SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift

Originally posted by thebozeian
Once again thanks for the post as it would seem to possibly answer the mystery of the Groom Lake hangar construction.

Although this plane would explain the construction of some of the new smaller hangars i don't think it explains the new large hangar. HTV-3X is apparently planned to be as big as a standard fighter so why would it require construction of the largest hangar ever at Groom Lake?

gfad, as I think intelgurl mentioned in one of her initial posts on this thread, sometimes more than just a bit of testing is going on at these facillities. It could be that they are building or assembling aircraft on site rather than risking them being seen at a white world production plant. Or possibly they are storing a lot of them all in the same hangar, nice and secure and away from prying eyes. On the other hand, maybe they just like big assed hangars!

LEE.

Originally posted by thebozeian
gfad, as I think intelgurl mentioned in one of her initial posts on this thread, sometimes more than just a bit of testing is going on at these facillities. It could be that they are building or assembling aircraft on site rather than risking them being seen at a white world production plant. Or possibly they are storing a lot of them all in the same hangar, nice and secure and away from prying eyes. On the other hand, maybe they just like big assed hangars!

God I just wish that was the answer but it really doesnt add up.

Firstly thats not what Intelgurl said at all, she did however say "it is being made at Lockheed's Skunk Works". This follows the exact same pattern as the U-2, A-12 and F-117A. They were all planned and built at the Skunkworks at Plant 42 and then transported to Groom Lake for final assembly and further development by road or air.

Think about it, if the current hangars were perfectly good for those projects why would they need to construct a whole new hangar of unprecedented size?

I wish as much as the next guy that we knew what the new hangar is for but the only explanation for a hangar considerably larger than the current ones is an aircraft considerably larger than ones which have been previously tested at Groom Lake, and the HTV-3X just isn't.

reply to post by gfad
Yes appologies gfad, intelgurl indeed did not state in this thread that "sometimes more than a bit of testing goes on at these facillities". I got my threads mixed up, however she did say it in the thread Where Was This Picture Taken. And we discussed it earlier in my thread So what's going on at Groom Lake?. So with correction, I stand by what I said.

As for why they wouldn't use the perfectly good facillities at Plant 42. The problem with it is that, A) Everyone knows about the place and you can easily observe from outside the comings and goinings. B) There are over 6500 people working in the plants many complexes. C) A large number of different government agencies, private companies and contractors use the site. D) There is a regional airport located next door. None of this is conducive to practical and manageable security. The most likely scenario I feel is that development, prototyping and pre production sub assembly testing would be done at Plant 42. Production of some components and sub assemblies during the production phase would also be possible as this can be done away from prying eyes and anyone who did see it would think or be told that it was for another program. Afterall one sub assembly looks pretty much like another unless you know exactly what it is you are looking at. It makes logical sense that you would then move final assembly and some component production to Groom Lake(or any other classified location) along with any prebuilt components from Plant 42 or elsewhere. All in a nice and secure location away from the vast majority of prying eyes and joe public, with total control of those who are on site.

You may also be right that the size of the building is an indication that there is intent to build a larger vehicle(s) either concurrently, or in the future.

LEE.

Note Regarding Sensitive Information

Personnel holding DoD/DoE clearances with other SCIs, caveats: Legal release of sensitive information is done through appropriate channels.

Five year updates and datalogging reveal your activities. In addition, the individual(s) that source sensitive information are tracked and dispositioned, along with their contacts.

Some of the reasons for disclosing sensitive information: MICE, deliberate misinformation or disclosure through appropriate channels.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by TAGBOARD]

reply to post by TAGBOARD


As was pointed out on page 2, the AIR FORCE released this information first, followed by other sources. This is merely the same information from a different source.

Originally posted by TAGBOARD
Note Regarding Sensitive Information

Personnel holding DoD/DoE clearances with other SCIs, caveats: Legal release of sensitive information is done through appropriate channels.

