Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Stealth UH60(?) used in OBL raid...

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Stealth UH60(?) used in OBL raid...

Old 6th May 2011, 12:53
  #101 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: north-south of nowhere
Posts: 162
the field is called Ghazi. in civilian circles its called Tarbela
denlopviper is offline  
Old 6th May 2011, 13:57
  #102 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Nottinghamshire
Age: 60
Posts: 696
I find the concept spouted on militaryfakephotoshoppedpictures.net that somebody took the trouble during a live military op to leave behind a fake tailrotor even more ridiculous than the speculation regarding what type it may or may not represent..
AR1 is offline  
Old 6th May 2011, 14:19
  #103 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,956
Ah, but AR1, these are the people who dress up in 'camo' tabards festooned with I-think-I-once-saw-a-Tomcat badges, who carry little aluminium stepladders to air show and who believe in 'chemtrails'.....

Photospotter gives them a new way of wasting everyone else's time...

Still, here's a nice shot from Area 51:

or perhaps not?
BEagle is offline  
Old 6th May 2011, 14:47
  #104 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Is page 6 on this thread classified?

Mmm, perhaps not
XV277 is offline  
Old 6th May 2011, 16:42
  #105 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 73
Posts: 17,053
"Some of ya'll need to put down the Checklists, SOP's, CFS mentality....and accept reality exists and life begins outside the box you build for yourselves with all the artificial constraints you find so comfortable. "

Since you have no idea of the background of various on here, that is a bit of a strong statement, don't you think?
Knowing the background of most....and the influenced thinking created by those within a very structured existence....it is a very accurate statement.

Take note some whose background you do not know and probably cannot fathom...agree with the statement.

Combat and the demands it puts upon people to perform unusual acts sometimes puts paid to SOP's, Checklists, and above all....conventional thinking ( that kind we know as being "within" the box...where one is all comfy and safe because one can point to a bit of text and say....see there...I was right!") when reality necessitates taking very real risks that exceed Peace Time rules, SOP's and thus thinking thus putting your cute little ass square on the spot.

Again....when a fellow/lady says they dunnit....say so in the presence of their peers....who know the truth.....I suggest we can accept it happened. They also said it was risky....violated all their rules....but was a necessary effort consistent to the extenuating circumstances extant at the time.

I accept your statement about the weight difference of the 160th's 60's...but then we don't know what Mod's have been made to the aircraft...their fuel state....where the FARP had been established (if any)...and a myriad of other things. It appears there might be an unknown Helicopter type used....how does that play into things?

Perhaps you might consider how your SAS folks get to work....reckon they are limited to standard rules as say an ordinary Infantry Regiment might be?

This is what we are talking of here....some "Hi Speed...Low Drag" folks doing some very interesting work.
SASless is offline  
Old 6th May 2011, 17:11
  #106 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 62
Posts: 5,660
But Beagle, that thing can't hover!
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 7th May 2011, 04:19
  #107 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
From Bloomberg..

A United Technologies Corp. (UTX) Black Hawk helicopter carrying U.S. Navy SEALs to Osama Bin Laden’s hideout was downed by an air vortex caused by unexpectedly warm air and the effect of a high wall surrounding the compound, not mechanical failure or gunfire, according to U.S. officials and a lawmaker.
The Army pilot from the service’s most elite aviation unit executed a hard but controlled landing -- clipping a corner wall -- after the chopper lost lift. The 12 heavily armed SEALs exited the aircraft unharmed.
Senior government officials briefing reporters by telephone on May 1, the day bin Laden was killed, gave conflicting accounts, first saying the chopper experienced a mechanical “malfunction” and then backtracking without an explanation.
The initial administration explanation wasn’t accurate, according to U.S. government officials, a lawmaker and congressional staff briefed yesterday by Vice Admiral William McRaven, leader of the Joint Special Operations Command.
The command includes the Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, which piloted the SEALs of the Navy’s Special Warfare Development Group to the house in Abbottabad, Pakistan. McRaven yesterday briefed the Senate and House armed services and intelligence committees.

