Two helicopters enter, One helicopter leaves?

[postulater]

Why on the most important mission of the Seals existence do they have a mechanical failure of 50% of the operations vehicles?

Are all our helicopters so poorly maintained?

That part of the story doesn't sound right.

[JDPriestly]

1. And they talk about waste in our government.

The military is still using old planes in spite of all the money we spend. Where does the money go?

[atreides1]

2. If it was a Chinook

It's to be expected...good troop and cargo hauler, but often has mechanical problems...especially if it's the CH-46 version!

[originalpckelly]

11. It was a blackhawk.

[Logical]

3. Thunderdome! n-t

[DURHAM D]

4. It is strange and I immediately thought about Carter administration's failed

attempt to rescue hostages from Iran.

[cliffordu]

9. That's right - This was very odd....

I wonder how everyone escaped the chopper without injury....

[FreakinDJ]

12. Carter's rescue attempt was sabatoged

by those that sell arms

[DURHAM D]

17. oh really...

proof?

[KathyVet]

31. Proof?

You know it's much more fun to throw out unproved accusations!

[Cetacea]

35. Hostages released during Reagan's swearing in is all that I need

[KathyVet]

37. So in other words...

No proof. Thanks. I thought as much.

[Cetacea]

42. Arms for hostages isn't enough?

I thought as much.

[KathyVet]

45. Has nothing to do

with the Helo crashes during Desert 1.

[Cetacea]

46. When the CIA director dies on his way to testify

Asking for proof is a bit of an insult.

[KathyVet]

48. No, it's not

If you have proof, show it. If not, well...you know.

[Cetacea]

49. Thanks.

But all things considered I will continue to speculate, thank you very much. Enjoy your box.

[KathyVet]

50. Speculate...

Another term for "make up stuff."

Have a good day!

[Cetacea]

51. I guess the Hearings on Iran Contra were people making up stuff?

BTW, I do not believe that there was any conspiracy involved with this current military OP. Are you a VET?

[KathyVet]

52. Yeah, I am

And I don't recall ANY one at the IC hearing saying that Desert 1 was sabotaged by the US.

[Cetacea]

44. ps Welcome to DU

Are you a vet?

[sufrommich]

5. Why are you assuming it was poor maintenance?

I'll bet it had nothing to do with maintenance.

[Common Sense Party]

6. I'll postulate that you don't know enough of the facts yet.

Our helicopters are very well maintained (I have a good buddy that does just that). All machines can break down, especially under extreme stress. When we hear all the details, we'll know what happened.

[postulater]

53. That's what I'm suspecting.

The report I heard said mechanical failure. I have to think they didn't send in a faulty machine so there must be more to it.

[WilliamPitt]

7. The choppers have been pretty busy for the last ten years

And flying low risks having all kinds of shit get into the intakes.

[cliffordu]

10. And the power lines all over the place and the little guys with machine guns...

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KathyVet]

13. Nice...

Nice try, trying to blame this in the Administration.

One of the choppers had a "hard landing" which rendered it incapable of continuing the mission. It was then destroyed by the operators to make sure that nothing that could be used fell into enemy hands.

[sufrommich]

18. That makes much more sense. Welcome to DU. nt

[KathyVet]

29. Thanks!

[KittyWampus]

25. Welcome to DU.

[KathyVet]

28. Thanks!

[postulater]

56. I wasn't trying to blame the Administration.

Just noting that mechanical failure doesn't seem likely with such a high profile mission. I expect they would plan for redundancy to guarantee success.

The media report I heard said "mechanical failure". That makes it sound like incompetence.

But "hard landing" or "blades hit the wall" makes it sound like smart planning that they were covered for such difficulties.

Nice try.

[Codeine]

14. Small arms fire blasting all around.

Not terribly shocking that a waiting chopper might sustain damage.

[originalpckelly]

15. You can bet Navy Seals push helicopters to their breaking point during such a mission.

Just a guess.

[DURHAM D]

21. True that.

Have you seen any info on where the operation originated? How many miles away from compound?

[originalpckelly]

30. Well, they were Navy seals...

Take that as a hint.

Although, who the fuck knows, maybe it was a land base.

