Cool pix!

Reminds me of one of Australia’s most iconic war photos…5 Platoon, B Company 7RAR (Royal Australian Regiment)

 

I love (loved) the UH-1. There is no feeling like flying in with your legs hanging out the door. It was also the best jump from a helo. I've jumped the UH-1, rear door CH-46, and CH-54 (box jump). Been transported in UH-1, CH-46 (scariest), CH-53, CH-47, UH-60; the UH-1 is the most fun/exciting ride. The CH/MH-47 and CH-53 were the only helos that could operate effectively in the mountains of Afghanistan because the thin air at those altitudes reduced the amount of lift. The 47/53 have enormous lifting capacity. The 47F can lift 24,000lbs and has two 4,733 shp engines. The CH-53E (used because it is contemporary to the 47F and used in Afghanistan, 53K now entering service) can lift 36,000lbs and has three 4,380 shp engines.
My older son's brother-in-law is a West Point graduate and flew CH-47's in Iraq and Afghanistan. I saw him yesterday and asked him Biak's question; "One question: Why didn't he land where the troops are walking?" It's called a "Pinnacle maneuver/landing", the CH-47 has such a large footprint it's hard to fit it (and it's rotors) into a lot of spaces, avoids obstructions on the LZ, also by keeping the cockpit/pilot elevated it helps reduce brownout/whiteout, which can be problematic in certain environments. If I correctly understand what he said, it apparently, temporarily increases airflow across the front rotor where altitude/temp causes reduced lift. Basically, it's just a tool for specific situations/conditions. The CH-47's layout gives it more options for troop carrying/evac missions over the CH-53 which has a similar sized footprint (never turn to your right when exiting a 53).



This is a CH-53E recovering a CH-47 in Afghanistan, note the relative sizes.

I've seen the tandem rotor CH-46 (no longer in inventory, replaced by MV-22 Osprey) use the same technique, but it is a smaller helo, with a much-reduced footprint.

I've seen this done, but have never done it myself, it's the water-borne variant of the pinnacle maneuver called the delta queen.



I did get rubber boat training with the Marines when I went to Amphibious Warfare School at Little Creek, (it is fun but physically demanding training). I got a lot more with SF, on Zodiacs and RHIB's, a lot of insertion and extraction techniques with helos. Sling loaded Zodiacs and the team helo casts or fast ropes out of a 47 then marry up with the boat, I've done wet silk jumps, but nothing on the level of some of the higher speed SEAL/Raider/Force Recon insertion/extraction techniques, they're not high speed, they're ultra high speed! One of the most fun extraction techniques is SPIE rigging, loved that sheet! Very useful when your team is compromised, and the terrain is such you can't get a helo in. Bad guys after you, you don't always have the time to move to a suitable extraction point, using SPIE rigging you've got a chance.



All that said, nothing says military power, and 'MERICA like a heliborne assault, sooo much expertise, technology and expensive equipment.

Best helicopter assault scenes from movies:

 

Remember that recent news item where an Osprey had made an emergency landing somewhere in northern Norway, and they had to build a road to get it to the shore so a boat could pick it up? Wonder why they didn't just use a CH-53?

The Ride of the Valkyries is the best war movie scene ever!

 

The island is a nature preserve and airlifting the Osprey out was nixed early on.

 

Were the guys flying these getting credited for combat missions?

 

Australian Light Horse WW1...


Lewis Gun WW1


WW2



Korea...


Vietnam...


Today...




"And i pull this trigger"
"Yep"
"And i mow them the f##k down right?"
"Ummm...yeah thats right".

 

That's my ex-boyfriend...I'm going to shoot his bipper off.

 

Those be Aussie F111s...Once the scurge of the South...

 

In Australia she was known as ‘Pig’ or as an extension Razorback…Aardvark is an Africaans word for ‘Earth Pig’.

 

Not an Ooops. It's designed for just such happenings.


The main gear do not fully retract into the wings, so that the fuselage is still off the ground(as can be seen in the above photo) in the event of gear failure.