Five year updates and datalogging reveal your activities. In addition, the individual(s) that source sensitive information are tracked and dispositioned, along with their contacts.

Some of the reasons for disclosing sensitive information: MICE, deliberate misinformation or disclosure through appropriate channels.

[edit on 2-9-2007 by TAGBOARD]

I am actually extremely aware and atune to DoD regs, legalities and Opsec than I dare say even you are.

I am amazed at how many people have either contacted me via email and have essentially told me that I am either a traitor, someone deserving of prosecution to the utmost of the law or they have made me their ATS "Foe" simply because of this post.

Apparently as astute as they may be to DoD protocols and regulations, they do not have the ability or willingness to read the entire thread, especially the following post:

Originally posted by intelgurl

Originally posted by mtmaraca
I'm kind of new and everything, but is Intelgurl so revered here that as long as she makes sure to underline "extremely reliable" her source is trusted instantly? I mean, no one even asked about the source, you're just taking it all at face value. Don't get me wrong, it sounds convincing and everything, but isn't this place about denying ignorance, and doesn't that include checking sources?

I fully appreciate your wisdom and skepticism.
So let me break this down as to how I work this.

1. The SR-72 story is documented in Air Force Times magazine.

2. The "Blackswift" program was not "outed" by me but rather publicized in a well known tech site called "Daily Tech.com".
I would never have posted this information unless I knew that it had already been outed by another news source first.

3. As for my "extremely reliable" source, consider what he/she said as an industry rumor... that's all, just a very well informed industry rumor.

Never, ever would I jeopardize my employment (defense industry contractor), my freedom (does Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary sound familiar?) or the security of my nation. I am always very careful to be compliant with United States Code Title 18 Ch 37 Sections 793 & 798.

Also Intelgurl, if this is truly a black program and someone is speaking to you about it, I think you should report them to law enforcement officials. It's not a great idea to continue to pass along sensitive information.

People speak to me, other interested industry contacts and even the press, rather frequently about "black programs", what they don't do is give me specifics.

The existence of and even the names of "Black" programs or "Special Access Programs" (SAP) may very well be public information - I hold up the Missile Defense Agency's midcourse defense measures as a prime example.

These are acknowledged, yet deep black programs as far as methodologies and capabilities, and yet widely publicized that they exist.

I hope for your sake that you are just making this stuff up. I know it feels good to be "in on" something like this, but have you considered the damage you could do if you get your hands on the wrong information and it ends up on the internet?

Since there is already mainstream news of this coming from the USAF's own publication as well as Daily Tech.Com, I hardly feel that anything I have given out would in any way harm the security of the United States - thanks to the USAF, the info is already on the internet, so I fail to see where I am jeopardizing anything - nor does my company lawyer.

There is a reason I have this: "Always compliant with USC Title 18 Ch 37 Secs 793 & 798" as my signature, it's because I am always compliant.

Originally posted by TAGBOARD
Note Regarding Sensitive Information

There is nothing approaching sensitive information in this thread (everyone knows secret sh_t goes on at Groom lake - so the location is not exactly a revelation is it?)



The rest is alot of imagined sensitive information by the conspiracy nuts



2 photos of completely different "models", a Mach number and a couple of obvious concept goals do not represent anything that a foreign intelligence organisation doesn't already know the USA are looking at trying to build.

This is in regards to the original statement from this thread...go back and read the first line and read intelgurl's statement #3 to mtmaraca's original response. I reviewed some posted comments regarding laws governing dislosure of sensitive information. I support the original comment (2nd paragraph only) from mtmaraca. The following is the law as I understand it...please correct this if it's wrong.

For those holding sensitive information and a DoD clearance should review their SF 312 (especially section 3) and DD 2386 (if applicable for further SCIs).

For those without clearance and need to know about questionable information on specific official U.S government activities, they should review United States Code Title 18, Part I, Chapter 37, Section 792 - Harboring or Concealing Persons and report it to the DoD at:

Fraud, Waste and Abuse
www.dodig.mil...

