http://www.neptunuslex.com/2011/05/04/ghosthaw-down/#comments

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/black-helo-down/

Isn't it odd how it's always the neighbours of mass-murderers who are the last to know? I wonder if scientists have come up with a name for this condition?

Lewis Page at The Register thinks it's a stealthed H-60 Blackhawk

There are a bunch of posts on this on the DefenseTech blog.

I've read a few stories about these stealth helicopters. Am I the only one who thinks the only thing better than a stealth helicopter is making your enemies think you have one? It seems coincidental that they had to blow up one of their super-secret stealth choppers on the most important mission in years. Also, the guy that inadvertently live-tweeted the raid certainly heard the helicopters from a fair distance.

When I saw the title I imagined a team of Navy SEALS driving Harleys.

Flightglobal did some interesting investigation

This was reported last week by Lewis Page in The Register:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/04/stealth_chopper_bin_laden_raid/

According to German news reports, SEAL Team Six is made up of Klingons......

http://www.crackajack.de/2011/05/09/star-trek-special-ops-kill-osama-bin-laden-acc-to-n24/

Vinegar Joe, that's priceless! Thanks for sharing it.

Go here if you would like more info from an industry (helicopter) source. Personally, as a helicopter industry insider, what I saw of the tail section looks plausible. It also seems plausible that they could have used a machine like this. Finally, the stealth aspect has to do with the radar signature. Helicopter noise is another matter entirely!

Sorry about that. Here is the link: www.verticalmag.com

See also here.

Three words: Recovered. Alien. Technology.

I'm just sayin' ...

Stealthy Blackhawk variants have been considered at least since 1978. It would not surprise me at all to find that such a thing exists.

Consider a different scenario:
1. Build an expensive, super stealthy helicopter which is intended to be completely unobservable.
2. Testing shows the new copter is a failure.
3. ....
4. Someone not very friendly gets the pieces.

Cheers

It was not put into mass production - but that does not mean it does not work (the special forces do use them).

As for Pakistan selling it the Chinese - just another reason to cut off all aid from Pakistan.

"But then we lose in Afghanistan - because they will cut off the supply lines".

Well we are going to lose anyway - so no additional problem.

I'm with Paul on this. Cut them off. The only colorable argument for subsidizing the Pakistani government is to prevent its nuclear arsenal from falling into "evil" hands. Well, guess what? It's already in "evil" hands, and sooner or later some of it will find its way into even more evil hands our protection money notwithstanding. Better to strengthen our relationship with India and let them contain Pakistan.

Am I the only one who hears Arnie in Predator yelling "get to da choppah!" while reading about this downed bird?

This is a little O/T, but I thought people might like to see the hagiography of bin Laden in The Economist. Pretty remarkable.

The Pakistani Parliament has voted (without a single dissenting vote) to cut the supply lines unless American drone attacks stop.

"But the civilians do not really decide things in Pakistant...."

I thought that "democracy" was one of the things this war was supposed to be about?

They hate the West (period) - therefore we should cut them off (no more aid) and have nothing more to do with them.

It is plausible to argue that our previous cutting off of aid to Pakistan is what actually triggered 9/11, if you accept that the Taliban and al qaeda have been in cahoots with the Paki ISI all along. Cutting off the money only is not going to help, and will only make things worse. We need to be prepared to enact a complete embargo, travel ban, and sanctions package on Pakistan on a par with what we have going against Iran. The whole region is heading toward a caliphate and the muslim rapture of the final imam. They need to be shown how that very much is not in their self interest.

Of course thousands of people in Pakistan have also been killed by the Islamists - but I do not see what can be done about this.

For the following reason.

Pakistan (unlike India) is a state set up the basis of a religion.

That relgion is Islam.

The Islamists (Bush and Blair to the contrary) are basically CORRECT in their interpretation of Islam - after all they interpret the religion in the way Muhammed did (use any means for conquest - destroy or enslave all non Muslims or backsliding Muslims....).

So the fact that most people in Pakistan are (no doubt) very nice - is not going to help.

The basic ideology on which the nation is baed favours the other side - and one can not even argue against that ideology without alienating the population.