Rappelling Mission Ditched

The aviation unit is based at Fort Campbell, Kentucky. President Barack Obama is scheduled to visit the base on Friday and see members of the 160th, said an Army official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to discuss the trip.
Twenty-five Navy SEALS were flown to the bin Laden home by two Black Hawks, CIA Director Leon Panetta told the PBS “News Hour” May 3.
The helicopter that crash-landed was supposed to hover over the compound’s courtyard so that the SEALS would rappel, or “fast rope,” to the ground, Panetta said.
According to two U.S. officials, who praised the skill of the pilot, the chopper lost the lift necessary to hover because it entered a “vortex” condition. At least two factors were at play -- hotter than expected air temperature and the compound’s 18-foot-high walls, they said.
The wall blocked rotor blade downwash from moving down and away as it normally would. This caused disturbed airflow to move in a circular, upward and then downward path back through the top of the rotor, causing insufficient lift for the aircraft.

Hard Landing

The pilot, realizing he had lost lift, landed quickly in a maneuver practiced by pilots to deal with helicopter flight conditions known as “settling with power,” one official said.
Another explained that if a helicopter hovers next to a large enough building at just the right distance, moving air created by the rotors won’t be able to exit freely. Instead, it will hit the wall and have nowhere to go except back into the rotor, robbing lift.
The pilot executed a “hard landing” as a result, House Armed Services Committee ranking Democrat Representative Adam Smith told reporters after a McRaven briefing.
Asked if there was a mechanical failure in the United Technologies’ Sikorsky aircraft, Smith said, “I don’t believe that is what happened.
‘‘As was explained to me, with the temperature and the setting, it came down faster than they anticipated so I don’t believe there was some sort of mechanical failure. It’s just those were tough conditions to land in,” Smith said.
House Armed Services Committee Chairman Representative Howard McKeon of California reiterated in Washington yesterday that “it was not a mechanical failure.”

Wreckage Destroyed

He also said he had “no sense from the military that they had any concerns about” leaving wreckage of the modified Black Hawk, said McKeon.
The commandos detonated an explosive to destroy the helicopter, which the Army Times reports was a specially configured stealth model Black Hawk.
Two 160th additional MH-47 special operations Chinook helicopters provided back-up and assisted in flying out the raiders.
Sikorsky Aircraft spokesman Paul Jackson said the company hasn’t been contacted about any aspect of the raid.

Night Stalkers

Once known as the secret Task Force 160, the aviation regiment was formed in 1981 and has participated in most major U.S. military operations since the 1983 invasion of Grenada. Its pilots are known as the “Night Stalkers.”
Five of its personnel were lost and eight aircraft, including two Black Hawks, were either destroyed or damaged during the October 1993 battle in Mogadishu, Somalia.
The unit’s Black Hawks and the mission to rescue the air crews were the basis of the book and movie “Black Hawk Down.”
The unit flies the Sikorsky MH-60 Black Hawk, Boeing Co. (BA) MH-47E heavy assault chopper, and the Boeing A/H-6M Little Bird, used to ferry Army Delta Force commandos during a raid in the invasion of Panama to free a jailed American businessman, Kurt Muse.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at [email protected]
Sorry about all the links...
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 7th May 2011, 05:37
  #108 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: at home
Posts: 412
So the article suggests power loss due to either recirculation or vortex ring (the American term settling with power). Or the latter caused by the former. Still not sure an 18 foot high wall would cause recirculation if they were at roping height, ie well above the level of the wall. Hell, what do I know , I only comment on what is already speculation.

Last edited by high spirits; 7th May 2011 at 06:24.
high spirits is offline  
Old 7th May 2011, 06:58
  #109 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
All this is good and fine - but the fact remains that after one was down - that left just one helo to carry everyone out ..... and a Blackhawk can't carry that much. One suggestion to cover the unusual wreckage is a highly modified pair of S-92s - They lend themselves to stealthising/quietising, and some of the angles observed fit with the S-92. It would have the required carrying capacity. The team going in didn't know how many extra people they'd want to carry out, so the Blackhawk would be too small. This was a highly secret group that went in - so special aircraft are nothing unusual.
Royalistflyer is offline  
Old 7th May 2011, 07:06
  #110 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,685
High spirits - not power loss, just an increase in power required that wasn't available. A small compound with 18ft high walls is just made for recirculation - seems surprising that SF superheroes didn't take that into account, surely they practised on a mock-up building first!

