Just how safe is this tech

a reply to: Zaphod58

hey it was only ten years before i was born


but interesting story, it says there they got at least one intact missile. granted it was in the later 70's but just on that discovery alone i could imagine all the stuff they got from the systems attached would be a gold mine.

i could imagine various agencies dripping with excitement to get their hands on it.

thank you for my nightly research project.

a reply to: Zaphod58

In the late '70s I had read several published articles about the CIA's attempt to raise the Golf. I even attempted, through the FOIA, to pry whatever I could from the Navy about the Glomar Explorer but, predictably, I hit a brick wall. I recently read "Blind Man's Bluff: the Untold Story of American Submarine Espionage," by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew, published in 1998. They spent a lot of ink at the back of the book listing many of their sources by name and claiming nearly as many sources needed to remain anonymous. It was clear that those anonymous sources had access to sensitive information.

In the book they say Clementine (the claw) had raised the sub 5,000 feet off the ocean floor and two miles from the surface when (emphasis mine) ".... three of the grasping claws cracked and fell away.... Now, there were only two claws and the net left holding the forward section of the Golf. The rest of the submarine was dangling mid-ocean, and within moments proved itself ... fragile ... (as) predicted six years earlier. The steel of the Golf began to tear at its seams, until the bulk of the sub ripped free from the small section still in Clementine's grasp and fell back into the depths. Back to the ocean floor went the intact nuclear missile, the code books,, the decoding machines, the burst transmitters. Everything the CIA most wanted to reclaim.

"There were no celebrations as Glomar headed home, no sense of victory that she carried back about 10 percent of a Soviet submarine. Most of this portion was nearly useless from an intelligence standpoint."

Talking about Seymour Hersh's article in the New York Times they said, "Hersh mistakenly wrote that as many as 70 bodies had been recovered in the wreckage, when only six had been recovered.... the CIA had held a burial service for the Soviet dead and videotaped it in case the Soviet Union ever found out about the recovery attempt and demanded information.

"....Nearly every newspaper and magazine reported that the United States had recovered the forward third of the 300-foot long sub. But former Navy officials say that only a 38-foot piece was brought to the surface.

"... Ultimately it seems the agency (CIA) even convinced some reporters that Project Jennifer had been at least moderately successful ..."

The CIA had a vested interest in convincing Congress and the American people that Project Jennifer was more successful than it actually was, and was worth the 200+million dollars it cost.

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

Yes they did, but at the same time they had a bigger vested interest in not letting the Soviet Union know we had gotten much from it. A 38 foot section, and 6 bodies isn't a big deal. It's bad, but not that bad.

Now if they come out and admit that they got code books, transmitters, or more, that could potentially cause problems. And if they told Congress, there was a good chance it would get out. At this point it's become almost the truth because it's been repeated so often.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not sure how that would have been any worse than the Soviets discovering the U.S. Navy had tapped their underwater communications cables in the Okhotsk and Barents Seas. They could make a fuss, maybe pound a shoe on a table or two, but ultimately they'd have to live with it. It's not like we were the only ones engaging in espionage. The KGB turned Walker and got far more useful intel from him and his ring than we ever did from cable taps and deep sea salvage.

a reply to: Cohen the Barbarian

Except they didn't find that out until it had gone on for awhile. It was successfully kept secret for years, just as this would have been if they got more than just a tiny piece of the wreckage.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The Glomar Explorer was like something straight out of a bond movie. I too have heard the rumor they got more than just 38 foot of her bow. And if thats the case no point in telling anybody because once that gets out the russians are just going to switch up their codes and technology. The best recourse is to claim failure and never let the russians on to the fact they were very compromised.

Plus god knows what things like the nr2 were actually up to. Thats a good read for anyone interested in undersea hijinks.

Regarding adversary strategies.
Russia focusing in large part on dogfighting and manueverability. Seems like that was a poor strategy considering the vlo nature and fusion of the sensor shooter aspect of the usas aircraft. Seems like well be shooting down russian aircraft long before theyre even (if ever) aware of the american assets targeting them.

With chinas strategy of going after our awac tankers and other support craft. The usa has been focusing on deep penetrative capabilities and long range. So its likely well not often have to stage our support assets anywhere near where china can hit them.

Hey zaph about the adversarial nations focusing on dogfighting. Although i think the usa is confident that our penetrator sensor shooter platforms will knock down enemy threats before the usa aircraft are even spotted.

But what about potential black squadrons like the supposed yf24. That thing looked like it was designed to dogfight with its duel powerful engines and retractable canards (real question is are these lifting or manuevering canards) plus it looked like it had a central bay good for long range missiles. That thing looked like it was both fast and good for intercepting and dogfighting if need be while retaining a lot of stealth aspects.

Was the supposed yf24 intended to be an interceptor. Were those canards for lift during supersonic flight like the f14s had at one time? Lift for short take off with heavy loads. Or for added manueverability during dogfights. Being retractable when all out stealth was necessary.

I dunno another good mystery the yf24.

But that brings me to another point if the aircraft was intended for dogfighting or even to experiment with making stealthy dogfighters? If so then its my opinion they arent used as much these days with the airforces direction of sensor fusion and bvr tactics.