G.I. Joe Always Had It Wrong

“How do soldiers bail out of Chinook or Blackhawk helicopter after been hit by a SAM?”

They don’t.

(Note: the information below – much like all detailed posts I share – is outdated and available on open source sites.)

Most flights over combat areas typically don’t stray into the altitudes favored by surface-to-air missiles; rather, they frequent the regime where small-arms and RPG’s dominate. The 2S6 (or 2K22) Tunguska, one of the systems which dominated our concerns while I was a crew chief on UH-60’s, has a typical minimum range of 2,500 meters (8,202 feet)for the 9M311 missile (I’m intentionally omitting discussions of anti-aircraft artillery and/or gun systems installed on systems like the Tunguska because the question specifically stated SAM’s). Later on, the 9K330 Tor slowly became more…interesting… because of Russia’s sales to other nations in 2006; still, the minimum engagement range of around 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) dictated the tactical necessity of terrain flight for helicopters. Beyond that, the larger systems like the SA-2 and up, were assets which would typically be noted and avoided in the event that our route would take us into their engagement envelopes.

This brings me to man-portable air-defense (MANPADS) systems.

These were a different story, with minimum engagement ranges of around 600 meters (1,968 feet). Still stretching it a bit, but – unlike the larger vehicle-based systems – their sheer portability and quantity posed a substantial problem. Fortunately, size of the system dictated the maximum payload type and weight: with the SA-7’s 1.15-kilogram (2.5 pound) warhead, the survivability features designed into the Blackhawk limited the chances of catastrophic damage occurring.

All that being said about the threat of SAM’s brings us back to the foundation of the question of soldiers bailing out of a stricken utility or cargo helicopter.

Again, they don’t.

In the 17 years I was a crew member, the total number of times I have boarded the helicopter with a parachute is the same amount of times I have ever worn one: zero. The one deployment to Afghanistan and two to Iraq routinely found me on missions where, even if I was wearing a parachute, bailing out would merely resulted in me becoming a mess on the terrain with a barely-deployed canopy neatly covering the grisly proof of the fall not being my demise but the sudden stop at the end. Sorry, but Hollywood has infected the imagination of many to believe that this is even remotely plausible.

The reality is quite simple: if the bird is going down, so are the crew and passengers. MIL-STD-1290A Light Fixed- and Rotary-wing Crashworthiness periodically reiterates the baseline requirements years after the initial flight of the UH-60, and ongoing studies discuss – in detail – the results of research into how to improve upon the design features to ensure the maximum protection of the crew and passengers (yes, I tended to over-research while I was instructing – it’s better to know the “why” beyond “because that’s the way it always has been…”). Having known several folks who have walked away from wrecks that appear impossible to survive, I’d say that taking one’s chances in the bird are much better the notion of bailing out at 100-200 feet.