Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

[Tshering22]

As you know, I disagree with you on Ka 226, but the only problem of Mi 26T2 to win the competition is, if spare supply and after sale support. Otherwise the Chinook has no real advantage in the heavy lift role, the Sikorsky Ch53 would have been the better competitior for the Mi 26.
However, the issues about spare supply in the past were also caused by the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia now has improved their industries and as we can see at MKI or the increased Mi 17 order, IAFs seems not to see a bigger problem anymore. They still are not at a level as western manufacturers of course, but therefor offer several other advantages. If IAF is convinced that the Mi 26T2 can be offered with good spare supply, it has good chances to win this.

I agree that the spares earlier were an issue because of Soviet collapse. Compare this to today's Russia which has drastically improved its weapons supply and inventory production. IMO we don't have to worry about spares issue anymore since the issues were almost 2 decades ago. Russia has come a long way.

Care to tell what makes you think Ka-226 can't win? It is far more versatile than Fennec. Not to mention costs lesser.

 

[Bhadra]

SImple, IAF knows the Mi-26, it is rightly called a Hanger Queen, it has a tractor engine disguised as a helicopter engine, it is not reliable. Nor is it tatical or as manoverable as the Chinook.

Then let DODO make it..... we make lots of tractor engines ...... including by that BEML... Let Ravi Rishi make some more tripple profit...

 

[Tshering22]

What you are saying makes a lot of sense and I agree with you about the requirement for the movement of equipment or troops.... here is what I am saying

1) Pictures of mi 26 lifting a Chinook make a point that it can life heavy things... but is there such a requirement? And the answer is no, thats the reason why the IAF has only 3 mi 26, plus like you said they are going to be necessary during time of war then why was it they had only 50 hrs combined flight time during the Kargil war, also in peace time they only manage to get about 20 hours per month , either this means they are difficult to maintain but also the most of the things they do are done by other helos as well...

Every warfare needs different varieties of strategic combinations to win. We're looking at the near future on the eastern border more than Pakistan. Comparing a war 13 years old is not at all reasonable to strategic realities of the present or near future. We will need something that can lift serious weight into the mountainous terrain here. If you've been to my state anytime, you will know how difficult it is to get supplies up here from flatlands on roads. To speed up supplies, Mi-26T offers perfect opportunity.

2) If brute strength is a requirement then why not ask the Russians to build the Mil V12, that can seat at least 200 soilders and lift 2 Chinooks at the same time.... the answer is no because the IAF is looking for a tactical transport helo not the helo that can just lift the most weight

Again that's not the point.

3) 98% of missions can be done by the Chinook, only the rare missions that require large cargo area cant be done... the only difference is cabin space for example a Chinook can't load a BMP inside but a Mi 26 can

It so happens that in our strategic and conflict environment, most of what this 98% tactical deployments have been done by NATO forces have become useless. NATO tactics while have succeeded around the globe, their failure in AFPAK have clearly reflected that those deployment techniques including helicopter and transport usage, which were used were of plain lands and became useless in AFPAK; a region that shares terrain commonality with our eastern border here.

4) maintenance and spares, no need for me to explain this

Hey, USSR fell that time. They barely had the strength to manage their own country. How did you expect this won't happen? If US collapsed, all the NATO supplied nations would be sitting ducks too. This guarantee of the level which you speak can only be assured if WE make our own stuff for our needs. Importing always has risks.

I think people are reading too much into the picture where an Mi-26 lift a CH-47, we Indians are obsessed with statistics and naturally would like a squadron of the largest helo in the world but we need to look at the requirements of the IAF...

The onyl reasons the Mi-26s were not popular were because of serviceability of spares which as I said above was a problem due to its maker's collapse. Today's Russia is pretty different.

 

[Sancho]

Care to tell what makes you think Ka-226 can't win? It is far more versatile than Fennec. Not to mention costs lesser.

