USS Nimitz UAP Encounters Case File (2004)

Location: Southern California Offshore Range (SCORE), ~100 NM SW of San Diego
Dates: 10–14 November 2004 (core events on 14 Nov)
Primary platforms involved: USS Nimitz (CVN-68), USS Princeton (CG-59), Carrier Air Wing 11 (VFA-41 F/A-18F), VAW-117 (E-2C Hawkeye)
Primary publicly released evidence: FLIR1 (ATFLIR) infrared video captured from an F/A-18F later the same day. DoD formally released the Navy’s three UAP videos, including FLIR1, in April 2020 and characterized the objects as “unidentified.” (U.S. Department of Defense)

Synopsis

Across several days in November 2004, the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group (CSG-11) conducted workups in the SCORE range. Radar operators aboard the Aegis cruiser USS Princeton reported numerous anomalous tracks, groupings of fast-moving, altitude-hopping objects with no IFF, persisting over multiple days. On 14 November, two unarmed F/A-18F crews from VFA-41 (Cmdr. David Fravor with WSO, and Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich with WSO) were diverted from training to investigate. They reported a white, wingless, ~40-ft, “Tic Tac”-shaped UAP executing rapid, high-G maneuvers above a patch of roiling ocean. Later that day, another VFA-41 crew, with WSO Lt. (then) Chad Underwood operating the AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR pod, recorded the now-famous FLIR1 infrared footage of a target the strike group associated with the same object. The Department of Defense confirmed the videos’ authenticity and released them via the Naval Air Systems Command FOIA reading room, maintaining the phenomena remained “unidentified.” (CBS News, New York Magazine, U.S. Department of Defense)

This case stands out in the UAP literature because it combines multi-day sensor detections, multiple cockpit eyewitnesses, an airborne early-warning platform, and the officially released FLIR1 video, all within a tightly constrained military training environment. Independent technical groups (e.g., SCU) have attempted to estimate extreme accelerations from the data; U.S. military voices and analysts have also offered mundane hypotheses and pointed out data gaps. The evidentiary record is neither trivial nor complete, but it is unusually rich. (The SCU, PMC)

Timeline (Reconstructed From Open Sources)

10–13 Nov 2004 – Persistent radar contacts.
Then–Senior Chief Operations Specialist Kevin Day on the USS Princeton reported clusters of unknowns appearing on the AN/SPY-1B radar, initially suspected as “ghosts” before maintenance and recalibration, after which the contacts appeared sharper. Reported behaviors included arrivals at high altitude (>60–80,000 ft), step-downs to ~20–30,000 ft, and slow southbound motion (sometimes ~100 knots), with no IFF. Multiple accounts place initial detections circa 10 November. (Popular Mechanics, NDU Press)

14 Nov (late morning to early afternoon) – Air intercept tasking.
With a scheduled air-defense exercise, Princeton requested an intercept of the persistent tracks. VFA-41 launched two unarmed F/A-18Fs (Fravor/SWSO and Dietrich/SWSO). Vectoring support came from Princeton and the E-2C Hawkeye (VAW-117). Arriving on scene, aircrews reported a large patch of roiling water “the size of a 737,” and a white, wingless, smooth object, the “Tic Tac”, maneuvering above it. Fravor descended to merge; the object mirrored his maneuvers, then accelerated rapidly and vanished from sight. Moments later, the USS Princeton reported the object at the fighters’ CAP point, tens of miles away, suggesting instantaneous relocation or extremely rapid transit. (CBS News)

14 Nov (later) – FLIR1 capture.
Another VFA-41 sortie (Lt. Chad Underwood as WSO) intercepted radar returns associated to the earlier object. Underwood locked the target with the ATFLIR; the FLIR1 video shows a featureless, bright IR source with unusual kinematics relative to gimbal angles and tracking. Underwood later said he did not visually acquire the object, focusing instead on sensor capture; he also coined the term “Tic Tac.” (New York Magazine)

