Osama Bin Laden dead: Did US forces use stealth helicopters in raid? | Mail Online
The tail rotor looks different.I know the wreckage is surely heading to china.
The tail rotor looks different.I know the wreckage is surely heading to china.
I'd made any future aid to that country conditional on the return of the pieces of that chopper.Osama Bin Laden dead: Did US forces use stealth helicopters in raid? | Mail Online
The tail rotor looks different.I know the wreckage is surely heading to china.
I'd made any future aid to that country conditional on the return of the pieces of that chopper.
I'd be betting that most of the sig management is about acoustics - and less about emissions.I can say that I now I have been led to believe this is a composite version of the Blackhawk. While this in and of itself does not necessarily indicate "stealth" as the general public knows, it is worth keeping in mind that radar avoidance isn't limited to an aircrafts ability to reflect or absorb radar emissions. That said I believe the use of a composites is primarly an attempt to expand the aircraft flight envelople for heavier lift at higher altitudes.
I think that the Chinook was therre to carry all the stuff that they know they were going to find, like computers, tons of documents, weapons and the corpses :elThe UH-60 tail rotor has 4 blades, if this addition of a rotor disk is to manage cavitational wash, then why new new 5 or 6 blade tail rotor? What is it's purpose?
And if its not some secert model of heli, then why haven't we seen it before, or at least some of these improvements before on other craft?
And if they were doctored up to not look like US aircraft, everyone would just assume they were anyway. Who else would be poking around Pakistan in helicopters in the dead of night? Also wouldn't it be easier to use some Russian helicopters already in the service of US or CIA or Contractors to avoid flying US looking aircraft around Pakistan?
On the other hand, why fly a couple of stealth helicopters and have them accompanied by regular noisy CH-47? Unless it was so the stealth helicopters could drop the assault team first and then have the CH-47 pull up the rear to provide an exit or back up? Then stealth element is only to get the drop on the security at the compound, not on the Pakistani radar and air defences.
I have seen pictures of the CH-47 pulling up to a roof of a small building to pick up troops. The Seals would fast rope from stealth BlackHawks, perform the assault and be evacuated by the CH-47s? or the Ch-47s could have contained reserve forces and still had ample room to evacuate the seals.
the original detail I got was from ex USArmy LTG who used to manage helo programs. I met him in the US when I was working there a few years back. We were dealing with cavitation/turbulence and acoustic transmission issuesgf, I believe the hub cover's primary purpose is to reduce hub energy transmission which shows up on radar like a billboard which is how/why Comanche's head was designed the way it was . I'm unfamiliar with the theory of cavitation, but we have terminology that is endemic to my service. I think you may talking about tip vortex reduction? The 5th blade could/should allow a slower headspeed with a more slippery airfoil which would certainly reduce the accoustic signature. The UH-60's and even the AH-64's have decent accoustic signatures and can't be heard from 2k at altitude which is only takes 30 seconds to transit. From lower levels this range is even less.
I'm not a "flyguy" in the sense that my knowledge of heli's exceeds anyone elses' in this thread. Esp compared to individulas whom have worked directly on the heli's in service today.I think that the Chinook was therre to carry all the stuff that they know they were going to find, like computers, tons of documents, weapons and the corpses :el
The helos are dealing with the dismounts and support force - that doesn't include the sig and emissions management from the crows communityMy opinion consists of the "force package" which was used to complete this mission. IMO it took more then the 2 LO's and the CH-47's to complete this task. I tend to agree with the other poster in regards to the "back-up role of the 2 Chinooks, yet something is still nagging me. As it was clearly stated above, the idea that 2 LO's were used, and that 2 more 47's were there also, how is it possible that this strike force penetrated 120 miles of **** airspace w/o detection?
why? the BH derivatives add up to the asset count to deliver 2 x12 man teams and a k9. the commando support is sitting on the chooks - again well within their loadout range. all helos are still operating within their safety limitsI would venture to guess, that more then 4 heli's were used here.
CREF prev/ we already know the house had been under direct observation for 6 months prior - you don't necessarily need extra SEALs to do thisAn AWACs, or JSTARS at the least, and there had to be someone (more SEALS) painting the compound for the strike force to find.
not at all, there is some chatter by ex 160 operators that these assets were first drafted 1999-200, some are claiming back to mid 90'sThe question of the wreckage will be a minor mystery, and I think the Gov't dosen't mind that at all. Most of the internet sites rule out-obviously-a Commanche, and most suspect it was a heavily modified 60. Somewhere in between lies the truth. Nothing I have seen, or heard about suggests some "super-secret" heli program running thru the "back-channels" either. Yet strangely, here we have the photographic evidence of something knowledgeable people can't identify.
have you ever heard the early helos that were "silenced" like the 500's - and the NOTARs derivatives. Then there are the RAF Chooks which do the 160 type trade and are noticeably quieter. the non acoustics have been CREF'd prevI have a deep understanding of the LO principles, and the cavitation, and other "new" concepts, and even some CAD design principles-yet what puzzles me more was that the Strike force was capable of going that distance and without detection.
because it obviously isn't. its running a horse/dog collar and an extra blade for a start, the skegs are FSW, and based on prev research that shows a handling and acoustic management development. The ex 160 operators from the late 1990's are stating that they saw the hubcap fitouts then - Sikorsky engineers from that period have stated the same - in fact the designer of the blackhawk states the same in his tome about BH developmentsNot that I mind of course. But it proves my point that more was at work here then just 4 heli's flying into Pakistan in the middle of the night to complete their mission. If the heli was just some run-of-the-mill 60, then why destroy it in that manner?
no they don't, thats why they used thermite grenades on it. if you've seen thermite used to destroy armoured vehicles, you'll see that its intense and local. by the time it finished its burn the rest of the tail fell over the wall. unless they "thermited" the other side of the wall it was going to stay intact. they probably didn't see that it hadn't been completely destroyed. the fact that these platforms may have been in service since at least 99 (based on ex SOAR commentary) then they might not have been too fussed.The sensitive information inside of it could have just been removed-as operational materials would probably have been removed before hand anyway.
CREF Above.Its not hard to fathom that the strike team went in with out identifying materials all over them anyway. SOP for the SEALS. So that leads me to think that it was destroyed BECAUSE it incorporated 'New" tech. that the USA wishes to 'not' fall into enemy hands. Only by accident did the tail section fall outside the compound. And if it did, an no one observed that, then unfortunately our secret heli was compromised. If it were "SO" secret, then the SEALS would have/could have just blown another hole in the compund wall to destroy that section as well. They were there for an alledged 40 mins, so what is another 45-60 secs anyways.
it wasn't on the other side, as has been explained later by the original newsfeeder, the image is reversed. as the tail has flopped over.I like the idea of a "bolt-on" addition, as it makes sense mechanically. Plus it offers a cheap method of disguising the airframe/model. Also another valid point was made by another poster in that most if not all tail rotors are mounted on the other side-for the torque factor. Is it possible that this was just an elaborate ruse to befuddle intelligence services "if" the mission went awry-ie. as in Iran 1979?