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.
What chopper is this
- Thread starter hellfire
- Start date
I'm double posting what I wrote elsewhere as I can't be stuffed retyping it:
However, its people like Gremlin29 who will have important and relevant input....
eg the claims about electronic signature suppression on the tail rotor disk are just nonsense. in actual fact its a generational improvement on the horse collar that was designed to deal with back wash cavitation from the main rotors. this hasn't stopped the "experts" on some of the commercial aviation web sites coming out with voodoo commentary)
added later:
the acoustic management is due to the horse collar. that was its original design intent - manage the cavitational wash from the main rotors = lower sig footprint = a change in deftness, a change in speed.
I'm betting that once full platform shots are released we'll see a main rotor thats collared as well, and probably lifted (raised) rotors
as for commanche applique treatment, I doubt it. I would think that same LO coatings that were developed and finessed for JSF, and now applied to Block 9 F-22's has also magically been used on this platform.
if I'm right, that means the collars are whats managing downward pressure, and are the primary managers of the cavitation issues. I'd also expect a change in the horizontal stabilisers, ie shape, absolute surface area (increase) and probably sweep
I'm expecting weeks and weeks of voodoo commentary from the likes of Aviation Week and DTI, but reading too much into this and then having the endstate extrapolating out to a "stealth" helicopter is a bit of a stretch.
the horse collar development and improvements alone would add handling deftness, speed improvements and a substantially lower acoustic footprint.
However, its people like Gremlin29 who will have important and relevant input....
eg the claims about electronic signature suppression on the tail rotor disk are just nonsense. in actual fact its a generational improvement on the horse collar that was designed to deal with back wash cavitation from the main rotors. this hasn't stopped the "experts" on some of the commercial aviation web sites coming out with voodoo commentary)
added later:
the acoustic management is due to the horse collar. that was its original design intent - manage the cavitational wash from the main rotors = lower sig footprint = a change in deftness, a change in speed.
I'm betting that once full platform shots are released we'll see a main rotor thats collared as well, and probably lifted (raised) rotors
as for commanche applique treatment, I doubt it. I would think that same LO coatings that were developed and finessed for JSF, and now applied to Block 9 F-22's has also magically been used on this platform.
if I'm right, that means the collars are whats managing downward pressure, and are the primary managers of the cavitation issues. I'd also expect a change in the horizontal stabilisers, ie shape, absolute surface area (increase) and probably sweep
I'm expecting weeks and weeks of voodoo commentary from the likes of Aviation Week and DTI, but reading too much into this and then having the endstate extrapolating out to a "stealth" helicopter is a bit of a stretch.
the horse collar development and improvements alone would add handling deftness, speed improvements and a substantially lower acoustic footprint.
I've been following this with interest, and I'm just as stumped as everyone else. The thing that really stands out to me is that there aren't any dzus fasteners, screws or even rivets on this thing. There's a drive shaft and a gear box in this section that require inspection / maintenance and I don't see any obvious panels for access. Even the stabilator is smooth and rivet free leading me to believe it's composite, like a Predator wing.
I can't help but wonder if these ships weren't doctored up just so they wouldn't look like US helicopters? Ideally they would have been in and out without anyone really noticing. It will be interesting to see what develops. I'll ask around for opinions from some of the other guys here and see what they think.
I can't help but wonder if these ships weren't doctored up just so they wouldn't look like US helicopters? Ideally they would have been in and out without anyone really noticing. It will be interesting to see what develops. I'll ask around for opinions from some of the other guys here and see what they think.
The 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.
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.
Supposedly there is a serial number found off the wreckage.
https://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/black-helo-down/
SCFV12A107-3 next line: REV – next line: 6-25-09
Also I can't tell from the wreckage but is the rotor on the wrong side of the tail boom?
My personal opinion is that this is not a new type of aircraft, but is a heavily moddified version of an exist aircraft.
Any definate proof yet this is a moddified UH-60?
https://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/black-helo-down/
SCFV12A107-3 next line: REV – next line: 6-25-09
Also I can't tell from the wreckage but is the rotor on the wrong side of the tail boom?
My personal opinion is that this is not a new type of aircraft, but is a heavily moddified version of an exist aircraft.
Any definate proof yet this is a moddified UH-60?
meatshield
Active Member
I'd made any future aid to that country conditional on the return of the pieces of that chopper.
The fact that this wreckage (tail) is difficult to identify as a UH60 or special forces -60 shows that this wasn't a Pakistani helicopter as claimed by pak news outlet. I think this is one clue that Pakistan wasn't involved in this mission and it is a bunch of hooey that Pakistan lost a helicopter that night and found OBL.