Aftermath (2004) – Shipboard debriefs; data custody disputes.
Pilots and CIC personnel recall routine debriefs; some enlisted Princeton and Nimitz technicians later alleged that “unknown individuals” required them to surrender or erase some data recorders (“bricks,” combat system tapes, optical drives), claims disputed by others (including Fravor). The Navy has not produced comprehensive shipboard data packages from the event via FOIA. These custody claims remain contested. (Popular Mechanics)

Witnesses (Representative & On-Record)

• Cmdr. David Fravor (VFA-41 CO) – Eyewitness to the “Tic Tac” maneuvering over disturbed water; testified to Congress (2023) and spoke in detail on 60 Minutes (2021). (Congress.gov, CBS News, New York Times)
• Lt. Cmdr. Alex Dietrich – Formation lead/wing, independent eyewitness; corroborates the “roiling water” and wingless white object with erratic movement. (CBS News)
• Lt. (then) Chad Underwood – WSO who recorded FLIR1; originated “Tic Tac” moniker; emphasized the object’s non-conforming behavior on sensors and that he did not eyeball it. (New York Magazine)
• Senior Chief OS Kevin Day (USS Princeton) – Air intercept controller; central to the multi-day SPY-1B radar tracking narrative and the decision to direct an intercept. (NDU Press)
• Gary Voorhis (CET/AEGIS technician, Princeton), PJ Hughes (Aviation tech, Nimitz), Jason Turner and Ryan Weigelt (ship’s company) ,  Witnesses who described extended radar/EO activity and alleged unusual data collection/erasure actions by unidentified officials; these erasure claims are disputed by some other participants who state the tapes were probably recorded over. (Popular Mechanics)

Sensors, Networks & Why This Matters

Aegis AN/SPY-1B (USS Princeton)
The Ticonderoga-class cruiser’s phased-array SPY-1 radar is central to the narrative. In 2004 it underpinned Aegis air defense for the strike group and fed the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) and Link-16 tactical picture. SPY-1 is designed to track multiple targets with high fidelity across considerable volumes. (missiledefenseadvocacy.org)

E-2C Hawkeye (VAW-117) – AN/APS-145
Airborne early warning and battle management. The E-2C’s APS-145 radar and JTIDS/Link-16 connectivity place it at the heart of fleet airspace control. A Defense Department photo confirms VAW-117’s Hawkeye operating from Nimitz in the SCORE range in early December 2004, during the same workup cycle. (jhuapl.edu)

F/A-18F Super Hornet (VFA-41) – AN/APG-73 & AN/ASQ-228 ATFLIR
The jets carried the mechanically scanned APG-73 radar and ATFLIR, a mid-wave infrared and EO targeting pod capable of long-range detection and track with multiple stabilization and zoom modes. FLIR1 is the ATFLIR video officially released by DoD. (Note: ATFLIR’s capabilities and artifacts, like gimbal-related motions and focus/contrast behaviors, are essential for interpreting the video.) (GlobalSecurity, Naval Air Systems Command)

Networks: Link-16/CEC
The strike group’s common tactical picture (CTP) melded Princeton, Nimitz C2, Hawkeye, and fighters. The alleged disappearance or confiscation of some recorders would complicate full post-event reconstruction of the CTP.

Why it matters: When sea-based phased-array radar, airborne AEW, tactical fighter sensors, and human eyeballs all touch the same event window, the chance of a single-sensor illusion decreases. Conversely, incomplete logging or missing raw data, makes quantitative cross-validation harder. The Nimitz case sits precisely at that tension point.

The FLIR1 Video (What It Is, and Is not)

Provenance & status. The Department of Defense confirmed the authenticity of three Navy UAP videos and released them via the Naval Air Systems Command FOIA reading room in April 2020. DoD’s statement explicitly says the phenomena “remain characterized as ‘unidentified’.” The All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) also hosts “Official UAP Imagery” entries pointing back to the NAVAIR FOIA pages (including FLIR). (U.S. Department of Defense, AARO)

What the clip shows. FLIR1 is a short mid-IR snippet from the ATFLIR pod. It shows a bright, apparently cold/featureless object in “WHOT”/“BHOT” pallets (depending on segment) under various zoom and gimbal states; the reticle indications, range brackets, and azimuth/elevation cues change as the WSO attempts to stabilize/lock. The object appears to translate laterally relative to the sensor line-of-sight, and there are moments where the tracker “breaks” and reacquires.

