Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

I wonder if the IAF can put to effective use Mi26's much touted "Chinook carrying" ability without buying Chinooks first...?

&
&

well of course it is going to be expensive as it is a tilt rotor plane , of course it is going to have more tactical advantage than helo .simple common sense

Well yes CHINOOK offers more space & carrying capabilty & i would put my money on chinook

& yes to compare with V22 osprey is like comparing apples with orange

This History for all who have forgotten this:


Operation Chequerboard

1987 Sino-Indian skirmish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


You dont need a Airfield, You can deploy a Company size or more in one flight, Also you can deploy BMP or Light tanks and arty such as Heavy 155mm/52cal not just 155mm /39cal..

Chinook cannot do this..

Thank you Kunal. The simple fact is that the Mi 26 is a superior deployment platform due to load capability. Also due to twice the ferry range, refuelling timespan is reduced. The Chinook has to be refuelled every 400 miles, whereas the Mi 26 need to be refuelled every 1800 miles with external fuel and 800 miles with internal fuel.

An Mi 26 can deploy thrice the men and equipment in the same time as a Chinook due to its advantage of load and range. And please remember, the Siachen is at 18,000 feet, NE is not. The altitude ceiling of the Mi26 is 'not less than' 15,000 feet, which is more than adequate for all of NE areas. And NE is where we need heavy lift choppers.

The simple thing is that, even if IAF gets Chinooks, it will still need to have some Mil-26s on standby, just in case the Chinooks are shot down or disabled. If not for Mil-26, who will carry those disabled Chinooks back for repairs?

It was used to hook up with a chinook fallen, in a fallen enviornment with no enemy at all, it doesnt replicate our scenario at all,

Like I said,, I will give 1000, to DFi or more even 2000, when IAF selects the Chinook, There is no doubt it is the better choice.

Awww, how cute, darling.

Yes, Chinooks have their advantages, having two contra-rotating non-coaxial rotors. They are more stable in cross winds and have greater efficiency than conventional main-rotor-tail-rotor crafts. However, why get Chinooks when Mil-26s can do the same job? We already have trained staff and operating experience.

Some of the excuses or marketing gimmics by Boeing:

Downwash:
Every helicopter will have down wash, and no, it is not unsafe, because it does no suck people up into the rotors, moreover, the downwash is zero if the rotors are not tilted. If the rotors are not tilted, no matter what the rpm, there will be negligible downwash. Look up how helicopter rotors work if you don't understand what I said.

Larger centre-of-gravity envelope:
Pffft. How many centres-of-gravity can an object have? How big is that? WTH is 'envelope' here? Was that marketing brochure meant for learned people? No matter how many rotors you have, there is one, and only one centre-of-gravity, and it is just a point.

And those landing pictures with forest:
The conventional helicopter can do exactly what the Chinook did there. That was ridiculous, and then some people are buying into that.

Awesome response, but do you really want to get into CG and CM with internet fanboys? You just have to look at most people's choice of cars to figure out that there is no point in bringing center of gravity and center of mass discussions into debates like this. Lets restrict our debates to simple range, payload, paint schemes and American/Russian themes.

If the MI 26 is so superior in range, and load (which it clearly is) the only thing that can hurt its chances is lack of spares and support, which Russia is notorious for in India. Getting spares for Russian platforms can take YEARS, and they cost mark ups are astronomical in some cases. Even then sometimes the spares are second hand garbage, and they get people killed.

If the Russians cant support our current fleet properly how is this going to change when we buy more of the same type?

If the Russians can guarantee spares in a time span of days instead of the current one (of years in some cases) then they can win the tender. If they cant, the chinook deserves the win, because the US can deliver the platforms quickly, and they have world leading support and supply chain.

Good point, this will be a parameter that will weigh into the final decision.

^^

Yes, that is a valid point. There is genuine problem with spares from Russia. However, that problem is apolitical. With the US, and their habit of imposing sanctions, I don't see how this spare problem could be an advantage for the Chinook. Hey, Boeing is an American company, bud!

Buy JF -17

2 Chinooks are better at deploying company sized troops into hot zones. The defensive armaments alone of these 2 Chinooks can make good screening fire, of course they should always have escorts.

Why would you send BMPs or light tanks into rugged terrains on top of mountains? You send in mountain troops. In any case, BMPs and light tanks are better sent by transport aircrafts to forward operating bases.



I think Chinook can carry the M198 155mm howitzer, which later on was modified to 52 cal.

This is some thing i am expecting..

In Last year Exercise Indian Army aviation units were introduce to Chinooks and taught how to operate and maintain them as part of Joint Exercise.. ( Not publish in Indian media )

Where as IAF may go for MI-26T2..