Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

[asianobserve]

What, the IAF is also going to buy F15s? I hope the IAF brass do not do it least Pmaitra cannot sleep anymore...

 

[pmaitra]

What, the IAF is also going to buy F15s? I hope the IAF brass do not do it least Pmaitra cannot sleep anymore...

I am indeed worried about IAF being arm-twisted into buying something inferior, when better alternatives exist. It is quite obvious from the Chinook deal, but you might not have caught it, because it requires common sense.

 

[asianobserve]

I am indeed worried about IAF being arm-twisted into buying something inferior, when better alternatives exist.

Arm-twisting - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


So the IAF was arm twisted in the Chinook deal but not in the more expensive MMRCA deal...? Yeah, you do have more common sense, whatever it means...

 

[pmaitra]

Arm-twisting - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


So the IAF was arm twisted in the Chinook deal but not in the more expensive MMRCA deal...? Yeah, you do have more common sense, whatever it means...

I am not a Chinook fanboy.

Chinook lifts 8 tons less, and travels 1179 km less, than the Halo. It couldn't get any simpler than that.

Are you unwilling to compare the numbers, or are you simply incapable?

If you are so enamoured by the Chinook, why don't you ask your government to buy several squadrons of these?

 

[asianobserve]

I am not a Chinook fanboy.

Chinook lifts 8 tons less, and travels 1179 km less, than the Halo. It couldn't get any simpler than that.

Are you unwilling to compare the numbers, or are you simply incapable?

If you are so enamoured by the Chinook, why don't you ask your government to buy several squadrons of these?

I will not even attempt to recompute the computations done by the IAF in selecting Chinook. I trust that they had the correct arithmetic used (obviously you don't trust their arithmetic).

 

[pmaitra]

I will not even attempt to recompute the computations done by the IAF in selecting Chinook. I trust that they had the correct arithmetic used (obviously you don't trust their arithmetic).

So you are unwilling, admittedly.

You may trust the IAF, but India has seen the Bofors, the Tatra, and the Ketchup Colonel. Now don't even get me started on the British Aid and Eurofighter sales pitch scandal.

I wish life were straight forward and simple. It ain't!

 

[asianobserve]

I am not a Chinook fanboy.

Chinook lifts 8 tons less, and travels 1179 km less, than the Halo. It couldn't get any simpler than that.

Are you unwilling to compare the numbers, or are you simply incapable?

If you are so enamoured by the Chinook, why don't you ask your government to buy several squadrons of these?

Expensive for us right now. But I am confident that if there's ever a need for us to acquire tactical heavy lift rotorcraft it will be Chinook.

 

[pmaitra]

Expensive for us right now. But I am confident that if there's ever a need for us to acquire tactical heavy lift rotorcraft it will be Chinook.

I hope you have the need very soon. BTW, good job on adding that 'tactical' before heavy-lift. IAF needed a 15-20 ton capable heavy-lift helo, not a 'tactical' heavy-lift helo (whatever that means).

 

[asianobserve]

BTW, good job on adding that 'tactical' before heavy-lift. IAF needed a 15-20 ton capable heavy-lift helo, not a 'tactical' heavy-lift helo (whatever than means).

Sorry, my bad. My common sense fell short again...

 

[pmaitra]

Sorry, my bad. My common sense fell short again...

No, this one wasn't about common sense, it was about not knowing the Air Staff Requirements. Happy to be corrected (with references, of course).

 

[asianobserve]

Seriously, this deal is already done. The only thing needed is the signing of the contract. So whatever pros and cons we may have are all water under the bridge. Note that if the politicians have arm-twisted the IAF top brass into buying the Chinook then rest assured that someone from the IAF will squeal sooner or later.

 

[pmaitra]

Seriously, this deal is already done. The only thing needed is the signing of the contract. So whatever pros and cons we may have are all water under the bridge. Note that if the politicians have arm-twisted the IAF top brass into buying the Chinook then rest assured that someone from the IAF will squeal sooner or later.

You are correct.

If it was only about 15-20 ton capable heavy-lift helo, as originally claimed by IAF, then Halo wins hands down.

Since a 14 ton capable helo was chosen, it wasn't just about heavy-lift. Perhaps we will find out more, just like we found out about Bofors and Tatra long after. Just like one person mentioned, it could have been a 'favour' done to the US in exchange for the Nuke Deal, or perhaps there was some 'Aid' involved, or maybe the lollipop of a permanent UNSC seat - there are too many possibilities.

 

[cloud_9]

India Chooses Boeing for $2.4 Billion Helicopter Deals

-- Boeing chosen to supply 15 Chinook, 22 Apache helicopters

-- Boeing aircraft picked over Russia's Mi-26, Mi-28 helicopters

-- Commercial talks may take three to six months

For the proposed Boeing helicopter orders, the person familiar with the matter said that the Chinooks will be bought directly from Boeing but the Apache contract will have to go through the foreign military sales route--a government-to- government mechanism for selling U.S. defense equipment wherein the purchaser deals with the U.S. government instead of the military contractor.

