Within Secret Aircraft
Did Spy Planes Cause Most UFO Reports
The famous claim that reconnaissance flights caused more than half of some UFO reports is influential but not fully documented case by case.
On this page
- Where the more than half estimate came from
- What declassified records establish securely
- Why the percentage remains difficult to verify independently
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The CIA’s famous claim that U-2 and later OXCART reconnaissance flights accounted for more than half of UFO reports during the late 1950s and much of the 1960s cannot currently be verified independently at the case-by-case level. There is strong documentary evidence for the narrower proposition: secret reconnaissance aircraft really did generate UFO reports, and Project Blue Book investigators sometimes checked sightings against classified U-2 flight information. What is much less secure is the headline percentage.
The distinction matters. The “more than half” figure has migrated from retrospective CIA histories into later official accounts, including the Pentagon’s 2024 historical UAP review. Yet the publicly available sources do not provide the underlying list of sightings, flight records and matching criteria needed to reproduce that calculation. The most defensible conclusion is therefore not that the claim has been disproved, but that an important historical assertion has repeatedly been cited without its quantitative foundation being made comparably transparent.[cia.gov]cia.govcias role in the study of ufosCIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-1990 - CSI…
Where the more-than-half estimate came from
Two closely related CIA histories are responsible for most modern repetitions of the claim. In The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954–1974, historians Gregory Pedlow and Donald Welzenbach described an unexpected consequence of high-altitude U-2 testing. Commercial aircraft of the period normally flew far below the U-2, so airline crews and air-traffic controllers could encounter an illuminated object at an altitude where they did not expect an aeroplane to exist.[Naval History and Heritage Command]history.navy.milNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue BookNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
The history says Blue Book investigators “regularly” asked CIA project personnel to compare reported sightings with U-2 flight logs. According to the authors, this enabled investigators to eliminate a majority of the reports they checked, although secrecy prevented them from telling correspondents that the object had actually been a U-2. The account then makes the much broader statement that U-2 and subsequent OXCART flights accounted for more than one-half of all UFO reports during the late 1950s and most of the 1960s.[Naval History and Heritage Command]history.navy.milNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue BookNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
CIA historian Gerald K. Haines repeated essentially the same conclusion in his 1997 Studies in Intelligence article, CIA’s Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947–1990. His wording is particularly important because it characterises the figure as deriving from “later estimates” by CIA officials associated with the U-2 and OXCART programmes. In other words, Haines did not present the percentage as the result of a newly published statistical reconstruction of the Blue Book catalogue.[CIA]cia.govcias role in the study of ufosCIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-1990 - CSI…
That qualification tends to disappear when the story is retold. Contemporary press reports and later summaries commonly reduce it to something like “the CIA admitted that its spy planes caused more than half of UFO sightings”. That wording makes a retrospective estimate sound more like a demonstrated count. Even the underlying historical texts vary subtly in what they imply: one says comparison with flight logs eliminated a “majority” of reports, while the broader sentence attributes more than half of all reports over a long period to reconnaissance flights. Those are not necessarily the same dataset or denominator.[Naval History and Heritage Command]history.navy.milNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue BookNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
What declassified records establish securely
The weakness of the percentage should not obscure the substantial evidence behind the basic U-2 explanation. This is one of the better documented examples of classified technology producing genuine UFO reports.
The U-2 began testing in 1955 and could operate above 60,000 feet, dramatically higher than ordinary commercial traffic. Early aircraft had reflective finishes, creating favourable conditions around sunrise and sunset for an observer at lower altitude to see a brightly illuminated object against a darker sky. The CIA histories specifically describe early-evening reports from airline pilots and explain the geometry by which the high-altitude aircraft remained sunlit after the Sun had disappeared below the lower observer’s horizon.[Naval History and Heritage Command]history.navy.milNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue BookNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
More importantly for verification, the official history explicitly describes an operational link between Blue Book and the classified reconnaissance programme. Investigators could ask CIA project staff to compare a UFO report with U-2 flight logs. That mechanism makes the identification of at least some sightings as reconnaissance aircraft considerably stronger than a modern historian simply noticing that U-2s and UFO reports existed at the same time.[Naval History and Heritage Command]history.navy.milNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue BookNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
The archival record also confirms the scale of the public UFO dataset against which such claims must ultimately be tested. The US National Archives holds the declassified Project Blue Book material, including roughly 37 cubic feet of chronological case files and 94 rolls of microfilm. Blue Book and its predecessor investigations accumulated 12,618 reports overall, of which 701 remained classified as unidentified when the programme ended.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
These records establish several points with reasonable confidence:
- U-2 flights were capable of producing visually unusual observations.
