The online edition of British newspaper The Daily Mail publishes close-up photos of the helicopter that was shot and crashed onto Bin Laden's compound. The official version is that the downed helo was a 160th SOAR MH-60K.
However, if you too wonder why the other choppers were asked to shoot at it and destroy it, the answer may be in those very photos: apparently the remaining parts that were collected and carried away do not match any officially listed helicopter type in the U.S. inventory.
Have a look at the original article and pictures to make an opinion.
What really bugs me the most is the assertion that no U.S. soldier was killed in the raid. I can't see the crew of ejecting from that helo under enemy fire or escape the crash... so could it be an unmanned helicopter type?
It looks like a normal Pave Hawk to me, but some modifications were made to the tail section to reduce sound (I'm guessing). Judging by the rest of it's odd shape I would also think it is a stealth design.
I will tell you what is a close match, the Bell / McDonnell-Douglas LHX series of proposals. Most have a very similar tail shape with tailplane that almost perfectly matches. The only thing that throws recognition off is that those were of the NOTAR configuration, whereas this uses a small 5-blade conventional tail rotor.
I will tell you what is a close match, the Bell / McDonnell-Douglas LHX series of proposals. Most have a very similar tail shape with tailplane that almost perfectly matches. The only thing that throws recognition off is that those were of the NOTAR configuration, whereas this uses a small 5-blade conventional tail rotor.
Here's the problem with that connection; The LHX (and ABC) branched out to the stealth program we commonly know as the RAH-66, which we know was cancelled back in 2004. Another problem is that this wreckage is supposedly of a transport aircraft, or a gunship with troop-carrying capacity, not an attack helicopter.
Some aircraft that come to mind are the Spirit helicopters used for testing the RAH-66 design and systems, but the likelihood of those mere experimentals being used in action is beyond far-fetched.
That and the SHADOWs had no similarity whatsoever. They had fenestrons, remember?
If memory serves me correctly, there were two prototypes. One was the standard S-76 with a 1-seat co.ckpit added to the nose to test the fly-by-wire control and various other systems for the Comanche, and another was fitted with the fenestron tail rotor, the same one that was previously tested on the S-67.
Yes, they are not even remotely similar to this mystery wreckage.
-- Edited by Commander31 on Tuesday 3rd of May 2011 06:18:57 PM
I'm begining to edge that way. After seeing the pictures Triple-Nickel posted, I think it's safe to say this is not even a real aircraft. The rotors are way too small for a conventional configuration.
This is quite a mystery! This is my first time hearing of the aircraft not being a normal Black Hawk. Perhaps it is a specially modified version for stealth and/or night-fighting? The charred material within the wreckage suggests a composite material in the construction. The rotor does have much smaller blades than a normal H-60 but with a fifth one added could this make up for the size?
some thing is definatly going on, also notice in one of the pics that stargazer posted part of the tail boom is over the fence, a normal rigging charge does not have the power to do that, especialy since the helicopters supposedly laded 5 to 10 meters away from the wall
__________________
Keep Low. Move Fast. First Kill. Die Last One Shot. One Kill. No Luck. Pure Skill.
some thing is definatly going on, also notice in one of the pics that stargazer posted part of the tail boom is over the fence, a normal rigging charge does not have the power to do that, especialy since the helicopters supposedly laded 5 to 10 meters away from the wall