Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

[pmaitra]

Okay, how about upgrading IAF's 3 Mi2g helos to Mi26T2 standards?

That is what I would always espouse. Upgrade the current Mil-26s to Mil-26T2, or just sell them away and get a fleet of brand new Mil-26T2. GoI has plenty of money to blow, anyway!

 

[asianobserve]

The usual heavy lifting:

(Note how low the Chinook can go down without blowing the ground crews in a typhoon)

Extra-capabilities

For expeditionary deployments it can easily fit into C17s

Note, what the Chinook cannot carry anymore then IAFs Mi26 (better if upgraded) can come into the picture (which is not going to be a lot).

 

[trackwhack]

Let me give you some basic instructions

1) Open web browser
2) Go to Youtube.com
3) type Mi 26
4) Watch videos of its capabilities.

Over and Out.

 

[asianobserve]

Let me give you some basic instructions

1) Open web browser
2) Go to Youtube.com
3) type Mi 26
4) Watch videos of its capabilities.

Over and Out.

There can be no objective debate with you on this matter, it seems to me that you're an Mi26 fanboy... enthralled by its single most relevant attribute, it's massive size (because of this it can lift heavier loads).

BTW, comparing Mi26 and Chinook is like comparing these heavy transports:



Conclusion: Chinook should do the primary heavy lifting (with added capabilities for S&R, Special ops, etc.) while the 3 Mi26 in IAF inventory should do what the Chinook can no longer effectively carry (not a lot in the battlefield)...

 

[pmaitra]

The usual heavy lifting:

Bud, this is a no-contest, when it comes to load carrying capacity.

One Mil-26 can carry two light tanks, inside it, not under-slung. I hope you know how much more difficult it becomes to transport a load if it is under-slung:

Or a BTR, or another helo, under-slung:

 

[pmaitra]

How big is the Mil-26?

 

[asianobserve]

Bud, this is a no-contest, when it comes to load carrying capacity.

What did I say? I was arguing from the perspective of which has a well-rounded personality of the 2 heavy lifters, thus the more practical choice...

 

[pmaitra]

What did I say? I was arguing from the perspective of which has a well-rounded personality of the 2 heavy lifters, thus the more practical choice...

What is the advantage of the Chinook over the Mil-26? Don't tell me Chinook does not have blow-down (forgot the correct term). It does. It is less compared to Mil-26 because it has mush less capacity.

 

[asianobserve]

What is the advantage of the Chinook over the Mil-26? Don't tell me Chinook does not have blow-down (forgot the correct term). It does. It is less compared to Mil-26 because it has mush less capacity.

In terms of brute force the Mi26 wins hands down (please don't ask me to repeat this again), but in terms of practical heavy weight applications in the combat zone the Chinook wins. Carrying tanks or 8x8 IFVs inside the helo is good for Soviet military doctrine, but does it still have much application in the modern battle field? Take the case of NATO ops in Afghanistan, if you're given the choice which heavy lift helicopter would you prefer to deploy to the battlefield to do the heavy lifting between forward bases and observations posts to carry howitzers, supplies, mobile mortar systems, etc.? For me the choice is clear...

Plus since Chinook has a smaller foot print, it needs smaller landing area than an Mi26. This is good for special ops, S&R and disaster relief missions.

 

[pmaitra]

Mil-mi 26 'Halo' versions

 

[pmaitra]

In terms of brute force the Mi26 wins hands down (please don't ask me to repeat this again), but in terms of practical heavy weight applications in the combat zone the Chinook wins. Carrying tanks or 8x8 IFVs inside the helo is good for Soviet military doctrine, but does it still have much application in the modern battle field? Take the case of NATO ops in Afghanistan, if you're given the choice which heavy lift helicopter would you prefer to deploy to the battlefield to do the heavy lifting between forward bases and observations posts to carry howitzers, supplies, mobile mortar systems, etc.? For me the choice is clear...

No, my question was what are the advantages of Chinook over Mil-26? The answer is already posted, by me: Having two rotors with opposite directions of rotations, the turning moments are neutralized and there is no need for a vulnerable tail rotor and is more stable, just like the co-axial Kamov helicopters. That is the only advantage.

Other than that, the things you mentioned, are very well done by Mil-17 and/or HAL ALH already.