Since it's OT and we had talked about it on PDF before, just in short:

- operationally cheaper, especially because the coax rotor of the 226 needs more maintainance and the Fennec is widely exported as a civil version as well, not to mention that the 226 has 2 engines, while the Fennec only 1
- no advantage of common engine with HAL LUH, especially when both might get a smaller Shakti engine
- HALs good experience with licence production of Eurocopter helis and ties in the development of Dhruv

 

[Sancho]

1) Pictures of mi 26 lifting a Chinook make a point that it can life heavy things... but is there such a requirement?

Read this to have a bitter view of what IAF has done with the Mi 26 in the recent years and than look at the Chinook can do the same:

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...ok-winning-indian-competition.html#post463234

3) 98% of missions can be done by the Chinook, only the rare missions that require large cargo area cant be done

It's not only the internal load advantage, but also the external slung load advantage! A Chinook can lift a jeep or a light truck externally, a Mi 26 can lift tracked BMPs or wheeled APCs. IF IA needs rapid build up of mobile forces anyway in the northern areas and no airstrip is available for C130Js, the only option would be Mi 26 ( 15 x Mi 26 = 15 x BMPs + troops). Where does the Chinook stand here?

I think people are reading too much into the picture where an Mi-26 lift a CH-47, we Indians are obsessed with statistics and naturally would like a squadron of the largest helo in the world but we need to look at the requirements of the IAF...

To some extend yes, but on the other side people also ignor what IAF practically did with the Mi 26 so far and that this is by far different than what US forces for example does with the Chinook. IAF has different requirements and have made big orders of Mi 17s for the tactical roles including troop transportsm SAR... that the Chinook might to in other forces.

 

[Ray]

It's not only the internal load advantage, but also the external slung load advantage! A Chinook can lift a jeep or a light truck externally, a Mi 26 can lift tracked BMPs or wheeled APCs. IF IA needs rapid build up of mobile forces anyway in the northern areas and no airstrip is available for C130Js, the only option would be Mi 26 ( 15 x Mi 26 = 15 x BMPs + troops). Where does the Chinook stand here?

C 17s are being bought for precisely this reason.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

My vote for MI-26....

 

[pmaitra]

It's not only the internal load advantage, but also the external slung load advantage! A Chinook can lift a jeep or a light truck externally, a Mi 26 can lift tracked BMPs or wheeled APCs. IF IA needs rapid build up of mobile forces anyway in the northern areas and no airstrip is available for C130Js, the only option would be Mi 26 ( 15 x Mi 26 = 15 x BMPs + troops). Where does the Chinook stand here?

Mil-26 can take a BMP internally and it does not have to be externally.

C 17s are being bought for precisely this reason.

However, in the hilly regions, you might have to deploy tanks in a small valley with limited scope to prepare a runway.

 

[pmaitra]

My vote for MI-26....

x2

I second that as well.

 

[Adux]

what we need is nimble and fast extraction capable medium helicopter

 

[Kunal Biswas]

what we need is nimble and fast extraction capable medium helicopter

 

[Mad Indian]

^^Mi 26 needs some five pilots for operating it. You think it is nimble?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

This is Heavy Class MI-26:

This is medium Class MI-17V5:

This is Nimble Light Class HAL Dhruv:

 

[pmaitra]

^^Mi 26 needs some five pilots for operating it. You think it is nimble?

First off, Mil-26 needs two pilots. The rest are members of the crew. Crew: Five– 2 pilots, 1 navigator, 1 flight engineer, 1 flight technician.

Second off, you are looking at the Mil-17 with MBRL pylons to double up in the gunship role.

 

[Adux]

Kunal,

Not medium my mistake, though i was going to write heavy, i was thinking medium.

The Chinook is going to get this contract, simply because of its versatility, its ability to support under fire FOB. The Mi-26, might carry a bit more load, but it also gives the lowest uptimes, also the worst spares record, slowest of the two in and out of landing area, more expensive to operate and not to mention the reason IAF has the competition in the first place, is that it is completely unsatisfied with its current fleet of Mi-26

 

[Adux]

C 17s are being bought for precisely this reason.

also there is no use taking one single BMP to a location.

