Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

[Adux]

Try searching for similar images of Mi-26. Good luck.

 

[Bhadra]

Most being advertisement, sponsored and paid posts...

We too now have many 25 cent brigades ...

 

[Adux]

Lets do something more important


Chinook - 1,179 produced till date. The US Army alone has 413 CH-47D/F Chinooks in use and 213 ordered as of November 2008. There are nearly another 300 flying around with other airforces and in civilian fleets.
List of Boeing CH-47 Chinook operators - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mi26 - 316 produced till date, 70 left in service (civilian and military combined)


Mi-26 isnt going to give you the uptimes, tactical versatility, lower cost of operations and sheer scale which brings in after sales support. Chinook wins hands down.

 

[Adux]

Most being advertisement, sponsored and paid posts...

We too now have many 25 cent brigades ...

I suggest you qualify your statements and accusations, before you call me a foreign agent or traitor. Or if you cant or not born with a capability to research and debate, then shut the ---- up you little twit.

 

[Mr.Ryu]

I like Chinook but i really dont want USA's various agreements that will bind our force during war time and peace time and especially inspect their equipment once we got them if they stick to their strict after sale $h!t i will happily look for other sources may be Russian ones,

 

[Mad Indian]

Just look at the magic of the title. One title change to Mi 26 Vs Chinook, it gets 20+ guests alone, aside from the members who are about 10+ . :bounce:

 

[Ray]

I wonder how many have seen the two helicopters and their operability to become experts.

I have seen all Russian helicopters in service with the IAF.

They are good and they have their issues.

 

[Mr.Ryu]

And in addition to my #105 the Russians have always helped us even when the US put sanction on us, And i am sure US is just for money and nothing else but Russians do need money but also will be a good allies and if we can live with Russian equipment for most of our independent INDIA then we can now too rather accepting for all USA's after sale junk agreements

 

[Ray]

The world has changed.

The Russians are no longer the USSR mentality people.

They have become pragmatic and understand the value of money and are no longer keen to give a free lunch.

Therefore, whatever is the best for us, we should buy.

 

[Sancho]

C 17s are being bought for precisely this reason.

The entire sentence was,...and no airstrip is available for C130Js
The C17 will increase IAF transport capabilities, but especially in the northern mountain areas you won't find many airstrips to handle such a huge aircraft, the C130Js will have a higher chance, but are limited to very few smaller vehicle as well. So having an transport alternative in that area, is an advantage for sure.

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?

First of all, that's wrong (from the picture gallery of IAF: http://indianairforce.nic.in/):

I dont think we need a BMP on a mountain slope we would need a 155mm howitzer (Chinook can do that)


Secondly point as mentioned in my reply to Ray, it's about an area where not many airstrips are available to operate fixedwing aircrafts.


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)

Of course, but that's what they do in US or NATO forces and not what they are intended to do in IAF!

This competition is about the "heavy lift" requirement of IAF, not any tactical roles and just as Kunal pointed out, in IAF the Mi 17 is meant to do all what you have highlited here. IF IAF would have the aim to add Chinooks in tactical roles, they would not replace the Mi 26 with it, but some of the older Mi 8s and would add them in way higher numbers, because 15 wouldn't match their requirements for these roles at all. However, that is not the case and they want Mi 17 for this, that's why thy added 59 additional to the earlier order of 80 and now consider even more.
Again, when you read the article about the 25th aniversary of the Mi 26 (official report from GoI btw), you will see that they were used purely for heavy lift requirements.

 

[Adux]

I like Chinook but i really dont want USA's various agreements that will bind our force during war time and peace time and especially inspect their equipment once we got them if they stick to their strict after sale $h!t i will happily look for other sources may be Russian ones,

?
Agreed, why do you think we selected Rafale and not the F/A-18 E/F? Why do you think we selected the C-17's and C-130's? Transports etc is something we can think of from the Americans.

