Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

Indian Operational requirement over N.E needed Light tanks and BMPs, There are huge areas up there ruled by Armour by both sides..




M198 never updated to 52cal it remained as a 42cal, US have no 52CAL guns..

Russians don't give 2 shits about us .... they want our money and are willing to do anything to get it...... By the way why is everyone stuck in the 70's when American foreign policy was strictly anti soviet and Nixon was the president, things have changed a lot... even during the Kargil war there was way more support for Indian side than the Pakis, yeah yeah America sells weapons to Pakistan but sanctions on it have been much harder than the ones on India

Im not saying Unkil is some kind of saint but things are not what they use to be... Unkil might have had some reservations towards India because we were "friends" with the USSR but knowing the American Pyshe noone is going to forget that Osama was being hid there by the Paki government!

USSR was an ally, but Russia is a friend. Both the US and Russia will sell for money. So will France, UK and Germany. It is always money.

However, Russia and France are more reliable because they don't link India's domestic or foreign policies with business. That is what I like about them. Germany, on the other hand, has laws that encourage bribery. Russia has issues with deliveries in some sectors, like Gorshkov, however, there are many other sectors where deliveries have been satisfactory. Let's not forget the Sukhoi-30MKI, MiG-29K, T-90S etc.. So, no, Russia is not an unreliable supplier overall, but yes, that one thing, Gorshkov, sticks out like a thorn. Now, coming to the US, even if the President is very friendly, there is a Congress and some lawmakers, and certain export control laws, that make pure business very difficult with the US. Then there is the issue of confidence. It will take time to grow.

Kunal I always hate arguing with you but here goes,

I am not arguing for the need of tactical transporters, I just think that the heavy lifting should be done as much as possible by fixed wing aircraft ex c130 and 17...... setting up ALG's in forward areas would serve us much better at getting armored vehicles to the front previously we did'nt have such capablities now with the c130 and c 17 we can move much much more and support them much better than with a fleet of mi 26.........

The only rational argument that people seem to make is that Mi 26 can lift more, granted this is useful in a time of war but the tactical advantages of Ch-47 are much greater IMHO

I was rather referring to it's extended ability rather than just lifting the Chinook.
Come to think of it they could have used the much hyped Chinook for lifting the Chinook itself.

Not really a concern, since we are not a expeditionary force, therefore what chinook carries good enough.

Being the most important of all aspects, We need ceiling height.

That is not important, the question is how much time does need to get to the said speeds. Chinooks are extremely quick. Quick drops during wartime hotzones is possible,

Do we just pooh-pooh the manoverability of Sukhoi? We dont, do we? Why the double standards. That slick manoveres saves lives in mountains, makes the pilot make awesome corrections in difficult conditions. Its not a slug.

Manouverability is the most important thing in the Himalayas than lifting capacity.Chinook is the better option for the IA considering the Himalayan environment.War accquisitions also place great emphasis on te environment where the machines act and in the Mountains I think the Chinook is a better bird

Gentlemen,

How many BMP's did our current Mi26 ever carry to our Mountains, NONE. If there is a requirement Armour and APC support in a particular area, then you can expect IAF to have an airfield there. You guys are less intelligent by harping on the load and range.I expect better from the members of these board.When you have other options for carrying the load, when 500 km combat radius is good enough in our country, if we dont have 500 km sanitized, we might as well give up the country, why? check the map and border locations.

1. What is the nature of our requirement in accordance with our doctrine?
2. Where is the requirement going to employed and what are the geography involved?
3. What is max load which has to achieved by the virtue of our doctrine in the said geographical area?
4. What are the uptimes / availability?
5. What is after sales support of the product concerned?

Answer these questions. You will get it quite clearly. And if anyone of you think IAF is going to buy more of the worst helicopter, it has "EVER" operated with lowest availability, it only fly's for less than 30 HOURS /YEAR, then god save us all.

Besides maneuverability, engine power also important. Engine must perform good in thin air of Himalaya altitude

Nobody talks about the sheer amount of technology they have transferred to the Chinese by the Russians, much more than America has ever did with Pakistan. Look at Vietnam, they had a war with America, they destroyed their country and did heinous crimes, but they got over it, and now are friends especially because of China. If they can get over it, so can we. We were in the way of their interest and vice versa.

PS: We didnt get rich over the population of Russians, rather Americans. I value them more.

Ceiling height is the most important aspect along with maneuverability. 15000 is the max ceiling height of the Mi26, in thin air with that rotor config and with loads, I wonder what will happen to that beast of a slug. Chinook already operates in those heights with load and is battle proven.

If you read Kunal's post, Mi-26 has been doing that in the North Eastern sector for quite a while now. It is a system that our forces are familiar with, infrastructure and training is in place. I reckon it will be a darn sight cheaper than Chinook. The only concern is fleet servacibility on the account of spare parts, which must be suitably addressed for the either contender in the agreement.

Indian environment, requirements and terrain is quite different from what NATO and US are used to operating in. Their doctrines do not translate well in this theater. If anything they have taken a leaf out of our book in replicating our maneuvres from Kargil and Siachen in Afghanistan with varying degrees of success.

That is just one operation and guess what the damn birds werent available for rest of the time, they cant fly more than 30 hours/year, that sector right now is completely supplied by the Mi-17's. I dont think I ever spoke about American doctrine, I spoke only about the Indian Defense Doctrine in Chinese sector.

Are you supporting the Russian Doctrine while buying the Mi-26's? You arent, are you? Similarly.

You do know the most important sectors in our defense strategy is the sikkim corridor, burma and the most important sector is the Line of Actual Control in J&K. That terrain is exactly like Afghanistan rough and rocky terrain. Why is this sector important? This were a future Pakistan and China link up might occur. This is why so much focus on the CCP soldiers in PoK. This where the M-777 are going to be placed mostly.

The bird is badly designed to begin with, it is maintenance intensive and not at all the product for our doctrine. While the Chinook fits in perfectly, just like the Mi17's do in 5 ton category.

You hate arguing with me ? ok..

There are places where nearest Airstrip is 20-50kms away and roads are not suitable for transporting of Armour or arty and takes time for infentry to reach there designation location, MI-26 play there role there..

Its not possible to make airstrip every place we want, Nature have restriction..

For C130 and C17 (or other transport aircrafts for that matter) to deliver IFVs, light tanks or BMPs to hot spots you don't actually need to have a runway. Look at these combat delivery training footages:

C130


This could also be done by C17, Il76, An12, and other similar sized military transports. I still think that transport of IFVs or BMPs by Mi26 is impractical.