Assault on Bin Laden: mystery of the downed chopper

[flateric]

NG was even bothering of filing a patent on such an aircraft (dubbed Switchblade in mass media, you surely have heard of it) - way earlier Stealth was filmed
and some names from inventors list rings many bells for those who know backbone people in charge of classified LO/VLO programs that were cooking in Northrop's very own Skunk Works - ATDC

 

[TomS]

Of course I'm aware of the Switchblade patent. But I don't think anything came of it. Indeed, the fact that NG worked on Stealth helps reinforce that belief. If there was a real black aircraft in a Switchblade configuration, the company would never have been allowed to wrk with a filmmaker on an aircraft of similar configuration.


Now, back to the Zero Dark Thirty trailer, I don't see anything there that suggests special program access. All we've seen is a fairly generic faceted "stealthy" shape, similar to that shown in several online speculations. One detail (a saw-toothed cabin window) actually seems quite wrong to me -- we didn't see saw-toothed edges in the transparencies on Comanche so why would they be used on an LO Blackhawk? The only reason I can see is that such details indicate "stealthy" to film goers with a casual interest in aviation.

 

[flateric]

we see sawtooth edges at F-117A transparency and we just didn't know how old that uuuhhhsshhh-60 mod is...

 

[flateric]

If there was a real black aircraft in a Switchblade configuration,
the company would never have been allowed to wrk with a filmmaker on an aircraft of similar configuration.

absence of patent realisation in form of real aircraft have nothing to do with plausibility of movie prop design concept, IMO

 

[TomS]

absence of patent realisation in form of real aircraft have nothing to do with plausibility of movie prop design concept, IMO

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Let's not start going in circles.

In any case, it has nothing to do with the "Stealth Hawk". My point is, again, that nothing in the released Zero Dark Thirty film clips suggest that the filmmakers had insight into a real aircraft program.

 

[flateric]

Tom, it doesn't look much worse attempt than these stealthized Blackhawks that Scott has posted a while ago, especially No.3
well, those F-117sh data probes looks just stupid

hopefully we will have chance to compare mockup to real bird in nearest 20 years

 

[Triton]

We just won't know how close the film makers were, or the Dragon Models model kit is, until the "Stealth Hawk" is debuted to the general public. In the meantime, there is really no point in arguing the credibility of the helicopter prop from Zero Minus Thirty unless we have quotes from the production designer that it was created from Department of Defense photographs or contractor drawings and/or plans.

 

[quellish]

We just won't know how close the film makers were, or the Dragon Models model kit is, until the "Stealth Hawk" is debuted to the general public. In the meantime, there is really no point in arguing the credibility of the helicopter prop from Zero Minus Thirty unless we have quotes from the production designer that it was created from Department of Defense photographs or contractor drawings and/or plans.

I don't know about that. If you look at the photos of the recovered tail section, it should be clear that it was designed with tools that were very much post-F-117 (and in fact, post-RAH-66). It has more in common with some of the UCAR concepts than not.

As previously mentioned in this thread, there have been several efforts over the past 30 years to reduce the RF observables of rotorcraft. In the late 80s/early 90s there *was* an add-on kit for a specific UH-60 model flight tested. That UH-60 looks SLIGHTLY like the Zero Dark Thirty aircraft.

Before that there had been several efforts to produce LO/VLO rotorcraft. There were some breakthroughs in that area in the late 70s which lead to at least one demonstrator flying.

The Zero Dark Thirty model is basically the previously pointed out slope-nosed UH-60 concept, with some additional sawtooths and the tail from the actual aircraft. The tail did a good job of confining backscatter to several different zones. The Zero Dark Thirty model though has reflections all over the place, and in particular conflicts with the spikes of the tail.

The aircraft that crashed in Abbotabad was manufactured between 2007 and 2010. Serial numbers on recovered parts confirmed that.

"No Easy Day" had some new information about the operation, but purposely left out any real information about the helicopter. It did however confirm a FARP stop during the exfiltration. Bowden's book, due out next week, may have new information about the aircraft.

 

[fightingirish]

Special operations stealth helicopter for the movie Zero Dark Thirty.

Wizard of AB
Todd Cherniawsky works his magic in Hollywood, transforming film sets into ethereal lands that sometimes resemble his home province [...]

Link and Source: http://avenueedmonton.com/articles/wizard-of-ab

 

[Dynoman]

Video of 'Stealth Hawk' helicopters returning from Bin Laden raid. There is about 2 seconds of video between 00:35 and 00:37 that you can make out the basic shape of the helicopter. Granted, its very poor quality, but it does show that its not your typical Blackhawk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYiI-RynlOQ

 

[fightingirish]

That red painted helicopter shown towards the end of that clip seems to be a MBB/Kawasaki BK117 Air Ambulance.
So IMHO this clip is false.

