MH-60s got Bin Ladden

[Mumbles]

Opinions on this concept?...

Not sure if this is based on the wreckage pic or not, but the tail rotor is on the wrong side (this seems to be causing a lot of confusion) compared to the photos, and the fairing at the base of the vertical stabiliser is missing.

Broadly speaking I would say the general configuration and proportions of the wreckage match that of an H-60 to my eyes. The sweep angle on the vertical stabiliser, and the relative positions of the tail rotor and horizontal stabiliser hinge point also look a good match. Detail wise though it is radically different to any H-60 variant previously in the public domain.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Mumbles

[11bee]

Interesting article in the Army Times, it appears that the mystery helo may have been an MH-60 cross-bred with an F-117.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

I've inserted a few particularly relevant portions:

The helicopters that flew the Navy SEALs on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Black Hawk, according to a retired special operations aviator.

The helicopter’s low-observable technology is similar to that of the F-117 Stealth Fighter the retired special operations aviator said. “It really didn’t look like a traditional Black Hawk,” he said. It had “hard edges, sort of like an … F-117, you know how they have those distinctive edges and angles — that’s what they had on this one.”

In addition, “in order to keep the radar cross-section down, you have to do something to treat the windshield,” he said. If a special coating was applied to the windshield it is “very plausible” that would make the helicopter more difficult to fly for pilots wearing night-vision goggles, he said. The helicopters carrying the SEALs arrived over the bin Laden compound at about 1 a.m. Monday morning local time. One crash landed in the courtyard and was so badly damaged it was unable to take off again.

This was to be expected, the retired special operations aviator said. “Certain parts of the fuselage, the nose and the tail had these various almost like snap-on parts to them that gave it the very unique appearance,” he said. He and another source referred to the disc-shaped device that is seen covering the tail rotor in the photographs as a “hubcap.”

If the radar-evading technology worked, it “would be a true statement” to say that the use of the low-observable Black Hawks was evidence that the United States gave Pakistani authorities no advance warning of the mission, the retired special operations aviator added.

The low-observable program started with AH-6 Little Bird special operations attack helicopters in the 1980s, said the aviator. During the 1990s U.S. Special Operations Command worked with the Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works division, which also designed the F-117, to refine the radar-evading technology and apply it to the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment’s MH-60s, he said. USSOCOM awarded a contract to Boeing to modify several MH-60s to the low-observable design “in the ’99 to 2000 timeframe,” he said.

Initial plans called for the low-observable Black Hawks to be formed into a new unit commanded by a lieutenant colonel and located at a military facility in Nevada, the retired special operations aviator said. “The intent was always to move it out west where it could be kept in a covered capability,” he said.

USSOCOM planned to assign about 35 to 50 personnel to the unit, the retired special operations aviator said. “There were going to be four [low-observable] aircraft, they were going to have a couple of ‘slick’ unmodified Black Hawks, and that was going to be their job was to fly the low-observables.”

SOCOM canceled those plans “within the last two years,” but not before at least some of the low-observable helicopters had been delivered to the Nevada facility, the retired aviator said. “I don’t know if it was for money or if it was because the technology was not achieving the reduction in the radar cross-section that they were hoping for,” he said. In the meantime, MH-60 Black Hawk crews from the 160th’s 1st Battalion, headquartered at Fort Campbell, Ky., would rotate to Nevada to train on the stealthy aircraft, he said.

The low-observable MH-60s were armed with the same sort of door mini-guns as standard MH-60s, he said. “There was not a DAP conversion,” he added, referring to the MH-60 variant known as the Direct Action Penetrator, which is equipped with stub wings upon which can be fitted a variety of armaments.

Edited May 4, 2011 by 11bee

[arkhunter2002]

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Gives us closure (of some sorts)...

[Rank11]

I've always wondered about those two Blackhawks you see parked at the north end of the Groom Lake ramp in Google Map. I guess now we know. Sort of.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Rank11

[benzion]

now if some pictures could be leaked out, i'd like to see how they look like...

Interesting article in the Army Times, it appears that the mystery helo may have been an MH-60 cross-bred with an F-117.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

I've inserted a few particularly relevant portions:

The helicopters that flew the Navy SEALs on the mission to kill Osama bin Laden were a radar-evading variant of the special operations MH-60 Black Hawk, according to a retired special operations aviator.