What it doesn’t show. FLIR1 does not capture the earlier close-range visual maneuvering Fravor/Dietrich described over the disturbed water; it is a later intercept. FLIR1 also doesn’t provide absolute range to target (no laser range or RADAR slant range in the clip), so speed/size derivations depend heavily on camera geometry assumptions and aircraft kinematics. This is why independent analyses diverge: some teams (e.g., SCU) argue the implied accelerations are extraordinary; and we need to rule out sensor/geometry artifacts. (The SCU)

What the Pilots and Operators Say (Selected, Sourced)

• Fravor & Dietrich on 60 Minutes: roiling water, a wingless white object, mirroring maneuvers, then abrupt departure; Princeton reporting the object at the CAP almost immediately afterward. (CBS News)
• Underwood (FLIR1 WSO) in his first public interview: he coined “Tic Tac,” focused on capturing sensor data, did not claim an eyeball visual; he emphasized that the object’s behavior was not “within the normal laws of physics” as understood from his sensor readouts. (New York Magazine)
• Kevin Day (Princeton AIC): multi-day SPY-1B tracks; calibration efforts; decision to request an intercept given persistence and airspace deconfliction concerns. (NDU Press)

Independent Analyses & Competing Hypotheses

SCU technical work – The Scientific Coalition for UAP Studies compiled a multi-hundred-page report and follow-on analyses estimating lower-bound accelerations from FLIR1 geometry, radar narratives, and pilot testimony, concluding maneuvers far exceeding known aerospace performance envelopes. Methodologically, these estimates are sensitive to assumptions about slant range, camera gimbal geometry, and winds. Nonetheless, SCU argues that even conservative bounds produce tens to hundreds of g. (The SCU)

Mundane explanations (variously proposed).

• Environmental clutter (e.g., ice crystals or meteors producing radar returns) during the days prior to 14 Nov. A 2023 article in Joint Force Quarterly suggested the Taurid meteor shower or ice crystal reflections as potential contributors to radar anomalies; it also notes SCORE hosts other programs/tests, raising the possibility of range deconfliction issues. These suggestions remain hypotheses, with no definitive findings and limited probability. (NDU Press)

Data custody controversy. Popular Mechanics interviewed multiple enlisted witnesses who asserted that unidentified officials collected or directed the erasure of various data media. Fravor has publicly pushed back on some of these claims. The alleged “longer video” versions have not been officially released. This remains an unresolved, disputed aspect of the case. (Popular Mechanics)

Where Officials Lands

• 2019 Navy acknowledgment – A Navy spokesperson confirmed that the widely circulated Navy videos depict “Unidentified Aerial Phenomena” and that the incursions were into military training airspace, without offering an identification. (This was separate from DoD’s later formal release.) (Navy Times)
• 2020 DoD release – The Department of Defense officially released FLIR1, GIMBAL, and GOFAST “to clear up any misconceptions,” stating the objects remain unidentified. It directed the public to the NAVAIR FOIA Reading Room for the source files. (U.S. Department of Defense)
• AARO “Official UAP Imagery” – DoD’s UAP office hosts a page that catalogs official imagery and points to the NAVAIR FOIA entries (including FLIR). (AARO)

Sensor Suite: Technical Context (2004)