I don't think Pakistan has developed a secret stealth helicopter and this ain't no Bell212 either. There is nothing in white programs worldwide that resembles this.
Supposedly 2 MH47 were involved but they could have stayed further back in the air and just waited for when needed.
Having worked on UH60s, I noticed that right away that no rivets/bumps could be seen. Surface looks very smooth compared to run of a mill -60. I think you have to consider a very heavily modified HM60 or a brand new airframe coupled to dynamics taken from -60 or S92. I think we shouldn't discount the second option, just a brand new stealth airframe would be expensive, true, but all dynamics/flying characteristic/maintenance/training would be pretty cheap since it is a basically a -60 underneath.
I don't think Pakistan has developed a secret stealth helicopter and this ain't no Bell212 either. There is nothing in white programs worldwide that resembles this.
Supposedly 2 MH47 were involved but they could have stayed further back in the air and just waited for when needed.
Having worked on UH60s, I noticed that right away that no rivets/bumps could be seen. Surface looks very smooth compared to run of a mill -60. I think you have to consider a very heavily modified HM60 or a brand new airframe coupled to dynamics taken from -60 or S92. I think we shouldn't discount the second option, just a brand new stealth airframe would be expensive, true, but all dynamics/flying characteristic/maintenance/training would be pretty cheap since it is a basically a -60 underneath.
that depends on how much money china is willing to cough up for "aid" for Pakistan and if they are willing to out spend the U.S. on it for years to come.
I don't think it's "stealth" helicopter. Unless they someone found a way to mask the signature of those rotor blades, it's going to light up like fireworks on radar. Any moving part on the body of the aircraft will give off returns. I think it's Pakistan's face saving measure to claim the raid was conducted by LO helos more than anything.
Pakistan is in a world of hurt these couple of days.
Pakistan is in a world of hurt these couple of days.
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'd be betting that most of the sig management is about acoustics - and less about emissions.
dog collars were specifically developed to reduce downwash and cavitation not only over the top of the frame, but also its impact on the tail rotor
I would think that the actual sig (emissions) management is minimal - most of it is about the acoustics
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Ok, this might be a silly question, and it slightly recovers stuff already mentioned in this thread.
As long as it did not weaken the structure of the helicopter, is there any reason why the outer panels could not be removed and replaced with bolt on carbon-fibre or [insert composite material of choice)?
Since the new skin is outside where the original would be located, the attachment points are all internal, and its manufactured as a single, or small number of pieces. Fill in and smooth over the gaps after they are 'bolted' on to the airframe.
Given that small engineering companies manage to do it in other industries such as the automotive aftermarket, small scale production presumably wouldn't be that expensive, though design validation and safety testing could be an issue.
But anyway, would it be plausible? Not saying it is what occured, just asking if its plausible.
The one thing I did notice looking at those photos though, is that a rear ramp door visible in the second photo? That would hint at the helicopter not being a UH-60 based platform?
As long as it did not weaken the structure of the helicopter, is there any reason why the outer panels could not be removed and replaced with bolt on carbon-fibre or [insert composite material of choice)?
Since the new skin is outside where the original would be located, the attachment points are all internal, and its manufactured as a single, or small number of pieces. Fill in and smooth over the gaps after they are 'bolted' on to the airframe.
Given that small engineering companies manage to do it in other industries such as the automotive aftermarket, small scale production presumably wouldn't be that expensive, though design validation and safety testing could be an issue.
But anyway, would it be plausible? Not saying it is what occured, just asking if its plausible.
The one thing I did notice looking at those photos though, is that a rear ramp door visible in the second photo? That would hint at the helicopter not being a UH-60 based platform?
It's definately a UH-60 based aircraft. You can easily see the main rotor components (in the photo that shows the burned wreckage) are UH-60 based.
The orignal UH-60 airframe is monocoque construction, which means the skin is an integral part of the aircraft as has been done for since before WW2. As I understand it, this aircraft doesn't even use forgings for engine and or transmission mounts. Therefore I do not believe it is as simple as a skin change.
gf, 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.
Many of us are happy to learn that the Army has somehow kept a secret aircraft...secret ala the F117/B2. I know alot of guys think the 160th SOAR is a black ops unit but they are actually gray ops. It's possible this airframe belongs to the "black ops" aviation unit that doesn't have a name or exists in public.
The orignal UH-60 airframe is monocoque construction, which means the skin is an integral part of the aircraft as has been done for since before WW2. As I understand it, this aircraft doesn't even use forgings for engine and or transmission mounts. Therefore I do not believe it is as simple as a skin change.
gf, 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.