[MilesColtrane]

16. It probably has to do with defense contractors lobbying for the most expensive,...

newest, shiniest geegaws in the budget.

Extra parts and humps to install them just aren't sexy.

[originalpckelly]

20. In the Army, at least, they turned down an expensive shiny new helicopter...

in favor of blackhawks, which these helicopters were.

It's just that a mission like this pushes a helicopter to the extremes of it's operating capabilities, just like it does with the people involved.

[MilesColtrane]

36. Aha.

So it wasn't "mechanical failure" after all.

Maybe I went with the OP's assumption because of my own limited experience with military helicopters

(One scrubbed takeoff because of mechanical failure, and one emergency landing because of another.)

[HereSince1628]

19. Historically 5-7 hours between some unscheduled maintenance

was typical of the Blackhawk. That's probably improved in the past 15 years, but I don't know how much.

[cally]

22. ABC reported that the blades were damaged when it ran into

the wall. The visibility was low. It's amazing and a credit that none of the seals were hurt and all got out.

[DURHAM D]

24. Thanks re: blade damage.

Hadn't heard that.

[seabeyond]

27. cally....

i have apprecaited your posts and mod job since this broke.

thanks

[backscatter712]

54. IIRC, the Al Qaeda goons were also shooting RPGs at the choppers.

So it's likely that the blade damage happened when the pilot was trying to dodge an RPG.

I'll write that chopper off to enemy action. I'm glad the SEALs onboard were able to get off intact and complete the mission.

[postulater]

57. Thanks, that's the detail I was looking for.

I couldn't imagine such an important mission being compromised by faulty equipment.

Glad it went as well as it did for our people.

[jdlh8894]

23. 1st Chopper made hard landing w/all team aboard

2nd chopper landed empty to evac team
1st chopper destroyed - on purpose

No maintaince problem.Planned operation.

[KathyVet]

26. Someone will still see a chance to find fault

I guess I'm gettin used to it.

[DURHAM D]

34. TV mock-up is definitely not showing that the 2nd chopper was empty. nt

Also - it was the 2nd chopper that landed hard and was subsequently destroyed. They had not planned to "land" either chopper.

[jdlh8894]

38. TV "Mock Up" ?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[DURHAM D]

39. Why don't you tune into MSNBC.

It might be helpful but it will take away some of your fun.

those damn facts...

[jdlh8894]

43. Facts from MSNBC ? Please,spare me!

Did they get their "mock up" from the Flight crew or the Pentagon?

[jp11]

32. one chopper made a hard landing the other set down, and a third was brought in to

get the body and I believe remaining soldiers.

[postulater]

58. Thanks,

That makes more sense than the original report I heard that said "mechanical failure'.

[Atman]

33. Shit happens. They're complicated pieces of equipment.

Look, I'm as cynical as they come. I also thought, WTF. But I assume that's is why part of why there were TWO helicopters, not one. There was a back-up.

I'm not willing to shit on this operation, as much as it all makes me wonder. Let's let America wallow in some good news for a change.

[DURHAM D]

40. There were three helicopters. nt

[kick-ass-bob]

41. Exactly. There are going to be backups.

No way they go in with just enough room to carry the squad +1 to get back out. There was probably another helicopter or 2 a few miles away.

[postulater]

61. I also think it is good news.

And it makes sense that there was a backup or two even.

What didn't make sense was the original report of "mechanical failure".

More recent information makes more sense. The blades hit the wall, that is much more likely than "mechanical failure."

I know the people who do these missions wouldn't tolerate mechanical failure.

[Hubert Flottz]

47. I'm betting the staging area for the operation wasn't too far away.

Maybe the third chopper was a gunship flying cover.

[Arugula Latte]

55. I heard a progressive radio DJ talking about how they intentionally destroyed one

so as not to leave behind important equipment/information. :shrug:

[chrisa]

59. They did that in Mogadishu with the crashed choppers as well.

I think it's standard practice when a chopper crashes. They throw an incendiary bomb inside to cook all of the equipment.

[IrishBuckeye]

60. Need noise to let people know they were there there

so it jives with the story. ;-)