• AN/SPY-1B Aegis RADAR (USS Princeton). High-power, S-band, electronically scanned array designed to track low-cross-section targets and feed Aegis/CEC. While powerful, any radar can yield ambiguous returns if filters, propagation conditions, or software configurations interact unfavorably with the environment. (missiledefenseadvocacy.org)
• E-2C Hawkeye / AN/APS-145. The fleet’s airborne early-warning workhorse; a 2004 DOD photo confirms VAW-117 aboard Nimitz during the period. The E-2 provides wide-area radar coverage and Link-16/JTIDS network connectivity, crucial for vectoring intercepts and maintaining the common tactical picture. (jhuapl.edu)
• F/A-18F APG-73 + ATFLIR. APG-73 is a coherent multi-mode radar; ATFLIR (AN/ASQ-228) integrates MWIR, EO, and laser systems for long-range targeting and ISR. Understanding boresight, gimbal limits, and track modes is essential to interpret FLIR1’s seeming lateral accelerations. (GlobalSecurity, Naval Air Systems Command)

Evidence Table (Publicly Accessible)

• FLIR1 (ATFLIR) – Official DoD release (NAVAIR FOIA): the primary imagery for the Nimitz event. DoD’s 2020 press release explicitly ties to the NAVAIR FOIA Reading Room. See “Primary Footage Links” below. (U.S. Department of Defense)
• Eyewitness Testimony: CBS 60 Minutes segment (Fravor, Dietrich) and sworn congressional testimony (Fravor, 2023). (CBS News, Congress.gov)
• Operator Testimony: Kevin Day, Gary Voorhis, PJ Hughes et al., compiled in various media, including a consolidated Popular Mechanics feature (orig. 2019; updated 2025). (Popular Mechanics)
• Analytical Reports: SCU’s “A Forensic Analysis of Navy CSG-11’s Encounter…”; peer-reviewed proceedings estimating high accelerations. (The SCU, PMC)
• Official Context: AARO’s “Official UAP Imagery” site; DoD/Navy public statements recognizing the events and releasing imagery without identification. (AARO, U.S. Department of Defense)

Key Open Questions

1. Comprehensive Raw Data Retention. Where are the Princeton SPY-1 track files and the strike group’s fused CEC/Link-16 logs for 10-14 Nov? If recoverable, they could clarify target dynamics. Status: Unknown to the public; FOIA efforts have not yielded a complete data package. (Some personnel allege removal; others dispute.) (Popular Mechanics)
2. ATFLIR Engineering Metadata. Access to the ATFLIR pod’s full telemetry (gimbal angles, zoom states, platform kinematics synchronized to the ownship flight data recorder) would allow unambiguous reconstruction of target motion. Status: Not publicly released.
3. Range Deconfliction Records. SCORE’s scheduling logs (for 10-14 Nov) could address whether any other U.S. programs/assets were operating in the intercept boxes that day. Status: Not public. (Analysts have floated interagency/test explanations without direct documentation.) (NDU Press)

Assessment

What is most solid?

• A real event drew the USS Princeton and USS Nimitz to vector fighters off San Diego on 14 Nov 2004; two flight crews reported a white, wingless object maneuvering above disturbed water; FLIR1 was recorded later that day and has been officially released and remains unidentified by DoD. (CBS News, U.S. Department of Defense, New York Times)

Where uncertainty remains?

• Without complete raw sensor telemetry (SPY-1 track histories, ATFLIR engineering data, synchronized ownship kinematics), quantitative claims about acceleration rely on inference. Competing analyses reflect different assumptions about range and geometry. (The SCU)
• Data-custody allegations – longer videos, erased logs, seized recorders, are testimony-based and contested by some principals. There is no official document in the public record that validates a mass data seizure; nor has the Navy provided a comprehensive archive that would put the matter to rest. (Popular Mechanics)

Bottom line: The Nimitz case is not explained by any single, well-documented prosaic cause. The multi-day radar narrative, corroborating cockpit witnesses, ship bridge personnel testimony, and official imagery elevate it above typical single-sensor incidents. At the same time, incomplete primary telemetry prevents a fully constrained kinematic solution. As an evidentiary package, it is among the most consequential U.S. military UAP cases on record, precisely because it resists both dismissal and definitive characterization. (CBS News, U.S. Department of Defense)

Primary Footage Links (Official Sources)