High DA shouldn't have been a surprise either so, if the explanation put forward for the loss of the helo is true, someone didn't do their homework properly and it could have seriously compromised the whole op - imagine 18 dead or injured SEALs in the wreckage - always impressive to do the enemy's job for him.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 7th May 2011, 07:50
  #111 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 79
Posts: 635
Royalist flyer

Two 160th additional MH-47 special operations Chinook helicopters provided back-up and assisted in flying out the raiders.
Not a problem for one '60 then..............
bast0n is offline  
Old 7th May 2011, 08:02
  #112 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: I am not sure where we are, but at least it is getting dark
Posts: 278
We'll never know for sure why the thing crashed. It does look like he came in too hot and settled onto the wall, but really - who knows.

Maybe Bin Laden himself shot the engines out with his Makarov - they just won't tell us, because that would make him look like a Terrorist Hero to his fellow jihadists.

Much better to blame the crash on VRS, created by the compound walls.. that's less embarrassing than "mechanical malfunction".
And to the general public, some vortex-thing doesn't even sound like "pilot error"!
lelebebbel is offline  
Old 7th May 2011, 20:11
  #113 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 73
Posts: 17,053

What kind of crystal ball you gazing into?

You know naught of what ocurred...you don't even knoiw what kind of helicopter it was....give us a break here!

You think something as mundane as a simple engine failure might have happened?
SASless is offline  
Old 7th May 2011, 20:59
  #114 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 83
Posts: 229
Reality check

Given all of the unknowns, the only reasonable bit of conjecture here is that the aircraft (whatever it was) may have been operating too heavy and thus very close to performance limits.

Technological developments to reduce helo noise signatures, a big YES; but low observability and stealth would really be of very dubious merit, bearing in mind what helos are supposed to do down among the weeds. Cost also comes into play; for example, Huey II - $2million, UH-60M - $20million, NFH90 - maybe somewhere between $45-80million. Maintenance/operating costs also go up exponentially for composite LO hardware.

Most nations will be forced to operate helo types that are affordable and readily available for special operations work and not the super-expensive James Bond style stuff.
Bushranger 71 is offline  
Old 7th May 2011, 21:17
  #115 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
that left just one helo to carry everyone out ..... and a Blackhawk can't carry that much
Is it such a stretch that they may have bought spare chopper capacity to the party? There's an article above which mentions two Chinooks.. that enough for you?
WillDAQ is offline  
Old 7th May 2011, 22:12
  #116 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 2,277
Radars were inactive, not jammed: air chief

Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman has accepted the responsibility of air surveillance failure but informed the government that the entry of American helicopters into the Pakistani air space was not detected because the radars deployed on the western borders were not active on May 2. He dispelled the impression that the Pakistani radars were jammed.

Radars were inactive, not jammed: air chief

TEEEJ is offline  
Old 8th May 2011, 00:09
  #117 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 45
Posts: 550
It's funny how the spams spend loads of time and money on a quiet stealthy helicopter, then proceed to crash it in to Osama's back garden. I'm obviously assuming that stealthy aircraft make a noise when they stack it.
Thelma Viaduct is offline  
Old 8th May 2011, 00:18
  #118 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: 35S
Posts: 278
As pointed out previously, Tarbela Dam airfield (a couple of Littlebirds shown on it on Google Earth) is only 38nm away from OBL's 'opulent mansion' - Might make planning infil/exfil a little easier.
Siggie is offline  
Old 8th May 2011, 03:03
  #119 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 645
Originally Posted by Bushranger 71
...UH-60M - $20million...

In what universe?!?!?
FoxtrotAlpha18 is offline  
Old 8th May 2011, 03:17
  #120 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
There's an article above which mentions two Chinooks.. that enough for you?
The locals are reported as saying that they did not hear the helos until they were directly overhead - you ever heard of a silent chinook? Or even a relatively quiet one. And the Pakis didn't see them on their radar ..... LO chinooks????
Royalistflyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.