The helicopter’s low-observable technology is similar to that of the F-117 Stealth Fighter the retired special operations aviator said. “It really didn’t look like a traditional Black Hawk,†he said. It had “hard edges, sort of like an … F-117, you know how they have those distinctive edges and angles — that’s what they had on this one.â€

In addition, “in order to keep the radar cross-section down, you have to do something to treat the windshield,†he said. If a special coating was applied to the windshield it is “very plausible†that would make the helicopter more difficult to fly for pilots wearing night-vision goggles, he said. The helicopters carrying the SEALs arrived over the bin Laden compound at about 1 a.m. Monday morning local time. One crash landed in the courtyard and was so badly damaged it was unable to take off again.

This was to be expected, the retired special operations aviator said. “Certain parts of the fuselage, the nose and the tail had these various almost like snap-on parts to them that gave it the very unique appearance,†he said. He and another source referred to the disc-shaped device that is seen covering the tail rotor in the photographs as a “hubcap.â€

If the radar-evading technology worked, it “would be a true statement†to say that the use of the low-observable Black Hawks was evidence that the United States gave Pakistani authorities no advance warning of the mission, the retired special operations aviator added.

The low-observable program started with AH-6 Little Bird special operations attack helicopters in the 1980s, said the aviator. During the 1990s U.S. Special Operations Command worked with the Lockheed-Martin Skunk Works division, which also designed the F-117, to refine the radar-evading technology and apply it to the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment’s MH-60s, he said. USSOCOM awarded a contract to Boeing to modify several MH-60s to the low-observable design “in the ’99 to 2000 timeframe,†he said.

Initial plans called for the low-observable Black Hawks to be formed into a new unit commanded by a lieutenant colonel and located at a military facility in Nevada, the retired special operations aviator said. “The intent was always to move it out west where it could be kept in a covered capability,†he said.

USSOCOM planned to assign about 35 to 50 personnel to the unit, the retired special operations aviator said. “There were going to be four [low-observable] aircraft, they were going to have a couple of ‘slick’ unmodified Black Hawks, and that was going to be their job was to fly the low-observables.â€

SOCOM canceled those plans “within the last two years,†but not before at least some of the low-observable helicopters had been delivered to the Nevada facility, the retired aviator said. “I don’t know if it was for money or if it was because the technology was not achieving the reduction in the radar cross-section that they were hoping for,†he said. In the meantime, MH-60 Black Hawk crews from the 160th’s 1st Battalion, headquartered at Fort Campbell, Ky., would rotate to Nevada to train on the stealthy aircraft, he said.

The low-observable MH-60s were armed with the same sort of door mini-guns as standard MH-60s, he said. “There was not a DAP conversion,†he added, referring to the MH-60 variant known as the Direct Action Penetrator, which is equipped with stub wings upon which can be fitted a variety of armaments.

[minuteman1636]

[Scooby]

Wow... I have absolutely no idea what that thing came off of. It almost looks like a mockup!

I will say, without the hand-holds on the vertical, pre-flighting that thing would be impossible to do in a forward location. I'm skeptical. Other than broken rotor blades, it shows no signs of damage (apart from the severed end). If those rotor blades departed from the aircraft, that whole thing would be beaten to hell. It looks too clean. Something's fishy.

I'll also add, that a stealthy tailplane isn't going to do squat for radar dispersion behind a 50' main rotor.

One other observation... when a rotor gets unbalanced by losing blades, it tends to destroy itself and it's mount. How come the cover and "swashplate" (in quotes because it doesn't look real to me at all!) show zero damage? Those blades would be flapping like crazy if they were out of balance.

Bizarre.

I don't think the tailplane is stealth technology, that probably is noise reduction.

I think you don't see damage rotor damage for the following reason: It was a hard landing, perhaps they couldn't get it off the ground so they destroyed it. My squadron once did a landing in a confined space and the crew actually impaled the helicopter on a well-head. They were lucky they didn't puncture the fuel cells. In this case for some reason they couldn't get off the ground so they did a controlled shut-down and destroyed the aircraft. That would also explain why there were no fatalities on the good guy side as well as the lack of damage on the tail rotor.

