113

According to reports, there were 4 helicopters used in the raid on Osama Bin Laden.

Is it conceivable that even one helicopter could be flown so close to the capital of another country without raising alarm bells?

Considering these were military helicopters and there were four of them, I am skeptical that this would be allowed. Surely the airspace in Pakistan is monitored just as well as other countries?

Colin
  • 936
  • 1
  • 8
  • 13
going
  • 18,069
  • 18
  • 86
  • 151
  • 1
    Aw, no Google Street View :( – MSpeed May 04 '11 at 12:22
  • 9
    And no "By Helicopter" link either :( I guess there is a "seal only" version of google maps with an "on foot with 70kg backpack" icon – mplungjan May 04 '11 at 12:33
  • 15
    Something to consider is that it's an open secret that the US has been operating in western Pakistan for years now with drones and possibly other military air craft. What are the chances that locals and the military ignored or at least didn't react if/when they spotted the US aircraft? – stoj May 04 '11 at 12:58
  • 7
    Raising alarm bells? Where? Why wouldn't it be allowed? I'm sure Pakistan knew beforehand, Obama even pointed out that Pakistani intelligence helped find where bin Laden was... They wanted to get rid of him as much as the US wanted. – Lennart Regebro May 04 '11 at 13:15
  • 1
    How about painting your aircraft as a friendly - sending off a beacon signal similar to one of the host country. This way you fool the anti-aircraft system into thinking you are someone else. This is what they did on the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden! –  May 04 '11 at 12:52
  • 6
    @Lennart - that's a pretty sweeping generalization. There are elements of both ISI and the army (and overall population) that are at best rooting for Islamists/against USA and at worst actively supporting them. – user5341 May 04 '11 at 14:25
  • 5
    [This article](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/04/stealth_chopper_bin_laden_raid/) suggests the helicopters used had a range a special radar / IR stealth capabilities and acoustic reduction technology. – Skizz May 04 '11 at 15:05
  • @DVK: But most of the Pakistani government does not support the Taliban, and needs the support of the US. The Pakistani government wanted bin Laden dead, and they want to get rid of the Al Queda who are working against the Pakistani government. – Lennart Regebro May 05 '11 at 07:17
  • 1
    @Lennart - I'm somewhat skeptical regardig "most" part given the geopolitical realities (e.g. the main issue for Pakistan being India). Might be worth a separate question if I have time to post – user5341 May 05 '11 at 07:28
  • @DVK: Well, OK, "those who actually have power" then. It doesn't change anything. The fact is, and you can be how skeptical you want about this, is that the US and Pakistan is currently cooperating and has for a long time been cooperating in a war against Al Qaeda in northern Pakistan. There are frequent terrorist attacks in Pakistan that originates with the Taliban. The Pakistani rulers were *not* friends with or protecting bin Laden. Hence they would not have opposed an attack to kill him. Hence, there is no reason to assume there was no official knowledge of these helicopters. – Lennart Regebro May 05 '11 at 07:36
  • 1
    If you want to discuss this blatantly obvious facts further, I suggest chat. – Lennart Regebro May 05 '11 at 07:37
  • 1
    @Lennart Regebro then how do you explain the fact that Laden was co-located along with a prominent military establishment. Don't you think it's blatantly obvious that Osama not just survived but flourished under the protection of his pakistani overlords? Is it not blatantly obvious that the Pakistan government had a significant strategic advantage in holding bin laden hostage in it's own territory? – Autodidact May 05 '11 at 14:41
  • 1
    @SDX2000: No, I don't think any of those statements are correct. Again, I refer this off topic discussion to the chat. – Lennart Regebro May 05 '11 at 15:48
  • 1
    US helicopters fly over Pakistan every day in far larger numbers. No doubt so do US built Pakistani helicopters and other coalition rotorcraft as well as civilian ones. It's easy to get lost in the clutter that way, and there's no doubt policies in place that have US military aircraft operate outside of Pakistani air traffic control. And that's without taking into account the low altitude which would have them under the radar most of the time (literally). – jwenting May 31 '11 at 05:32
  • A Pakistan Air force spokeman said that the radars were not turned on at the time the helecopters entered the country, i don't have the link handy but google it – Click Upvote Jun 03 '11 at 02:30
  • Yes and these are the guys that specialize in clandestine night time helo missions just like the one in question: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160th_Special_Operations_Aviation_Regiment_(Airborne)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160th_Special_Operations_Aviation_Regiment_%28Airborne%29) – rayrod2030 May 04 '11 at 16:43
  • 1
    @LennartRegebro: Afaik, pakistan even complained about USA not informing about this mission. so I'd assume they were not involved. – Zaibis Aug 15 '16 at 22:14

3 Answers3

189

EDIT TO ADD INFORMATION REQUESTED.