- UFO reports were in fact compared with classified U-2 operational information.
- Some reports were privately attributed to those flights without the true explanation being disclosed publicly.
- OXCART provided another class of extraordinarily high-performance aircraft during the following decade.
- None of those facts, by themselves, demonstrates that reconnaissance aircraft constituted more than 50 per cent of the relevant UFO dataset.[Naval History and Heritage Command]history.navy.milNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue BookNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
That last distinction is the crucial one. “Some UFO reports were demonstrably spy planes” is well supported; “most UFO reports were spy planes” requires additional quantitative evidence.
The denominator is surprisingly unclear
To verify a claim that something caused “more than half” of UFO reports, researchers need to know exactly which reports are being counted. The published wording makes this less straightforward than it sounds.
Does “all UFO reports” mean every report received by Project Blue Book? Reports from pilots and air-traffic controllers? Cases submitted through channels where investigators had access to U-2 comparisons? Reports made specifically while reconnaissance flights were operating over the United States? Or some internal subset of reports considered potentially relevant to the U-2 programme?
Those possibilities produce very different percentages.
There is also a chronological ambiguity. “Late 1950s and most of the 1960s” is not a precise sampling interval. The U-2 began flying in 1955, while OXCART testing came later and the programme had a different operational history. Treating the whole period as a single dataset risks obscuring large year-to-year changes in UFO-report volume as well as changes in aircraft operations and Blue Book procedures.[Naval History and Heritage Command]history.navy.milNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue BookNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
The wording in the reconnaissance history raises another methodological question. It says that checking reports against U-2 logs enabled investigators to eliminate “the majority of the UFO reports”, immediately before stating that U-2 and OXCART accounted for more than half of “all UFO reports”. Without the underlying records, it is impossible to determine whether “majority” originally referred to a particular stream of aviation-related reports and was subsequently generalised, or whether the authors really possessed a comprehensive matching exercise covering the entire relevant Blue Book population.[Naval History and Heritage Command]history.navy.milNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue BookNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
For a quantitative historical claim, that missing definition of the denominator is a substantial limitation rather than a technical quibble.
Blue Book totals do not independently prove the claim
One obvious test is to examine Project Blue Book’s overall reporting statistics. Critics of the CIA account have done exactly that and argued that the totals do not display the dramatic surge one might expect if U-2 operations suddenly generated an enormous fraction of reports.
One frequently cited critique by UFO researcher Bruce Maccabee compared Blue Book reporting immediately before and after U-2 testing began in August 1955. His reconstruction found roughly 316 reports in the preceding six months and about 326 in the following six months — little evidence, at the aggregate level, of a “tremendous increase”. He therefore argued that the published Blue Book numbers did not support the CIA history’s description of the U-2’s impact.[Reddit]reddit.comCIA's UFO Explanation Is Preposterous (by Bruce MaccabeeCIA's UFO Explanation Is Preposterous (by Bruce Maccabee)April 19, 2026…
That is a legitimate challenge, but it is not a decisive disproof. A reconnaissance aircraft need not create a large net increase in reports to account for many reports within some narrower category. Reporting behaviour fluctuated for numerous reasons, and Blue Book’s classifications and investigative practices changed over time. Aggregate annual or monthly totals cannot tell researchers whether an individual sighting coincided with a particular classified flight.
Conversely, falling percentages of officially “unidentified” reports do not prove the CIA figure either. Haines noted that Blue Book’s unexplained proportion fell to 5.9 per cent in 1955 and 4 per cent in 1956, but that statistic does not specify how many cases were resolved through U-2 correlations rather than balloons, astronomical objects, conventional aircraft, atmospheric effects or other explanations.[FAS Project on Government Secrecy]sgp.fas.orgFAS Project on Government SecrecyCIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90…
The aggregate statistics therefore create a useful check on an expansive interpretation of the CIA claim, but they cannot substitute for the missing case-to-flight matching data.
Why the percentage remains difficult to verify independently
A reproducible demonstration would require something more exact than the material presently attached to the claim. Ideally, researchers would need a table containing each relevant UFO report, its date and time, location and viewing direction; the U-2 or OXCART flight potentially responsible; the aircraft’s route and altitude; the temporal and geometric match; and the standard by which investigators decided that the correlation was sufficient to close the case.
The public CIA histories provide examples of the method — checking reports against flight logs — but not that complete output dataset. Haines’s description of the percentage as a later estimate further weakens the case for treating 50 per cent as a measured value with known statistical precision.[CIA]cia.govcias role in the study of ufosCIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-1990 - CSI…
There is a second complication created by secrecy itself. Blue Book could not simply write “U-2” into every publicly accessible explanation without compromising the reconnaissance programme. According to the CIA account, investigators instead sometimes attributed sightings to natural phenomena such as temperature inversions or ice crystals. That means the surviving public-facing case classifications are not necessarily a transparent record of the investigators’ private conclusions.[FAS Project on Government Secrecy]sgp.fas.orgFAS Project on Government SecrecyCIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90…
Paradoxically, therefore, the same secrecy that makes the historical explanation plausible also makes its exact scale harder to audit. If genuine U-2 matches were deliberately disguised in contemporary files, researchers cannot reliably reconstruct the number simply by counting cases whose published Blue Book disposition says “aircraft”.
The National Archives’ extensive Blue Book holdings make independent case research possible, but the existence of the archive does not solve the central problem unless sufficiently detailed reconnaissance flight records can be aligned with it.[National Archives]archives.govNational Archives Project BLUE BOOKNational ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024…
AARO repeated the figure rather than independently establishing it
The issue gained renewed importance in 2024 when the Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) published the first volume of its historical review of US government involvement with unidentified anomalous phenomena.
AARO stated that more than half of UFO reports investigated during the 1950s and 1960s were assessed as US reconnaissance flights. Its discussion describes the familiar U-2 altitude and illumination mechanism and cites the declassified CIA reconnaissance history.[AARO]aaro.milUnclassified Final DSD AARO Historical ReportUnclassified Final DSD AARO Historical Report…
That makes the claim current official US government history, but it does not provide an independent replication of the underlying percentage. AARO is relying on the earlier CIA historical assessment rather than publishing a newly reconstructed database showing that at least half of Blue Book’s relevant cases match U-2 or OXCART operations.[AARO]aaro.milUnclassified Final DSD AARO Historical ReportUnclassified Final DSD AARO Historical Report…
This distinction is easy to miss because repetition by several government publications can look like multiple lines of evidence. Here, however, much of the apparent corroboration forms a citation chain: later accounts inherit the numerical conclusion from earlier reconnaissance histories. The US Naval History and Heritage Command likewise reproduces the Pedlow-Welzenbach passage, which is valuable confirmation of what the CIA history says but not a second statistical analysis of the UFO cases.[Naval History and Heritage Command]history.navy.milNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue BookNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
What would actually verify the claim
A convincing modern test would be conceptually simple, although potentially difficult because of incomplete records. Researchers would define a precise period, digitise the relevant Blue Book reports, reconstruct the available U-2 and OXCART flight histories and conduct a case-by-case comparison.
A credible match would need more than both events occurring on the same date. The aircraft would have to be in a geographically and geometrically plausible position at the relevant time. The reported direction, apparent movement, duration and illumination conditions should also be compatible. Cases lacking adequate time or location information would need to be marked indeterminate rather than counted automatically as reconnaissance-aircraft explanations.
Crucially, the results should distinguish several quantities that the historical wording tends to blur together: the percentage of all submitted reports, the percentage of reports sufficiently detailed to test, the percentage of aviation-observer reports, and the percentage of cases originally considered unidentified. A result such as “55 per cent of testable pilot reports” would mean something very different from “55 per cent of every Blue Book report”.
Until such a reconstruction is published with enough underlying data for other researchers to reproduce it, “more than half” should be treated as a historical CIA estimate, not a securely independently verified statistic.