It is not the responsibility of the information holder to interpret law.

From their website: "Anyone, whether uniformed or civilian, who witnesses what he or she believes to be a violation of ethical standards and/or the law, including but not limited to fraud, waste, or abuse of authority, potential leaks of classified information, or potential acts of terrorism, should report such conduct through the chain of command or either directly to his or her respective service Inspector General or directly to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense Hotline at 800-424-9098 (e-mail: [email protected]).

If the above is not the case, it would be appreciated by many of us that the information and the source be disclosed and verifiable.

Blah blah blah....


There is NO sensitive information here.

quote TAGBOARD

This is in regards to the original statement from this thread...go back and read the first line and read intelgurl's statement #3 to mtmaraca's original response.

For reference:

Quote Intelgurl

I spoke to an extremely reliable source who told me that the huge new hangar at Groom Lake is for a Mach 6 hypersonic UCAV that has spun off from the hypersonic Falcon project.

quote mtmaraca

Also Intelgurl, if this is truly a black program and someone is speaking to you about it, I think you should report them to law enforcement officials.

quote Intelgurl

3. As for my "extremely reliable" source, consider what he/she said as an industry rumor... that's all, just a very well informed industry rumor.

mtmaraca and Tagboard. I already posted about a publicly available news article that George Knapp authored, which printed the same information intelgurl provided, over a month ago. The information has been in the public arena for over a month prior to intelgurl's post.

George is considered an industry insider. George has not been arrested or charged for the release of the information.

I-Team: New Top Secret Construction at Area 51

Do you really think intelgurl should report that someone talked to her about information that was publicly published news over a month ago?



[edit on 9/3/07 by makeitso]

Originally posted by makeitso
I-Team: New Top Secret Construction at Area 51

Do you really think intelgurl should report that someone talked to her about information that was publicly published news over a month ago?

Couldn't have said it better myself - but let me try...

Originally posted by TAGBOARD
This is in regards to the original statement from this thread...

Yada yada yada... Already outed info/rumors.
Yawn.

Originally posted by TAGBOARD...it would be appreciated by many of us that the information and the source be disclosed and verifiable.

LOL! So I am supposed to give out someone's identity in this forum as if you are some representative of an offended organization?!?
I think not.

Tell ya what - you call that Defense Hotline... it's a free call.

Meanwhile;

"If" I work as a contractor at Creech or even Tonopah - I will continue to work as I have for the past 3 years.

There will be no change,
there will be no men in overcoats carting me away (much to your chagrin), no Gitmo, no Leavenworth, no nothing.

And "if" I have a security level - there will be no change in it,

"If" I work on classified projects, I will still work on them.

AND I will still post here, as I always do - little known, open source, already outed information, facts and rumors.

Now enough of this attempt to derail the thread, we move on.
If you still have issues, feel free to U2U me ... or not.

US Black project research for 2008 will be the highest in history. Some $17.5 billion will be alocated toward R&D programs, but what's more tell-tale is the $14.4 billion in black weapon systems acquisition for 2008.

Granted some of these incredible sums of money are for missile defense and CIA/NRO satellites, but even Defense News writer, William Matthews believes much of this is going toward "a 4,000-mile-per-hour unmanned spy plane designed to fly at 100,000 feet".

Interesting source article:
"Black" U.S. R&D Budget Estimated at $17.5B: Defense News, Sept 22, 2007

Intelgurl,
WOW! Normally I would consider you to have the patience of several saints. In all the time I have been around the ATS forums I dont recall you ever having bared your teeth to any poster.TAGBOARD should have done a little more reaserch on you but to be fair, mtmaraca is new to ATS and was just questioning why from his unknowing perspective, people were prepared to accept what you say. Hey at least he was asking questions!

