Slashdot Mirror


Crashed Helicopter Sparks Concern Over Stealth Secrets

Hugh Pickens writes "The crash of a helicopter involved in the raid on Osama bin Laden's Pakistani hideout has prompted intense speculation about whether the aircraft was specially modified to fly stealthily — and whether its remains could offer hostile governments clues to sensitive US military technology. Remnants of the helicopter, including a nearly intact piece of its tail, suggested that the aircraft involved in the raid wasn't the typical Black Hawk flown by special-operations forces. Aviation experts who scrutinized photos of the scene say the tail had unusual features that suggested the helicopter had been extensively modified to fly quietly, while appearing less visible to radar. 'The odds are fair — based on my knowledge of the subject area — the vast majority of the special MH-60s aircraft were purpose-built to make those aircraft as stealthy as they could possibly be,' says aviation expert Jay Miller, adding that the remnants of the aircraft suggested extensive use of nonmetallic composite parts, which reflect less radar energy. Experts also say the tail rotor's design suggested an effort to reduce the 'acoustic signature' (video) of the helicopters to make them fly more quietly."

355 of 484 comments (clear)

  1. Yes it was modifed by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Or a new design. That tail rotor is not from any know US or even NATO Helicopter. How much was compromised? Maybe some materials It will depend on if Pakistan gives it back or not. They will probably pass some parts onto China since they are working with them on new aircraft. Or we will sell them some more F16s cheap if they give back to US.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Yes it was modifed by hawguy · · Score: 2

      If this tech is so top-secret, why don't they spend some time and build a self-immolate feature into the entire helicopter? They don't really seem to try to not let the tech fall into the wrong hands...

      Because you don't want it to accidentally self-immolate in the air when hit by small arms fire?

    2. Re:Yes it was modifed by kimvette · · Score: 1

      You don't want to give them intact military avionics - especially not our jammer and radar technology, nor our FLIR systems. Even if the aircraft is not classified, the US isn't going to give up avionics tech to an established enemy or otherwise hostile entity. What they ought to do though is have explosive devices within each component - a stable incendiary device (not shock sensitive so getting hit by enemy fire won't ignite it) but remotely triggered, like you see in Sci-Fi and action films where a vehicle self-destructs. Even having a device ignite a small block of magnesium would be enough to completely incinerate a FLIR camera module, a RADAR antenna array, etc.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    3. Re:Yes it was modifed by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      If this tech is so top-secret, why don't they spend some time and build a self-immolate feature into the entire helicopter? They don't really seem to try to not let the tech fall into the wrong hands...

      Because you don't want it to accidentally self-immolate in the air when hit by small arms fire?

      Plus how much does that system weigh/cost?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    4. Re:Yes it was modifed by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      That tail rotor is not from any know US or even NATO Helicopter.

      It's alien technology! It's a black helicopter!

      Can I be the first one probed? Please?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    5. Re:Yes it was modifed by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      But if you have it, Captain Kirk will use it in almost every movie. These things are expensive! He's probably destroyed 50 enterprises so far, and half of them were destroyed because he gave the computer confusing instructions. You don't need explosives when you have computers!

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    6. Re:Yes it was modifed by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Hey Sarge, what does THIS button do? *click* &%^$&Carrier lost*&^$

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    7. Re:Yes it was modifed by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If it is a cute alien, I'll volunteer...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    8. Re:Yes it was modifed by dintech · · Score: 1

      Carrier Lost?!?!?! I suppose that might happen if you detonated under the flight deck, but that's some mighty explosives you have there.

      P.S. I know. I get the meme.

    9. Re:Yes it was modifed by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      It's not Top Secret. If it were, we wouldn't be hearing about it.

    10. Re:Yes it was modifed by timeOday · · Score: 1

      If this tech is so top-secret, why don't they spend some time and build a self-immolate feature into the entire helicopter?

      Didn't they? I'm amazed the biggest piece left is the tail rotor. Where did the rest go? Of all the IEDs insurgents have been putting into cars, they never actually vaporize the frame and body.

    11. Re:Yes it was modifed by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      This is one of those subjects where if you really knew what you were talking about, you'd be in no position to comment. Keep that in mind.

    12. Re:Yes it was modifed by koxkoxkox · · Score: 1

      Just make your debt super top secret, then make Wikileaks leak it !

    13. Re:Yes it was modifed by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      No I know every unclassified military helicopter in US and Nato service. That is how I know that it must be modified or a new design.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  2. Hardly secret or surprising by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fact that civilian aviation experts were able to look at the pictures and say "gee, that's a so-and-so modification to reduce noise" suggests to me that this is hardly top-secret technology. Also, the fact that special forces have relatively stealthy helicopters is hardly surprising.

    What next; controversy about a crashed police car 'revealing' secret tuning and suspension modifications?

    --
    This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    1. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Zeek40 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we only found damaged parts of that police car, and it was used to capture or kill one of the FBI's most wanted, and none of those parts were found in any other known production vehicle, then yes, there would be controversy over what the vehicle was.

    2. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Americano · · Score: 2

      Sun Tzu understood why this was a concern: "Be extremely subtle even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate."

      If you know what materials are in use, and what technologies are implemented by your opponent, then you're no longer looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack. You know exactly what the other guy is using, and can then build systems specifically designed & tuned to hinder/counter/neutralize the benefits that tech gives him.

      It's not just that the "experts recognize X as way of making quieter rotors," it's that "here's an operating piece of the tech that they're actually using, so now we know exactly what components and designs they've used, and can take specific steps to counteract that tech's advantages."

      Will it benefit an organization like Al Qaeda, with limited scientific & research resources? Probably not. But a country with the resources and military of China, or North Korea, or Russia, or Iran? You'd be crazy to think they wouldn't be interested in seeing the classified tech we use up close and personal, but without the hidden prize of a Navy SEAL team inside.

    3. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And what the "analysts" miss is that some of the stuff isn't exactly easy to make. Meaning, the processes to make any coatings, alloys, etc ... are secret and they can analyze them till they're blue in the face and may never figure out exactly WTF they're looking at.

      At least that's what I've heard.

    4. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by joocemann · · Score: 3, Informative

      No way... the truth I there is tons of technology that our military uses that only those with a need to know are usually aware of.

      We spend 1.8 trillion on the military industrial complex per year from taxes, and that isn't including DoD budgets or pentagon budgets. Damn straight we're gonna have crazy technology that people aren't aware of. Most civilians have no idea what we even amount to in this field, and most soldiers won't even see or hear about the tech they don't directly work with.

      We pay for it, that's for sure.

    5. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Who mod this guy as "interesting"?

      Noise reduction in this case is only part of the intriguing things in this helicopter. Never came across something that is probably something completely new and never wanted to know more about it?

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    6. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 2

      Who mod this guy as "interesting"? Noise reduction in this case is only part of the intriguing things in this helicopter. Never came across something that is probably something completely new and never wanted to know more about it?

      I'm not saying that it isn't interesting or intriguing (because it is); I'm saying it's not an "OMG National Security" disaster. Because it probably isn't.

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    7. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      I'm experiencing deja vu.

      I remember this same discussion back in 1991, when a stealth fighter crashed in Iraq, and "experts" were worried that the crash parts would be stolen and help enemies build their own stealth fighter. So far I've not seen any great harm caused. Remember: These pundits are paid to talk, even if it's just "the sky is falling" nonsense and/or hand-wringing like an old maid.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Informative

      Knowing that composites reduce radar signatures is well known in the civilian world. What specific composite works well against whatever brand of radar the pakistani's use is a whole other matter.

      Everyone knew the F117 was a stealth fighter bomber, it had a shape, coating materials etc for that purpose. 10 years after it was built the russians still very quickly scooped up all the pieces they could find when one crashed in yugoslavia.

      There's a big difference between knowing in general things that make something stealthy, it's quite another to have specific implementation you can copy/steal/learn from. In the same way that we all know nuclear bombs exist, and the basic principles of operation, but actually building a 5 Megaton bomb is a somewhat different problem.

      The concern here is both what you can see externally, and then any of the electronics hardware on the inside that you can't see. When that EP3 spying on China in 2001 was forced to land on Hainan the important part wasn't the aircraft, it was the NSA operating system and all of the electronic stuff that we know sort of in general was there, but not how it worked.

      The only thing to me is that Pakistan is officially a US ally in this, so for them to turn over the remains of the aircraft to anyone else would be... problematic (especially since it's a free market and who has more money to spend than the US?). Random bits that went flying around the neighbourhood, sure, they're gone. But any of the parts big enough to need a vehicle to move I'd guess the US will be wanting back.

    9. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by mikael_j · · Score: 2

      The only thing to me is that Pakistan is officially a US ally in this, so for them to turn over the remains of the aircraft to anyone else would be... problematic (especially since it's a free market and who has more money to spend than the US?). Random bits that went flying around the neighbourhood, sure, they're gone. But any of the parts big enough to need a vehicle to move I'd guess the US will be wanting back.

      From what I've come to understand the main concern isn't that Pakistan as a country would sell this off to China or Russia but rather that less trustworthy elements in the Pakistani military/government (essentially the same thing most of the time) would either use this tech themselves (they are after all a nuclear power even if a lot of people tend to think of them as little more than "towelheads") or have bits of it "disappear" only to have it turn up in Russia or China at about the same time as said official decided to retire early and withdraw to his newly purchased mansion...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    10. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Mr.Intel · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm experiencing deja vu.

      I remember this same discussion back in 1991, when a stealth fighter crashed in Iraq, and "experts" were worried that the crash parts would be stolen and help enemies build their own stealth fighter. So far I've not seen any great harm caused. Remember: These pundits are paid to talk, even if it's just "the sky is falling" nonsense and/or hand-wringing like an old maid.

      You mean 1999 during the Kosovo war? The only operational (combat) loss of an F-117 (S/N 82-0806) was in Yugoslavia.

      They were right to be worried since China has developed a stealth fighter from the technology stolen from that very plane.

      Balkan military officials told the Associated Press that China and Russia may have adopted some stealth technology from a Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, which was shot down by the Serbian military in 1999 during the Kosovo war.

      source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iE3jMTTaEhm5I8l63W9OzWiji0-Q?docId=e8f4fe6f3cc042d8af123a99e96b2a96

      --
      ASCII tastes bad dude.
      Binary it is then.
    11. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      If this were secret technology a second special ops team would have been dispatched to retrieve or destroy the helecopter the moment that it crashed.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    12. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 3, Informative

      1.8 trillion total since the GWoT started more like.

      FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs
      FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
      FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
      FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan
      FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars

      US defense budget FY2010
      Provides $533.7 billion for the Department of Defense base budget in 2010, a four-percent increase over 2009.
      Includes $75.5 billion in supplemental appropriations for 2009 and $130.0 billion for 2010 to support ongoing overseas contingency operations, while increasing efforts in Afghanistan and drawing down troops from Iraq responsibly.

      http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/budget/defense.pdf

      Visualizing the US defense budget

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/01/information-is-beautiful-military-spending

    13. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by xquercus · · Score: 1

      The only thing to me is that Pakistan is officially a US ally in this, so for them to turn over the remains of the aircraft to anyone else would be... problematic (especially since it's a free market and who has more money to spend than the US?). Random bits that went flying around the neighbourhood, sure, they're gone. But any of the parts big enough to need a vehicle to move I'd guess the US will be wanting back.

      While a bit off topic I have to call poppycock. The US only appears to have a lot of money to spend simply because we borrow it from China.

    14. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      The only stealth fighters that crashed were...

      S/N 79-0785 was lost on 20 April 1982 during takeoff on its maiden flight in California, recovered.
      S/N 80-0792 was lost on 11 July 1986 in California, recovered
      S/N 85-0815 was lost on 14 October 1987 in Nevada, recovered
      S/N 82-0801 was lost on 4 August 1992 in New Mexico, recovered
      S/N 86-0822 was lost on 10 May 1995 in New Mexico, recovered
      S/N 81-0793 was lost on 14 September 1997 in Maryland during air show, recovered
      S/N 82-0806 was lost on 27 March 1999 in Serbia, not recovered

      No stealth fighters crashed or were lost in Iraq or Kuwait

    15. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Tail of Comanche used a closed Fenestron like the AS365, Z-9 and HH-65, this helicopter does not.

    16. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      US GDP on a nominal basis the US has about a 15 trillion dollar GDP, china 5.7. Even on PPP the US has 15 trillion to chinas 10 and a bit. In both real relative buying power numbers the US has a lot of money. Political incompetence in the management of that money is not the same as not having a lot of money.

    17. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      sure, I wasn't suggesting they shouldn't have blown it up. I wouldn't trust the pakistani's or indians with anything valuable (I'm half indian, the whole region is corrupt to the bone). But I think the US would have the brains to bid on these bits of technology lying around. I don't think pakistan could easily keep it, precisely as I said, as a US ally the US has a lot it can take away from them for refusing to give it back (say.. billions a year in aid money).

    18. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by MouseR · · Score: 1

      So I guess its fitting that technology developed using Chinese cash would return to China.

    19. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by x6060 · · Score: 2

      more likely would be a 2000lbs JDAM being dropped on it 20 minutes after the SEALS were gone.

    20. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by PachmanP · · Score: 1

      The only stealth fighters that crashed were...

      S/N 79-0785 was lost on 20 April 1982 during takeoff on its maiden flight in California, recovered.
      S/N 80-0792 was lost on 11 July 1986 in California, recovered
      S/N 85-0815 was lost on 14 October 1987 in Nevada, recovered
      S/N 82-0801 was lost on 4 August 1992 in New Mexico, recovered
      S/N 86-0822 was lost on 10 May 1995 in New Mexico, recovered
      S/N 81-0793 was lost on 14 September 1997 in Maryland during air show, recovered
      S/N 82-0806 was lost on 27 March 1999 in Serbia, not recovered

      No stealth fighters crashed or were lost in Iraq or Kuwait

      THAT"S WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!111

      --
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks? -John Searle
    21. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Let's build a ROV out of duct tape and bailing twine, then crash it into an Afganistan mountain (drop it from a helicopter if necessary). Get the media to report on the lost "stealth" aircraft, then let Al Queda waste their time and money trying to find it and pull it off the mountain.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    22. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      Additionally, a truly designed-from-the-ground-up model would most likely have NOTAR instead of a tail rotor. It's what police helicopters around the world like to use as it completely removes the choppy sound (which comes from airflow from main rotor hitting the airflow from tail rotor). Obviously engine sound itself remains, but that's a small fraction of the choppy noise. This is most likely a modifier version in a sense that they slapped add-ons on top of already existing model, rather then fully rework and redesign it, as would be necessary for different tail rotor structure.

    23. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Coren22 · · Score: 2
      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    24. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2

      They were right to be worried since China has developed a stealth fighter [wikipedia.org] from the technology stolen from that very plane.

      No, the F-117 and the Chinese jet have fundamentally different designs.

      What you probably mean is that China gained some knowledge of stealth coatings from the F-117 crash (what is in them, perhaps how they are applied... But certainly not how to manufacture them)

      But the paint is only a small part of "stealth".

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    25. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by slapout · · Score: 1

      And eventually the tech they develop makes its way to us -- things like communications technology (think satellite tv and gps) become available to consumers as the military moves on to more advanced things

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    26. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      As the article states, the dollar amount is huge, but the US, even during a bad economy, has a huge GDP.

    27. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Once any of the US stealth aircraft were made public any group of good engineers and scientists could use pictures and the published performance details to deduce the geometry, exhaust configuration, and some good ideas about how to duplicate the paint and surface radar absorbing materials. What they can't see is the integrated computer technology that controls the flight controls, weapon systems,comm systems, electronic radar counter measures, and targeting systems. Its the combination of those systems that really makes the plane deadly. However, investment in stealth technology has always been risky because you could spend billions of dollars on the technology and someone could probably create a counter measure for a fraction of the cost if they are aware you possess the capablility in the first place. Today everybody knows the US has stealth capability but in 1991 the F-117 must have been a real eye opener for military strategists across the world.

    28. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I was in Military Intelligence for 12 years. I was consistently underwhelmed by our secret gadgets. Special Forces, on the other hand, get all the good stuff!

    29. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      side-by-side comparisons show it is a slightly modified tail wing of a Blackhawk. It's hardly "completely new".

    30. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by cavreader · · Score: 1

      Just making the tools that make the tools that finally make the widget is daunting.

    31. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by xquercus · · Score: 1

      So I guess its fitting that technology developed using Chinese cash would return to China.

      It's a nice return on their investment.

    32. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "and who has more money to spend than the US?"

      The Lender(tm), aka China?

    33. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by radtea · · Score: 1

      We spend 1.8 trillion on the military industrial complex per year from taxes, and that isn't including DoD budgets or pentagon budgets. Damn straight we're gonna have crazy technology that people aren't aware of

      Sorry, not following your "logic" here, as you haven't actually made an argument, just put a couple of assertions together. I'm guessing you're going for something of this form:

      P1: We spend a huge amount of money every year on reduction of drug use
      P2: Things we spend a huge amount of money on every year get results
      C: Therefore we get results on reduction of drug use

      I don't see any reason to believe that the US military has much in the way of tech capability that the civilian world is lacking. What they do have is incredibly robust implementations of similar technological capabilities, which are vastly more expensive.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    34. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We spend 1.8 trillion on the military industrial complex per year from taxes

      [Citation Needed]

    35. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by radtea · · Score: 1

      They were right to be worried since China has developed a stealth fighter [wikipedia.org] from the technology stolen from that very plane.

      What's the worry, exactly? In particular, what is the average time-to-reproduction of any "secret" tech that US military has? Nuclear weapons took a few years to leak. It's pretty rare for things to stay secret for more than five years. Stealth tech had been around for a lot longer than that in 1999, so it was well-past it's "sell-by" date, secrecy-wise.

      You can't keep a secret if you deploy it on the battlefield, so if anyone was genuinely concerned about the tech getting out they would not have deployed it. As soon as they did it was inevitable that it would be discovered in a year or three, and it's silly to be worried about something that is inevitable.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    36. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      So? "Based on, or similar to" does not invalidate "different"

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    37. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      In Special Ops, the saying is, "If the public knows about it, it is obsolete."

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    38. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      It is one possible version, nobody said that it's really like that. Reread what I wrote and you will see that I commented that can be something entirely new.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    39. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The fact that civilian aviation experts were able to look at the pictures and say "gee, that's a so-and-so modification to reduce noise" suggests to me that this is hardly top-secret technology

      If you had shown a picture of the F-117 Nighthawk (stealth fighter) to an amateur pilot in the 60's, they would have guessed correctly it was designed for stealth... or maybe as some type of elaborate joke, or as a piece of abstract art. That doesn't change the fact that it was secret until the 80's.

    40. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by jafac · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a long long way from "in theory, this kind of shape should do X" - to, "it actually flies, in a battlefield environment." (and in this case, apparently, it's not the most functional design, if it had issues getting enough lift - granted, this was not an ideal operating environment. But to make it work in the "real world" - that's the Top Secret part.

      And sometimes, what civilian experts believe "should work" - doesn't actually work "that way" when you put it together. (as in: "gee, it's still really loud, WTF?").

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    41. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      You said "probably" not "can be". It isn't "probably" something completely new. As I've indicated, it's a slightly modified existing UH60 tail piece.

    42. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I'm actually quite astonished that ground forces with a bulldozer and truck didn't just recover the thing. The US does have enough of a presence in Pakistan to accomplish that within a short period of time.

    43. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's a good point - after all in the late 1990s some criminals within the military in Israel sold a classified targeting system from a US tank to China and it later turned up in tanks in Iran. The governments in Israel and the USA were not very happy about that one.

    44. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by joocemann · · Score: 1

      You don't see any reason because you don't know anything about the tech because you don't have what is called a 'need to know', or maybe even the required clearance.

      I can assure you that if that much money is being spent, products are coming from it. Products that are in no way available in civilian markets at all.

      But maybe they're just pocketing it all... You'll never know unless you're privy. In retrospect, we can talk about the SR71 blackhawk, U2 Spyplane, and Stealth Bombers -- but those cats are out of the bag by now. But those are also old technology in 2011. Can you at least attempt to estimate the existence of something that you do not know?

    45. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      more likely would be a 2000lbs JDAM being dropped on it 20 minutes after the SEALS were gone.

      2000 lb JDAM in the middle of a populated, affluent neighborhood? Really? Even when we're not actually at war with them?

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    46. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by x6060 · · Score: 1

      Having looked at the satalite photos apparently the term "in the middle of a populated, affluent neighborhood" means something different in pakistan. Judging by where the rotor tail fell and the next house being nearly 100 meters away all I have to say is: 0_o

    47. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      And we spend $1T on education in the US compared to $530B on Defense. It's just that education is spent in a distributed way (states, counties, districts, colleges) and Defense is largely centralized, so most people miss this fact.. (http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66)

    48. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Walkingshark · · Score: 1

      Sure, if you compare the number of dollars spent on defense by the US in a year to the number of atoms in a human body, that makes a pretty nice graph too. And it's just as useful for understanding how our government is spending our tax money.

      --
      The world you experience is only a close approximation of reality.
    49. Re:Hardly secret or surprising by Xest · · Score: 1

      Knowing what something is is different from knowing someone has it, or knowing how to create it.

      If you saw someone teleport star trek style across the room right now after walking into a transparent cubicle then turning up in another one you'd really say "Oh, that's hardly top-secret technology, because I know what it is, it's a teleporter!".

      A lot of this stuff was seen on past projects like the RAH-66 Comanche, but just because people have seen these sorts of things before doesn't mean we realised it was actually workable or in production. The Comanche was cancelled due to cost overruns related to precisely this type of technology, so it's not suprising that people are suprised to see that yes, actually this sort of tech was kept in production with some hidden budget, and yes they did seemingly get it to a working state after all.

  3. Only now? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Only now it appeared on Slashdot? And below a picture of the possible appearance of the helicopter:
    http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/stealth-black-hawk-down-revised-sketch/

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    1. Re:Only now? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Read the source blog... The artist drew the door open, but it is obvious that in flight it would be closed (the blog author also makes this observation in the comments)

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:Only now? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      You won't notice it in the picture, but the rotor blades would not be spaced evenly. You disperse the energy amount different frequencies if you space the blades just so. You can learn a lot from searching through the NASA LARC servers (publicly available).

      I thought it was neat when I pulled the fan from my 2000 Dodge Dakota pickup, and the blades weren't spaced evenly there either. (No,I hadn't wrecked it.)

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  4. Cutting edge by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The key factor is that this mission was so important - even the President was personally involved in its planned - that the very best, most advanced technology available would have been employed. If there are secret helicopters and eavesdropping equipment and spy gadgets, then they would have been employed for this. I think the design (5 blade), material and aerodynamic shape of the tail rotors would be the biggest thing up for grabs after this incident. It also makes me wonder if China, Russia, etc, have their act together enough to quickly place buyers in Pakistan to purchase whatever photos, or even actual pieces of the wreckage, they can. One thing is for sure, China and Russia are very good at reverse engineering.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Cutting edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If so, it will be a good thing for this tech to end up with China and Russia just to balance out the power a little bit. USA spends more on its military than most every other country combined, and so pushes everyone else around. Their bullying can only be countered by others having the same kinds of technologies.

      Already China is making a new stealth plane and Russia is making a plane like the F-22. This will help the security of the world if American isn't so able to throw around the weight and get in everybody's face all the time.

    2. Re:Cutting edge by dcherryholmes · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not expert in this stuff, but I did do some time on submarines and participated in refueling overhauls and decommissions. When the sub is in drydock the screw is kept covered with a tarp at all times, lest somebody just see the shape of it and glean anti-cavitation tech. So it is plausible to me that just seeing the shape of one of the rotors would be significant.

    3. Re:Cutting edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One thing is for sure, China and Russia are very good at reverse engineering.

      [citation needed]

      They've only shown themselves able to make shoddy knockoffs of anything they don't steal/buy the plans for.
      I would go so far as to say their reverse-engineering prowess is poor, it's their espionage prowess you have to worry about.

      Plus, reverse-engineering materials is _VERY_ difficult - see: shoddy knockoffs; where the basic design matches but materials and manufacturing methods were substituted.

    4. Re:Cutting edge by Shivetya · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The real achievement wasn't the helicopters, it was flying from their station in Afghanistan without being picked up by Pakistan's military. A lot of that had to do with know where the coverage was and the terrain combined with great flying and planning. Never underestimate the skill of those flying these machines. Flying helicopters in the dark at the levels and speeds they were moving isn't for the feint at heart.

      The explosives were most likely done to break up certain shapes and destroy electronics. I doubt the materials themselves used to skin the helicopter are as important as compared to the shape of the various components of the copter.

      --
      * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    5. Re:Cutting edge by poity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, security among nations perhaps, but not security for people in totalitarian states. If Libya had better tech to defend against NATO, that country would probably be at "peace" right now in the sense that no nation would bother its sovereignty, but it would have a few hundred thousand less of its people, and harsher lives for those who remain. If either of their histories is any indication, Russia and China are indeed totalitarian states not too far removed from Libya in their stance towards dissent. What a wonderful peace for people of the world to look forward to.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    6. Re:Cutting edge by fan777 · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding. It is an arms race. All this will do is force the US military / government to spend MORE to come up with the next-generation design.

    7. Re:Cutting edge by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      "If so, it will be a good thing for this tech to end up with China and Russia just to balance out the power a little bit."

      Screw balance of power, I cant wait for cheap China RC helicopter toys that will come from this!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Cutting edge by drsmack1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I sincerely hope that China "balances out" the USA by invading whatever shithole you live in. Fucks like you are the first to blame the USA when they *don't" intervene. If it was not for our intervening, you'd be eating some sort of sauerkraut/sushi mix for breakfast every day.

      Dumbass. I doubt there would be a single democracy on the planet were it not for the USA.

    9. Re:Cutting edge by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      China will probably get some of the tech - after all they are the ones that paid for it by borrowing the US the money in the first place.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    10. Re:Cutting edge by tgd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Pakistan's military didn't notice Bin Laden living in his giant compound a quarter mile from their elite military training school.

      Somehow I think we could've flown a bunch of bi-planes trailing a banner with "We're coming for you Bin Laden" in giant letters, with wing walkers and dropping tootsie rolls onto the onlooking public and the military still wouldn't have noticed.

    11. Re:Cutting edge by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's not that far-fetched to wonder if maybe we didn't steal, buy or reverse engineer some of that technology from the Russians, helicopters are in their DNA after all, and the Black Hawks are made by a company named Sikorsky. Stealth is usually a matter of integration of simpler techniques into a system, what I've seen isn't that much different than RAH-66 Comanche. It's not uncommon for a failed project to product technologies used to upgrade existing end-items.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    12. Re:Cutting edge by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Is it this one? Or maybe this one?

    13. Re:Cutting edge by MousePotato · · Score: 1

      Truth be told, I'm having a hard time believing that Pakistan didn't know he was there. I think the more likely scenario is he was there under house arrest as part of some deal he made with the Paki's. He did have access to quite a bit of money and giving the US access to Afghanistan via roadways and airspace for an extended period of time has proven to be quite lucrative to the Paki government. I think the Paki's full well knew he was there and kept pointing intel to the tribal regions for a variety of reasons.

    14. Re:Cutting edge by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Pakistan's military didn't notice Bin Laden living in his giant compound a quarter mile from their elite military training school.

      Somehow I think we could've flown a bunch of bi-planes trailing a banner with "We're coming for you Bin Laden" in giant letters, with wing walkers and dropping tootsie rolls onto the onlooking public and the military still wouldn't have noticed.

      You're probably right. I'm sure that the use of stealth or noise suppressed helicopters was more to avoid tipping off the compound; they wanted to get the job done inside the compound, not have to deal with the rabbit bolting into a quasi-urban landscape and run the risk of collateral damage or bumping into a trigger happy cop or soldier.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    15. Re:Cutting edge by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Those are obviously photoshopped.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    16. Re:Cutting edge by MouseR · · Score: 1

      One thing is for sure, China and Russia are very good at reverse engineering.

      I have yet to see a convincing iPod or Concorde knock-off

      8-)

    17. Re:Cutting edge by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I don't care how "stealhy" those helicopters are. Even a primitive country would have been able to fire on a formation of stupid helicopters that crossed hundreds of miles of their airspace and landed within two blocks of their elite military academy. Pakistan is not a primitive country. Why can't we admit that we communicated with them before the mission and asked them not to shoot? Maybe this whole charade is designed to leave the impression that Pakistan has no responsibility for killing Bin Laden, but the story just doesn't add up. They're just throwing up their hands and saying "But those Americans used stealth helicopter technology - we just didn't see them, they were so stealthy!" That's pathetic. If that really were true, India would be laughing their asses off, but nobody with any sense would believe it.

    18. Re:Cutting edge by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      It's not that far-fetched to wonder if maybe we didn't steal, buy or reverse engineer some of that technology from the Russians, helicopters are in their DNA after all, and the Black Hawks are made by a company named Sikorsky...

      Igor left Russia in 1917

      Sikorsky, who fled from the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917

      . Sikorsky aircraft is no more Russian than McDonald's.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    19. Re:Cutting edge by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      I think the technology was given to the US by the aliens who kidnapped Elvis, as they were upset by the lack of interest in Elvis and alien conspiracies since 9/11. They thought that with Bin Laden gone, the nutters would return to their previous conspiracies- they just didn't foresee this whole 'Deather' movement. I guess there's no going back.