Many of us are happy to learn that the Army has somehow kept a secret aircraft...secret ala the F117/B2. I know alot of guys think the 160th SOAR is a black ops unit but they are actually gray ops. It's possible this airframe belongs to the "black ops" aviation unit that doesn't have a name or exists in public.
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 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 issues
I'll trawl through my emails and ask him whether I can pass on detail (but it will be by PM)
He's got impressive credentials,,,,
Dual-rated, an experimental test pilot, and program manager (PM) for both the Kiowa and Apache programs
Pioneered the integration of high capability electro-optic and radar systems on Army aircraft.
First officer selected by the Army for astronaut training
First Aviation Program Executive Officer.
First US military officer elected to the Russian Academy of Natural Science.
two Distinguished Service Medals,
two Legions of Merit,
two Bronze Stars,
Distinguished Flying Cross,
17 Air Medals,
two Meritorious Service Medals,
the Army Commendation Medal,
the Senior Army Aviator Badge,
the Senior Space Operations Badge,
the Army Aviation Association of America Order of St. Michael (Gold Award)
NASA Award for Outstanding Service.
American Helicopter Society (AHS) Special Award for Lifetime Achievement in advancing vertical flight technology.
Chaired the Board on Army Science and Technology
Serves on the Army Science Board.
I'm only citing his credentials as its why I have some faith in his input - based on what we were also doing with cavitation/turbulence management. (Not that I don't have faith in you as you're an operator so don't talk from just theory)
the original designer of the Blackhawk (Leoni) also has made mention of the cavitation/turbulence issues in his book on Blackhawk development development. It was primarily a set of features to manage (reduce) turbulence and hence acoustic transmission.
funny how all these meetings from years ago all of a sudden turn into revelations and you suddenly go from a "WTF was he on about?" to "so thats what he was on about"
SQDLDR
New Member
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.
My 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? I would venture to guess, that more then 4 heli's were used here. An AWACs, or JSTARS at the least, and there had to be someone (more SEALS) painting the compound for the strike force to find. The 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.
I 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. Not 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? The sensitive information inside of it could have just been removed-as operational materials would probably have been removed before hand anyway. 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.
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?
Just some of my thoughts. Sorry I couldn't add more technically to this thread.
The choice to mount the tail rotor on one side or another is based on design practicalities. While most US helicopters tail rotors on mounted on the port (left) side some like the UH-60 are mounted on the starborad side. Even the old AH-1 Cobra's tail rotor is mounted on the starborad side, and it uses the same drive train as the UH-1 which has it's tail rotor mounted on the port side.
Regarding the destruction of the downed mystery ship: The choice to destroy a downed aircraft would have been during the planning phase of the mission and the decission would be based on a multitude of reasons. Even white ops combat missions cover this contingency. Aside from the basic airframe itself which may or may not be a sensitive item, there are components that contain classified information/software that certainly are. Destruction of the entire airframe would deny the exploitation of such items. Quite simply, this removes the potential that the pilots; who are likely the only people on site that even know where these components are located, would overlook the removal/destruction of all of these components. It's possible that the crash prevented access to these items.
These are just possible logical explanations to why the aircraft would be destroyed like it was.
Regarding the destruction of the downed mystery ship: The choice to destroy a downed aircraft would have been during the planning phase of the mission and the decission would be based on a multitude of reasons. Even white ops combat missions cover this contingency. Aside from the basic airframe itself which may or may not be a sensitive item, there are components that contain classified information/software that certainly are. Destruction of the entire airframe would deny the exploitation of such items. Quite simply, this removes the potential that the pilots; who are likely the only people on site that even know where these components are located, would overlook the removal/destruction of all of these components. It's possible that the crash prevented access to these items.
These are just possible logical explanations to why the aircraft would be destroyed like it was.
The helos are dealing with the dismounts and support force - that doesn't include the sig and emissions management from the crows community
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 limits
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 this
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's
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 prev
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 developments
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.
CREF Above.
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.
There is some voodoo commentary via general press on this, but if you consider the fact that these same news outlets stated that the executive was watching the contact in real time should be a clue as to how accurate the rest of their commentary is.
in these missions, when it goes tertiary, the feed is turned off, for legal and operational reasons. the executive would probably not have even had audio of that team going final, what they would have been watching or hearing is the activity outside of the building, any crows doing ewarfare and local commanders.
also, they were not watching a "TV" - they were in front of an information wall.
the media and the general news are not the best resource for trying to analyse events.
understanding logistics is the first place to start
Last edited: