It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CIA document: "US Stealth Programs and Technology: Soviet Exploitation of the Western Press"

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
CIA document

Seems like the Soviets liked Bill Sweetman's writings. Everyone else....not so much.

It will be interesting to read one of these documents analyzing the World Wide West.
edit on 9-9-2014 by gariac because: enter link again

edit on 9-9-2014 by gariac because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2014 by gariac because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2014 by gariac because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: gariac

That doesn't seem to match anything when I tried to pull it up. Could we have a brief idea what is in there?



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dimithae
a reply to: gariac

That doesn't seem to match anything when I tried to pull it up. Could we have a brief idea what is in there?


The link problem seems to be gone now.

The article is a review of what the Soviets were reading in the US press (OSINT, i.e. open source intelligence) regarding stealth.



www.foia.cia.gov...

www.foia.cia.gov...

edit on 9-9-2014 by gariac because: trouble with links

edit on 9-9-2014 by gariac because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2014 by gariac because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   
At least post some quote from the link so we can have an idea of what the material is referencing, these days clicking random links can be dangerous



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcouncil=wisdom
At least post some quote from the link so we can have an idea of what the material is referencing, these days clicking random links can be dangerous



The PDF is not the kind you can cut and paste. In any event, the link work now. And I remember the tinyurl since people don't like those since you don't know where they go.

It is a pdf on a CIA server. What could possibly happen? ;-)



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   
Whatever. A disninfo piece. Any leaks coming from super-secret stealth programs would have been ordered to be leaked.
Those that seem to spill out about great advances in conventional aeronautics and space applications are merely disinfo to keep the real secrets hidden.

When was the last time you heard about any seemingly genuine leaks on the development/design/production of black triangles or any form of non-aviation lifting devices (succinctly, but wrongly described as "anti-gravity)?" As I've tried to explain before on ATS, it is all a game.

We have the really, really exotic stuff and we also keep producing the next generation of typical aircraft, F-117As, F-22s, F-35s, B-2 bombers, space shuttle, space planes, etc. These activities then demands that other potential adversaries also follow suit with their typical creations to stay in THAT game. Even as they try to make the jump into non-aeronautic flight, you know, the UFO type.



posted on Sep, 9 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
It was well known that "Aviation Week" was a great source of intel for people on both sides of the Iron Curtain. The old line, "This is Top Secret, which means if you wait 'til Friday you can read it in Aviation Leak like everyone else" was batted around pretty often.

I'd like to read the redacted pieces -- especially the bits dealing with the Soviet VLO programs of the 80's which are still pretty murky waters.

It's an interesting read from a few different perspectives.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Finally got around to reading this and its pretty funny. The F-19 supposedly has hundreds of articles flying? The SR-71 replacement? There's just too much propaganda in it to take it seriously. But good find none the less.



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Well, it's telling the the "F-19" was in quotes. F-19 always appears in quotes. No other designator appears that way in the text. The F-117 designation wasn't publicly released for another 3 months. If all the analyst was cleared to know about the the F-117 airframe itself (or "F-19") was that it was a follow-up, larger derivative of the Have Blue program, all those estimates look pretty good in hindsight (and they mesh well with the rumours and innuendo rampant at the time). Compare the measurements, weights, etc with Have Blue. It's obvious he wasn't guessing that it was already deployed. He gives the number as between 50 and 71. That's near enough to 64 for my taste.
He also knew (which is even more impressive, actually) that production of the B-2 had just started. So you know he had access to a lot of SAP data.
The memo is classified secret, and it doesn't look like it was generated with future release in mind 20 or 30 years later or it'd be padded. If you look at the distribution list, it's pretty clear that it wasn't just propaganda.
edit on 14-9-2014 by _Del_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: _Del_

The list does include some private citizens. Donald Latham was either at CSC or Lockheed at the time.
Donald C Latham
You can see he is now at a drinking club, er I mean think tank.

James Peak is probably ex-CIA, but was DIA at the time.
Look at sponsors list
James Peak

Donald Fredrickson is totally google-washed due to a doctor by the same name.

So are we to assume the redacted information is the stuff the press got right?



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

Possibly. Add to that the bits redacted about Soviet efforts in the field which may have exposed methods or depth of information that was gathered.

Donald Fredrickson was a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. His office ran Tactical Warfare Programs. Now it's called DASD(TWS).

Here's a decent read on the same subject from 3 or so years ahead after the declassification: Cracks in the Black Dike
edit on 14-9-2014 by _Del_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: gariac

I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac

I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.


10 March 2001



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: boomer135

Well, it's telling the the "F-19" was in quotes. F-19 always appears in quotes. No other designator appears that way in the text. The F-117 designation wasn't publicly released for another 3 months. If all the analyst was cleared to know about the the F-117 airframe itself (or "F-19") was that it was a follow-up, larger derivative of the Have Blue program, all those estimates look pretty good in hindsight (and they mesh well with the rumours and innuendo rampant at the time). Compare the measurements, weights, etc with Have Blue. It's obvious he wasn't guessing that it was already deployed. He gives the number as between 50 and 71. That's near enough to 64 for my taste.
He also knew (which is even more impressive, actually) that production of the B-2 had just started. So you know he had access to a lot of SAP data.
The memo is classified secret, and it doesn't look like it was generated with future release in mind 20 or 30 years later or it'd be padded. If you look at the distribution list, it's pretty clear that it wasn't just propaganda.



That's assuming they were talking about the f-19 being the f-117 instead of a different aircraft though. At the back of the document they said that the f-19 could have a top speed of mach 2.5 or so. That's not our stealth fighter.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac

I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.


10 March 2001


Where is this marked?



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135
That's assuming they were talking about the f-19 being the f-117 instead of a different aircraft though. At the back of the document they said that the f-19 could have a top speed of mach 2.5 or so. That's not our stealth fighter.


I think that's a safe assumption unless there was another "stealth fighter" operational with that number of airframes generating headlines in the late 80's. The Bakersfield crash was two years before this memo. Everyone knew that a "stealth fighter" was operational. Everyone had been calling it the F-19. Jane's called it the F-19 in 84, and everyone ran with it.

The performance estimates were inline with all the estimates generated open source at the time.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac

I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.


10 March 2001



Where is this marked?


Oh sorry gariac I should have posted that. It was released with a bunch of other docs. I'll grab my tablet in a few where I have it bookmarked and put the source



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac

I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.


10 March 2001


Where is this marked?


Well I was off a day. It says 9 March 2001 but they had to correct it to 10 March.

source



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac

I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.


10 March 2001


Where is this marked?


Well I was off a day. It says 9 March 2001 but they had to correct it to 10 March.

source


Odd though, that what I found was a PDF from the CIA, not gif. I will go back later and compare the pages to insure they are the same document. But the initial release date is good enough to tell when the CIA didn't care about it.



posted on Sep, 15 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: gariac

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: _Del_
a reply to: gariac

I'd be curious to know when this was released. It might give us hints on what was still considered sensitive.


10 March 2001


Where is this marked?


Well I was off a day. It says 9 March 2001 but they had to correct it to 10 March.

source


Odd though, that what I found was a PDF from the CIA, not gif. I will go back later and compare the pages to insure they are the same document. But the initial release date is good enough to tell when the CIA didn't care about it.


When I clicked on the links to that site I sourced the document in question is no longer there. Maybe someone else can see it.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join