    20. Re:Cutting edge by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      Truth be told, I'm having a hard time believing that Pakistan didn't know he was there. I think the more likely scenario is he was there under house arrest as part of some deal he made with the Paki's. He did have access to quite a bit of money and giving the US access to Afghanistan via roadways and airspace for an extended period of time has proven to be quite lucrative to the Paki government. I think the Paki's full well knew he was there and kept pointing intel to the tribal regions for a variety of reasons.

      I think the Pakistanis were keeping here there to keep the gravy train flowing. They knew that once Bin Laden was captured, our Afghanistan operations would be winding down. Now that Bin Laden is dead, expect our Afghanistan operations to be winding down within the next few years. With us not being in Afghanistan, we will have much less need for Pakistan. Since we will have no use for Pakistan, expect the funds to dry up.

      Bin Laden was the golden goose for Pakistan.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    21. Re:Cutting edge by ebs16 · · Score: 1

      At all times?

    22. Re:Cutting edge by magarity · · Score: 1

      The key factor is that this mission was so important - even the President was personally involved in its planned

      As commander in chief the President is required to have some input. Look at LBJ - he used to pick individual bombing targets himself during the Vietnam war and we all know how well that turned out. Given the current President's military experience versus how well it went, it's pretty clear that his personal involvement was listening carefully to the military experts and signing the authorization.

    23. Re:Cutting edge by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      I don't understand, where would a "few hundred thousand people" go? If Libya would be still not attacked, Gaddafi would have done what he always did - pick off a few leaders/instigators and their families, and leave everyone else to be managed by their tribal leaders. That's a three-four digit number tops. You're at least two orders of magnitude off.

      Most people tend to miss that Libya isn't really so much a single person dictature internally as it may look to an uninformed outsider. It's mainly a feudal system where Gaddafi himself stays in power by balancing the power of tribes, who have a wide autonomy. Current war already has likely cost more lives then realistic worst case scenario if Gaddafi suppressed the uprising quickly.

    24. Re:Cutting edge by Luckyo · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      China specifically avoids invading. China is happy to just invest money, get raw materials it needs and not ask any questions, be they about human rights or willingness to sell out to IMF.

      Invading is US modus operandi. Unofficial real reasons are usually same as above for China, but US prefers invasion as a tool rather then peaceful buy-out.

      So yes, most people would in fact much prefer Chinese "invasion" to an US one. Hell, ask australians - Chinese already have "invaded" their mining industry as it needs coal and iron at least as much as US needs oil. Result: tens of thousands of new jobs and many new millionaires. No deaths to weapon fire, diseases, violence or other nasty things caused by war.

    25. Re:Cutting edge by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Or they noticed but someone high up was working with the guy...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    26. Re:Cutting edge by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2

      They apparently also missed the CIA agents living across the street for the last couple of years, according to some news stories.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    27. Re:Cutting edge by drsmack1 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Your view of China is distorted. Any expansionist stirrings they have had have been stifled by the USSR and the USA. The USSR is no longer relevant. If the USA becomes impotent in foreign affairs then you will see a different China. You think they have been steadily building their military and space capibilities because they are worried about the USA invading them?

      They are building a offensive force. The moment they feel we are weak enough they will take taiwan. Then the dominos will start falling.

      Learn your history. You don't build a huge military and waste billions unless you've got good reason to.

    28. Re:Cutting edge by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      Well, than maybe we should just bring home our toys and not help out the Libyans, maybe renew the old isolationist policy and let the rest of you kill yourselves off. When the shit started hitting the fan in the middle east recently, all I heard on TV was people asking why the US wasn't helping out, and it is exactly attitudes like yours as to why we didn't help out right away, it took a couple weeks, and then I heard on the TV about how (many times the very same people as earlier) felt that Obama went too far in trying to help the Libyans dispose their dictator. We can't win, we stay out of it, you bitch, we help out you bitch. I say we just take out ball and go home, and screw you...

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    29. Re:Cutting edge by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The word you are looking for is LEND, not BORROW. We borrowed money from China, they are lending us money.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    30. Re:Cutting edge by fahlesr1 · · Score: 1

      Dude, did you even read the page you just linked to? Right beneath the picture you find this:

      I suspect that this is an elaborate ruse to throw off Chinese intelligence. Why? Because this is such a basic mistake of huge proportions that one must conclude that it isn’t a mistake. The U.S. military wanted the Chinese to see this picture.

      Skillfully crafting a new propeller blade could throw off the Chinese for years. However, the Chinese wouldn’t know for sure, so they must expend resources to investigate this type of propeller design.

    31. Re:Cutting edge by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Again, you're viewing the world through "USA is the only thing that matters" lens.

      China needs an army to:

      1. Crowd control it's own population
      2. Maintain its sovereignty (read up on what West and Japan did the China in last two centuries - that makes nazi concentration camps look like modern jails).
      3. Force projection outside it's borders.

      For US, the order is exact opposite. As a result, even if US is gone, the priority is unlikely to change. They simply do not have the necessary equipment for US-like force projection, just look up what their acquisitions for military look like. Unlike US with it's aircraft carriers and other sea-to-land assault capabilities being a high priority, most of the Chinese military is aimed at land-to-sea force projection which simply cannot perform well in opposite role.

      I'm not saying that wouldn't change if China became a US-like existence. I'm saying it's highly unlikely that Chinese even want to become one in the first place. They have enough problems with surrounding hostile and neutral countries as well as controlling their own population.

    32. Re:Cutting edge by bellers · · Score: 1

      >> The explosives were most likely done to break up certain shapes and destroy electronics.
      >> I doubt the materials themselves used to skin the helicopter are as important as compared to the shape of the various components of the copter.

      Unfortunately, no.

      The use of materials to reduce RCS, both composites and coatings, is a closely guarded secret of materials science.

      The LO paint compositions are themselves classified. Getting paint chip samples is a coup for anyone wanting to play catch-up without doing 20 years of research.

      --
      This space for rent.
    33. Re:Cutting edge by ebs16 · · Score: 1

      I did, and determined that it's conjecture posted by some random blogger. Unfortunately, it was the first high-res image I could find of the propeller doing a quick search.

    34. Re:Cutting edge by Americano · · Score: 1

      No duh, McDonald's is clearly Irish.

    35. Re:Cutting edge by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      "Millions displaced"? The country's entire population is six million total. Of these, only a small fraction is in rebelling towns. And in every rebelling town, it's mostly young men. Of those, only a few leaders would be killed along with their families to make an example with rest being punished financially. There is plenty of historic precedent on this from how Gaddafi handled his power.
      Hell, the main reason why he's still in power is because he was never a true tyrant to his own people - he left most of the governing, including the tyrannical aspect to tribal councils.

      Please stop eating up propaganda and swallowing it whole.

    36. Re:Cutting edge by fishthegeek · · Score: 1

      Pakistan isn't a primitive country but it is a divided country, and it has a large population of residents that are not loyal to the sitting government. The last thing Pakistan needs is recognition for publicly assisting the United States in the effort to knock off bin laden. Of course they new bin laden was there, and they probably new the U.S. was moving in country to get him. None of that can be stated publicly, because at least for Pakistan, acknowledging cooperation with the U.S. carries a potentially substantial burden. Most of what we're being told about Pakistan's involvement is misdirection and poppy cock aimed at helping the current government avoid problems.

      --
      load "$",8,1
    37. Re:Cutting edge by adisakp · · Score: 1

      Pakistan's military claimed they didn't notice Bin Laden living in his giant compound a quarter mile from their elite military training school.

      Fixed that for you. That's the problem with our "frenemies".

    38. Re:Cutting edge by X.25 · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope that China "balances out" the USA by invading whatever shithole you live in. Fucks like you are the first to blame the USA when they *don't" intervene. If it was not for our intervening, you'd be eating some sort of sauerkraut/sushi mix for breakfast every day.

      Dumbass. I doubt there would be a single democracy on the planet were it not for the USA.

      And then you wonder why people think yanks are mostly retards.

      Sigh.

    39. Re:Cutting edge by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Personally, when I make a mistake, I would hope someone would correct me. If you are never corrected, you will never learn the correct usage. Hopefully I just learned you something new. I was not trying to be a jerk, just trying to let him know, as I am pretty sure he is not a native English speaker.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    40. Re:Cutting edge by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      We didn't even have to use stealthy aircraft to avoid the pathetic Pakistani air defense radar networks. But it didn't hurt to be extra stealthy.

    41. Re:Cutting edge by moonbender · · Score: 1

      Even if you don't inform them, it seems very unlikely that they'd shoot at what are obviously US helos. Nothing to gain there and plenty to lose.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    42. Re:Cutting edge by radtea · · Score: 1

      When the sub is in drydock the screw is kept covered with a tarp at all times, lest somebody just see the shape of it and glean anti-cavitation tech

      Right, because no one can do half-decent CFD on the desktop in or the cloud yet... oh wait!

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    43. Re:Cutting edge by Maritz · · Score: 1

      MacDonald/McDonald is more Scottish to be honest. McDonnell or O'Donnell would be Irish. Fascinating I know.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    44. Re:Cutting edge by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      Ponce

    45. Re:Cutting edge by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      And China is developing ICBMs for what purpose exactly?

      Nothing you are saying is out of bounds; but it is impossible to separate out that we do exist and that China (at the moment) has to focus on things that will not cause us to retaliate.

    46. Re:Cutting edge by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Nuclear deterrent and ground-to-sea carrier killing. Do you not read the news?

      ICBM:s make for a shitty method of force projection on the ground - they're expensive, inaccurate and generally only suitable for targets where you don't care about collateral. I.e. large ships that are attacking your mainland, or enemy cities in MAD situation. Case to point: US doesn't use ICBMs in its invasions.

      MAD is not going away. There is no realistic possibility of war between any of the ICBM-armed nuclear powers, as such war would result in mutual annihilation. Case to point: USSR, USA, Cuban crisis, countless proxy wars, zero direct wars.

      If you still don't get it, a friendly reminder: if China wanted to, it could wipe US from the face of the planet with a press of a button, and there's nothing US can do about it. US could wipe China off the face of the planet with a press of a button, and there's nothing that China can do about it. The only real wars that can be fought in modern times are wars against countries with no nuclear/biological arsenal (and ICBMs to deliver those). China is very poorly equipped for such wars, and shows no sign of arming itself for such wars. US is exceptionally well equipped for such wars.

      On the other hand, US has a perfect geographical positioning to not have any real defensive capability. It has no land borders with hostile, or even competitive nations. Compare this with China that is squeezed from both land and sea from all directions. This enables US to focus on purely offensive army, while China is forced to focus on purely defensive army.

    47. Re:Cutting edge by ace999 · · Score: 1

      The real achievement wasn't the helicopters, it was flying from their station in Afghanistan without being picked up by Pakistan's military.

      The choppers flew off from Tarbela Ghazi Air Force Base near Tarbela dam in Pakistan. Not such a big distance! Although Pakistani government denies this.

    48. Re:Cutting edge by jafac · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, if I were the US military, I would have maybe thought about flying-in an add-on to this mission, with an extra chunk of helicopter "wreckage" that was mocked-up out at some workshop in Palmdale, by a bunch of stoner laid off Hollywood prop designers. Then I'd make up a story about losing a helicopter in the mission, and dump it overboard as we left.

      Then I'd laugh my ass off as everyone fought over the bits and pieces and tried to spend billions trying to figure out what it was, and how to make it work.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    49. Re:Cutting edge by poity · · Score: 1

      Wait, so your argument is: I over-estimated the number of Libyan refugees, thus my argument that the world does not benefit from totalitarian nations getting our technology is now made invalid? Your post is an irrational attempt at derailing the thread from the crux of the argument through contradicting irrelevant minutia. Whoever modded you up should reread the entire thread and check his/her biases.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    50. Re:Cutting edge by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      The argument is that wars could be avoided if smaller countries had a similar MAD pact that big countries now have. Libya, while totalitarian, was also the wealthiest country in Northern Africa. People there lived very comfortably.

      Now it will become a puppet regime for West, and people's level of life will crash. West benefits from cheap oil. Locals lose on oil income and destroyed infrastructure, as well as likely destruction of autonomy as new puppet regime goes the way of Iraq and Afghanistan and just tries to take control over from tribal councils while selling oil infrastructure to Western private investors for pennies on a dollar. China gets pissed that a lot of its investment goes into the toilet alongside.

      Your argument is based on a misguided notion that "freedom at any cost, as long as the cost is paid by the locals while spoils of war go to us" is a correct way to end tyrannies. And of course, to justify that argument, you must massively over-inflate the potential cost of non-intervention.

    51. Re:Cutting edge by dcherryholmes · · Score: 1

      I'm not qualified to speak about what can or can't be done with statistical models. I'm just telling you the screw is kept covered at all times, which is just a simple fact. Anecdotally, I can tell you that of all the classified stuff we were trained on and operated, we were told that the shape of the screw was the most sensitive. You pretty much live or die based on cavitation down there.

    52. Re:Cutting edge by poity · · Score: 1

      I detect a Chinese troll

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    53. Re:Cutting edge by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      You may want to fix your detector. It missed by a continent and then some.

    54. Re:Cutting edge by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      I would say woosh, but I think you caught the joke and were playing on it.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. I know what it was... by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 1

    Airwolf.

    Seriously, though, what kind of "stealth" is this? It showed right up in the picture.

    --
    Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    1. Re:I know what it was... by Layer+3+Ninja · · Score: 1

      Well, it crashed. So, obviously it wasnt able to hide from you anymore.

      --
      Power corrupts. Absolute power...is even more fun.
    2. Re:I know what it was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    3. Re:I know what it was... by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      Airwolf would have flow through the wall, where as this chopper couldn't even fly over the wall.

    4. Re:I know what it was... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Pistol shot to the inflight refueling probe, thats how you blow up Airwolf.

    5. Re:I know what it was... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      It hid pretty well from all of Pakistan's air defense radars, which is the point of stealth aircraft.

  6. What exactly is the concern? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That we have a stealth helicopter or that its 'secrets' might be out there now?

    Concerns are irrelevant either way. We worked on a stealth helicopter design for a while (RAH-66) which failed to materialize, but it makes sense lessons learned from the project could be put to use. In regards to people knowing about it (or having access to its parts), well, if you use it in combat you might lose one, and then it's out there for everyone to see.

    1. Re:What exactly is the concern? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize we scrapped the Comanche. Was kinda wondering why I never saw it on the news.