The person said one of the conditions in the Chinook bid document was that the competing helicopters must have the capability to lift M777 artillery guns manufactured by U.S.-based BAE Systems Inc

 

[Armand2REP]

Eurocopter is really missing out on the heavy market. If we joined up with Russia we could beat the obsolete Chinook every time.

 

[Apollyon]

 

[Payeng]

I have heard that Mi-26 is not much of a rough weather performer while Chinook with is tamed rotor (contra concept styled) can handle rough weather comparatively better then conventional styled helicopters, in the fuselage capacity Mi-26 seems to have an edge and also in total weight lift capacity, but regarding maneuverability and agility Chinook seems to have an upper hand, not sure about the servicing aspect but for me Chinook seems like a SUV truck and Mi-26 seems like a Lorry truck. Both are important rough weather capabilities and ferrying capabilities, the servicing aspect is also a very important area to consider before any consideration.

 

[pmaitra]

I have heard that Mi-26 is not much of a rough weather performer while Chinook with is tamed rotor (contra concept styled) can handle rough weather comparatively better then conventional styled helicopters,

Chinook is more stable than the Halo in crosswinds, just like the Hokum is more stable than the Havoc, Hind, or Apache.
Advantages: More stability.
Disadvantages: More complicated, more maintenance intensive, and more expensive.
So which one is better? In sea or any place with strong crosswinds, the dual rotor outweighs the extra expense, but otherwise, it is a waste of money.

in the fuselage capacity Mi-26 seems to have an edge and also in total weight lift capacity,

Yes. Having the load inside the fuselage makes the flying dynamics several times more stable than underslung loads, because, the underslung loads tend to swing the effective centre of gravity making the flight dangerous. Underslung loads also increase drag.

but regarding maneuverability and agility Chinook seems to have an upper hand,

Chinook is more agile.

not sure about the servicing aspect

Servicing twin rotor crafts is a little less than twice as expensive and complicated as the servicing of a single rotor craft.

but for me Chinook seems like a SUV truck and Mi-26 seems like a Lorry truck.

True.

Both are important rough weather capabilities and ferrying capabilities,

Yes, but in crosswinds, Chinook has an advantage. For ferrying, the earlier predecessor of the Halo (Mil Mi-26), the Hook (Mil Mi-6) is worth mentioning. Details at the end.

the servicing aspect is also a very important area to consider before any consideration.

Indeed.

[HR][/HR]

From Hook to Halo

The Mil Mi-26 Halo was preceded by Mil Mi-6 Hook.

The Mil-6 had wings, that provides lift when the helicopter moves forward, just like the Mil-24/35, and thus reduces the stress on the rotors and makes the helicopter more fuel efficient, thus effectively improving its cruising capabilities. On the downside, it comes in the way of the down-thrust from the rotors.

The Woolly Mammoth

They found the fossil of a woolly mammoth in Siberia. This was 25 tons, and was hauled by the Mil-26, although, on paper, it has a capability of 22 tons only.


References:
Mil Mi-6 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mil Mi-26 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[pmaitra]

That's right.

A skycrane is different from a tactical heavy utility helicopter.

The term 'skycrane' can be very generic.

You might like this video:

Mil Mi-26 Halo and Sikorsky S-64 Skycrane

 

[Ray]

Yes, the term 'Skycrane' is generic.

I used it to differentiate a workhorse (another generic term) with a tactical combat platform.

Erickson was possibly the first that produced a heavy lift helicopter. It was called Erickson Flying crane.

Sikorsky bought the rights and produced the famous line of heavy lift helicopters called the Skycrane and that term stuck since it explained the genre of these type of helicopters.

Skycrane

Technically referred to as the CH-54. The Skycrane gets it's name from it's unique design. It's body shape allows it to land over a payload, pick it up, and then set it down where needed. Much like a regular crane.

It was designed by the famous helicopter pioneer Igor Sikorsky who was looking to produce a new class of heavy lift helicopter. The CH-54 is also widely known as the Sikorsky Skycrane, either term is correct. Sadly CH-54's despite many years of good service are facing planned obsolescence due to the lack of replacement parts.

The aircraft company Erickson bought the rights to the Skycrane in 1992 and now produce their own version, the S-64, and renamed it the Aircrane. Erickson also discontinued production of replacement parts for the CH-54. Sadly, aircraft that have flown since the 1970's are being grounded due to lack of spare parts.

The Skycrane saved million's of dollars worth of equipment in Vietnam, because nothing else could lift such heavy cargo.

The lack of deep water ports in Vietnam forced the military to use Skycranes to unload cargo ships.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=skycrane

 

[asianobserve]

Boeing’s Indian deal may take six months: officials | News at DefenceTalk