[Cobrahistorian]

Well make me wear a dress and call me Shirley.....

I knew I shouldn't have had dinner! Interesting though, it does mention a significantly higher gross weight, which would contribute to settling with power as suggested.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

Edited May 5, 2011 by Cobrahistorian

[Scooby]

Mybe a heavily modified MH53?

or a new airwolf!!

Too big of a helo for an insertion.

[Scooby]

Well make me wear a dress and call me Shirley.....

I knew I shouldn't have had dinner! Interesting though, it does mention a significantly higher gross weight, which would contribute to settling with power as suggested.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

Really not a surprise, I also stick by my feelings that the tail rotor also has a noise reduction system on it too.

I bet they wished they destroyed it better. I wonder if Pakistan will return the technology, I doubt it though.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Scooby

[DPD1]

I don't think the tailplane is stealth technology, that probably is noise reduction.

If you look at the cap, it's not just curved. It has a distinct angle, which would be for RCS purposes. The cap covers the mechanical parts that reflect. And there doesn't appear to be any duct housing, which is the part you would need to decrease noise. Also, that weird shaped housing for the gearing is definitely for RCS. There would be no other reason to make it such an aerodynamically inefficient shape.

[Wolfgun33]

Too big of a helo for an insertion.

I guess that wou;d answer my question as well. I was going to ask why they didn't use Ospreys since they're faster, greater range, and quieter (or so i've read). The news tonight said that it was a stealth Blackhawk.

Wow. Everyone is jumping on this helo. As I sit here watching the news, there's going to be a story on Nightline tonight about it. They're gonna have to release pics soon now that the Hawk is out of the bag.

[Cobrahistorian]

CNN is running a story on it.

[Wolfgun33]

They said on Nightline that it was a Stealth Blackhawk. They had the same pic as was shown earlier in this thread and had sound clips of a regular Blackhawk and a stealth one.

[EDWMatt]

I've been following this thread with some interest, and I think I may be able to provide some additional background into what we're seeing here.

As some of you on the board know, in my "previous life", I was a flight test engineer and test project manager for the Army. Some of the work I did was in developmental testing of helicopter L/O technology. There is some information I can share with you (and a whole lot I can't)

In the late '80s, the Army began working on trying to apply L/O technologies to helicopters. Several applique kits were developed for a few airframes. This was in the early '90's. The ones I'm aware of were for the OH-58D, the AH-64 and the H-60. The OH-58 kit has been pretty well documented - there are pictures of it Floyd's Walkaround book. I was somewhat involved with the Apache kit and heavily involved with the H-60. I've never seen any information released on the Apache kit, and don't know if any were ever produced or fielded. The H-60 kit was intended for EH-60's and was referred to as the "Direction Finding Enhancement kit. The original kit had numerous appliques applied to the entire airframe. There were some aerodynamic and vibration problems associated with the appliques on the aft portion of the aircraft. It was determined that, for the EH-60 mission, the frontal aspects were the most important, so the aft fuselage portions were eliminated. Approximately five kits were produced and fielded (with the 101st), and I understand that at least 3 were deployed during Desert Storm. The word we got was that the kits were a maintenance headache, and portions were removed in the desert, and use of the kits was abandoned shortly after. I have also heard rumors that further development of the kit continued.

The kits were developed by Sikorsky. The aircraft was originally 'Sight-sensitive" for quite some time, and we had to perform much of the testing at night, or at remote, secure locations. Eventually, the restrictions were lifted and we were allowed to park the aircraft on our ramp without restriction. At that time, the YF-22/YF-23 fly-off was underway, based at the hangar directly across the ramp from us. Lockheed would occasionally fly engineers up from Burbank in a King Air. The look on their faces when they got off the airplane and saw the EH-60 (which we nicknamed the "Black Blackhawk") was absolutely priceless!

What I see in the pictures appears to be a refined form of the original "DF Enhancement" kit. The shapes are similar to, but smoother than the original appliques. The forward swept stab is new - we did not have it in the original. I have no idea if this is an applique kit, or whether there were actually MH-60s produced this way in a permanent configuration. Frankly, I'm fascinated to see these pictures, as I had no idea that they had actually continued to develop and field these kits.