    2. Re:What exactly is the concern? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      I think the concern is that if a device is used in a real operation instead of secret tests as Area 51, then someone might see it! Maybe no one ever thought of that. And then on top of that, is the brand new idea that if an aircraft has secret aspects to it, for whatever reason (shit happens) it may be shot down or crash or have to make an emergency landing, and then someone might get to see it up close! No one ever thought of that either.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:What exactly is the concern? by Cobalt+Jacket · · Score: 1

      Well, there are other projects that were "canceled" and then resurrected as black projects. The Dark Star UAV is one example. Canceled about a decade ago and it has reportedly been seen in combat since then.

  7. Stealth Blackhawk BETA by RCourtney · · Score: 2

    It must have been a Stealth Blackhawk in BETA - never seen before and bound to crash at least once.

    All kidding aside, it is quite unfortunate that it's debut was the result of a crash in a country that has been known to export nifty knowledge and new technology they acquire (i.e. A.Q Kahn and nuclear weapons).

  8. lol stealth helicopter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Helicopters are the opposite of stealth.

    Naval Aviator: "You know how a helicopter flies?"
    me: "uhh.. the main rotor, lift, drag, etc?"
    Naval Aviator: "Wrong. They make so much goddamn noise the Earth gets away from them"

    1. Re:lol stealth helicopter by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2

      Noise reduction, reduction of RCS, reduction of IR ... When the enemy realizes that you're near, it is too late to react. It worked, as when the occupants of the house realized what was happening it was too late to try to escape.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:lol stealth helicopter by synapse7 · · Score: 1

      This chopper uses the Acura noice reduction system via large loadspeakers cancelling sound waves.

    3. Re:lol stealth helicopter by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      lol, i love it!

    4. Re:lol stealth helicopter by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Funny

      A helo's an array of spare parts flying in fairly loose formation.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    5. Re:lol stealth helicopter by Hydian · · Score: 2

      They beat the air into submission.

    6. Re:lol stealth helicopter by Eil · · Score: 1

      I used to work on H-53s in the Air Force and I had a similar exchange with a Marine. Only his punch line was:

      "Helicopters don't fly, they beat the air into submission."

  9. So quiet.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It could only be heard by blogers with giant flyswatters

  10. tweets by hey · · Score: 1

    What about that guy who tweeted that the copters were shaking the windows?
    http://eu.techcrunch.com/2011/05/02/heres-the-guy-who-unwittingly-live-tweeted-the-raid-on-bin-laden/

    1. Re:tweets by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      According to several sources were four helicopters, two of these Chinooks. Perhaps it was these two that it shook the windows

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:tweets by rayd75 · · Score: 1

      According to several sources were four helicopters, two of these Chinooks. Perhaps it was these two that it shook the windows

      Exactly... It would seem likely that Chinooks were sent in only after a delay and after the Pakistani authorities knew something was amiss. By that time, the raw power and performance of the Chinooks would be far more desirable than stealth. The stealth-modified helicopters almost certainly perform more poorly than unmodified versions of the same aircraft.

    3. Re:tweets by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Exactly... It would seem likely that Chinooks were sent in only after a delay and after the Pakistani authorities knew something was amiss.

      I've been wondering whether the raid was accompanied by a preemptory "stand down (or else)" order to the Pakistanis.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:tweets by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I agree. They just needed the element of surprise until the moment of the first attack (and for that stealth helicopters), after that then no longer had to be sneaky.
      Then after that they could use Chinooks to have more cargo capacity, could eventually have to bring more stuff than the soldiers of the attack and may have had to evacuate the soldiers if one of the attack helicopters was lost, as happened.

      And the author from the blog where I found the image of what could be the "stealth hawk" have a interesting theory: To ensure they got to the house without being noticed by the Pakistanis, it is possible that the Chinnoks were also stealth versions.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    5. Re:tweets by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the author from the blog where I found the image of what could be the "stealth hawk" have a interesting theory: To ensure they got to the house without being noticed by the Pakistanis, it is possible that the Chinnoks were also stealth versions.

      Standing off some distance and being more easily detected would also have been something of a diversion.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    6. Re:tweets by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      it is possible that the Chinnoks were also stealth versions.

      Yeah, from F5 tornado volume to F2 tornado volume. A "Stealth Chinook" would be the ultimate oxymoron. Those suckers are LOUD.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:tweets by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I know. But in this particular case, the Chinooks may only need to be difficult to see on radar, as the attack is carried by the smaller attack helicopters and the Chinnoks came close only to pick up the soldiers. And you do not need to make the aircraft totally silent, only the sufficient to get close enougth to when the enemy can hear you, you already have then on sigths.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    8. Re:tweets by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      Could be. National Guard Chinooks fly over my house every once in a while, and you can hear them long before they go over. They are very loud.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    9. Re:tweets by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      That's not a useful diversion. Any American choppers in the vicinity will spook Al Qaeda, even if they're not landing on Osama's house. No, I agree with the grandparent: send in your stealth choppers first, hold back the noisy Chinooks until you've already got guns on the ground.

    10. Re:tweets by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      If the plan is the enemy attention on the loud-ass ones and failing to hear the super-secret helicopter above then, why not? But read the other comments. The Chinooks arrived after the attack, not before. And there is the possibility of Chinnoks versions are also "stealth", then most people only listen when they are close enough compared to a conventional Chinnok.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    11. Re:tweets by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      They couldn't do that because the deep suspicion would be that Osama would have been tipped off if anyone in the Pakistani government knew what was coming and when. Nobody really believed that at least some part of the military was aware who was living in that compound. So any warning to the Pakistani military would have blown the whole mission.

  11. That makes sense by Experiment+626 · · Score: 1

    It seemed a little odd that when a helicopter broke down a quarter mile away from a supposedly allied military base, the U.S. military would blast it to pieces rather than just asking Pakistan to keep an eye on it till it could be picked up. For a random helicopter, scuttling it in nominally friendly territory is wasteful and over-the-top, but for a super secret stealth helicopter, it's quite prudent.

    1. Re:That makes sense by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Well Osama was found in a populated city filled with Pakistani Military and Spy agency personnel and by all indications he had been there along time. That leaves a few possibilities :

      1. The Pakistanis are completely incompetent at security, and therefore could not be trusted to protect our bird.
      2. The Pakistani Government knew where Osama was and was protecting him from us, they are therefore not actually or allies but an enemy who has been playing us, and therefore could not be trusted to protect our bird. The jury is still out.
      3. Parts of the Pakistani Government and or Military leadership are disloyal and were protecting Osama from the rest of the government and us. From and operation standpoint we can't know who can and cannot be trusted therefore none can be trusted, and we had to scuttle the bird.

       

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:That makes sense by LittlePud · · Score: 1

      My money's on #3.

    3. Re:That makes sense by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      That leaves a few possibilities :

      You overlooked a fourth alternative: The US government has known exactly where Osama was for some time, and chose instead to watch the building to see who came and went. Of course, that says nothing about where the Pakistani government knew.

      So, why did they go in last weekend? A UK paper has speculated it was because enough information was in the Guantanamo Bay files distributed by WikiLeaks to tip off Osama that his hideout had been compromised. They had to act before Osama disappeared again.

    4. Re:That makes sense by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Even odder is to intrude into ally's airspace, conduct a combat operation on its soil and kill one or more of its residents without even bothering to warn them about it. In most cases, that would spark a major international incident. It's always been a stretch to call Pakistan a US ally or friendly territory.

    5. Re:That makes sense by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I agree that is possible even likely senerio, but I see that as being in addition to my three. Just because the Pakistanis are lying, obstructing, delaying or any combination there of does indicate if our government is/was doing those things. I like you would venture they were/are.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:That makes sense by x6060 · · Score: 1

      If this was true they would have nailed him almost immediately. They would not have waited 6 months and potentially let the target slip away.

    7. Re:That makes sense by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      So, why did they go in last weekend? A UK paper has speculated it was because enough information was in the Guantanamo Bay files distributed by WikiLeaks to tip off Osama that his hideout had been compromised. They had to act before Osama disappeared again.

      The cynic in me keeps thinking that this is why the operation didn't take place much closer in time to the U.S. Presidential election.

    8. Re:That makes sense by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      1. Yes
      2. Yes
      3. Yes
      4. Pakistani culture is rife with nepotism and bribery
      5. Profit?

    9. Re:That makes sense by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      So, why did they go in last weekend? A UK paper has speculated it was because enough information was in the Guantanamo Bay files distributed by WikiLeaks to tip off Osama that his hideout had been compromised. They had to act before Osama disappeared again.

      No no no. If my crazy facebook friends are to be believed, it was done NOW because President Obama has started his reelection campaign!

    10. Re:That makes sense by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      OR... do we just want people to think it was a super secret stealth helicopter? If our enemies think we have these really awesome stealth helicopters that will decloak right over your house at the last minute, they probably don't want to mess with us.

      maybe the chinese and the pakistanis will be pouring over a bin of fiberglass and disposable razor parts for years trying to figure out the secret.

  12. The reason it crashed too? by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According the NYtimes the reason it crashed was not mechanical failure but lack of lift. two reasons were given 1) thin air 2) the walls of the compound created a vortex. So apparently just some modestly walls to guide air will reduce the lift enough to crash this thing. I wonder how it is supposed to land between buildings? I wonder if perhaps the noise reduction and stealth features came at a price of reduced performance.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      According the NYtimes the reason it crashed was not mechanical failure but lack of lift.

      According to Aviation Week the reason it crashed was the tail rotor struck the top of the compound wall during the landing attempt, breaking the tail rotor off, which resulted in a hard landing. That's the reason the tail section was on the opposite side of the wall from the rest of the helicopter, and why it didn't get destroyed when the Seal team blew up the helicopter.

    2. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's credible. Now please explain to me how they got 24 seals complete with combat equipment, two flight crews, a body and lots of swag - total at least 6,000 pounds - out in the one remaining chopper.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    3. Re:The reason it crashed too? by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wikis for the UH-60 show 8000 or 9000 lbs cargo capacity depending on configuration. Wouldn't be comfy in there, but when it's your only ride out, you make it work.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    4. Re:The reason it crashed too? by catbertz · · Score: 3

      Every news report I've read had two Blackhawks in first, followed by several Chinooks loaded with support teams.

    5. Re:The reason it crashed too? by cptdondo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've read reports of 70+ men on the team. Two Blackhawks for the initial strike, plus a bunch of Chinooks for the mopup crew, arab language experts to rifle files, and a few burly men to haul the loot back to the Chiniooks.

    6. Re:The reason it crashed too? by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      According the NYtimes the reason it crashed was not mechanical failure but lack of lift.

      According to Aviation Week the reason it crashed was the tail rotor struck the top of the compound wall during the landing attempt, breaking the tail rotor off, which resulted in a hard landing. That's the reason the tail section was on the opposite side of the wall from the rest of the helicopter, and why it didn't get destroyed when the Seal team blew up the helicopter.

      Well according to CBS news, that was the initial, but now known to be wrong, explanation. After it lost lift from the vortex, the pilot put it into a controlled crash, striking the wall.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    7. Re:The reason it crashed too? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      According the NYtimes the reason it crashed was not mechanical failure but lack of lift.

      According to Aviation Week the reason it crashed was the tail rotor struck the top of the compound wall during the landing attempt,...

      Actually... the parent is correct. According to the NYT article, the helo lost lift, had to make a "hard landing" and clipped the tail rotor on the way down.

      Lawmakers who were briefed on the mission said the damaged helicopter had not malfunctioned, as initially described by senior administration officials. Instead, they said, it got caught in an air vortex caused by higher-than-expected temperatures and the high compound walls, which blocked the downwash of the rotor blades.

      As a result, the helicopter lost its lift power while hovering over the yard and had to make a hard landing, clipping one of the walls with its tail.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:The reason it crashed too? by RMingin · · Score: 1

      2 special Black Hawks for insertion, two standard Chinooks lifted the Team, gear, and swag.

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    9. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A couple Chinooks were waiting in nearby airspace w/ two more SEAL teams, in case shit went down bad. One of those flew in and picked up extra soldiers. Google for more.

    10. Re:The reason it crashed too? by ktappe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2 special Black Hawks for insertion, two standard Chinooks lifted the Team, gear, and swag.

      And that would explain why a neighbor a good distance away was (unwittingly) Tweeting about the operation. He probably didn't hear the stealthy insertion but the Chinooks used for extraction make a boatload of noise and annoyed the piss out of him and everyone else a decent radius around there.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    11. Re:The reason it crashed too? by thopkins · · Score: 1

      It was reported that they called in a backup chopper. They had two on standby.

    12. Re:The reason it crashed too? by mortonda · · Score: 1

      It's called planning. Not "the other chopper", but the other *3* transports. I'm sure the mission profile was designed for the possibility of a crash, and there were probably more rescue teams and support craft on alert standby in case this turned into a "Black hawk down" type of thing. The operation had been planned for quite some time; do you think maybe they know what they are doing better than you?

    13. Re:The reason it crashed too? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      I heard a report was just Chuck Norris. Everything else was just part of the cover story.

    14. Re:The reason it crashed too? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That's credible. Now please explain to me how they got 24 seals complete with combat equipment, two flight crews, a body and lots of swag - total at least 6,000 pounds - out in the one remaining chopper.

      Uh, when you kill everyone on the compound, you can take your sweet time leaving? They continued the mission, killed bad guys, detained wives, then waited for the backup ride home.

    15. Re:The reason it crashed too? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no more need to be stealthy once the bad guys are dead.

    16. Re:The reason it crashed too? by datapharmer · · Score: 1
      --
      Get a web developer
    17. Re:The reason it crashed too? by CTalkobt · · Score: 1

      That's credible. Now please explain to me how they got 24 seals complete with combat equipment, two flight crews, a body and lots of swag - total at least 6,000 pounds - out in the one remaining chopper.

      They didn't ... they used a 3rd helicopter that was on standby as a backup.

      --
      There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
    18. Re:The reason it crashed too? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen enough details, but trying to land vertically is not how helicopters are supposed to work. Most likely if they had followed the same flight profile without buildings, they'd have crashed, thus not making it related to any "vortex." But, of course, they wouldn't have taken the same path if it weren't for the buildings.

      Helicopters can fall straight down under full throttle, as opposed to hover. For a landing maneuver that requires a hover (and in a combat situation where you'll be entering the hover aggressively), coupled with thin air and an over-confident pilot (I haven't met a combat pilot that wasn't over confident, so that's the only real guessing done here, the rest are facts), it's likely that they crashed in a way that a competent and conservative pilot would have predicted and avoided.

      Oh, and after typing in the technical term for that version of loss of control, I came across others discussing that as a likely cause. Like this. But even there, people talk about other effects reported in the news, but knowing the technical accuracy of the news, explaining "building vortex" and "settling with power" are such that "building vortex" is simpler, easier, and indistinguishable from the truth by 90%+ of the population so that they'd always go with that for simplicity and readability, even if the cause was known to be settling with power.

    19. Re:The reason it crashed too? by russotto · · Score: 1

      it's likely that they crashed in a way that a competent and conservative pilot would have predicted and avoided.

