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.

 

SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift

page: 5
124
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Article 15 is a punishment. It is not article addressing a particular violation.
OPSEC stands for Operation security.
NOTHING IN THIS THREAD would have violated OPSEC.
Now maybe if your were in the military you would no that.
BTDT
WestPoint??? What you live near by or some thing?




posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
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






Nothing against your posts Intelgurl, luv them all, but this kinda caught my eye...Interesting source article:
"Black" U.S. R&D Budget Estimated at $17.5B: Defense News, Sept 22, 2007. Could you please explain the date on this article?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Ohio_Ron
 


whoa time travel (XD)



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
way to go to the government^^ i do hope they consern on planet defence as they are on terrorists

wonder how long did they hade it before telling us



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ultralo1
 


Where did I say Article 15 was a "particular article addressing a particular violation"? I didn't. What I did say was that you would "likely" get slapped with an Article 15 as it is the preferred way of treating OPSEC violations. Furthermore you can save your patronizing tone and childish comments fro someone else, I'm not interested. If you think nothing in this thread would have violated OPSEC then you have not full understood what OPSEC means...



[edit on 4-9-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Guys, frankly, the OPSEC discussion is way off topic. Intelgurl has told you what to do if you think there is a problem, she is confident there isn't, and that's good enough for me. Considering there have been other examples where authorities have contacted ATS with concerns, and we can be reasonably sure that this site IS monitored for OPSEC breaches, the fact that the thread is still up and running is probably a good indication that no-one is overly concerned with what is being written. If the OPSEC issue is a big one for people, maybe a thread elsewhere would be more appropriate, as well as more respectful to the thread author?



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
...the fact that the thread is still up and running is probably a good indication that no-one is overly concerned with what is being written...


I fully agree, Intelgurl is in no way violating military OPSEC regulations and or procedures. As has been pointed out multiple times she is within her guidelines posting this information. Sorry for the distraction and disrespect.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 09:23 PM
link   


If you think nothing in this thread would have violated OPSEC then you have not full understood what OPSEC means...


I Agree to disagree.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I would just like to add, back during the summer of 05, I may have seen one of these planes in action.

I was back floating around a buddys pool, when in the sky I saw a streak that flashed as it shot across the sky. It moved from West to East, and it flashed about 3 times from when I saw it untill when was blocked by trees. I heard nothing, and it moved darn fast and in a straight line.



posted on Sep, 4 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ohio_Ron
Nothing against your posts Intelgurl, luv them all, but this kinda caught my eye...Interesting source article:
"Black" U.S. R&D Budget Estimated at $17.5B: Defense News, Sept 22, 2007. Could you please explain the date on this article?

You're right - I typo'ed that date - sorry.
It should read "9/3/07".



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
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.



Are you taking the piss (or trying to?).


Saying the US are trying to build a low hypersonics reccie/attack vehicle and its gonna be stationed at a place where loads of secret stuff goes on... oh, and it might be built in a few years time... sometime... does not endanger operational security (namely, because there are no operations of any sort in the forseeable future).


Unlike your F-16 (wild weasel) example, they could be (theoretically) in conflict tomorrow, which does have operational implications.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Willard856
... and we can be reasonably sure that this site IS monitored for OPSEC breaches, the fact that the thread is still up and running is probably a good indication that no-one is overly concerned with what is being written.

I can attest the the absolute fact that this site is monitored on a daily basis. No conspiracy theory stuff here, but any site - particularly forums and blogs that have discussions concerning advanced technology, government secrets. etc are monitored pretty closely.

The interest is not who shot JFK or where the aliens are landing, but rather as Willard has explained, to monitor security breaches.

Now back to the thread...

Regarding the "Blackswift" program, I have also learned (open source info here folks) that the ramjet technology is an offshoot of the RATTLRS project as opposed to "just a new J58 SR-71 engine".

The "Blackswift" can actually be thought of as a combination of the FALCON and RATTLRS programs, with the propulsion method belonging to the RATTLRS project and the airframe belonging to the FALCON project.



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Nice kite, I wonder if they invert it and go surfing on it over the weekend.

Funny that the US would go to all the trouble of making this aircraft when the SR-71 was untouchable anyway. Why not just upgrade that airframe???



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   
A few more tidbits on the Blackswift...