 

[Adux]

Sorry people the contract is for it is a heavy lift 'combat tactical' helicopter, not a heavy lift cargo carrier.

 

[Ray]

The entire sentence was,...and no airstrip is available for C130Js
The C17 will increase IAF transport capabilities, but especially in the northern mountain areas you won't find many airstrips to handle such a huge aircraft, the C130Js will have a higher chance, but are limited to very few smaller vehicle as well. So having an transport alternative in that area, is an advantage for sure.

The airstrips have been upgraded.

The C17 can handle unpaved and rough airstrips or ALGs. So, there is no problem anywhere in the northern areas.

Helicopters would be an asset where there is NO airstrip and yet have landing space with clear fly in and fly out tunnels.

 

[Ray]

Sorry people the contract is for it is a heavy lift 'combat tactical' helicopter, not a heavy lift cargo carrier.

The difference?

 

[Iamanidiot]

Brigadier I always hear this thing that US stuff is maintenance intensive when compared to the soviet stuff.If so how are our boys goings to deal with the logistics

 

[Sancho]

iraq by The U.S. Army

And the next one who is confusing IAF with US forces.

The most comparable helicopter of US forces, that does the same roles like Mi 26 in IAF is not the Chinook, but the CH 53!

 

[Ray]

Brigadier I always hear this thing that US stuff is maintenance intensive when compared to the soviet stuff.If so how are our boys goings to deal with the logistics

I wouldn't know.

 

[Sancho]

Helicopters would be an asset where there is NO airstrip

That's exactly the point! The C17 can land at unpaved airstrips, but you won't find many useable airstrips that have the size (incl. width) to operate an C17 in the mountain areas. That's why I said, it's way more likely that the C130s will be used there and in combination with the Mi 26, IAF could transport good loads of troops, cargo and light to medium weight vehicles to areas where the C17 can't be used. In terms of lifiting capability the Mi 26 offers the same payload as the C130, with the advantage that it doesn't need an airstrip and can hold even bigger vehicles internally. So they complement each other in this role!

 

[Adux]

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is procuring 15 heavy lift helicopters, primarily to ferry the BAe Land Systems M777 ultra-light howitzers that the Indian Army plans to acquire from the US under FMS, for use along India's mountainous border with China.

India invited bids for for 15 heavy-lift helicopters in May 2009. Along with the 22 Attack Helicopters being procured, the bid is valued at $2 billion.

Heavy Lift Helicopters for IAF - Indian Defense Projects Sentinel

This is the primary use of the helicopter, not cargo. So basically IAF needs set up artillery pieces and to replinish its Artillery on mountain tops during times of combat, Mi-26 cannot do that with efficiency and nor is it designed for that.
Indian Air Force doesnt need the Helicopter to carry anything more than 8-10 tons.
Wherever Indian Air Force has seen a requirement already has a 'airfield' and ferrying 1 BMP outside a hotzone isnt much of a use, if a C-130J will land somewhere, then there is a no need of a Mi26 there, but if there is a place that cannot land a C-130J, most likely it is going to be a hot zone and doesnt require any tonnage beyond 8-10 tons in one single trip. Mi26 is weight class is simply not required especially when it comes cost of nibleness, effectiveness and not to mention being hanger queens. IAF requires extreme uptimes for what it envisages the Heavy helicopters to do.

Mi-17's cant do this right now.

 

[Ray]

That's exactly the point! The C17 can land at unpaved airstrips, but you won't find many useable airstrips that have the size (incl. width) to operate an C17 in the mountain areas. That's why I said, it's way more likely that the C130s will be used there and in combination with the Mi 26, IAF could transport good loads of troops, cargo and light to medium weight vehicles to areas where the C17 can't be used. In terms of lifiting capability the Mi 26 offers the same payload as the C130, with the advantage that it doesn't need an airstrip and can hold even bigger vehicles internally. So they complement each other in this role!

And what would be the tactical situation when C 130 is to be used?