Besides shapes, a component of L/O is coatings, and the silver paint on the stab is very likely similar to what is applied to F-22's. I suspect this is an advanced form of RF absorbent paint. I can't tell you exactly what it's composed of (and I'm sure it's changed from what we used to use), but i can tell you that it incorporates various heavy metal particles that essentially convert RF energy to electric currents and heat.

As Jon says, 'helicopter' and 'stealth' don't belong in the same sentence, but I was honestly astonished buy the amount of signature reduction that could be achieved simply by shapings and coatings. Obviously, I can't give numbers, but they are one an order of magnitude. There are additional, advanced technologies that I still can't discuss (some were applied to Comanche, some weren't) that can achieve even more significant reductions. Although you probably can never achieve B-2 levels of stealth, I think you would be honestly surprised at how stealthy a rotary wing aircraft can be.

[Tophat25]

Although you probably can never achieve B-2 levels of stealth, I think you would be honestly surprised at how stealthy a rotary wing aircraft can be.

Wow,amazing how many guesses on the news media there were,including the animated speculations...,"Blackhawks" "OH-6 Little Bird"and "Chinooks",this is the first I read/heard of a new "slealthy" helo,including one guess it was a RAH-66 like version,here's another view of the tail rotor with "dishpan" rotor cap:

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?197635-The-mysterious-helicopter-involved-in-the-Osama-Bin-Laden-raid/page22

Seems paint scheme is 36118 Gunship Gray?

Terry

[YatYas1833]

Opinions on this concept?...

www.miltitaryphotos.net

Ok im sold on this one. It makes more sense. But I think the forgot a piece to destory.

[pollie]

Isn't the tail much bigger than on a normal Blackhawk? Meaning the actual helicopter was bigger, and so only two were needed for the raid, as reported in the news?

I don't believe the story about them being converted MH-60s. If that is true than an F-35 is a converted F-16!

[evnewsphoto]

Guys, glad my topic has become so interesting, I keep looking at the Military picture posts that are parelling ours, did you guys see this;

This anaylis is very convicing the way he lined up the parts.

If there was one heilicopter than this sketch is pretty close;

but what if there was more than one helo and they collieded? One blackhawk and the stealthawk? I also thik the tail boom and rotor is too big for an H-60, but too small for a H-53 series, and I agree with Jon (cobrahistorian aka AH-64 guy) that it has to be new build because adding on parts on an H-60 would weigh it down way to much. Why redesign just the tail and the horz stabs? That's why a new build offshoot of the RAH-66 program makes more sense. Have the skunkworks ever done any helicopter work?

But on the other hand, look at the Boeing Humignbird that is a reduced signature redesign of a non-stealthy Robison Helicopter. You could make a new airframe that uses off the shelf Blackhawk parts and keep the cost down and reduce the testing needed. After all the F-117 used existing off the shelf parts from the landing gear to the engines to the CRTs in the cockpit. This could explain why there are such conflicting things, a H-60 rotor head but some new tail rotor, and it could very well be called an MH-60 if it has enough H-60 parts. MH-60T would be after the MH-60S right? Or would it be an MH-60N after the latest UH-60M? Time will tell.....

In regards to "Seems paint scheme is 36118 Gunship Gray?" Don't know if you saw the Bill Sweetman article at avation week, he pointed out the shiny silvery paint is the same some MV-22s are painted in (and F-22s) to reduce IR signature and I tend to agree the way the sun glints off it, look at the horz stabs below;

Edited May 5, 2011 by evnewsphoto

[DPD1]

That 3d model wouldn't really make much sense. The features of the surviving parts are definitely stealth. There's no other reason to remove panel lines, rivets, and create specific angles. Look at the bottom tail end in that newer photo... You can see the distinct gradient flat areas that form the overall shape... That's stealth. So if you do that on the tail, you'd do that everywhere. There wouldn't be any point to just do it on the tail... Everything else would still provide a normal signature. And without a duct housing... just putting a lid on the rotor hub isn't going to stop noise. The most sound comes off the blade tip area.

