Talk:Stealth helicopter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bin Laden[edit]

Please stop deleting the reference to the Bin Laden raid by claiming this is the exact same helicopter described in the Black Hawk article. Until you can show reference that this is the same helicopter described elsewhere the reference belongs here as a unique aircraft. - Ken keisel (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have deleted your addition as it isn't backed up by the source you give. The source neither mentions an absence of "official statement" nor anything about a comparison between photographs of the helicopter and those known in the "U.S. inventory". GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I just have. Time to discuss that addition before it goes back in. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

avoiding deletion/merger[edit]

To avoid deletion, can i suggest that the author re-write this article following the five pillars of Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong, per se, with an article on Stealth helicopters, just let it be based on RELIABLY referenced sources, be factual and comply with Wikipedia guidelines. So please put a bit more effort into developing your article in a way that will make deletion unnecessary.Petebutt (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

read this [1] and compare it with this article! Say no more!!Petebutt (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can help to improve the article, so it doesn't need to be the original author. At this point, the basic question is if we have enough material available to keep a separate article, or if it should be merged into Stealth aircraft. Btw, Globalsecurity.org is probably not a sufficiently reliable source for us to base an article on. - BilCat (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view there will in future be sufficient material to expand this into an article which can more justifiably be kept separate. The noise-suppression required is a separate strand of technology, and the uses to which these vehicles can be put are also distinct. However, this does not preclude a merger in the meantime. There were >6k views of each of the two pages yesterday, more at stealth aircraft which suggests that some readers did not spot the "see also" link, and therefore did not find this material even though many of them would probably have been interested. In other words, a temporary merger may be a good idea.
Why is globalsecurity.org not sufficiently reliable as a source? - Fayenatic (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a self published source, i.e. has no peer review and does not meet reliable source guidelines. There's more at WP:USERGENERATED also. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Being the one who moved it from a redirect to an article, I suppose I'm the "original author". That being said, I know little on the subject, and so didn't flush it out more than stub quality. I simply saw that with thousands of views/day, it is justifiably a separate article. I agree there should be a subsection in the aircraft article that links over here to the main article, but helicopters have their unique issues that have impeded development, and the stealth aircraft page is targeting airplanes (when I switched from a redirect there wasn't a single mention of "helicopter" in the aircraft article). Anyone with information on this subject, flush out the article. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 22:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used the globalsecurity.org article as an example of a fleshed out article, not to imply that it is a reliable source. If I was not busy doing something else I would have a stab at it. any takers out there?Petebutt (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, Pete. I excpect one of the the big aviation periodicals, such as AvWeek or FlightGlobal, will tackle the topic in depth within the next few months. At that point, we should have enough info from a reliable sources to flesh his out. As noted, it is a paopular topic, and starting the article was a good idea. If we can expand it, I'd rather keep it separate from the main article, as helicopters are quite uniqu in their stealth requirements than that of fixed-wing aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's really not that much to go on. Just because it had 5 or 6 blades and a fan in the back doesn't mean it's really a super secret stealth aircraft. There wasn't enough wreckage to tell the shape of it and the materials don't conclusively show the use of RAM on the skin yet. Did it? Was it faceted or with parabolas? Was the exhaust HEAVILY suppressed and mixed with cooler air? Possibly, but right now it's just speculation. There were plenty of rumors within the military that Comanche was never going to the Army, but was just a prototype program to develop technology that would eventually be given over to Air Force's Groom Dry Lake facility to come up with other uses for it, such as SPECOPs transports. Then there were rumors the production line was continued in secret. Stealth plus AFCS for helos is a whole new ballgame and plenty of soldiers & journalists have claimed to have spotted Comanche in Iraq operating. There's even some interesting footage. Just misidentifying Cobras? It's all pretty unlikely, and instead I agree this bin Laden thing is more likely an outgrowth of the desire to use the canceled RAH-66 systems on other aircraft. Blackhawk and Chinook are going to a common digital fly-by-wire cockpit. Apache with Block 3 (aka, "Enhanced Apache") is going with quieter rotors and the AFCS D-FBW with side sticks. Ditto with the Cobra Z "Viper". Huey is even getting the new rotors for the Marines. It's all just been a matter of how fast they wanted to do this after Rumsfeld appeared to have yanked the Comanche $$$ to use on Iraq. Does this new Nightstalker bird (assuming it is one) count as "stealth"? That's pretty much a matter of semantics, but sonic and IR signature are VERY big deals with helos given their ability to evade radar through NOE... even if RAM wasn't used and the actual shape turns out to be not that progressive. -Reticuli 66.178.144.36 (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference sources[edit]