      A competent and conservative pilot would have looked at the mission profile and said "Fuck this, I'm outta here."

    20. Re:The reason it crashed too? by berashith · · Score: 1

      this cant be possible, the mountains are still standing in pakistan and afghanistan.

    21. Re:The reason it crashed too? by bazorg · · Score: 1

      I think you're not doing the Maxwell Smart joke the correct way...

    22. Re:The reason it crashed too? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      According to the NYT article [nytimes.com], the helo lost lift,

      That's like saying that someone with cancer died from heart failure. Sure, the heart stopped pumping, but what caused that to happen? Without all the information, they are reporting the easiest thing to say, even if essentially incorrect. From what I've seen, it was essentially pilot error that will be covered up as aerodynamic interference from the buildings. But I'm guessing like everyone else, but the description sounds exactly like settling with power, which is predictable and preventable (or, in this case, if it was essentially required for the landing approach, then it should have at least been predicted and prevented if possible).

    23. Re:The reason it crashed too? by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      my guess is it crashed because the seal team wanted to practice blowing up a helicopter.

    24. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Did they tell you about 9/11 too? How far back are you?

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    25. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      hi, 2011 was on the phone just now and he asked could you stop using illogical imperial measurements and just use kg's and the like, kthxbai!

      Blackhawk is an American aircraft, it lifts pounds, not kilos don't you know.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    26. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      The numerous reports that have been out all show varying views of the procedure. Some don't even mention the crash. Others mentioned 4 helicopters were actually on scene. Which makes sense, being there were 25 or so seals.

      There were also reports of a complete backup team of 24, which to me makes it more likely the backup choppers were chinooks. Even three Blackhawks would be stressed to carry more than 50 people plus weapons and cargo.

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    27. Re:The reason it crashed too? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I wonder if perhaps the noise reduction and stealth features came at a price of reduced performance.

      I've heard the stealth fighter was quite difficult to maneuver compared to other planes at the time, due to it's unique design. One crashed during the test, fortunately the test pilot survived, though with a concussion that ended his flight career.

      The U2 spy plane, able to reach altitudes that fighter jets could not, had been so modified that landing it was extremely challenging. From the wiki page:

      The U-2's flight controls are designed around the normal flight envelope and altitude that the aircraft was intended to fly in. The controls provide feather-light control response at operational altitude. However, at lower altitudes, the higher air density and lack of a power-assisted control system makes the aircraft very difficult to fly. Control inputs must be extreme to achieve the desired response in flight attitude, and a great deal of physical strength is needed to operate the controls in this manner. The U-2 is very sensitive to crosswinds which, together with its tendency to float over the runway, makes the U-2 notoriously difficult to land. As the aircraft approaches the runway, the cushion of air provided by the high-lift wings in ground effect is so pronounced that the U-2 will not land unless the wing is fully stalled. To assist the pilot, the landing U-2 is paced by a chase car (usually a "souped-up" performance model including a Ford Mustang SSP, Chevrolet Camaro B4C, Pontiac GTO, and the Pontiac G8) with an assistant (another U-2 pilot) who "talks" the pilot down by calling off the declining height of the aircraft in feet as it decreases in airspeed.

      I would bet good money that the stealth reduced performance. After all, there's got to be a reason it's not used on -every- helicopter if it works.

    28. Re:The reason it crashed too? by jittles · · Score: 2

      If they had brought any chinooks in, they would have just sling loaded the crashed helicopter out. There would have been no need to blow anything up. Those things can out climb an F-16 and carry some 50,000 pounds of goods.

    29. Re:The reason it crashed too? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      According to the NYT article [nytimes.com], the helo lost lift,

      ... but what caused that to happen? Without all the information, they are reporting the easiest thing to say, even if essentially incorrect. From what I've seen, it was essentially pilot error that will be covered up as aerodynamic interference from the buildings.

      From the article quote, which I included:

      they said, it got caught in an air vortex caused by higher-than-expected temperatures and the high compound walls, which blocked the downwash of the rotor blades.

      Now. I'm not a helo pilot, nor was I in the thing, flying a night combat mission, but that explanation sounds good enough for me. I'm not sure what you've "seen" -- unless you're on Seal Team 6, I'm guessing you haven't really "seen" anything -- , but it's quite possible that they had planned the approach and landing, but that things changed and shit happened. Personally, I'm not sure if I care why the helo got borked as they had a plan for that too. The priority is to save lives, not equipment. News articles say the SEALS were planning on humping out some distance if out-bound helo space became short.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    30. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Solarian · · Score: 1

      I wonder if perhaps the noise reduction and stealth features came at a price of reduced performance.

      Any helicopter can enter a state known as settling with power or vortex ring state. Basically the rotors downwash is recirculated around and back through the rotor. When operating close to high walls, a vortex ring can form very suddenly, and the pilot may not have sufficient room to recover.

      Here's a link describing the condition.
      http://www.cybercom.net/~copters/aero/settling.html

      Not necessarily a limitation of any modifications, just a general limitation of helicopters.

      I knew that helicopter ground school would come in useful eventually! :-)

    31. Re:The reason it crashed too? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Blocking the downwash would increase lift, not reduce it. And if the problem was only the last few feet when the buildings were interfering, then striking one of the buildings as a result of loss of lift would indicate a course that would likely have resulted in a collision anyway. As I've pointed out elsewhere, news is almost always wrong. Ever read something you know lots about? How accurate are they? Assume that for everything.

      The only thing that makes sense is that they came in too steep, and lost lift because of pilot error (and in the US, if you crash because it was warmer than you expected, they'll consider that pilot error). Either he ran the calcs for hovering and the warm air resulted in settling with power (considered pilot error if the FAA is calling the shots), or he was intending to not hover in, but instead entered a hover because of a miscalculation of the walls and temperature (considered pilot error if the FAA is calling the shots).

      But, for whatever reason, those reporting it aren't calling it what it is. It was pilot error resulting from a demanding mission and perhaps incomplete data. Everything I've seen has pointed to that, but the people reporting it apparently don't want "human error" and "Osama mission" mentioned in the same sentence. For that reason, we get impossibilities like ground effects magically reducing lift when every other universe they universally increase lift.

      Personally, I'm not sure if I care why the helo got borked

      You apparently care enough to argue about it. The exact description given doesn't make sense. And, even if taken as 100% true, it would be considered pilot error by the US government organization tasked with investigating non-military crashes. Not that I'm arguing that he should see any disciplinary actions or such. It's a difficult maneuver (landing in an unscouted area with incomplete information and multiple known hazards), and more likely he should be commended for landing with everyone alive with the tail of the craft sitting on the other side of a large wall. But that doesn't mean that the causes of the crash are as the NYT assert, or that he didn't make any mistakes.

    32. Re:The reason it crashed too? by wish+bot · · Score: 1

      The us military uses metric.

      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
    33. Re:The reason it crashed too? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Osama's house guards (ISI) were on the way and there was no telling how bad their attitude was going to be. Reports are they were in 'deny everything' mode from the get go, but even if they weren't nobody would tell us.

      Also there is a little matter of the Pakis scrambling jets to chase the flight of helicopters leaving. The story is we handled it with a phone call. Again would they even tell us if we shot down a few Paki jets in this process. I bet their jets backed off when they got radar locked (though their radar saw nothing except the Chinooks.)

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    34. Re:The reason it crashed too? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      But that doesn't mean that the causes of the crash are as the NYT assert, ...

      Actually, the NYT article said (and I quoted), "Lawmakers who were briefed on the mission said the damaged helicopter had not malfunctioned..." so the article was simply reporting what the Congress-critters said as a result of a brief to them. I don't doubt your assertions about probable cause and effect, and what the disciplinary consequences might be, especially as it would pertain to a civilian incident, but this was a night combat situation so I imagine your estimations are moot as you were not there. I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just saying... I'm sure we civilians will never know most of the interesting details of this mission and anything reported/leaked will probably be sanitized to some extent. You need to realize this and get over it. :-) [ Please note smiley face! ] You'll understand better if you ever get a security clearance...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    35. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If it's still too cramped, you toss some unwanted dead weight into the ocean.

    36. Re:The reason it crashed too? by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Man. That is so sad. You never watched enough movies as a kid, or as an adult.

      What would actually happen is that 10 of the Navy Seals would stay behind allowing the most wounded and mission critical buddies on to the remaining chopper while receiving half the ammo out of the remaining Navy Seals. After a fierce battle most the Navy Seals are captured and taking to a hidden Al Qaida base where they are busy being tortured and interrogated.

      Then somebody like Bruce Willis or Samuel L Jackson would be in a situation room with pictures of Osama Bin Laden's body or him having his testicles electrocuted in an interrogation on all the scrrens. There would be a bunch of arguments and then a crack team of super special top secret forces would escort to the hidden base a highly classified experimental solider-android-cyber-alien-hybrid-something-or-other with some really cool special effects that makes Neo look like a little cripple.

      Somebody on the team or on the bad side will also be *super* hot. Live Eva Mendes super hot. This may, or may not, affect the super soldier. Depends on a PG-13 or R rating target.

      Some really cool shit, a bunch of explosions, some twists and turns........ and there you go, 24 Navy Seals make it home.

    37. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 1

      The us military uses metric.

      Oh you mean like kiloyards?

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    38. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      > unless you're on Seal Team 6, I'm guessing you haven't really "seen" anything

      You *may* be overestimating the level of authority necessary to give a claim credence. :)

      The priority was to kill the bad guys. They did that, they collected intelligence, and they left.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    39. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      > my guess is it crashed because the seal team wanted to practice blowing up a helicopter.

      hahaha.

      Unlikely, although +1 for military accuracy. They wouldn't do that deliberately on a mission in Pakistan where they'd have to leave the remains for Pakistani intelligence, especially not on a raid where every detail will be scrutinized.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
    40. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      You've never been in a Blackhawk, have you?

      There's just not enough room in there. It's just not possible. Anyone who's been in one can tell you that.

    41. Re:The reason it crashed too? by WNight · · Score: 1

      Whoops, Bin Laden was metric. That's probably why it crashed.

    42. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      Several reports I've read suggest that there were two back up helicopters nearby and when they crashed this one they called in a backup, so it was three helo's in, and two out, in effect.

    43. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Xest · · Score: 1

      That big Ocean between Pakistan and Afghanistan you mean?

    44. Re:The reason it crashed too? by Xest · · Score: 1

      That's not a quick job though when speed is important because you're in potentially hostile territory.

    45. Re:The reason it crashed too? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Stealth always compromises performance in someway. But that is just a normal part of life because like everything else it is just one more compromise. You want good radar? Well that adds weight and lowers some performance. You an aircraft to be maneuverable? Well it will be slower and a shorter range. A stealth aircraft will be more expensive and probably be slower and have a shorter range and or less payload than if you built the same aircraft without making it stealth. So yes there is a price to be paid. Did it cause the crash? I have no idea and frankly anything that we say is a pure guess. If say the aircraft did have a lose of life problem from air deflection then it makes some sense that it might have come down hard in the court yard and the tail boom broke on the wall.
      Or it could have been landing and the tail boom struck the wall.
      Or it could have had an engine problem or something I am not thinking of.
      But to answer you question Stealth adds weight and increases drag as does noise reduction but that may or may not have caused the problem.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  13. Picture of what it might look like by RCourtney · · Score: 2
  14. Re:I don't understand by Augusto · · Score: 2

    That would have killed a lot of civilians, undermining the decision to use special forces in the first place.

    --

    - sigs are for wimps.
  15. it will be retrieved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    seal team 6 is going back in to assassinate whoever has the parts and taking them back

    1. Re:it will be retrieved by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      seal team 6 is going back in to assassinate whoever has the parts and taking them back

      Or maybe Apple's lawyers.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:it will be retrieved by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The helicopter used some of the technology from the iPad, Apple will just threaten to take production from China if they don't give them back their helicopter. What, you thought steve drove to work? This is how he gets to work... /joke

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  16. Re:HD version of the video. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Both videos are fake/rickrolls.

  17. Re:I don't understand by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2

    Open an enormous crater in the middle of a city? This is often understood as an act of war.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  18. Re:I don't understand by poity · · Score: 1

    Probably because there were other civilians in the compound, namely Osama bin Laden's wife and kids. Maybe the overriding motivation then was to not make people related to Osama into new martyr figures, and maybe secondary motivations are that the US doesn't want to cause unnecessary casualties, or maybe they were targets of arrest but the 2 choppers left over couldn't fit them on and the US was hoping Pakistan would arrest them and perhaps hand them over later (probably not gonna happen).

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  19. Re:I don't understand by joocemann · · Score: 1

    We are in Pakistan with cooperation, not invasion. Your idea is retarded.

  20. Re:You mean one can make helicopters less noisy? by AF_Cheddar_Head · · Score: 1

    Well, usually making a helicopter quieter reduces its performance. Possibly why this one had problems.

  21. Re:I don't understand by Riceballsan · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the lack of ability to confirm or deny success. What evidence would you bring forward to the american people. "We just incinerated a building we are 95% sure osama bin laden was inside", or "We have his body, DNA tested it against his sisters DNA and confirmed it was him"

  22. Re:You mean one can make helicopters less noisy? by SJHillman · · Score: 1

    Sure, if you want to be the one to pay for it... Quiet doesn't come cheap.

  23. Why all the worry? by bradgoodman · · Score: 2

    Our good friends and allies, the Pakistanis, are just going to give us back the helicopter, and protect it's secrets from our enemies... right?

    1. Re:Why all the worry? by VirginMary · · Score: 1

      "and protect it is secrets" What does that even mean?

      --
      When 1person suffers from a delusion,it is called insanity.When many people suffer from a delusion,it is called religion
    2. Re:Why all the worry? by Xelios · · Score: 2

      Look at it from their perspective, 'good friends and allies' don't launch covert military operations into your country without at least informing you first. Maybe the US had good reasons not to, but it's not very fair to pull something like this then turn around and point fingers when the operation doesn't go quite as planned.

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    3. Re:Why all the worry? by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      Any AC posts correcting spelling or punctuation should result in a immediate IP range block. What a fucking douche.

    4. Re:Why all the worry? by bradgoodman · · Score: 1

      Huh? Who's pointing fingers? And you have to remember - ONE tiny little leak would have blown the entire operation! This was kept extremely secret even with the US Government. It had to be kept to within the highest secrecy. Can you honestly say that NOT ONE INDIVIDUAL in Pakistan knew that he was there? And of any who did - not one of them had any government ties to whom information may have leaked in or out of? Given the stakes involved - what options were there? Even the former Chief of Intelligence in Pakistan doesn't believe the raid actually killed Bin Laden, the US is lying, and the whole thing was a farces. With this kind of sentiment, can you see why it went down like it did? What if we did ask Pakistan. What if they denied the US access? What if they insisted on carrying out "their own investigation", or doing taking care of the matter themselves? The US could not jeopardize this by taking any of these chances.