What is one going to do?

Claim that the Islamists have misinterpreted Islam?

They would love a debate on that ground - they have studied Islam all their lives, they could tear apart any well intentioned moderate without even having to tear them apart physically, just show (by their mastery of the texts and also of the live of Muhammed) that their interpretation of Islam is correct.

Of course then they would tear apart the moderate physically as well (for fun), but not before refuting the moderate in debate which (I repeat) the Islamists could do without even breaking a sweat.

So perhaps one should attack Islam directly (not pretend it has been misinterpreted) - but that will not work either, as the vast majority of the population of Pakistan consider themsleves Muslims (indeed this is the reason the nation was set up in the first place - it is in the very name of the place "the land of the pure" nonMuslims being non pure of course).

They are not going to change their religion just because some infidel attacks it.

True there are, for example, many Sufi Muslims who see Islam in a mystical way - and reject the plunder- rape-enslave-kill life of Muhammed and the texts that came some years after his death.

But they (by the very fact of their mystical ways) are not going to come to power and hold power - in fact they have "victim" written all over them.

"But what about the great majority of nominal Muslims".

The "I do not really know much about this stuff" Muslims?

Yes they are going to win - NOT.

The Islamists care, the nominal people do not - guess who wins.

Travel bans and sanctions.

I do not really see the point.

What are they going to achieve?

Although a one way travel ban (you can go back to your spiritual homeland - as long as it is a one way trip) sounds nice.

These things are going to come to their conclusion soon - much sooner than most people think.

Indeed I suspect that Glenn Beck (a man, by the way, with many Muslim friends) is correct in thinking it will come to the crises in a matter of months (his guess is September).

The Islamic world (including Turkey and Pakistan) is largely united in the belief that Israel must go.

When they are not talking in English (when they are talking in their own languages) they are open in their belief that concessions and "two state solutions" are just a stage to the utter extermination of Israel.

This includes the Shia "hasterner" followers of the 12th Iman and the Islamist followers of the Mahdi among the Sunni (in both traditions there is this figure on the white horse who comes to kill the nonMuslims and the backsliding moderate Muslims) - but it also includes many more secular Muslims.

The extermination of Israel is mainstream stuff.

So which way does America jump?

Does it press Israel for more concessions - i.e. extermination by the installment plan.

Or does America stand by Israel - in which case (according to mainstream opinion in Islamic circles) America must be exterminated also.

Although (of course) both Shia and Sunni theology is universalist - i.e. America must become Islamic eventually (even if the infidel government does not stand with Israel - it is still infidel, and that is not accepable in the long term, although it is permissable to make agreements as long as they are NOT sincere for the long term).

Or does America try to opt out - and just watch?

There are no good options.

Such is often the nature of life.

Almost needless to say.......

The international left - both Marxist (such as Mr and Mrs Ayers) and non Marxist (such as Mr Soros - although he is not above funding the Marxists when he thinks they will serve his purposes) are backing the Islamists.

Mr and Mrs Ayers are personally involved in such things as the flotilla project. And Mr Soros is funding many of the organizations that seek to wipe Israel off the map.

"But Soros is a Jew" - that is racist thinking, Mr Soros does not believe in Judaism (in fact he despises the relgion) and sees Israel as a pothole on the road to a united world (his dream - as it was of his father before him).

There would be peace in the Middle East - if only there was no Israel, just as there would be a united world if only there was no United States (at least in its present form).

These people are not isolated individuals - they are the mainstream.

Look how that old fraud Edward Said (whose entire life was one big LIE) was made a cultural icon by virtually evey university in the Western World. His book "Orientalism" (another huge lie - just like his life) is a standard text.

The "mainstream media" reflect the universities - and the influence of evil becomes more powerful every day in the schools (even for the youngest children).

The left (both Marxist and non Marxist) have (with a few exceptions) decided to back the death-to-Israel movement.

And they are quite happy to back Islamists for this purpose - even though they (the leftists) are athiest.

They have chosen to go for a ride on a tiger. But then (they believe) they have sharp teeth and claws also.

Oh one bit of good news.

The tail of the chopper is being returned.