 

[Stingray]

Did some comparing, and this seems to share lots of characteristics of an NH-90.
I was convinced at this being legit at first, until I saw the BK.117 in the end.

 

[piko1]

from what i see here is something looking Black Hawkish Apachish look at the curve behind the Engine
the Bk117 is white not red without any visible markings on it could it be a CIA helicopter ?

 

[Retrofit]

until I saw the BK.117 in the end.

or an EC145 / UH-72 Lakota
(Photo:wikipedia)

 

[TomS]

Lakotas don't go to combat zones -- they're intended for medical and logistical support in the US and other safe locations (there are a couple in Germany, for example).

Personally, I'd focus on the pad markings -- they don't look like what I'd expect to see at a military airfield, especially a Forward Operating Base like Jalalabad.

 

[Retrofit]

Lakotas don't go to combat zones -- they're intended for medical and logistical support in the US and other safe locations (there are a couple in Germany, for example).

Strange,isn't it?

 

[2IDSGT]

Granted, its very poor quality...

*Sigh* They always are... aren't they?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsrmEjTwjPI

 

[piko1]

the heli is bk117B-2 NOT EC145/UH-72A plus i think that the last part of the clip is made on a different helipad

 

[yasotay]

Lakotas don't go to combat zones -- they're intended for medical and logistical support in the US and other safe locations (there are a couple in Germany, for example).

Betcha this is going to change!

 

[piko1]

Lakotas don't go to combat zones -- they're intended for medical and logistical support in the US and other safe locations (there are a couple in Germany, for example).

lol and that's why many Lacota's are with CSAR equipment strange this statement is like say'n that Kaiowa's never got deployed ;D
plus EC145 in germany are owned by ADAC they have nothing to do with GAF you mean France's Sécurité Civile ( Direction de la Défense de la Sécurité Civile (Department of Civil Defence and Emergency Preparedness) )


i have one question can we assume that the real designation of the "Stealth Hawk" is UH-69

 

[quellish]

i have one question can we assume that the real designation of the "Stealth Hawk" is UH-69

No.

 

[TomS]

Lakotas don't go to combat zones -- they're intended for medical and logistical support in the US and other safe locations (there are a couple in Germany, for example).

lol and that's why many Lacota's are with CSAR equipment strange this statement is like say'n that Kaiowa's never got deployed ;D

Please show me these Lakotas fitted for Combat Search and Rescue. They are used for civil SAR, which is a completely different mission. The National Guard does a lot of SAR in the United States, looking for lost hikers and the like, but that's not combat SAR at all. The Lakotas don't have the equipment for CSAR (door guns, defensive countermeasures, etc.) They're totally clean birds--more or less identical to their civil counterparts except for radios.

Kiowa is utterly irrelevant to this discussion, since it is explicitly a combat scout type assigned to combat aviation units, while Lakota was bought specifically for non-combat support functions.

plus EC145 in germany are owned by ADAC they have nothing to do with GAF you mean France's Sécurité Civile ( Direction de la Défense de la Sécurité Civile (Department of Civil Defence and Emergency Preparedness) )

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm referring to the basing of a couple of US Army UH-72 Lakotas at US Army facilities in Germany. They're used for personel transport and general support duties, to free up expensive helos like Blackhawks for operational use.

 

[piko1]

sorry i just write C in front of SAR because i was sleepy and i was reading like some EC145's in Germany and just pointed out that you mean France not Germany because Sécurité Civile is like the national guard in some ways SAR i mean

i have one question can we assume that the real designation of the "Stealth Hawk" is UH-69

No.

why not the Helicopter has new design if sikorsky was going to make small number of this Stealth utility Helis they would use units and aggregates from The Hawk family for lower operational cost with that they would crate the delusions that's nothing new just the Good old Black Hawk if it crashes somewhere just to confuse the observers and experts if there is photo evidence that's my opinion it is xH-69 it is in front of your ayes but you are looking else where as usual

 

[TomS]

sorry i just write C in front of SAR because i was sleepy and i was reading like some EC145's in Germany and just pointed out that you mean France not Germany because Sécurité Civile is like the national guard in some ways SAR i mean

Ah, I see. Sorry, didn't mean to jump on you quite so hard.

i have one question can we assume that the real designation of the "Stealth Hawk" is UH-69

No.

why not the Helicopter has new design if sikorsky was going to make small number of this Stealth utility Helis they would use units and aggregates from The Hawk family for lower operational cost with that they would crate the delusions that's nothing new just the Good old Black Hawk if it crashes somewhere just to confuse the observers and experts if there is photo evidence that's my opinion it is xH-69 it is in front of your ayes but you are looking else where as usual



It's not an H-69 because the office that assigns such numbers has said (at least semi-officially) that the H-69 designation as skipped because 69 has a rather sexually suggestive slang meaning.


