- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
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.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.
I am not a Chinook fanboy.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?
So you are unwilling, admittedly.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).
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 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).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.
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).
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).Sorry, my bad. My common sense fell short again...
You are correct.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.
-- 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
Chinook is more stable than the Halo in crosswinds, just like the Hokum is more stable than the Havoc, Hind, or Apache.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,
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.in the fuselage capacity Mi-26 seems to have an edge and also in total weight lift capacity,
Chinook is more agile.but regarding maneuverability and agility Chinook seems to have an upper hand,
Servicing twin rotor crafts is a little less than twice as expensive and complicated as the servicing of a single rotor craft.not sure about the servicing aspect
True.but for me Chinook seems like a SUV truck and Mi-26 seems like a Lorry truck.
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.Both are important rough weather capabilities and ferrying capabilities,
Indeed.the servicing aspect is also a very important area to consider before any consideration.
The term 'skycrane' can be very generic.That's right.
A skycrane is different from a tactical heavy utility helicopter.
Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
S | Commander of 5th #Russia/n Army,head of Rus mil advisers group in #Syria Gen.Valery Asabov killed by | West Asia & Africa | 7 | |
IAF Mil Mi-26 | Indian Air Force | 16 | ||
W | Indian Air Force Mil Mi-35 Hind E Gunship Helicopter | Indian Air Force | 57 | |
Mil Mi-38: The successor to Mi-17 | Military Aviation | 16 |