DoD press release (Apr 27, 2020): 

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2165713/statement-by-the-department-of-defense-on-the-release-of-historical-navy-videos

NAVAIR FOIA Reading Room (videos repository):

https://www.navair.navy.mil/foia/documents

Direct FLIR1 file (as referenced by Wikimedia’s source field):

AARO “Official UAP Imagery” (catalog; links back to NAVAIR FOIA):

https://www.aaro.mil/UAP-Cases/Official-UAP-Imagery

(U.S. Department of Defense, Naval Air Systems Command, Wikimedia Commons, AARO)

Appendix A – Technical Notes on Sensors 

• SPY-1B is a multifunction radar with track-while-scan capability; propagation conditions (ducting), software filters, and operator settings influence what is or is not displayed or recorded as a valid target. Anecdotes from the 2004 workups describe calibration efforts that reportedly improved track clarity, one reason operators were confident enough to request a fighter intercept on 14 Nov. (Popular Mechanics)
• E-2C/APS-145 provides long-range surveillance and management of the air picture. In 2004, VAW-117’s presence on USS Nimitz was documented by DOD imagery.
• ATFLIR was the Navy’s then-new targeting pod; its gimbal mechanics, FOV changes, and track modes are vital for interpreting apparent movements. Gimbal motion of the pod can create apparent lateral movement of a stationary or slow-moving target if range and ownship maneuver are not accounted for; equally, genuine target translation will appear in the frame. Disentangling the two requires the pod’s telemetry and the jet’s flight data, which the public lacks. (Naval Air Systems Command)

Appendix B – Alternative Perspectives in the Defense Community

A Joint Force Quarterly essay (NDU Press, 2023) uses the Nimitz case to argue for better joint range coordination and communications, proposing that some radar returns could be meteors (Taurids) or ice crystals, and that range activity (SCORE hosts many programs) can create deconfliction pitfalls. This is not a formal DoD conclusion on the Nimitz event; it is an analytic article presenting hypotheses and operational lessons learned. (NDU Press)

What Would Settle This Case

1) Release (even redacted) of synchronized SPY-1 track files and Link-16/CEC logs for 10–14 Nov 2004.
2) Release of ATFLIR engineering telemetry synchronized to the F/A-18’s flight data (time-aligned with the FLIR1 clip).
3) SCORE range deconfliction records for the date, including interagency test activity, to evaluate alternative explanations.

Until such data are public, the 2004 USS Nimitz record remains anomalous: a well-documented UAP encounter with multi-platform context and official imagery, yet without the raw sensor backbone necessary for definitive closure. (U.S. Department of Defense)

References

1. DoD Statement (Official Release of Navy Videos, 27 Apr 2020) – “The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remain characterized as ‘unidentified’. The released videos can be found at the Naval Air Systems Command FOIA Reading Room.” (U.S. Department of Defense)
2. AARO “Official UAP Imagery” catalog – entries for FLIR/GIMBAL/GOFAST referencing NAVAIR FOIA. (AARO)
3. CBS 60 Minutes (16 May 2021) – “Navy pilots recall ‘unsettling’ 2004 UAP sighting” (Fravor and Dietrich interviews detail roiling water, wingless object, mirroring and abrupt departure). (CBS News)
4. Fravor Statement to House Oversight (25 Jul 2023) – Written testimony summarizing the 14 Nov 2004 intercept. (Congress.gov)
5. Chad Underwood Interview (Intelligencer, 19 Dec 2019) – First public interview by the FLIR1 WSO; coinage of “Tic Tac”; emphasis on sensor-based observation. (New York Magazine)
6. SCU Report (2019; updated 2024) – “A Forensic Analysis of Navy CSG-11’s Encounter with an Anomalous Aerial Vehicle.” (Calculations and acceleration bounds from FLIR1/pilot accounts.) (The SCU)
7. NDU Press / Joint Force Quarterly (7 Jul 2023) – “Cutting the Chaff: Overlooked Lessons of Military UAP Sightings…” (range-coordination lessons; hypotheses: meteors/ice crystals; program deconfliction). (NDU Press)
8. Navy acknowledgment (2019) – Coverage of Navy spokesperson Joseph Gradisher confirming that the videos depict UAP (authenticity of the footage; no identification). (Navy Times)
9. Sensor fact/context references – APG-73 system overview; ATFLIR NAVAIR notes; E-2C/APS-145 technical context; DOD imagery of VAW-117 on Nimitz in Dec 2004. (GlobalSecurity, Naval Air Systems Command, jhuapl.edu)
10. Popular Mechanics (orig. Nov 2019; updated Feb 2025) – Consolidated interviews with Princeton/Nimitz enlisted witnesses (Voorhis, Hughes, Turner, Weigelt, Day) including disputed claims of data collection/erasure and recollections of longer video. (Popular Mechanics)
11. New York Times (Dec. 16, 2017) – 2 Navy Airmen and an Object That ‘Accelerated Like Nothing I’ve Ever Seen’ – By Helene Cooper, Leslie Kean and Ralph Blumenthal (New York Times)