Deep black aircraft tend not to be assigned numbers in the official sequences at all -- the ones we know of that came out of the black were either numbered in idiosyncratic ways (A-12 for the CIA Blackbird), were numbered way out of the normal run (F-117) or just kept their code names (TACIT BLUE). Alternatively, if they really are just heavily modded Blackhawks, they could be MH-60x, where x could be any of a bunch of unused suffixes. For that matter, they could be using the Sikorsky designation and be S-70-whatever. Many options here.

 

[Stargazer]

i have one question can we assume that the real designation of the "Stealth Hawk" is UH-69

No.

Wow. Talk about an edifying and informative answer... Only reasons I can see for anyone to come up with such an interesting response is:

• They have bought the official story that "H-69" was skipped because of "sexual connotations" (a story that was downright ridiculous, if only because there have been B-69 Neptunes, C-69 Constellations, or M-69 SRAMs before).
• They know something we don't.

Or perhaps the problem resided in the word "assume"? Indeed it is a little bit strong. We can't "assume" that the Stealth Hawk is the H-69 but we can certainly speculate so. Indeed, it would make perfect sense that such a modified type would be granted a separate designation, and that given its level of secrecy, that designation would have to be kept secret itself, hence the cover-up story.
Unless of course quellish knows better... in which case he said too much already. And therefore too little...

 

[Stargazer]

Deep black aircraft tend not to be assigned numbers in the official sequences at all

... but then I doubt the Stealth Hawk can really be considered "deep black", given that most of the airframe is made of well-known technology and a well-known shape.

or just kept their code names (TACIT BLUE)

No. TACIT BLUE was also designated as the YF-117D, while BIRD OF PREY was YF-118G.

a bunch of unused suffixes.

There aren't that many unused suffixes left under the H-60 slot... If I'm not mistaken, T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z are the ones that remain unused for now.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

connotations" (a story that was downright ridiculous, if only because there have been B-69 Neptunes, C-69 Constellations, or M-69 SRAMs before).

And back in that time there was a B-13, P-13, etc. But there isn’t anymore… F-13 and C-13 were skipped. Back in the day the managers, commanders and politicians actually spent their time managing, commanding and policy making now they don’t so they can meddle in stupid s#*t like insisting there is no H-69 so little boys and old ladies don’t snigger or whatever. The same nonsense that was applied to the F-13 and C-13 because obviously our society and in particular our military society is so driven by superstition and numerology we just couldn’t accept such an ‘in-auspicious’ number.

But on the topic at hand as a black project the Stealth Hawk probably doesn’t have an official designation. Just like the Stealth Fighter was the F-117 it will probably be the H-xyz if it has a number at all. Since it is very likely a severely pimped MH-60L it probably has a name like the Direct Action Penetrator (DAP) something like MH-60K Low Observable Penetrator (LOP).

 

[Stargazer]

obviously our society and in particular our military society is so driven by superstition and numerology we just couldn’t accept such an ‘in-auspicious’ number.

You've got a point there. And obviously too, pilots have always been a highly superstitious lot...

Makes me wonder if the F-17 didn't become the F-18 when produced for similar reasons. After all, while the number "13" is the would-be "unlucky" number in most countries, for some reason it is the number "17" that is considered so in Italy, a country which was most probably on the list of potential customers way back then... But then again there may be a whole different explanation to this, though if there is one, I never heard it. Andreas would probably know...

 

[quellish]

Wow. Talk about an edifying and informative answer... Only reasons I can see for anyone to come up with such an interesting response is:

• They have bought the official story that "H-69" was skipped because of "sexual connotations" (a story that was downright ridiculous, if only because there have been B-69 Neptunes, C-69 Constellations, or M-69 SRAMs before).
• They know something we don't.

Or perhaps the problem resided in the word "assume"? Indeed it is a little bit strong. We can't "assume" that the Stealth Hawk is the H-69 but we can certainly speculate so. Indeed, it would make perfect sense that such a modified type would be granted a separate designation, and that given its level of secrecy, that designation would have to be kept secret itself, hence the cover-up story.
Unless of course quellish knows better... in which case he said too much already. And therefore too little...

The question was:

i have one question can we assume that the real designation of the "Stealth Hawk" is UH-69

We can't assume it's UH-69.
We also can't assume it's a "new build" aircraft. We can't even assume it's a UH-60 variant (after all, there is much speculation that it's a bolt-on 'kit'). We also can't assume it's been given an official designation of any kind. The Army does things differently than Air Force does. There are versions of other Army rotorcraft that have kits or permanent modifications that do not have specific, official type designations.

But hey, looking at how the tail wheel folds up into the boat tail it probably isn't a simple kit.

