Has anyone asked a question, what is M-777 and why do army's buy it over the Archer's of the world in certain areas and certain doctrine's?
So as to make it lightweight and easily deployable, it has absolutely none of the advances our 1980's Bofors gun has such as the autoloader(it takes more men to operate), yet the United States Army trusts this gun, and the our own army has decided to buy it? Its about transportation and quick response. That takes precedence over everything else.
Similarly IAF is not going to buy longest range or biggest load taker, that is not the intent of the Air Force. One has to view it in that context, which is why Americans never offered the MH-53's. They have products in all ranges, Russians dont. Simple. They are still piggy backing on the Soviet Union tech, which is atleast 3 decades old.
I like the way our russian agents earning rubles changed their views all along the thread, earlier chinook was bad, american etc etc, Mi26 is awesome, now they both have a role, therefore india should buy both, wahtever happens we have to buy Russian, Fund their R&D so they will make a better machine while not buying the same one we do (Refer T 90) and of course sell them to chinese at cheap rates(their future strategic partners)
While I was searching the internet, I got this usual 'its awesome' piece people write on the event of somebody finishing 25 years of service etc. Forgetting the bad, just writing positives, but in there I got a data point.
The 5 Mi 26 (one was lost few years back) in the 26 year history of its service in India has a flown a combined 8000 hours, that is 60 hours/Bird, every year.
No Wonder they are called Hanger Queens, that is just pathetic. And we have people asking us to buy more of this crap.
Both are sitting ducks, if you ask me. Both are vulnerable to MANPADs. Both will need escorts. In case of Mil-26, you will need certain number of escort helos while for the same load, you will need more Chinooks and therefore more escort helos. It is more of a problem than advantage the way I see it.
Unfortunately Kunal, some people think that all of the Himalayas are flat land.
That is what I am expecting too. IA Aviation might go for Chinook but I see IAF going for Mil-26T2.
Are we moving the whole damn country to the mountains to warrant 'more chinooks'. What idiots, do they believe for a forward operating base, where space is a premium, they can stock beyond a point, What they require is continuous supply not one mega supply, when they cant store it. You know what continuous supply mean? UPTIMES.
If Himalaya's arent flat lands, then ofcourse we dont require a BMP carrying Heli, do we now. Now when I suggested to dud heads, that this is a doctrinal and joint requirement, all of a sudden we have them now spouting another garbage, IA will go for Chinook and IAF will go for Mi26T2, Stupid, Russia love, somehow they want to fund russian R&D and earn their rubles. IAF is the one who has the requirement, and they are going to select either Mi26T2 or Chinook, not both. if that was the case, they would have further purchased Mi26, similar to sukhoi and did an FMS on Chinook, just like M 777 and P-8.
Idiots cant even get around the idea, that we have to supply our guns which will placed at different altitudes in difficult places on the mountains. It is all about ceiling heights and ability to land in weird off places. Mi-26 is none of that, India is going to place these guns espeicially to deter a chinpak link up. Chinooks and M-777 are vital.
the idiotic russian agents wants to fund their own pockets and as well as make sure chinese gets steam roll through IA in the North East.
You transferred my post to C17 thread? That was intended for this thread... the mention about C17 was only to prove a point about my main thesis that the massive Mi26 isn't practical in the battlefield...
Adux, the Service ceiling is a non issue. Unless we are talking about Siachen where even the Chinook is inadequate. All NE areas are comfortably within 15,000 feet. The rest of the reasoning given can go both ways. The more the load and range the better, why are you talking up the service ceiling which is almost a non issue but playing down the load capability which is critical?
And you comparing the Chinook's maneuverability to the MKI does not even make sense. For a fighter aircraft it is imperitive, for a heavy lift copter, hardly so.
If both the Mi 26 or the chinook is not up to the task 100% why not purchase both types for the certain key roles...? AFAIK Mi 26 is white elephant or a mere propaganda machine other than a real work horse....!
The fact of the matter is, Mil-26 is a tried and trusted helicopter that has proven itself time and again by its sheer capability.
Service Ceiling: We are talking about the North East, and Mil-26T2 is more than capable of transporting equipment in that sector. we do not need the service ceiling when we are talking about NE. Who cares if the Chinook can go higher than the Mil-26? We will not need to fly that high, so that is another meaningless comparison. I hope people see some sense.
Service Hours: Citing service hours and calling the Mil-26 a white elephant is nothing but cheap rhetoric. How often do we use our Arjun tanks? How often do we use our T-90S tanks? How often do we use our Sukhoi-30MKIs? AFAIK, most of these machines have never been used. Military exercised do not count. On the other hand, Mil-26s have been used in real life operations and have proven not only reliable but imperative at certain situations. Citing flying hours is completely nonsensical, because, if we took the flying hours of our Sukhois, then it is even less. Now that beggars the question whether that is also a white elephant. This is the reason why people who do not understand or lack common sense should not be talking about military actions.
Logistics and Service Staff: The more variety we get in our inventory, the more crew we need to train, the more spares we need to keep stock of, the more ground maintenance staff we need to train. This is a logistic nightmare. Let the IS Aviation go for Chinook, but IAF should stick to Mil-26T2.
If war breaks out: We will be running helter and skelter and looking for transport aeroplanes and helicopters, and if we don't have enough of C-17, Ilyushin-76 and Mil-26, we will be seriously disadvantaged. So yes, even if they are sitting idle for most of the time, we need to have them.
It is a very well designed and capable machine. Chinook has its own advantages, but when comparing with Mil-26T2 and keeping the NE in mind, it simply loses out, except for the fact that it is more stable in crosswinds.
Now the only disadvantage Mil-26 has is the crew size. With Mil-26T2, that is also gone. Now what do some of these morons have to come up with? Ad hominems and false accusations. Shows how wrongly channeled some peoples' frustrations are:
Some people seriously need to relocate to Ranchi lunatic asylum.