Sourcing & Claims Taxonomy

• Verified
  • DoD’s official release of FLIR1 (and two other Navy UAP videos) and statement that the phenomena remain unidentified. (U.S. Department of Defense)
  • Presence and tasking of VFA-41 and VAW-117 with Nimitz during the period; 60 Minutes on-record interviews by Fravor and Dietrich describing the encounter; Fravor’s 2023 written testimony to the House Oversight Committee. (CBS News, Congress.gov)
• Probable
  • Multi-day Princeton radar tracks (post-calibration) of multiple unknowns preceding 14 Nov; vectoring decisions based on those tracks. Corroborated by multiple shipboard operators and the subsequent airborne intercept, but lacking a released raw radar dataset. (Popular Mechanics)
• Disputed
  • Data seizure/erasure claims (longer FLIR video, confiscated AEGIS tapes, Hawkeye “bricks”). Reported by several enlisted witnesses and featured in Popular Mechanics, yet publicly disputed by some officers and not corroborated by released official documentation. (Popular Mechanics)
• Legend
  • None. (No cultural-mythic material is presented as historical evidence in this case file.)
• Misidentification
  • Not established. Some analysts argue there is no single, documented misidentification that accounts for both the cockpit witness narratives and the strike group’s multi-day radar context. (NDU Press)

Speculation Labels

• Hypothesis: Trans-medium capability. The visual above a disturbed ocean patch and later rapid relocation to CAP have fueled speculation that the object was interacting with something subsurface (a USO) or exhibited instantaneous acceleration. Evidence gap: no released acoustic/subsurface data; “relocation” could be consistent with sensor handoff or mis-association. (Hypothesis, not evidence.)
• Witness Interpretation: Intelligent control & extreme performance. Fravor and Dietrich interpreted the object’s “mirroring,” abrupt acceleration, and absence of control surfaces/propulsion signature as indicating advanced, intelligent control. Underwood interpreted sensor behavior as outside normal flight profiles. (CBS News, New York Magazine)
• Researcher Opinion: Extraordinary acceleration estimates. SCU’s bounds (tens-to-hundreds of g) if correct would imply non-conventional propulsion or breakthrough aerostructures. Skeptical reconstructions argue these numbers are not robust without full telemetry. Both positions depend on assumptions currently unresolved by public data. (The SCU)

SEO keywords

USS Nimitz 2004 UAP; USS Nimitz UAP; Tic Tac UAP; FLIR1 video; USS Princeton SPY-1 radar; David Fravor testimony; Alex Dietrich UAP; UAP 60 Minutes; New York Times UAP; NY Times UAP; Lue Elizondo Tic-Tac; Chad Underwood ATFLIR; TTSA; VFA-41 Black Aces; VAW-117 Hawkeye; AARO official UAP imagery; NAVAIR FOIA UAP videos; Nimitz UAP timeline; multi-sensor UAP case; SCORE range UAP

Origin and Ingestion Date