    5. Re:Why all the worry? by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      Yup, even for moderate pakistanis the current government looks like made of american peons, the last thing they need is a overt request from the american government to hand over the remains, it will make them to lose even more legitimacy in their countrymen eyes and make the operation blowback in a big way.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    6. Re:Why all the worry? by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      Fair? No. But diplomatic relations aren't always fair. And "give us back our chopper pieces or you don't get your $1.5 billion/year in military aid" has a certain persuasiveness to it.

    7. Re:Why all the worry? by evildarkdeathclicheo · · Score: 1

      The crash is just a ruse and FUD to cover up the fact that they used super-secret teleporters to get in there and murder the guy.

  24. Re:I don't understand by jgtg32a · · Score: 2

    Actually just sending troop into a country is an act of war; it's also considered good etiquette not to announce to the world when you do, do it.

  25. Whisper Mode by GaelTadh · · Score: 1

    So all those crazy conspiracy theorists were right.
    We DO have black helicopters with whisper mode.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xf17mCO1Rs#t=3m27s

    --
    Search your logs like the web: splunk!
    1. Re:Whisper Mode by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      You want to know the "real" conspiracy? In that clip, they used the code word "Geronimo" used for the operation that used "whisper mode" helicopters ... coincidence? I think NOT!

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  26. the bigger puzzle by catmistake · · Score: 2

    How did they fit 24 commandos, 4 pilots, a dog, a body, and retrieved materials into the remaining stealth Blackhawk? Did the military developed stealth midget commandos for this mission?

    1. Re:the bigger puzzle by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Informative

      Two Chinook helicopters followed the two stealth helicopters. This was intended so that the SEALs could make a ground escape if necessary (to be picked up nearby).

      One or both of those likely picked up the other SEALs.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:the bigger puzzle by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      How did they fit 24 commandos, 4 pilots, a dog, a body, and retrieved materials into the remaining stealth Blackhawk? Did the military developed stealth midget commandos for this mission?

      See comment 36048786

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:the bigger puzzle by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Two Chinook helicopters followed the two stealth helicopters. This was intended so that the SEALs could make a ground escape if necessary (to be picked up nearby).

      One or both of those likely picked up the other SEALs.

      Thanks. hmm... then why didn't the Pakistanis shoot down the Chinooks? Got a link?

    4. Re:the bigger puzzle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Pakistanis might be fair weather allies *cough*, but they're not that stupid.

    5. Re:the bigger puzzle by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2

      If we flew over hundreds of miles of Pakistani airspace with freaking Chinooks, why did we bother with stealth helicopters in the first place? Was it just to reduce the noise of inserting the commandos? Chinooks are possibly the least stealthy and most obvious aircraft that the Navy operates. SAM technology from the 50's could take them down. If we were using Chinooks, it's 100% clear that we had the full cooperation of Pakistani air defenses.

    6. Re:the bigger puzzle by WuphonsReach · · Score: 2

      Was it just to reduce the noise of inserting the commandos?

      Yes.

      My impression is that once the cat is out of the bag (after the assault team is inserted), there's not as much worry about telling the host country that those Chinooks are not actually on a training flight, but are going to land and extract a team.

      Most of the secrecy was probably aimed at not letting OBL get away, either by directly alerting him, or by alerting any spies that he had placed in the local command structure.

      (Was it hundreds of miles? I thought they launched from a US base nearby? I confess that I was more interested in puzzling over the pictures then paying attention to the mission profile.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    7. Re:the bigger puzzle by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      As someone up-thread posted, odds are good that the U.S. called up Pakistan and said "Oh by the way, we're sending in some choppers, don't even think of shooting them down", but did so *after* they had boots on the ground inside the compound.

      Given that a single phone call could blow this mission, absolute stealth and secrecy was required, but once the gunfire starts, there's no need to be subtle.

    8. Re:the bigger puzzle by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The stealth was required first so as not to get shot down by Pakistani air defense units, because they couldn't be trusted to tell them ahead of time that we were going in. Once the SEAL mission was underway, the Pakistani government was informed that 2 large and noisy Chinooks would be following, and requested that they not be shot at. Stealth no longer needed.

    9. Re:the bigger puzzle by jittles · · Score: 1

      Like I said above, if they had sent in a chinook they would have just sling loaded the downed helicopter out of pakistan. It would have been a walk in the park for them.

    10. Re:the bigger puzzle by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Like I said above, if they had sent in a chinook they would have just sling loaded the downed helicopter out of pakistan. It would have been a walk in the park for them.

      I kind of wish that's they did... instead of leaving the tail assembly behind. Annoys me that there will be Chinese agents there offering Pakistan tons of money for our secret property. It would have been far cooler if there was no evidence left behind, and everyone would be left asking how the heck they did it... putting fear into our enemies, leading them to believe no air defense can stop us.

    11. Re:the bigger puzzle by dbIII · · Score: 1

      They probably didn't think some unannounced helicopters from an allied nation was worth starting a war over.
      It's a bit of a worry that you even suggested that actually. Your media really needs to stop deliberately stirring up the fear and inflicting creeping paranoia on large numbers of people.

    12. Re:the bigger puzzle by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily cooperation. There were probably a lot of phone calls along the lines of "WTF are your Chinooks doing?". India doesn't have Chinooks. The taliban, other Afgan forces and rebels in Pakistan don't have Chinooks. If you know something can not be from a hostile force because nothing else looks remotely like it why shoot?
      Maybe the stealth helicopters went in to the target first while the Chinooks were out of earshot.

    13. Re:the bigger puzzle by dbIII · · Score: 1

      They can lift a lot but I don't know how heavy the downed helicopter was, how hard it would be to get it out from where it was down, how long it would take etc, etc. If it was me and a Chinook couldn't get it out I'd surround it with ground troops, cover it in a big tarp and wait for a bulldozer and truck from the resources that the USA has within an hours drive of the place. But then again, people that know far more about what they are doing than I probably just considered the helicopter disposable and wanted the operation over ASAP.
      There's a story that the Australian Army came back from Vietnam with one more Iroquois helicopter than they sent because the US forces considered them disposable after relatively minor crashes and the Australian ground crew had some trucks and a bit of spare time.

    14. Re:the bigger puzzle by jittles · · Score: 1

      It only takes minutes for the flight engineer to hook up the sling. They often sling load downed helis in Iraq. I'm not sure about Afghanistan, I haven't asked. There are several war damaged Chinooks in the hanger at my work, however, and they are not in flyable shape. So I don't think they consider these things to be terribly disposable.

    15. Re:the bigger puzzle by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      I think that they considered the lives of the marines more important than the helicopter. That wouldn't have saved the tail anyway; the tail broke off on the other side of the compound wall, so it would have needed to be loaded separately, by marines who left the safety of the walled compound.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  27. Re:You mean one can make helicopters less noisy? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

    If people could do it, they would. Noise is wasted energy. Wasted energy is greater fuel consumption.

    The trade off making it quieter is presumably that you get less thrust to move the chopper around with. There are suggestions that this lack of manoeuvrability is what caused the crash in the first place.

  28. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by maxume · · Score: 1

    Doesn't make a sound? I bet "less noisy" is a much better description of it.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  29. creepy and exciting tech by smellsofbikes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The first time I heard about this whole mission, I thought, whoah, American helicopters managed to fly 150 km into Pakistan without being noticed? Pakistan isn't a slouch when it comes to military equipment: they've fought several wars with India, and are used to trying to track some of the finest military hardware in the world. Yet two helicopters flew in, invisibly. It sounds like they were supported by two Chinooks, that came in a bit later, and those *were* seen by the Pakistani air defense, but the first group in weren't seen. A lot of other countries are going to want to figure out how we did this.

    There have been a lot of US projects in making low-observable helicopters, from the modified Hughes OH6 Loach used to surreptitiously place wiretaps on lines during Vietnam, that also used increased numbers of blades, and the cancelled RAH-66 Comanche, that was supposed to be quiet and have a vastly reduced radar signature. The ones used Monday are probably Blackhawks modified based on the stuff learned from the Comanche, but they could be completely new aircraft: the descriptions of the amount of personnel and material taken in are at the very edge of what two stock Blackhawks could carry, and adding lots of stealth technology adds a *lot* of weight.

    Among other interesting things I've read and observed: the stock Blackhawk is manufactured with sheets of aluminum riveted together along the edges, like most planes. The pictures show rivetless construction, and in one picture it looks like there's a long weld seam that appears to have been done by hand rather than machine, making me think there are a very small number of prototypes of this. I also saw a link somewhere, that I can't find now, to a press release by a company who was adding small servos into the collector linkages that added continuous slight variance to the blade angle, to minimize noise by distributing it across different frequencies, which seems pretty cool. I've even seen a few claims that the whole aircraft was covered in material that could emit low levels of light, to blend it visually against a lighted sky (a technique used back in WWII by putting headlights on the leading edges of aircraft wings so that they could dive-bomb submarines without being seen until it was too late for the sub to dive. This was distinct from the british Leigh lights, that were used in after-dark attacks along with radar.)

    I'm betting a whole lot of people are bidding on the wreckage that was recovered -- which is, itself, surprising, at least to me, because it sounds like the commandoes were able to completely destroy the whole main fuselage, leaving just the tail. Under the hurried circumstances that's pretty surprising. (I wouldn't be surprised to find out they actually hooked it to one of the Chinooks and dragged it out along with them.)

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:creepy and exciting tech by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      The mission was launched from an air base near Ghazi in Pakistan, a distance of under 80 km. The operational challenge was that the team had to fly north west, *away* from the Afghan border. The flight time is around 20 minutes each way, plus time spent on the ground. And you still have the challenge of transporting the body another 1500 km south after the mission to dump it into the Arabian Sea. I assume they had extensive air cover for that secondary mission to prevent Pakistan from responding.

    2. Re:creepy and exciting tech by kenrblan · · Score: 1

      It seems like everyone is forgetting that the US has standing arrangements with Pakistan for overflight. It is very likely that portions of the mission were known by the Pakistani Military in advance. Perhaps some elements of the plans were slightly misleading to make sure the target wasn't compromised. This incident is not like the US sneaking helicopters into Moscow during the cold war or something.

      --
      Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
    3. Re:creepy and exciting tech by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      A lot of other countries are going to want to figure out how we did this.

      Not to sound too obvious, but, uh, with stealth helicopters?

    4. Re:creepy and exciting tech by bazorg · · Score: 1

      [...]It sounds like they were supported by two Chinooks, that came in a bit later, and those *were* seen by the Pakistani air defense, but the first group in weren't seen. A lot of other countries are going to want to figure out how we did this.

      I suspect that a phone call from Obama might make a few helicopters 100% invisible to radar for a reasonable period of time.

    5. Re:creepy and exciting tech by failedlogic · · Score: 1

      SEALS have some really specialized equipment. So do a lot of the other SPEC-OPS teams from what I've seen in the public. SPEC-OPS gets its own budget that they can kind of do whatever they want with it. So because of what they do and getting their own budget, they are said to build small batches of their own equipment. I'm sure paratroopers in WW II and SAS back in the day would have done the same. Not unlinke probably the spy agencies too. Come to think of it, wasn't the U-2 a CIA project?

    6. Re:creepy and exciting tech by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

      [...]It sounds like they were supported by two Chinooks, that came in a bit later, and those *were* seen by the Pakistani air defense, but the first group in weren't seen. A lot of other countries are going to want to figure out how we did this.

      I suspect that a phone call from Obama might make a few helicopters 100% invisible to radar for a reasonable period of time.

      ... and been followed shortly by another phone call from someone working at the air defense unit to someone who knows someone who lets the target know about it, because that's the underlying problem with this whole situation.

      I'm guessing that in the last two years there have been a lot of US radar operators working with Pakistani radar operators to coordinate air traffic involving US drones and spyplanes with Pakistani traffic, and the US radar operators were spending a lot of time watching just where US aircraft could fly with good radar return signatures and where they were really hard to see. Coordination of overflights with the radar operators would be easy to manage, but much more difficult for the Pakistani operators to realize that the US was mapping the Pakistani radar defense system like wardrivers map wifi.

      --
      Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    7. Re:creepy and exciting tech by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      Tony Stark can buy back his own advanced technology.

  30. Re:If it crashed its not stealth anymore by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

    If it crashed its not stealth anymore.

    Nonsense, if anything it's less likely to be spotted on radar...

    --
    Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  31. Intriguing but not so secret by kjellmaster+9000 · · Score: 1

    It looks like the helicopter is a Blackhawk retrofitted with stealth components from the Commanche program. The Commanche program was quite public and nearly two years away from completion before it was cancelled. The technology has been around for a while, I just think it's crazy that they strapped America's flying cow with super sexy stealth technology.

  32. um... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Since this guy and his friends could hear the whole thing from several kilometers away, I doubt it was stealth at all... If it was, it sucked.

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110501/23343014105/interesting-world-man-unwittingly-live-tweets-raid-that-killed-osama-bin-laden.shtml

    1. Re:um... by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Since this guy and his friends could hear the whole thing from several kilometers away, I doubt it was stealth at all... If it was, it sucked.

      He probably heard the Chinooks not the modified Blackhawks

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:um... by Relayman · · Score: 1

      As someone previously pointed out, Stealth = quiet for helicopters. They already have the ability to fly under radar.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    3. Re:um... by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      Well, based on that guy's tweets and what I've read of another guy who lives in the town it seems they heard the second pair of helicopters, not the first. In both cases they hear the helicopters shortly followed by an explosion. That implies they heard nothing related to the initial raid.

  33. Stealth in, Chinooks out by raehl · · Score: 3, Informative

    Two stealth helicopters got them in; they had two helicopters in reserve to get them out.

  34. What if the helicopter hadn't crashed? by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if the world would have heard of this event if that helicopter hadn't have crashed. When that helicopter crashed and left a section of somewhat identifiable wreckage, the US lost capability for plausible denial. They had to tell the world.

    I also have to wonder if, given the number of helicopters (two modified Black Hawks and two Chinooks), the original mission was just a capture mission. With this kind of carrying capacity, they could have removed everyone in the compound that wasn't killed in the initial raid. They would have landed the SEAL team first with the stealth Black Hawks, pulled out the Black Hawks and then followed that up a while later with a Chinook or two to pull out captives and the SEAL team. With no-one alive in the compound, the US would have had some degree of plausible deniability. On top of that, they'd have a large number of presumably senior al-Quaeda members to interrogate.

    Instead, the crashed helicopter would have taken out a large chunk of the LZ (leaving no landing space for a Chinook), it would have taken up crew to dispose of the wreckage and tend to any wounded from the crash. Combine this with an already limited timeframe and being stuck with only one aircraft to remove the SEAL team and Bin Laden, and this may have suddenly become a kill mission.