The strongest conclusion is narrower than the famous claim
The documentary record supports a significant and revealing historical conclusion. Secret American reconnaissance aircraft were a genuine source of UFO reports; Blue Book had a classified mechanism for checking sightings against U-2 operations; investigators sometimes knew more than they could disclose publicly; and government secrecy consequently left misleading explanations in the public record.[Naval History and Heritage Command]history.navy.milNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue BookNaval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
What the accessible record does not presently demonstrate with equivalent rigour is the precise scale expressed by the famous “more than half” figure. The number comes through retrospective official histories, apparently drawing partly on later assessments by programme insiders, without publication of the complete case-level calculation behind it. Later repetition by AARO strengthens the figure’s status as an official historical assessment but does not independently validate its arithmetic.[CIA]cia.govcias role in the study of ufosCIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-1990 - CSI…
For understanding secret aircraft as a cause of historical UFO reports, that leaves an important middle position. It would be wrong to dismiss the U-2 connection merely because the percentage is uncertain: the mechanism and at least some real correlations are documented. But it is equally unwarranted to use the CIA’s majority estimate as though declassification had demonstrated that most Cold War UFO cases can now be individually identified as spy planes.
The evidence supports “many” much more securely than it supports “more than half”.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Did Spy Planes Cause Most UFO Reports. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
The UFO Experience: A Scientific Inquiry
The author belives that a number of UFO siting are still to be explained.
Forbidden Science: Journals,
Known principally as an investigator of the UFO phenomenon and a science fiction novelist, the French-born Vallee (now a resident of the...
50 Years of the U-2: The Complete Illustrated History of the...
When the U-2 first took off in 1955, no one involved in its top-secret project dreamt that this unique reconnaissance aircraft would stil...
Skunk Works: A Personal Memoir of My Years at Lockheed
The former head of Lockheed's SKUNK WORKS reveals the amazing story of the secret aircraft that changed the course of history - from the...
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected fromspy plane poster oneBay.co.uk.
Endnotes
1.
Source: cia.gov
Title: cias role in the study of ufos 1947 1990
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/studies-in-intelligence-1997/cias-role-in-the-study-of-ufos-1947-1990/
Source snippet
CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-1990 - CSI...
2.
Source: aaro.mil
Title: Unclassified Final DSD AARO Historical Report
Link:https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Vol_1_2024.pdf?emci=622cd777-b774-f011-8dc9-6045bda9d96b&emdi=ea000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&sourceid=1070813
Source snippet
Unclassified Final DSD AARO Historical Report...
3.
Source: sgp.fas.org
Link:https://sgp.fas.org/library/ciaufo.html
Source snippet
FAS Project on Government SecrecyCIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90...
4.
Source: archives.gov
Title: National Archives Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force/ufos
Source snippet
National ArchivesProject BLUE BOOK - Unidentified Flying Objects | National ArchivesJune 25, 2024...
Published: June 25, 2024
5.
Source: reddit.com
Title: CIA’s UFO Explanation Is Preposterous (by Bruce Maccabee)
Link:https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOSkepticalBelievers/comments/1sq794m/cias_ufo_explanation_is_preposterous_by_bruce/
Source snippet
CIA's UFO Explanation Is Preposterous (by Bruce Maccabee)April 19, 2026...
Published: April 19, 2026
6.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/rg-collections
7.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/publications
8.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/catalog-bulk-downloads/uap-bulk-download
9.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/textual-and-microfilm
10.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/topics/uaps/moving-images-and-sound
11.
Source: archives.gov
Title: Air Force Records | National Archives
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/military/air-force
12.
Source: history.com
Title: ufo sightings cia robertson condon
Link:https://www.history.com/articles/ufo-sightings-cia-robertson-condon
13.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/project-blue-book-50th-anniversary
14.
Source: visit.archives.gov
Title: gov50 Years Ago: Government Stops Investigating UFOs | National Archives Museum
Link:https://visit.archives.gov/whats-on/explore-exhibits/50-years-ago-government-stops-investigating-ufos
15.
Source: archives.gov
Title: Do Records Show Proof of UFOs? | National Archives
Link:https://www.archives.gov/news/articles/do-records-show-proof-of-ufos
16.
Source: archives.gov
Title: Project BLUE BOOK
Link:https://www.archives.gov/foia/ufos.html
17.
Source: cia.gov
Title: How To Investigate a Flying Saucer
Link:https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/how-to-investigate-a-flying-saucer/
18.
Source: cia.gov
Title: The U-2 Program: The DCI’s Perspective
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/archives/vol-42-no-5/the-u-2-program-the-dcis-perspective/
19.
Source: cia.gov
Title: the cias role in the study of ufos 1947 90
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/archives/vol-40-no-5/the-cias-role-in-the-study-of-ufos-1947-90/
20.