Bill Sweetman's blog on the AW&ST website has stated the following:


The X-plane would be the size of a fighter and would be designed for a speed of Mach 6.5 -- 4300 mph -- at 100,000 feet. (The SR-71 Blackbird, retired in 1990, could manage up to Mach 3.3 in sprints at 85,000 feet). It would be powered by two jet engines -- bigger versions of the engine used on the Skunk Works' RATTLRS (Revolutionary Approach To Time-critical Long Range Strike) cruise missile -- integrated into ramjets.

source: SR-72?


AND...

Dr. Steven Walker, DARPA's Deputy Director for the Tactical Technical Office admitted back in May 07 to the existence of the "Blackswift" hypersonic program.
While his timeline reflects the Gov't position that "Blackswift" is in early stages of research - rumor is that Blackswift is far closer to operational.


DARPA official: AEDC 'critical' to hypersonics advancement



posted on Sep, 8 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Wow - very interesting information intelgurl
I'm amazed you Americans actually get any work done with the amount of protocols you have to go through... LOL only jokin' from an Aussies point of view
Great thread, truly!



posted on Oct, 6 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
. Really there is nothing all that deep dark and secretive about the project. It’s all over the aviation news sites. Walker is talking about it. He probably wants it to be known that progress is being made. This is an accomplishment another step ahead an experimental concept to prove hypersonic theories nothing more. It shows that the DARPA FALCON project is making progress with the investments. To me it appears to be another X-plane to test TBCC and fixed inward compression inlets not a strike plane. It makes use of RATLERS tech which is good. However turbine TBCC has very slow acceleration except for KLIN cycle. Rocket RBCC is much more efficient. This is just a stepping stone. If it was hydrogen or methane fueled RBCC LACE M12 then it would be a quantum leap. So go chill, get a grip . . . its certainly interesting and cool but not all that deep dark and secret.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Retro
. Really there is nothing all that deep dark and secretive about the project. ...

To me it appears to be another X-plane to test TBCC and fixed inward compression inlets not a strike plane. It makes use of RATLERS tech which is good. However turbine TBCC has very slow acceleration except for KLIN cycle. Rocket RBCC is much more efficient. This is just a stepping stone. If it was hydrogen or methane fueled RBCC LACE M12 then it would be a quantum leap. So go chill, get a grip . . . its certainly interesting and cool but not all that deep dark and secret.

We aren't talking about quantum leaps, we are talking about a real-life application of TBCC (Turbine Based Combined Cycle) to achieve low hypersonic speeds for a real medium to long range aircraft.

This technology borrowed from the FALCON program may not be an unacknowledged "black" project but it is an SAP just the same.
Suffice it to say that this is what the SR-71 with it's J58 TBCC engines would probably be if it was developed today instead of 40 yrs ago.

As for acceleration, the J58 seemed to accelerate at an acceptable rate - and so there's no reason to believe that the FALCON's TBCC technology is any less efficient.

In regard to your mention of KLIN cycle; on the J58 a nitrous oxide injection system had been developed to decrease the operating temperature and increase the thrust, thus negating the need for a KLIN cycle, should there be a need for improved acceleration.

If that was 40 yrs ago, then the developments today should provide far better results, meaning no KLIN cycle would be needed with the FALCON tech on the new SR-72.



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Retro
 


Retro I'm not sure how long you have been around or how involved you are with the aviation world but this tech and application with as much public information is a nice to see and be in the loop in a small way for most aviation buffs/nuts and if your looking forward to hyperdrives thats fine but I'll be there enjoying/cheering the steps along the way.

Thanks again Bios and Intelgurl for the info and insight. Hope you guys are doing great

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Hope you're right about current TBCC tech. However I remain skeptical. I just prefer to blast thru the transonic realm quickly with RBCC as it’s a nasty realm to hang around in for any length of time. And transitioning from TB to RAM is tricky (Kelly J. pulled it off to some degree, however not many of his type or enviroment are around these days). Yes great info (including this thread) here I just thought the stuff about violating military secrecy with this thread was a bit overboard. I'm like you I enjoy all the info I can scrounge up . . . keep it coming.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Awesome thread, quite a few gaps filled. I thank you all.
And as far as any security breeches:
You know considering the airforces need for regular injections of above average brains, and temperments. It would be very prudent for the DOD to release little tidbits such as we have been presented with. In order to capture the minds of the next generation. And keep em hitting the books in order to make the grade



new topics

top topics



 
124
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join