    1. Re:What if the helicopter hadn't crashed? by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      That is brilliant. This might the reason for the WH story shifting around.

    2. Re:What if the helicopter hadn't crashed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      this is actually a very good point. if the chopper hadn't been left behind, leaving evidence that it was obviously the Americans at work, then we may have never even known this event had taken place.

      not sure what that would do for anyone (keeping bin laden's death secret), but i suspect the Bush admin might have used that to their advantage...

    3. Re:What if the helicopter hadn't crashed? by NimbleSquirrel · · Score: 1

      This was a BlackOp. Why else were they using SEAL Team 6 (a team that supposedly didn't exist) and modified Blackhawks (that also supposedly didn't exist) unless this was a capture and go? A regular SEAL team and regular Blackhawks would have worked for a kill mission.

      They left plenty of people alive in the compound, surely if this was a kill mission they'd all be dead so that no-one could point the finger back to the US. Plausible deniability.

      If this was a kill mission, why would they have Chinooks? All the team, plus Bin Laden's corpse managed to fit in a single modified Blackhawk. Chinooks would have been unnecessary and even extremely risky given the small size of the LZ.

      I'm willing to bet that the original plan was to capture everyone in the compound, including Bin Laden. I suspect that killing Bin Laden was the last thing they wanted to do. Yes, the US and most of the world has celebrated. But now they have effectively martyred Bin Laden and plenty of Muslim fundamentalists are now planning a retaliation. If this had been a covert capture, Bin Laden wouldn't have been martyred, they would have senior al-Quaeda captives to interrogate and there would be no rallying point for fundamentalists to retaliate.

      Yes, I agree it would have been a three ring circus if Bin Laden had been publicly captured. The public would have demanded his execution, and he would have been martyred anyway. However, if he had been covertly captured he would just have disappeared into a CIA holding facility, and the world would know nothing. At some point, when it is most convenient for the Administration, his capture could have then been made public.

      This mission was never a public mission. It was a BlackOp. They just fcuked it up.

    4. Re:What if the helicopter hadn't crashed? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      My God, a bin-Laden-related conspiracy theory I can believe in!

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  35. Don't believe everything you read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It wasn't an MH-60. It was a SH-60. The tail is hinged so it can be stowed easily aboard an aircraft carrier.

    There were no stealth features. The mission to run it the previous night was CANCELLED because of clear skies. Stealth helicopters don't care about clear skies.

    The helicopter was SHOT DOWN BY AN RPG. RPGs don't hit stealth helicopters.

    The SEAL team blew up the avionics and control systems but left the superstructure there. Stealth helicopters get airlifted by any of the two CH-47s that were providing cover.

    Other than Airwolf and Blue Thunder, helicopters are big things with a main-rotor that moves lots of air, makes lots of noise, and is not invisible to RADAR. They have bodies suspended underneath that main-rotor that are not invisible to RADAR. (Kudos to Josh for pointing out these two helicopters... )

    I appreciate that the US media would like to pretend there's some magic stealth helicopter (it was painted black... does that count?) but there isn't.

    I hold a rotorcraft license.
    I've studied helicopters for decades.
    I'm familiar with the difference between an MH-60 and an SH-60 and a UH-60. (Hint: they are all version of Sikorsky S-70, and commonly are called Blackhawks or in the SH-60 case Seahawks).
    I am not currently in the employ of any US military agency nor a contractor.

    E

    1. Re:Don't believe everything you read by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

      Uhh, what?

      Google the freaking pictures. It wasn't an MH-60 or an SH-60. The shapes are all wrong. The tail rotor is just weird
      Stealth deals mostly with sound and radar. Good cloud cover will help someone from seeing you with the mark 1 eyeball.
      RPG's are (very) unguided. They hit or miss depending on the skill, or more often luck, of the user. They don't give a crap about stealth. Plus I haven't heard any claim that it was hit by an RPG.

      Oh, and it really wasn't even black.

    2. Re:Don't believe everything you read by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The helicopter was SHOT DOWN BY AN RPG. RPGs don't hit stealth helicopters.

      Wow, as much as I hate seeing [citation needed] I'm going to say, [citation needed]

      You are wrong on two accounts. First, nobody anywhere has reported the helicopter was shot down by an RPG. Second, an RPG is a point-and-shoot weapon. Stealth would not prevent somebody from pointing an RPG at the helicopter and shooting it. Stealth DOES prevent radar guided munitions from finding their target, but when you have bad guy looking at the bird, aiming, then pulling the trigger, that rocket is going the direction it was pointed and no amount of STEALTH is going to prevent it from being hit (if the aim is on target).

    3. Re:Don't believe everything you read by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

      Stealth doesn't have anything to do with being hit with an unguided RPG. RPG's are a pot shot weapon, fire and forget. No guidance, No avionics, no control capabilities. What evidence do you have that the helicopter was hit by an RPG? There were no accounts of this at all.

      Way to join the conjecture (because that's all any of this is), but really?

      --
      "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
    4. Re:Don't believe everything you read by jittles · · Score: 1

      They don't paint the helicopters black. They paint them OD Green. I can tell you that at night, they might as well be black. I've seen one do touch and goes at an army airfield and from 50 feet away I had no idea where it was by sight. They had the navigation lights flashing every few seconds, and that was all that gave it away.

  36. Re:I don't understand by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

    Probably because there were other civilians in the compound, namely Osama bin Laden's wife and kids. Maybe the overriding motivation then was to not make people related to Osama into new martyr figures, and maybe secondary motivations are that the US doesn't want to cause unnecessary casualties, or maybe they were targets of arrest but the 2 choppers left over couldn't fit them on and the US was hoping Pakistan would arrest them and perhaps hand them over later (probably not gonna happen).

    Supposedly there was a plan to do it with bombs a while back, but they decided on a raid in order to (a) minimize civilian casualties, and (b) make sure there was a body to identify.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  37. Live blogger by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the guy live blogging it on Twitter saying that "The noise alarmed him"? Not sure the "stealthy" part worked out so well.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:Live blogger by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Think that a normal helicopter makes enougth noise to you locate then miles away. But when you can hear the "stealth" version, he is already above you.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    2. Re:Live blogger by treerex · · Score: 1

      I was just going to ask the question, but then it occurred to me that he may have been hearing the Chinooks that came in behind the original force... pretty hard to silence them.

    3. Re:Live blogger by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Quiet is a relative term

  38. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Doesn't make a sound, "

    Except for all that wind being blown around by the ginormous fan.

    Hmm honey, why suddenly is all the dust in the alleyway being blown around like a tornado just hit?

    Even if they could do silent, you're not going to be within 1000 feet of your target without them knowing exactly where you are.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  39. The finest tech from 20 years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The shape is not a big deal. Faceting a body is done by everybody now to reduce radar cross section. It was already done, by the US, as far back as 1988 on the RAH-66 Comanche program, flying in 1996. It is actually less advanced than the Comanche, considering its using an external tail rotor over an integrated fan unit. Other necessary features like retractable landing gear, a lack of seams, etc, are all common knowledge. You can buy this knowledge on the open market, at the end of the day, it's just math.

    The composite materials are not a particularly big loss either. They've been lost before, across multiple stealth generations, from drones over the soviet union as far back as the 70s, to the shot down F-117 pieces which ended up on the black market.

  40. Re:I don't understand by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Ok then a single bunker buster into the center of the compound. No civillian casualties as the explosion would have been contained by the compound walls. but everything inside would have been blown to 1/8th inch bits and ejected up into the air.... Little pieces of Osama all over the place...

    They did it this way to get all the intel. All the hard drives are worth far far more than the talking meat head. Al-Quieda is screwed hard.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  41. Re:I don't understand by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    WE could easily take out every single Pakistan base and silo before they even had time to fart. They may be a nuclear power, but they are no threat at all for retaliation as we can easily overwhelm them so fast they wouldn't even get a plane off the ground.

    Honestly this strike is a great example of how bad their military is. 4 VERY LARGE helicopters flew under their radar into their biggest military city and got out of the country before they even scrambled one jet.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  42. Re:Since the USA = Nazi Germany... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    European Citizen #486432154 please go outside and surrender to the UAV above your home. you will be taken back to a Patriotism enforcement camp until you are fit for return to society...

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  43. Re:HD version of the video. by darkjohnson · · Score: 1

    Actually, mine isn't fake or a rick roll, just a nerd being just that.

  44. Re:Since the USA = Nazi Germany... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Other countries have low observable technology, the Russians, French, Swedes, Israelis and Chinese come to mind immediately.

    The Saab/BAe Gripen has a lowered radar cross-section, as does the Dassault Rafale, Israelis have been working on LO for drones, the Russian for helicopters and fighters, same for the Chinese.

    The US however has the much greater industrial base and military spending to build many more LO aircraft.
    France has 93 reduced cross section Rafales, the US has 400 F/A-18E/F, 168 F-22, 66 B-1B, and 18 B-2A - all are stealth or reduced cross section.

    When the Russian Federation gets their new stealth F-22 in production, if recent history is any indicator, they'll only be able to build a few, likely less than 100, China also has trouble mass producing cutting edge aircraft.

    As for forcing the USA to get rid of nuclear technology, how exactly would you press that agenda against the most technologically advanced military and intelligence apparatus on the planet?

  45. Re:You mean one can make helicopters less noisy? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1
  46. Re:I don't understand by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

    Not to mention that the compound was in the middle of a rich suburban neighborhood. Pakistan was understandably miffed that we violated their airspace and conducted a military raid in the middle of their country, but we get a certain amount of pass on that becasue of the nature of the target and the egg they have on their collective faces for not taking care of this themselves. Dropping aircraft bombs on the equivalent of Bel Air would be a little tougher to paper over (and contrary to our "minimal civilian casualties" policy for sure).

    --
    I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
  47. Re:I don't understand by yurtinus · · Score: 1

    ...in cooperation. Is the US military awful because we allow the Canadian Snowbirds to fly into our major cities without scrambling any jets?

    --
    +1 Disagree
  48. Quiet Helicopter? Hardly. by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

    According to the tweets about the incident, as it happened, if we've got a stealthy, quiet super-secret high-tech helicopter here, then I think we might have overpaid for it. Check out the article, and then read the tweets: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/05/02/osama.twitter.reports/index.html?hpt=Sbin

  49. Re:I don't understand by budgenator · · Score: 1

    Daisy Cutters will not fit into a B-52, they are too big and heavy, neither will the MOAB.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  50. Re:Quiet Helicopter? Hardly. by __aagmrb7289 · · Score: 1

    According to the tweets about the incident, as it happened, if we've got a stealthy, quiet super-secret high-tech helicopter here, then I think we might have overpaid for it. Check out the article, and then read the tweets: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/05/02/osama.twitter.reports/index.html?hpt=Sbin

    Whoops - I see this has already been answered ad naseum. Please ignore my post as you should. That's all - thanks.

  51. "retire early ... to his newly purchased mansion" by Quila · · Score: 1

    I hear there's one in Abbottabad that recently became available.

  52. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by treeves · · Score: 1

    1000 feet?
    Right, so a few (like 4) seconds after you realize they're coming, they're there. No time to react.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  53. Chinese had these 'secrets' long ago by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Fresh from US Defense Department contractor computers.

  54. It was worth it. by Animats · · Score: 1

    You have to use your secret military advantage to get value from it. The time to do that is when taking out the target is worth more than keeping the secret.

    This op was worth it.

    "Those five thousand ships, you say the Allies can't possibly have, they've got them! " - Maj. Werner Pluskat, defensive bunker, Normandy coast, June 6, 1944.

  55. Re:I don't understand by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

    the Pakis>

    Gee, mass murder not enough for you, so you gotta throw in a racial slur as well?

    I had to look that one up. Is that actually a racial slur anywhere outside of Britain?

  56. Really? by geekprime · · Score: 1

    We have gps guided missiles that can hit the window in a building from 70 miles (or more) away and someone dosen't think that if there WAS something that presented a risk of exposure that that wreckage wouldn't have been blown to literal flinders shortly after the strike force took off? Really?

    1. Re:Really? by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      We have gps guided missiles that can hit the window in a building from 70 miles (or more) away and someone dosen't think that if there WAS something that presented a risk of exposure that that wreckage wouldn't have been blown to literal flinders shortly after the strike force took off? Really?

      I think you're overestimating how fast you can setup a GPS guided cruise missle that can get from its launch point to the target point without hitting anything between.

      I would guess at least an hour to prep and launch. Maybe a few hours, depending on how many obstacles you have to tell the thing to dodge or how tricky the insertion route has to be.

      That's based on the assumption that GPS is only for making sure that it's on the assigned route and hitting the right target. AFAIK, route-planning is not automated and since it's not a ballistic missile, you can't just lob it in the general direction of the target.

      And explosions don't destroy stuff reliably, they just toss it around. Destruction of the helicopter parts within the compound was probably done with fuel and some sort of incendiaries (or a match). Maybe with more energetic burning (thermite) in the compartments that contained sensitive equipment.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  57. On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Another view is that by the time the military is allowing "advanced tech" to be seen in theater or in public, it is already far enough along the lifecycle that we don't care if it is divulged. I.e. the F-117 was already an obsolete machine when it was lost in Serbia, and perhaps this helicopter was also similarly obsolete before it got picked for a very high profile mission.

    We probably wouldn't risk exposure of real secret stuff unless our backs were against a wall, and long-term strategic release of info is no longer a basis for decisions (think World War 3, not anti-terror skirmish #582). But recall, even in World War 2, the lore says that tactical losses allowed to fail in order to protect strategic secrets... there is rarely a situation so dire that strategy is off the table.

    1. Re:On the other hand... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      What's the point in *having* the secret stuff if you don't use it (e.g. in real military situations)?

    2. Re:On the other hand... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      In case it's needed for an actual war instead of pretending to be the world's police.

    3. Re:On the other hand... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Finding someone responsible for killing ~3000 innocent citizens isn't a valid use?

    4. Re:On the other hand... by Imrik · · Score: 1

      The tech in question isn't much use for finding him. As for eliminating him you only use your best tech if that's what is required to complete the mission. In this particular case our best tech would most likely have been overkill.

    5. Re:On the other hand... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

      > Finding someone responsible for killing ~3000 innocent citizens isn't a valid use?

      In the event of a major war, 3000 innocent civilians are pocket change. They're innocent, and we care about them, but they are nothing compared to the casualties you would deal with if there were a real war between major powers. When they're already dead, their lives are also a sunk cost. I like that we killed Osama--I would have preferred a trial, and that we treat him like a common thug, but it's good he'd dead. We should have used relatively stealthy equipment going in to avoid anyone realizing we were there--but we also should have been sure to destroy what we left behind of that tech.

      It's kind of like the Coventry situation, except on a smaller scale--Churchill knew there would be a major bombing the next day, but could not effectively warn people without revealing the allies had cracked enigma. It would have been legitimate to warn people, sure, but it also would have been very short-sighted.