Source: cia.gov
Title: the cia and the u 2 program 1954 1974
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/books-monographs/the-cia-and-the-u-2-program-1954-1974/
21.
Source: cia.gov
Title: CIA RDP80B01676R004000110001 7
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80B01676R004000110001-7.pdf
22.
Source: cia.gov
Title: cia rdp80b01676r004000110001 7
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp80b01676r004000110001-7
23.
Source: cia.gov
Title: ask molly what really went on at area 51
Link:https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/ask-molly-what-really-went-on-at-area-51/
24.
Source: cia.gov
Title: DOC 0005517742
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0005517742.pdf
25.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000838057.pdf
26.
Source: cia.gov
Title: historical collections
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/historical-collections
27.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1992-04-01A.pdf
28.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/Archangel-CIAs-Supersonic-A-12-Reconnaissance-Aircraft.pdf
29.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/07083374
30.
Source: cia.gov
Link:https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp78t03194a000300010011-0
31.
Source: archives.gov
Link:https://www.archives.gov/research/guide-fed-records/groups/341.html
32.
Source: aaro.mil
Title: AARO Historical Record Report Vol 1 2024
Link:https://www.aaro.mil/Portals/136/PDFs/AARO_Historical_Record_Report_Vol_1_2024.pdf
33.
Source: aaro.mil
Link:https://www.aaro.mil/
34.
Source: time.com
Title: science saucer blue book
Link:https://time.com/archive/6610271/science-saucer-blue-book/
35.
Source: history.navy.mil
Title: Naval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
Link:https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/u/u2s-ufos-and-operation-blue-book.html
36.
Source: history.navy.mil
Title: Naval History and Heritage Command U-2s, UFOs, and Operation Blue Book
Link:https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/browse-by-topic/disasters-and-phenomena/u2s-ufos-and-operation-blue-book.html
37.
Source: en.ikwipedia.org
Title: Project Blue Book
Link:https://en.ikwipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Book
38.
Source: history.navy.mil
Title: mil UF O Research Guide
Link:https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/library/bibliographies-and-research-guides/research-guides/ufo-research-guide.html
39.
Source: history.navy.mil
Title: mil From the Sea to the Stars
Link:https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/f/from-sea-stars.html
40.
Source: uapbrowser.com
Link:https://uapbrowser.com/en/cases
41.
Source: govweird.com
Link:https://www.govweird.com/topics/ufo/project-blue-book/year/1957
42.
Source: hangar1publishing.com
Title: project blue book
Link:https://hangar1publishing.com/blogs/ufos-uaps-and-aliens/project-blue-book
43.
Source: wikizero.net
Title: Project Blue Book
Link:https://www.wikizero.net/wiki/en/Project_Blue_Book
44.
Source: karenlyster.com
Link:https://www.karenlyster.com/ciaufo.html
Additional References
45.
Source: irishtimes.com
Title: cia claims responsibility for ufo sightings in late 1950s 1960s 1.2055124
Link:https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/cia-claims-responsibility-for-ufo-sightings-in-late-1950s-1960s-1.2055124
Source snippet
The Irish TimesCIA claims responsibility for UFO sightings in late 1950s, 1960s – The Irish Times...
46.
Source: en.wikisource.org
Title: Page:AARO Historical Record Report Volume 1 2024
Link:https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page%3AAARO_Historical_Record_Report_Volume_1_2024.pdf/41
Source snippet
Page:AARO Historical Record Report Volume 1 2024.pdf/41 - Wikisource, the free online library...
47.
Source: defense.gov
Link:https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2093535/aerial-refueling-sealift-capability-vital-to-readiness/
48.
Source: defense.gov
Link:https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3594932/austin-reaffirms-us-support-during-ukraine-visit/
49.
Source: defense.gov
Link:https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3578754/biden-administration-announces-new-security-assistance-for-ukraine/
50.
Source: defense.gov
Link:https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3608913/biden-administration-announces-new-security-assistance-for-ukraine/
51.
Source: defense.gov
Link:https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3594318/
52.
Source: defense.gov
Link:https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1258402/expeditionary-maintenance-units-keep-al-udeid-tankers-on-schedule/
53.
Source: defense.gov
Link:https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1910539/indo-pacific-commander-freedom-of-navigation-vital-to-security-commerce/
54.
Source: defense.gov
Link:https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2998839/multiple-factors-contribute-to-ukraines-battlefield-successes/