Following upon the vein being developed above, the use of any information from Big...anything is extremely suspect and is strictly a blog site maintained by one of the most disreputable faux journalists ever. I am very hesitant in having a statement in the article from a source that cannot be confirmed as providing an expert opinion... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Concur that that is not a reliable source. it should be removed. - BilCat (talk) 13:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source may be suspect but I have researched the author and found he is likely to be an expert and an Aircraft Instructor (Ground/Flight) at Westar Aerospace and Defense Group with an extensive background in helicopters with recent service in Iraq, working with the armed forces there. I will revise the entry with a proper source. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
The original source is back now. I'd rather remove the entry entirely for now, since there's no indication in the mention here that it was ever actually used. It seems to have been more of an experimental idea that a specific type, and there are probably many more of those ideas that never panned out. I think this mention would be better in a discussion paragraph, such as mentioned above on expanding that article, rather than as an example. - BilCat (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The experiment more than anything else was a credible effort to extend the capabilities of a "Loach" and moving it to a note is probably better than nothing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I reinstated a hidden inline note of the bigpeace source purely to record, for editors but not readers, the source of the name Bill Tuttle, as it was the only one to link the text with the identity of the writer. It's been deleted again, but interested editors may look up the article history on today's date. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look once more, an extensive author note was given. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've since added that. But is there anything other than the now-uncited unreliable source (spit!) to connect Axe's quoting “Bill” from the milblog Arrgggh! with the author of an otherwise unused book in the bibliography? Bill's surname is not given anywhere in Arrgggh, which is why I cited the other (spit!) source in the first place. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any Big.... site is questionable as nearly all of the information comes in the form of blog entries which are generally not accepted in Wikiwonderland and do even some cursory examination who founded and runs the sites. That is why using established sources is much more preferable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I understand that, I'm just trying to source the id of the writer who described the working of the Invisible Loach. Thankfully Bill's surname does appear in the archive of the milblog cited in Wired.com, confirming his identity without resorting to the (spit!) discredited site. There's a fine line between what we're doing and WP:OR, though, so let's hope the established journals come out with some relevant material soon. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The aviation consultant Bill Tuttle is probably not the same person as the author of the book listed: "the army's senior logistician, General William G. T. Tuttle, Jr., ... retirement early in 1992." [2] I'm therefore removing the latter's book from the bibliography. - Fayenatic (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right there, substituted a ref from Linkedin source. My main concern in using the Big..... sites is to establish a precedence for a totally disreputable and controversial set of websites populated with a wide and diverse body of neocons and nutj*bs that continue to propagate a continuing series of conspiracy theories that completely negates any one legitimate nugget of information such as the Tuttle statement... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

HAL LCH[edit]

HAL LCH is probably the ONLY Stealth attack Helicopter flying today and can be added to the examples

Source

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hallghtcombathelicop/

"he two-seater craft also has a tricycle crashworthy wheel landing gear and stealth capabilities"


http://defenceprojectsindia.wordpress.com/tag/hal-lch/

"The LCH incorporates stealth features and crash landing gear for survivability"


http://www.answers.com/topic/hal-light-combat-helicopter

"The LCH design features a narrow fuselage with stealth profiling, armour protection, and will be equipped to conduct day-and-night combat operations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.184.116 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be great if someone added this image of LCH with Digital camouflage

http://i45.tinypic.com/2e1wpzm.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.184.116 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the wording neutral per WP:Neutral point of view. (Neutral 3rd party sources help too.) Also, references have to be added IN the article per WP:Verifiability. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stealth helicopter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concern on recent deletions on this article[edit]

I wish to make an observation here that some deletions of content performed recently may benefit from scrutiny from other editors. Kyteto (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stealth_helicopter&oldid=1199639457"