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."

28 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.
  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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

  3. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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
    4. 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.

  4. 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 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. 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 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
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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