If a helicopter is flying low, and not "squawking", there is no way that any civilian radar will pick it up. Especially in a mountainous region such as Pakistan. Simple mechanics of radar as illustrated by this picture from Answers.com. Note that mountains between the radar site and aircraft will further block the ability of the radar to detect an aircraft.

Radar Mechanics

Keep in mind that if they can't be seen, they can't get shot at either. And these are some of the best helicopter pilots on the planet. Most radars are unable to detect anything flying contours, but I would wager that for part of this they were flying nap of the earth. The below image is taken from the Global Security Website (the exact image is from Figure 28 on this page) where they discuss many modes of flight for helicopter safety from enemy fire.

Nap of the earth flying

Even larger aircraft like the FB-111 would use this technique to avoid detection without the need for stealth technology.

So even though the airspace is monitored, if they can't be seen, it doesn't matter. Also, I don't think this was "allowed" or "disallowed" by the Pakistani government. Some covert operations are carried out, and then back-briefed if the target (such as Osama bin Laden) is important enough.

ADDED INFO:

Now, several folks have asked about the helicopters used, and some of their performance characteristics. The most likely aircraft (as reported in a couple of other answers as well) is the MH-60 Pave Hawk (a Blackhawk variant modified for special operations). Again, to quote Global Security, the performance characteristics are:

Primary Function Infiltration, exfiltration and resupply of special operations forces in day, night or marginal weather conditions.

Power Plant Two General Electric T700-GE-01C engines

Thrust 1,630 shaft horsepower, each engine

Length 64 feet, 8 inches (17.1 meters)

Height 16 feet, 8 inches (4.4 meters)

Rotary Diameter 53 feet, 7 inches (14.1 meters)

Speed 184 mph (294.4 kph)

Maximum Takeoff Weight 22,000 pounds (9,900 kilograms)

Range 445 nautical miles; 504 statute miles (unlimited with air refueling)

Armament Two 7.62mm mini-guns

Crew Two pilots, one flight engineer and one gunner

In particular, note that these aircraft are mid-air refulable from a KC-130 (NOT KC-135), thus they have a nearly unlimited range. I highly doubt that they took off from anywhere inside Pakistan (i.e. Ghazi) but rather originated in Afghanistan. I cannot say where exactly though, but no matter where they took off from, if they received refueling prior to entering Pakistan, the range is more than adequate to get to Abbottabad and back on one tank of gas (looking at google maps, it appears that the distance is less than 350 KM from Kabul, or about 200 miles). So a little less than 400 mile round trip, at about 200 MPH would be about 2 hours total (add in the actual assault and there you have your timeline). These figures are approximate though because things change with load-out and other configurations. These aircraft would probably have flown in a formation that would probably helped to disguise their true numbers.

Someone mentioned that ATC must have a squawk to paint these aircraft. That is overstated, however as previously mentioned, they were probably well below the radar, and aided by the mountainous terrain. Add in they were most likely using EMCON 4 procedures, and then it would be even more difficult to pick them up by any means. As the cited article also mentioned, the noise reduction and additional radar absorbent paint just added to the stealthiness of these aircraft (as if SPEC OPS flight patterns were not enough).

And thanks to Kit Sunde, we have further info: Here's Pakistan denying having known about the raid, "Bin Laden: Pakistan intelligence agency admits failures", BBC which also states: "US helicopters entered Pakistani airspace making use of blind spots in the radar coverage due to hilly terrain."

Feel free to leave more questions if you have them.