[Tgoetz]

I just want to see if I am reading and understanding all this correctly? Ten years ago Boeing designed a "kit" that attached to an existing UH-60 airframe to give it a reduced radar signature. This was it's only purpose. They were successful and at least produced enough "kits" to test, certify and release them to our armed forces for training. Taking into account they apparrently decided to use this "EH-60" to carry out one of the biggest missions of their careers, they (the SEALS) must have been very comfortable with it's capabilities. I doubt the SEALS would want to just jump into an aircraft they had never seen or trained in before and attempt this mission. So, therefore I would deduce they flew the hell out of this aircraft during the design, test and training life of the airframe. Again doubt they would just say, "Hey know that EH-60 concept we have been playing around with? Let's try it out on this really big, gonna go down in history books mission". I also would assume that all four aircraft used in the mission were "stealth". Dosen't seem much good just to have one in the flight of four if your only purpose of using it is to reduce your radar signature.

My point is, in todays age of cell phone cameras and internet gossip speading, how the hell have we not seen this thing yet?! I need a walkaround yesterday! What else are they hiding from us?! Wait, I might not want to know that. I bet all the conspiracy theorists are going crazy tonight!

[blackhawk7]

I just want to see if I am reading and understanding all this correctly? Ten years ago Boeing designed a "kit" that attached to an existing UH-60 airframe to give it a reduced radar signature. This was it's only purpose. They were successful and at least produced enough "kits" to test, certify and release them to our armed forces for training. Taking into account they apparrently decided to use this "EH-60" to carry out one of the biggest missions of their careers, they (the SEALS) must have been very comfortable with it's capabilities. I doubt the SEALS would want to just jump into an aircraft they had never seen or trained in before and attempt this mission. So, therefore I would deduce they flew the hell out of this aircraft during the design, test and training life of the airframe. Again doubt they would just say, "Hey know that EH-60 concept we have been playing around with? Let's try it out on this really big, gonna go down in history books mission". I also would assume that all four aircraft used in the mission were "stealth". Dosen't seem much good just to have one in the flight of four if your only purpose of using it is to reduce your radar signature.

I don't think the point was that 'they' (wonder if we will find out who 'they' are? 160th SOAR?) used EH-60's for this raid. Rather, the original concepts and designs of the stealth and LO helicopters tested in the 80/90's seem to have continued to be developed - quite possibly resulting in what we are seeing in the photos.

Another point if anyone can clarify.. some posts have said that the rotor is on the wrong side for a H-60 (assuming this is in fact a H-60 derivative). However, it seems to me that the tail rotor in the majority of the pictures is upside-down and showing the rotor to the left (when viewed from the rear). This means when turned upright the rotor would be on the right, like on the standard H-60 design. Or am I missing something?

Tom

[Mumbles]

Another point if anyone can clarify.. some posts have said that the rotor is on the wrong side for a H-60 (assuming this is in fact a H-60 derivative). However, it seems to me that the tail rotor in the majority of the pictures is upside-down and showing the rotor to the left (when viewed from the rear). This means when turned upright the rotor would be on the right, like on the standard H-60 design. Or am I missing something?

No you aren't, the orientation of the wreckage in the pics is confusing, and some are better at mentally flipping 2D images in their heads than others. There are a couple of shots showing the wreckage in plan view from above, and these place the rotor on the right.

[Cobrahistorian]

Morning all!

Ok, we're all in agreement here that this is something not yet seen. The newer, higher res photos definitely seem to show some decent detail.

The multi-view concept drawing is interesting, simply because it shows the proportions of this new tail section as being possible on a Blackhawk airframe. It is NOT what this aircraft looks like. There is no reason to put a stealthy tail on a standard Blackhawk and then leave the remainder untouched.

I'm not so sure about the 5-bladed main rotor either. I've been looking at the rotor mast and the debris around it and there really isn't any way to prove either way if it were a 4 or 5 bladed main. To me it LOOKS like a standard hub, but I'm not 100% sure 5 bladed systems have been tested on both the Apache and the Blackhawk, but apparently offered no significant improvement on performance. The addition of wider chord composite blades, however, offered a major improvement in lift and performance, and that's why you see the new rotor blades on the -60M series Hawks and will see them on the Apache in the not so distant future.

As for nomenclature, the N and T models already exist. This technology has been around for a while. I think we may finally be seeing the MH-60C.

[Koen L]

Funny thing is that if they had just blown up the tail as well everybody would have believed it was just a 'normal' MH-60. Makes you wonder why they didn't destroy it.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Koen L