 

[piko1]

Or perhaps the problem resided in the word "assume"? Indeed it is a little bit strong. We can't "assume" that the Stealth Hawk is the H-69 but we can certainly speculate so. Indeed, it would make perfect sense that such a modified type would be granted a separate designation, and that given its level of secrecy, that designation would have to be kept secret itself, hence the cover-up story.
Unless of course quellish knows better... in which case he said too much already. And therefore too little...

thanks Stargazer i was thinking of Speculation but assume and speculate have close meaning in Bulgarian but other problem is that I'm Dyslectic yes i can read perfectly and understand all of you but some people cant understand me when i write even in Bulgarian


For me that whole numerology story is funny for me all so the sexual one

but lets speculate more if this helicopters were design tested and produced in the time frame between let say 199x-2009 the only
logical designation would be HH-69 but again if it's not with designation like xH-60 T, U, V, W, X, Y and Z but lets push our speculation even further and say that the end of the Comanche program 2004 was the beginning of this project if DOD wanted to just cancel
the program but to employ enough of the man power to save its capability to design and produce Stealth helicopters with the hope
and even further plan to revive the Comanche program in better times but the people in this black division of Sikorsky would need to work and here it is the need after 9/11 for the development of Utility Helicopter that can penetrate deep behind the enemy lines unnoticed deploy team of seals or what ever other use it can have and return safe to base

that's completely logical

 

[Dynoman]

Researching the landing site for the approaching helicopter in the video was a great idea as previously mentioned. I looked at the words on the 'ramp' and started playing with different words such as FOB T1 ES ECHO, FORT 1ES ECHO, and FORTIES ECHO. After doing a search on the internet I found the North Atlantic oil platform with the helipad marked FORTIES ECHO.

The video seems to match when looking at the orientation of the containers around the building and the shape of the ramp near the building (although its in the dark).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Researching the landing site for the approaching helicopter in the video was a great idea as previously mentioned. I looked at the words on the 'ramp' and started playing with different words such as FOB T1 ES ECHO, FORT 1ES ECHO, and FORTIES ECHO. After doing a search on the internet I found the North Atlantic oil platform with the helipad marked FORTIES ECHO.

The video seems to match when looking at the orientation of the containers around the building and the shape of the ramp near the building (although its in the dark).

Good work. So its pretty unlikely to be footage of a Stealth Hawk landing at an oil platform unless Chris Gibson has a second famous sighting he hasn't told us all about.

 

[Mr London 24/7]

More on the props:


http://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSpecial/zero_dark_thirty


http://film.image-engine.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=343&Itemid=189

 

[Mr London 24/7]

Video of 'Stealth Hawk' helicopters returning from Bin Laden raid. There is about 2 seconds of video between 00:35 and 00:37 that you can make out the basic shape of the helicopter. Granted, its very poor quality, but it does show that its not your typical Blackhawk.

Unfortunately the OP (on YouTube) has a few other questionable video's!:


http://www.youtube.com/user/diablodevildog/videos


What I really want to know is: the crash wreckage came back, and went to..........?

 

[Mr London 24/7]

Researching the landing site for the approaching helicopter in the video was a great idea as previously mentioned. I looked at the words on the 'ramp' and started playing with different words such as FOB T1 ES ECHO, FORT 1ES ECHO, and FORTIES ECHO. After doing a search on the internet I found the North Atlantic oil platform with the helipad marked FORTIES ECHO.

The video seems to match when looking at the orientation of the containers around the building and the shape of the ramp near the building (although its in the dark).

Good match:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cohFq7cE9tA

 

[Mr London 24/7]

More on the props:


http://youtu.be/n55Busgh15Y

 

[Triton]

Stealth Hawk concept artwork by Ryan Church for the motion picture Zero Dark Thirty.

Source:
http://ryanchurch.com/zero-dark-thirty/

 

[Jemiba]

Judging from what we've seen still yet, the tail definitely is wrong, so it's hard to
trust the rest ! :

 

[Mr London 24/7]

What I really want to know is: the crash wreckage came back, and went to..........?

Oh really fella!? - well, the first leg of that journey is in the (leaked) Pakistan Commissions report, as the Tail wreckage was inspected by Pak Officers at Rawalpindi Army Aviation base on 8th May (page 128):

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/binladenfiles/2013/07/201378143927822246.html

I hope we can piece together more over time...

 

[Mat Parry]

Take a look at the pics Triton posted in reply #26 of the US Army Advanced Composite Airframe Program (ACAP) thread
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12627.msg205205.html#msg205205


I Think a UH-60 baseline is still the most likely story here but, I couldn't help look at the tailboom (particularly the "point" behind the vertical stabiliser) and think..... Hmm I wonder if that's a progenitor of the shaping used on Bin Laden's Hearse

a similar thought was expressed in reply #117 of this thread also