Another fact, where- ever IA has envisaged the role of Armour, they have already built up airfields or landing strips

 

[Mad Indian]

First off, Mil-26 needs two pilots. The rest are members of the crew. Crew: Five– 2 pilots, 1 navigator, 1 flight engineer, 1 flight technician.

Second off, you are looking at the Mil-17 with MBRL pylons to double up in the gunship role.

What about the Chinook? does it need five to fly it? Thats what i meant. How is Mil- 26 supposed to be a quick action ,nimble transport?

 

[noob101]

Every warfare needs different varieties of strategic combinations to win. We're looking at the near future on the eastern border more than Pakistan. Comparing a war 13 years old is not at all reasonable to strategic realities of the present or near future. We will need something that can lift serious weight into the mountainous terrain here. If you've been to my state anytime, you will know how difficult it is to get supplies up here from flatlands on roads. To speed up supplies, Mi-26T offers perfect opportunity.

Again like I said you make a valid point.... I use to think the same exact thing, but there is a simple reason that changed my mind.... It looks like there are few people in the IAF who like the Mi26..... All the facts point to that, the scenario where you expect fleet of Mi26 ferrying BMP's and other armored vehicles to the front line is just not there, C 17 and C130's are going to be doing any ferying. I don't mean to be disrespectful but the IAF has never relied on nor expected helos of any kind to move armor of any type.... Again really think about it what is the advantage of moving veichles by helo rather than fixed wing?
I dont think we need a BMP on a mountain slope we would need a 155mm howitzer (Chinook can do that)

let me list the typical types of missions
1- transport of artillery,
2-transport of troops into a hot zone, Chinook is extremely battle proven when it come to this
3-transport of supplies
4-Air Ambulance in a hot zone

(Chinook can do all these things)

remember that time when Unkil killed Osama, what kind of helo did they use for it?......... oh yeah right 2 Chinooks were there... and they fooled the Paki air defenses ..... At least give credit to the Chinook for how versatile it is..... Would anyone expect the Mi26 going into that raid?

Also, I hope you don't have it in your mind that only the Mi26 can carry supplies to hilly areas in your state, Chinook can do it to just as well

Again that's not the point.

on the contrary that seems to be your whole sales pitch for the MI26, the only argument that you make is it can lift more so its better for us, please tell me other than its lifting capacity why is it better than the Chinook?

It so happens that in our strategic and conflict environment, most of what this 98% tactical deployments have been done by NATO forces have become useless. NATO tactics while have succeeded around the globe, their failure in AFPAK have clearly reflected that those deployment techniques including helicopter and transport usage, which were used were of plain lands and became useless in AFPAK; a region that shares terrain commonality with our eastern border here.

Again not to sound disrespectful but what is the alternative and how dose the Mi 26 fit better into your plan than the existing one?
plus I would disagree with you, many of the QRF's in Afghanistan are based in Chinooks and have saved many soilders and outposts from being over run...
another question

Hey, USSR fell that time. They barely had the strength to manage their own country. How did you expect this won't happen? If US collapsed, all the NATO supplied nations would be sitting ducks too. This guarantee of the level which you speak can only be assured if WE make our own stuff for our needs. Importing always has risks.

does this matter? we need reliable stream of spares period! The enemy is not going to say I think I will wait a few months to launch my attack since Russia is late with providing spares to India

Also nothing in the past has shown that things are improving almost every Soviet/Russian procurement has meet delays and bad after service even the more recent ones... How long do they need to recover?

The onyl reasons the Mi-26s were not popular were because of serviceability of spares which as I said above was a problem due to its maker's collapse. Today's Russia is pretty different.

 

[pmaitra]

^^

When you start quoting, you don't use the reverse slash. Your post is in a mess right now.

 

[noob101]

^^

When you start quoting, you don't use the reverse slash. Your post is in a mess right now.

thanks.........