Community
  • 1
Larian LeQuella
  • 44,977
  • 18
  • 187
  • 208
  • 38
    You're a real military pilot. I'm just a civilian student pilot. When I'm below 1000' at 100 knots I'm really focussed because that's the danger zone. It's hard to imagine you guys at half that height, at much higher speeds, at night, without lights, in formation. How on earth do you avoid hitting stuff? – Mike Dunlavey May 04 '11 at 02:09
  • 49
    Lots and lots of training! I have over 3000 flying hours, and the guys employed for the SOF mission usually have even more. Helicopter flying is much different than fixed wing. Also, we have some of the best equipment that technology can give us. Some night flying is like flying at day. – Larian LeQuella May 04 '11 at 02:13
  • 1
    @Mike Because people like Larian are the best at what they do. The very best :) – Rusty May 04 '11 at 02:26
  • +1 - Great answer, however it still sounds highly risky. Also I didn't think the US friendship with Pakistan was currently friendly enough to consider back-briefing; there doesn't seem to be much complaining from the Pakistani govt. – going May 04 '11 at 02:27
  • 19
    I was only a line pilot. Those SOF guys are THE BEST. – Larian LeQuella May 04 '11 at 02:28
  • 9
    @xiaohouzi79, you are correct. It's INCREDIBLY RISKY. But the return on taking that risk was deemed worth it. Remember, combat flying and combat operations are pretty much totally foreign to anyone who has not been in those situations. And we are "notionally" friendly with the Pakistani government, so AFTER the mission we let them know. Not that they could do anything about it considering the results. – Larian LeQuella May 04 '11 at 02:30
  • 6
    It's been pointed out that most all of Pakistan's air defense radars are focused on India, on that border. They would not expect air attack from the Afghan side. As well, CNN has been reporting that there were a LOT more aircraft involved than the 4 entry choppers; High cover, surveillance.. Just in case. – M. Werner May 04 '11 at 02:40
  • @Larian - could you please add some info about ranges without refueling given the likley types of helicopters involved and where there must have been basing off of? It's a great answer anyway, but the likeliest detection option would be if they needed to refuel en route, so it would be nice if that was covered. – user5341 May 04 '11 at 04:18
  • @larian, can you provide links to the origin of the images? – Sklivvz May 04 '11 at 06:53
  • 1
    Damn, this answer *still* needs references. I’m really unhappy about this since your credentials clearly qualify you to speak about this subject authoritatively. But the [question about blue blood](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/q/2744/82) illustrates that this isn’t enough (a “doctor” claiming that blood is, indeed, blue). Including references for the images should probably be enough though. – Konrad Rudolph May 04 '11 at 08:43
  • 10
    Okay, I can link the images. As to the types of helicopters, I need to see if any of that information is unclassified, otherwise I'd be speculating (but with a good background since I did work A3 in the CENTCOM AOC). – Larian LeQuella May 04 '11 at 10:26
  • Your answer is correct in terms of ideal situtions but if you look at the context of the questions then one need to look many other parameters. For example, Operation Started around 10 PM which lasted around 40 Mins and according to official release they threw him at 1 AM which means only 2:20 hours were there to flight (ignoring other time). Now tell me can you do this in such circumstances , possibly yes if there is only 1 helli but with four its not possible – Gripsoft May 04 '11 at 13:15
  • 8
    @Gripsoft, what are you basing your assertion that it's impossible to do with 4 helicopters what can be done with one? Ever hear of formation flying? – JasonR May 04 '11 at 15:39
  • 1
    Here's Pakistan denying having known about the raid http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13268517 which also states: "US helicopters entered Pakistani airspace making use of blind spots in the radar coverage due to hilly terrain." – Kit Sunde May 05 '11 at 04:59
  • Ghazi is not in Afghanistan ... its in Pakistan. – explorer May 05 '11 at 11:52
  • 1
    "How on earth do you avoid hitting stuff?" - Didn't one of the helicopters crash? – Casebash May 05 '11 at 13:19
  • @Casebash, actually it had a mechanical malfunction, and was destroyed by the troops prior to departure. – JasonR May 05 '11 at 14:54
  • @Kit Sunde: Note that similarities between government press releases about politically hot secret operations and the truth are often merely coincidental. The Pakistanis would likely have to deny any cooperation or prior knowledge for political reasons. – David Thornley May 24 '11 at 13:15
  • @David Thornley - Definitely, but the problem here is in part that it makes Pakistan look bad if they claim they didn't know about the operation. It also worsens Pakistani-American relationships when they outright say (which they did many times) that they do not allow such breaches of their borders even in this special case. So I'm inclined to believe it in this case, but I'm of course skeptical about such things. :) – Kit Sunde May 25 '11 at 13:28
  • @Brightblades, combat vehicles (note, apparently the best tech in the world) seem to have a tendency to have mechanical failures over live combat zones. I think it's far more likely it was shot down. – Tom Gullen Jun 16 '11 at 13:46
  • Supposedly the US used special [stealth helicopters](http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/05/the_us_seems_to.html) – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Jun 17 '11 at 21:28
  • 1
    @BlueRaja, as I said in the answer: `As the cited article also mentioned, the noise reduction and additional radar absorbent paint just added to the stealthiness of these aircraft (as if SPEC OPS flight patterns were not enough).` :) – Larian LeQuella Jun 17 '11 at 21:32
  • This is a great answer. One follow up question: aren't these copter loud as hell? I'm no expert but the ones I heard flying over are a number of times louder than civilian aircraft. So especially at low altitude won't you just _hear_ them being so close and raise the alarms? – Dmitry Selitskiy Aug 04 '11 at 22:35
  • @Dmitry Selitskiy the answer is a yes and no. Yes, when you are right by a helicopter, they are loud. In this case though, they are specially modified helicopters that have noise suppression systems (not silent though). Also, by flying nap of the earth, surrounding vegetation and terrain will muffle sound. – Larian LeQuella Aug 04 '11 at 23:34
  • @Larian Thanks. Just can't forget how loud the bloody things were when I saw/heard them during a training operation in the city. Those probably were "regular" machines, not SPEC OPS or anything.. – Dmitry Selitskiy Aug 05 '11 at 00:36
  • What about satellites ? They can see them – HackToHell Oct 02 '12 at 08:07
  • @HackToHell Yes, it is _possible_ for satellites to spot the helicopters given the right conditions. However, with satellites you need to know where to look, when to look, when the satellite is actually available to look, etc. Satellites are much more useful for area surveillance. Most countries (the US in particular) knows when every satellite is over a specific area, so they are easily avoided. – Larian LeQuella Oct 03 '12 at 01:50
  • I found [a source](http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/pakistan-military-caught-in-the-crossfire/article1991627.ece) with some claims from Pakistani officials that you might consider incorporating. – raptortech97 Aug 15 '14 at 14:25
  • Great answer, however assumes ground radars only. Could you address how AEW&C would affect that, given that Pakistan does have some capability? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Pakistan_Air_Force_Shaanxi_ZDK-03_%28Y-8%29_inflight.jpg – vartec Apr 10 '15 at 23:08
  • I've realized that bin Laden was killed in May 2011, while the ZDK-03 was only delivered to Pakistan only in November 2011. On the other hand they did have Saab-2000 w/ [Erieye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erieye) since 2009. – vartec Apr 10 '15 at 23:25
  • your MH-60 Pave Hawk link is dead :) – Zaibis Aug 15 '16 at 22:24
25