      --
      -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  58. look at this fuel cap: by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/05/06/world/06helicopter.html

    what this tells me is that design went into making sure it wouldn't be easy for a random individual to open the fuel cap, and tamper with fuel. it also tells me that all these fuel caps have to be replaced, because now the ratchet with the right face needed open this fuel cap can be produced by our enemies for perhaps covert sabotage

    and this is just the damned fuel cap!

    imagine all the other intel this downed copter produces

    it's definitely a loss. but in the larger scheme of killing bin laden, an acceptable sacrifice

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:look at this fuel cap: by treeves · · Score: 1

      From looking at that picture what do you gather is so special about that fuel cap? The most significant thing I see is the capacity of the fuel tank.
      To me, it looks like you just pull out the recessed tab and turn it by hand in the direction indicated by the arrow to open it.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  59. Re:I don't understand by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    Little unrecognizable pieces of Osama all over the place...

    Fixed that for you. They did it this way to be sure they'd got the right guy, not so much for the intel.

  60. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by CyberDruid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That twitter guy who became famous for live-tweeting the raid when he was annoyed by a helicopter certainly seemed to have heard it.

    --

    Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

  61. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by Americano · · Score: 1

    A helicopter trying to hover and correct for down- and up-drafts, making lots of noise in plain sight over the trees a few thousand yards away from its target would make a terrible platform for a sniper to fire from. The point of a sniper is to deliver precisely-targeted shots from cover at a long range, not burning off clip after clip in full view of god & country until you hit something because the elevation and angle of your firing platform keeps shifting from second to second.

    A "hovering" helicopter still has a lot of jitter. A "quiet" helicopter still makes quite a bit of noise. A "stealthy" helicopter isn't invisible to the human eye at 2000 yards.

  62. Re:I don't understand by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Ok then a single bunker buster into the center of the compound. No civillian casualties as the explosion would have been contained by the compound walls. but everything inside would have been blown to 1/8th inch bits and ejected up into the air.... Little pieces of Osama all over the place...

    You wouldn't use a bunker buster against a facility that isn't armored. The bunker buster would have driven itself a hundred feet into the ground and detonated creating a giant sink hole taking out the entire neighborhood.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  63. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by Hijacked+Public · · Score: 1

    can hover over a Window or get a nice line of sight, seems perfect for sniper type assassination missions to me.

    From a retired 0311/8541, your scenario is fantasy.

    I've mentioned riding in quiet helicopters before and been told by people who couldn't find them on Jane's that they do not exist. But quiet or not, hovering in front of a window so a man can deliver precision fire is not their application.

    --
    "Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
  64. Re:The cover up should scare the pants off you by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    Somebody please mod Mr. Time Cube up. Best use of an hallucinogenic substance today!

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  65. Re:I don't understand by Jamu · · Score: 1

    Isn't that just short for Pakistani?

    --
    Who ordered that?
  66. Re:I don't understand by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

    I agree with Black Parrot:
    http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2131892&cid=36048998

    It is more likely that the top brass from the pakistani military was told of who was the dead target and that it was better for them to not lift a finger until the whole thing was over, because if it was because weakness, then the indian military can crush the pakistanis too, a bad prospect considering that both sides have their fair share of ultranationalist loons.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  67. Re:I don't understand by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

    That's what I thought. A quick search seems to indicate it's somewhat more derogatory in certain areas.

  68. Re:I don't understand by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Should have just nuked 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  69. So What? by hduff · · Score: 2

    Any kind of mechanical device, out out in the real world, will eventually make it into the hands of the "enemy".
    There have always been technology transfers via this mechanism.
    If it was so damn important, it shoud never have been put into the field.

    --
    "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    1. Re:So What? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course, if it's never deployed, it's value is zero.

  70. Re:I don't understand by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    Considering the situation in Pakistan, and large amount of "caring" that US military leadership shows towards civilian deaths through its actions (rather then words), the correct order would look like this:

    (a) make sure there is a body to id
    (b) intel ... ... ...
    (z) minimize civilian casualties

  71. Re:You mean one can make helicopters less noisy? by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    That was a really good article. I had noticed that the tail rotor photos from the news showed blades that seemed unevenly spaced. I figured some of them had broken off, but from that article:

    Since the acoustic frequencies associated with the rotating blades are directly related to the blade spacing, intuitively the use of unevenly spaced blades holds the potential of lower sound levels and less perceptibility.

  72. Re:I don't understand by TheBig1 · · Score: 1

    the Pakis>

    Gee, mass murder not enough for you, so you gotta throw in a racial slur as well?

    I had to look that one up. Is that actually a racial slur anywhere outside of Britain?

    Canada. Didn't know that it originated in UK, but that makes sense I suppose, given our linguistic roots...

  73. Re:I don't understand by AI0867 · · Score: 1

    Actually, the technique of creating a hole with a bunker buster and then destroying anything left in the crater with a normal bomb was used quite a bit in Iraq. It allows for the destruction of the contents of a building with minimal (perhaps the neighbours' houses) collateral damage.
    In this case, the compound's walls might have contained the blast.

  74. Surprise! by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    The most elite unit of the special forces get special equipment...wow, could have ever imagined that?

    What a seriously boring non-story.

  75. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    It's not a fan. They are airfoils, they operate the same way an airplane's wings do.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  76. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by Imrik · · Score: 1

    Though that may have been the Chinooks that came in later, no way to tell.

  77. Re:I don't understand by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Wow, I never would have guessed that bomb wouldn't fit into one of the biggest bombers the US has ever built...you actually have to drop it out of a cargo plane...just wow...

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  78. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    1. Magazine, not clip. Unless this is 1930, and you happen to be Russian.
    2. A hover is hard. A slow predictable glide is not. That glide can be trained for, and probably even electronically calculated.
    3. 1 and 2 aside, you're right - sniping from an aircraft is silly. You'd do a better job just hopping on a UH-60's minigun and hosing the whole building down.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  79. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    The point of stealth is to be invisible to radar, as it is impractical to worry about stealthing a helicopter from view or from being heard.

  80. Re:I don't understand by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    I would hope the majority of civilians within ear shot of the raid would have been far away from the exploding helicopter by the time the B-52 strikes came.

  81. Re:Uhhhhhh by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Exactly. I'm trying to figure out where people are drawing the conclusion that Pakistan has the parts and are going to be selling them off to China.

  82. Re:I don't understand by Maritz · · Score: 1

    I mostly see British media and I recall a mild stink when Bush II used the term 'paki' at one point. In Britain/Ireland it's definitely considered offensive, not sure about other places. Right up there with the N word and the likes.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  83. Re:"retire early ... to his newly purchased mansio by MrNiceguy_KS · · Score: 1

    Mansion for sale: Damaged outer wall, newly installed ventilation, one wall has large stain.

    --
    Redundancy is good And also good.
  84. Age old tech/mech proverb... by Heretic2 · · Score: 1

    Higher performance = higher maintenance = less reliability.

    It had all these nifty features, but one in three of them crashed during mission. I hope they take the secrets and use them so their shit will start crashing too. Gratz on unreliably high-performance.

  85. Radar signatures by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

    Humans with parachutes can actually have a larger radar signature than most modern stealth aircraft. Typically a stealth jet is attributed to the radar signature of a bird or smaller (perhaps an unladen african swallow?). No clue about a helicopter with stealth features, but it's safe to say that it's likely similar.

    --
    "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
  86. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Anything that moves air is a fan, and the rotors move air. Whether you are using a feather or an airfoil, any device moving air is a fan. Even "fanless" ionic air filters are fans, just without moving parts.

  87. What about the main rotors? by scdeimos · · Score: 1

    Everyone's focused on the tail rotors, probably because the tail section is all we're seeing in photos of the crashed helo. Most of the noise, though, comes from the main rotors and engine noise reflected off of them. Whatever stealthy helo they were flying it was most likely using Eurocopter Blue Edge blades, or something similar, like this concept shows here.

  88. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    fan (noun)
    1. any device for producing a current of air by the movement of a broad surface or a number of such surfaces.
    2. an implement of feathers, leaves, paper, cloth, etc., often in the shape of a long triangle or of a semicircle, for waving lightly in the hand to create a cooling current of air about a person: We SAT on the veranda, cooling ourselves with palm-leaf fans.

    Clearly #2 is not applicable, but your feather falls under that.

    Airfoils are not fans. They do not move air, they move through the air, creating a pressure differential that pulls them in a (usually perpendicular) direction.

    The "air currents" are byproducts of this action.

    The fan blades you are thinking of do not do this (to an extent that matters) - those instead 'scoop' the air and push it.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  89. The master race argument rises again by dbIII · · Score: 1

    How do you know that their radar is pathetic? If you had been paying attention you would have noticed that it is a place run by the military with a focus on avoiding attacks from India. Pakistan have nukes (so why not good radar?) and their occasional enemy of India also has nukes (which Pakistan would really like to see in the air if it is on the way). Even if you push your master race argument of them not being as good as Americans so they can't possibly have even a single decent radar installation right in their capital, you've also missed that they have been fed US military hardware for decades and have a lot of US educated scientists and engineers. I'm assuming you didn't miss that so you just think the people are inferior.
    It's cool to be ultra-patriotic I suppose, but incredibly stupid and offensive if that makes you consider the rest of the world to be inferior beings.

    1. Re:The master race argument rises again by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      How do you know that their radar is pathetic? .

      Because I teach it to military students.

      I never said anything about how good Pakistan's air defense is compared to American air defense (it's not as good, if you are asking), and I most certainly never stated anything about Pakistanis being inferior to Americans.

      Thanks for putting words into my mouth. I'm frankly astonished you could read so much into my 25 word post.

      You know what's cooler than being ultra-patriotic? Not drawing radical conclusions from a 25 word post and not projecting your own insecurities on the rest of this thread.

    2. Re:The master race argument rises again by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Read some of the other posts here about fly over agreements and you'll see why it is mere bigotry that inspired you to write the above in the first place and why that was so obvious from even such a short post. Their radar didn't matter at all.

    3. Re:The master race argument rises again by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The other posts are wrong about the flyovers agreement. Did you miss the part where I said I teach this stuff? There was no agreement before the two blackhawks went in, thus the stealth. You are right, their radars didn't matter at all because they were completely ineffective.

      Frankly your injection of my perceived bigotry is just lame.

  90. The stupid "great man" theory strikes again by dbIII · · Score: 1

    He's was not one single supervillian with gadgets trying to take over the world or similar childish idea. He was one of many people up to no good so there would have been value in watching to see who visits. For one thing it may have shown who in the Pakistani military/government was on his side.

    1. Re:The stupid "great man" theory strikes again by x6060 · · Score: 1

      I agree, but if your target has a decent chance of discovering your operation you dont sit on your hands for 6 months and just see how it goes. Supposedly the intelligence had come about in august, so in November they had already been sitting on him for 3 months.

  91. I've known for years ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... about silent helicopter technology. Every night when I listen, I can't hear black helicopters hovering over my house. So their stealth technology must be quite advanced.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  92. US role in world democracy. by Oxford_Comma_Lover · · Score: 1

    Hey, don't insult the retarded. :)

    Despite the profanity, there is some legitimacy to the point. The US may be disliked and sometimes more imperialist than it should be, but it has played a key role in building world democracy. The League of Nations may have failed to prevent WWII, but it set the groundwork for the UN and some early international law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was put together under strong US leadership (Eleanor Roosevelt post-WW2), as was the UN. Our production figures made the difference in WW2, and France would probably not exist--certainly not as a free nation--without us. (Britain would eventually have been forced into a separate peace by the prolonged closure of the Atlantic supply lines, leaving Hitler to send the entire German war machine against Stalin.) Nor would much of Europe. Thoreau's writings on Civil Disobedience significantly influenced Ghandi, and through him the Indian Independence movement, and the world's largest democracy. Our Constitution and our legal scholars often act as key advisors in the formation of the governments of newly independent states. And American citizens, on the whole, give a great deal to private and nonprofit organizations that do good throughout the world, and themselves do much good through organizations that they join.

    It may be the in thing to hate the US, and to focus more on the bad parts of its policies than the good ones. But it's also done a lot of good.

    --
    -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
  93. you've missed it by dbIII · · Score: 1

    They had two Chinooks there but left it behind anyway. Maybe they thought they didn't have minutes or maybe the thing was full of too much weight to lift. Either way it was blown up and left behind. A huge waste to you or me is possibly just expedience to somebody else with different proirities.

  94. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    any device for producing a current of air by the movement of a broad surface or a number of such surfaces.

    Airfoils move air. They move air down, producing lift. Yes, I realize that a flat fan blade doesn't use Bernoulli's principle. However, they must move air down to produce lift (equal reaction and such).

    I understand why you think what you think, but I still assert that based on your definition an airfoil is a fan no more or less than a flat fan blade. If you made a fan where the blades were airfoils rather than flat blades, it would still be a fan. And thus, the fact that something is an airfoil has no bearing on whether it is a fan. The question is, does it move lots and lots of air? Yes? Then it's a fan...

  95. Why are we so paranoid?? by davesque · · Score: 1

    I get a little tired of all this. First of all, could it really have been that stealthy if some guy heard it loud enough to twitter his friends about it? He even complained that it was annoying.

    Secondly, how many more excuses are we going to come up with to blow things up? I'm sure they put many civilians at risk by doing that, if they didn't actually kill anyone. I would have a hard time trying to explain that to the family member of someone who might have died as a result.

    Thirdly, doesn't it seem likely that this kind of self-importance and paranoia is actually part of what is fueling anti-American sentiment? This seems to me like the exact same kind of everyone-is-a-terrorist mindset that has marked the past ten years. I think we waste so much time looking at everyone sideways that we're eventually going to go cross-eyed and completely lose any legitimate ability for noticing threats.

    Please, let's stop giving ourselves so many reasons to lose sleep at night!

  96. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    No, they don't. The one and ONLY thing that produces lift is the pressure differential. I'd suggest you go do some research, because you know a good amount, but you are wrong on the parts that are important. Here's a good start. If you don't believe the article itself, the references section is FULL of material that would prove you wrong.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  97. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Fucking thing ate my link. Here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamic_lift

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  98. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    ... and if you STILL won't believe it, let NASA prove you wrong: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  99. Re:It looks like a stealth assassination copter. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The one and ONLY thing that produces lift is the pressure differential.

    You pass physics 102, but fail physics 101. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. You can't push an airplane up using nothing but air without pushing the air down. Regardless of the reason and method the air pushed down, you can't give an upward force of multiple tons without pushing the air down with the same force.

    You are so focused on the error you think I committed that you have ignored basic physics in the result of moving a heavier-than-air craft through the air. There is no way for a plane or helicopter to stay in the air without moving lots and lots of air.