"Stealth" Blackhawk

**dhanners** · #1 05-05-2011, 05:36 PM

The Tubes of the Internets (as well as cable news TV) is all abuzz -- apparently the U.S. forces that raided Osama bin Laden's compound used some sort of "stealth" Blackhawk. It's the aircraft that they had to destroy after it landed hard. You may have seen photos of the tail section, which fell on the other side of the compound's fence and survived. It looks nothing like the tail section of a Blackhawk. Looks like nothing in the U.S. inventory, in fact.

So who'll be the first to model the thing?

Here's an artist's impression: http://upload.democraticunderground....esg_id=1039583

Another artist impression (courtesy of the Tubes of the Internets) below:

Zathros · #2 05-05-2011, 07:48 PM

It could have easily been adopted to a BlackHawk though. Having spent 9 years around them at Sikorsky, to me, the elevator and tail rotor line up pretty good with the standard BlackHawks. All speculation. The steakthy BlackHawk looks really cool, I think it would be easier to model than a standard BlackHawk.

**dhanners** · #3 05-05-2011, 08:41 PM

I've read some stuff online by some folks who theorize it is a whole new aircraft, built of composites. The ones saying this (who claim to have worked around Blackhawks) note that the burned-out hulk of the helo at the compound doesn't resemble what would remain from a "normal" burned-out Blackhawk.

**Loui** · #4 05-05-2011, 08:54 PM

i think you should check this out. original posted by SJPONeil Come on plane spotters! The World According to Me…

Zathros · #5 05-05-2011, 09:08 PM

No, the burned out hulk doesn't look like a BlackHawk's, but it would be rather easy to replace the whole tail boom on a BlackHawk with a composite piece. The nose section is rather light. Not attached to the craft and without the "window glass", it is really easy to pick up, even 2 at a time. The whole nose of the craft is composite and extremely light. Sikorsky is one of the largest manufacturer of composite goods in the country. I could go into more detail but honestly, the confidentiality agreement was quite stiff and even is something was believed to be common knowledge, we are not supposed to talk about it, i.e. manufacturing processing and what we saw, did, and any experimental aspects of their aircraft. Sikorsky makes tail fins for submarines out of composite. They makes composite parts for Cessna, Piaggio, and a bevy of other corporations. The Comanche was made primarily of composite and still can only be viewed by special permission. The official line was that 2 were made, but I have read 3 were made, not that it matters, much of the craft was outdated because the requirements kept changing. Much of the aircraft is still classified though and it would not surprise me at all to see aspects of that craft being applied to present craft. A working version of a potential variation makes for a great way to study the craft.

I think after this settles down, some heads are going to roll because of this. It was a big piece to leave behind. I think a version of the Sikorsky's Variable Diameter Tiltrotor and/ or a X2 Variant know as the "Raider" represents what Sikorsky is offering. Much smaller foot print than the Osprey and very fast. 287.69 mph fast. Only time and some loose lips will tell!

Sikorsky X2 Coaxial Compound Helicopter Technology Demonstrator Aircraft Achieves 287.69 MPH: Is the Sikorsky S-97 Raider Compound Helicopter the U.S. Army’s Future Light Tactical Helicopter?

**piginapoke** · #6 05-06-2011, 03:13 AM

does beg the question whether it was a flight certified/fully tested helicopter (black project or not) or some prototype/development helicopter that they risked using for this one off job.

it take it's probably not a Comanche variant then?

**SJPONeill** · #7 05-06-2011, 05:32 AM

Nope...not Comanche...that was my first thought too...it had/has a fully-enclosed tail rotor...had one of our senior engineering techs poring over it yesterday and he thinks it is a Blackhawk variant as well...

Zathros · #8 05-06-2011, 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJPONeill

Nope...not Comanche...that was my first thought too...it had/has a fully-enclosed tail rotor...had one of our senior engineering techs poring over it yesterday and he thinks it is a Blackhawk variant as well...

Definitely not a Comanche.
@ Piginapoke, I don't know if the word "certified" means much to some things the military uses. I'm not all that convinced it's a Sikorsky helicopter. This (these) helicopters were used to fly ahead of the Chinooks that came in behind them. Chinooks, have to be some of the most radar friendly helicopters in the world. The fact that the Pakistani military did not pick up the Chinooks means their country is wide open. These "pathfinder" helicopters obviously worked, but as they were used for clearing the way, makes me wonder how big the were and what kind of armament they carried. One has to wonder if there weren't a couple of F-22's flying a "Barcap" in case they needed to "help" any other aircraft "meet their maker", that may have wandered entered the area.

Really big piece to leave behind. We should demand it back. If not, the loss of a couple of Billions or dollars in aide may be necessary.

**piginapoke** · #9 05-06-2011, 09:03 AM

I was aluding to the possibility that it might be a prototype helo still undergoing testing and the crash may jave been due to some part failing that hadnr been thoroughly tested yet (need outweighing risk of failure) I recall storm shadow ground attack missiles being rushed to the gulf by the manufacturers to be trialled on Tornadoes in live missions as their capability was needed.

Zathros · #10 05-06-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piginapoke

I was aluding to the possibility that it might be a prototype helo still undergoing testing and the crash may jave been due to some part failing that hadnr been thoroughly tested yet (need outweighing risk of failure) I recall storm shadow ground attack missiles being rushed to the gulf by the manufacturers to be trialled on Tornadoes in live missions as their capability was needed.

I doubt that very much. Our military doesn't work that way. They would just have incinerated the place. The attack was done the way it was, I believe, to avoid bombing a "supposed" ally, and to retrieve information, and it seems they got the motherload. A missile being deployed is quite different from an aircraft. I betting on pilot error. Not blaming either I was a pilot for a while and "stuff" happens. I think the tail boom hit the wall and that was what caused the hard landing, or a miscalculation in heat and relative humidity, barometric pressure, may have caused the copter to descend to quickly. I do believe, if they used it, they were not "extremely" concerned about the technology aspect. There are too many other feasible ways, rather than to using something that you "could not lose". Which makes me wonder what they have are don't use. I was at Sikorsky a long time ago and they were working on amazing things. I have family in certain corporations in my state that are working on amazing things. They all they the second it comes out, within a year, China will have " borrowed " the work. It seems to be the general consensus. Hopefully, China's history of being "non-imperialistic" will continue. I still find it hard to believe they did not detect the Chinooks!!