I recall Mathias Rust landing a plane in the middle of Moscow during the Cold War, completely undetected and unknown to the Soviets. I'm thinking Pakistan's surveillance is probably not as good as the Soviets. In any case, by the time Pakistani authorities would have been notified about it and had time to do anything, they were already out of the country again.

JasonR
  • 9,247
  • 5
  • 51
  • 65
George
  • 259
  • 2
  • 2
  • 6
    You're thinking about this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust – Nevermind May 04 '11 at 12:22
  • 2
    ALL ATC (Air Traffic Control radar) is dependent on a Transponder to identify an aircraft accurately. They are able to do "skin paints" but are generally not powerful enough to do that reliably. The aircraft being tracked needs to activelly broadcast their position, something the SPEC OPS guys probably weren't doing. – JasonR May 04 '11 at 14:08
  • 6
    According to the link, he was detected, part of the time. They just didn't take him seriously and erred on the side of non-action. This was only 4 years after [KAL 007](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007) where they erred on the side of action. A friend's brother was on that plane. That also helped Gorbachev. – Mike Dunlavey May 04 '11 at 14:27
  • AFAIK Rust flew in on the day when Anti-Air Defense was celebrating their official holiday. Read: pretty much everyone was likely heavily drunk, even those on duty (this comes from talking to a guy who at the time recently retired from Anti-Air Defense). Not a likely chance of that in Pakistan. – user5341 May 04 '11 at 14:28
  • 4
    @Brightblades ATC needs a transponder to IDENTIFY an aircraft, but not to detect it. ATC can pick up an aircraft by radar, and know its position (subject to all the restrictions identified by other answers) they just won't know what it is without a transponder or radio contact. – DJClayworth May 04 '11 at 16:26
  • 2
    Brightblades overstated the need for a transponder (but what does he know, he was always in back of the airplane flying the boom). Skinpaints are possible, but they don't give a lot of info. Not to mention that a target needs to be out of ground clutter. Something I doubt these helicopters were doing. – Larian LeQuella May 04 '11 at 22:44
  • 1
    "but what does he know, he was always in back of the airplane flying the boom" Does that mean you were my chaufer, taking me to work every day? ;) – JasonR May 05 '11 at 16:54
  • Brightblades only seems to know civilian procedures. Military radars typically skinpaint by default as they're looking specifically for targets that don't have an operational transponder :) – jwenting May 31 '11 at 05:36
  • Re: Soviet Russian surveillance vs Pakistani. It's worth noting that in the past 26 years, things have changed a tad. Also, the Russians may not have been using the *very* latest technology at the time (radars are expensive and all, and you want to use them for a *while* anyway), while the Pakistanis are almost invariably currently using something that is simultaneously newer and cheaper. More than likely the Pakistani air defence system works just great, but that these helicopters exploited weaknesses in it. – Ernie Jul 26 '11 at 20:11
11

Well from this article I understood that there was some cooperation between the Pakistani and US governments. More specifically, it is about this quote:

Obama praised Pakistan for its "close counter-terrorism co-operation". But officials said the US was the only country that knew in advance of the operation.

I think that it is plausible that Pakistan had an agreement to allow the US to execute the raid, although the specifics were not given the US.

Andrei Vajna
  • 211
  • 1
  • 4
  • 2
    seems from what I've heard that even the white house and especially congress were kept in the dark because of the very real potential for leaks from there, and only informed after the operation was over (or well underway). This after leakage by those channels of classified information in the recent past. – jwenting May 31 '11 at 05:37