TAGBOARD Consider the following,
Given intelgurl's profession do you think she would be stupid enough to jeopardise her position by posting sensitive information freely on the web? Would it not also be likely that she would have long since been severely reprimanded, sacked or carted off to a federal prison if she had been breaking the law for the last 2 or 3 years?

LEE.

If Intelgurl had been a member of the US armed forces then the information revealed would have been sufficient grounds for an OPSEC violation. However given that she is a civilian defense contractor the laws and regulations are different...

Have to admit i'm suprised any detail's of this project have been released, especially "a couple of years" before it could become operational, is this normal for a black project? iirc the stealth bomber/fighter project wasn't officially confirmed till after it was operational was it? and how can it make sense to release detail's of this project to potentially hostile countries year's before it is ready to use giving them time to at least work toward's a countermeasure? unless that is there is a second more effective black programme still in development and this is being used to draw any attention away?

Originally posted by solidshot
Have to admit i'm suprised any detail's of this project have been released, especially "a couple of years" before it could become operational

It can be the public facade of where all the "black project" money is going.


Whereas in truth alot is being funnelled into other projects hidden behind.



Here is my right hand, watch it wave around and you can see its empty... meanwhile you don't see my left hand holding the gun in the background.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
If Intelgurl had been a member of the US armed forces then the information revealed would have been sufficient grounds for an OPSEC violation. However given that she is a civilian defense contractor the laws and regulations are different...

Give me the UCMJ article for such.

Deadset; why the F*** do some of you people even bother coming to this website!!!
If you are going to be so anally retentive about some of the information posted here then don't visit this site. Alot of what is said is speculation, rumour, myth, innuendo and hearsay - occasionally there is some fact but I charge you with separating the fact from the fiction!! I come here because I enjoy the sometimes outlandish and laughable as well as the well hypothesised and researched subjects. Intelgurl is right up there with a few others (FredT, Gazrok, John Lear to mention a few) whose articles are always enjoyable and make you think. Intelgurl et al; continue to do what you do so well as you have an avid audience!!!!

Originally posted by ultralo1
Give me the UCMJ article for such.

If deemed a violation by a higher authority you will likely get slapped with an Article 15. Let me quote how the military defines an OPSEC violation...

OPSEC is a methodology that denies critical information to an
adversary. Unlike security programs that seek to protect classified
information, OPSEC measures identify, control, and protect
generally unclassified evidence that is associated with sensitive operations and activities.

Operational Security (PDF)

Furthermore OPSEC is a very gray area as it a means of regulating rather than specific law. It does not necessary limit itself to what is classified and what is not, even an inadvertent release of information which may be helpful to an "enemy" can be considered an offense.

Operations security (OPSEC) is a process that identifies critical
information to determine if friendly actions can be observed by
adversary intelligence systems, determines if information obtained
by adversaries could be interpreted to be useful to them, and then
executes selected measures that eliminate or reduce adversary
exploitation of friendly critical information.

4. Characteristics of Operations Security

a. OPSEC's most important characteristic is that it is a process. OPSEC is not a collection of specific rules and instructions that can be applied to every operation. It is a method that can be applied to any operation or activity for the purpose of denying critical information to anadversary.

b. Unlike security programs that seek to protect classified information, OPSEC is concerned with identifying, controlling, and protecting unclassified evidence that is associated with military operations and activities. OPSEC and security programs must be closely coordinated to ensure appropriate aspects of military operations are protected.

Operational Security (PDF)

Even if something is not necessary classified and or has already been reported or published by open sources military personnel are not allowed to comment if it is deemed "sensitive information". Try asking F-16 drivers for example how many "Wild Weasel" aircraft there are, where they are based and what kind of weapons they typically carry. That information is public record yet you will not get an answer due to OPSEC consideration. Military members are under different regulations than civilians.

As I said before if Intelgurl had been a member of the US Armed Forces there would have been sufficient grounds for an OPSEC violation charge.

[edit on 4-9-2007 by WestPoint23]