis
Professional Response: Integration of UAP considerations into military operations

Operational Changes

Procedural Evolution:

Enhanced Reporting: Comprehensive UAP encounter documentation
Safety Protocols: Updated flight safety procedures and training
Sensor Utilization: Optimized use of advanced detection systems
Response Procedures: Standardized protocols for UAP encounters

Scientific and Research Impact

Technology Development

Innovation Drivers:

Sensor Enhancement: Advanced detection and tracking system development
Materials Research: Investigation of advanced materials and manufacturing
Propulsion Research: Alternative propulsion system investigation
Artificial Intelligence: Advanced pattern recognition and analysis systems

Academic Engagement

Research Acceleration:

University Partnerships: Enhanced collaboration with academic institutions
International Cooperation: Global research collaboration and information sharing
Scientific Publication: Peer-reviewed research on UAP phenomena
Technology Transfer: Applications for civilian technology development

Future Implications and Directions

Continued Investigation

Ongoing Research:

AARO Analysis: Comprehensive investigation of Roosevelt encounters
Pattern Recognition: Correlation with other military UAP encounters
Technology Assessment: Continued analysis of observed capabilities
Historical Analysis: Review of previous undisclosed encounters

Policy Development

Strategic Planning:

Doctrine Evolution: Integration of UAP considerations into military doctrine
International Coordination: Enhanced cooperation with allied nations
Public Transparency: Continued commitment to appropriate disclosure
Research Investment: Sustained funding for UAP research and development

The Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group encounters have fundamentally transformed military and government approaches to the UAP phenomenon. The transition from denial and secrecy to acknowledgment and scientific investigation represents a historic shift in official policy and public transparency.

These encounters continue to drive advances in sensor technology, aerospace engineering, and our understanding of advanced propulsion systems. The ongoing investigation serves as a model for rigorous scientific inquiry into unexplained phenomena while maintaining appropriate security considerations.

As research continues and new encounters are documented, the Roosevelt case remains a foundational reference for understanding the scope, nature, and implications of UAP phenomena in modern military operations. The case demonstrates the importance of professional documentation, scientific analysis, and open inquiry in addressing challenges that extend beyond current technological understanding.

This report compiled from declassified naval intelligence documents, official Pentagon statements, authorized witness testimony, congressional testimony, and scientific analysis reports. All classified information has been removed or appropriately redacted in accordance with national security requirements and disclosure guidelines.