 

[pmaitra]

Very interesting perspective: Mi-26 T - www.redstar.gr

The Tanker Refueller version of the Mi-26 is used to transport large amounts of fuel and to carry out refueling operations in remote areas or where conditions make it difficult to set up mobile refuelling stations.
Additionally, aviation fuel carried on the Tanker, can be used in place of extra fuel tanks to increase the helicopterÂ’s own ferrying range.

 

[asianobserve]

Well India already operate 3 Mi26s, instead of buying more these 3 should be modernised. Chinook should be acquired however as the day-to-day heavy lifting helicopter. How much more Mi26s should be employed when they're only good for transporting BMPs and damaged Chinooks? :cool2:

 

[asianobserve]

Very interesting perspective: Mi-26 T - www.redstar.gr

You're not postulating that the Chinook cannot transport fuels to remote places. Maybe this applicable in the Soviet era where choices were limited. Now that the IAF is already buying C17s, why don't you let the IAF use this asset to do the transporting of this kind of load to remote places with unpaved airfields?

They can definitely carry more.) As to extending range, this picture can tell us a lot about Chinook scapabilities...

 

[pmaitra]

^^

In other words, why don't I let IAF dump money on US made helicopters, when better alternatives already exist?

Just pulling you leg.

Well India already operate 3 Mi26s, instead of buying more these 3 should be modernised. Chinook should be acquired however as the day-to-day heavy lifting helicopter. How much more Mi26s should be employed when they're only good for transporting BMPs and damaged Chinooks? :cool2:

I think India should sell away the existing Mil-26s and buy a fleet of 8-10 Mil-26T2. Chinooks are useful in their own regard, but when Mil-26 is available, with crew trained in operating these, Chinook as a heavy-lift helicopter is an impractical and under-powered excuse.

 

[asianobserve]

I think India should sell away the existing Mil-26s and buy a fleet of 8-10 Mil-26T2.

Would buying new Mi26T2s be cheaper than upgrading existing Mi26s to T2 standards? I understand IAFs Mi26 fleet is not overworked due to spare issues, etc... If they are not overused then it would make more sense to modernise them like what Russia is doing with the Mi26 fleet.

 

[pmaitra]

Would buying new Mi26T2s be cheaper than upgrading existing ones? I understand IAFs Mi26 fleet is not overworked due to spare issues, etc... If they are not overused then it would make more sense to modernise them like what Russia is doing with the Mi26 fleet.

Upgrading would be cheaper but the helicopters are very old. Brand new ones will have a longer life and more reliability, so less issues with spares. It is true that IAF Mil-26s are not overused, but they will be needed, badly, if war breaks out.

 

[Adux]

This is a idiotic comparison, People are looking at it in the terms of load carrying capacity, unfortunately for those who talk from that point of view is going to greatly disappointed just like Eurofighter and Boeing. Indian Air Force doesn't care if Eurofighter is faster by .2 Mach over Rafale, as long as they meet the minimum requirement. So Mi-26 carrying X loads more than Chinook doesn't really matter. I hope you remember, this was the same arguement made by Eurofighter and Boeing in case MMRCA. Mi-26 carrying such large loads comes at a cost, it cannot be used tactically. It becomes a Strategic helicopter, IAF will ask the question, does it need a strategic helicopter? Carrying one single BMP or 2/3 more is not going to change anything tactically, all the while they cannot put directly inside a firezone. If it is a hot zone, Mi 26 isnt going in, they are going to stay out of that zone. Its too slow and large to be used tactically.

IAF wants a tactical helicopter. The Chinook is going to win this. I am not even getting into the uptimes of Chinook and Mi26, it will put the latter to shame.

 

[Adux]

Would buying new Mi26T2s be cheaper than upgrading existing Mi26s to T2 standards? I understand IAFs Mi26 fleet is not overworked due to spare issues, etc... If they are not overused then it would make more sense to modernise them like what Russia is doing with the Mi26 fleet.

Mi26T are not hanger queens for spare issues alone, it is a badly designed product in many levels, tactically and maintenance wise at begin with.

 

[Adux]

People are talking about Russophiles and Ameriphiles, yet nobody is a indophile here.


Chinook is a combat helicopter for combat zones and not a hanger queen load carrier

iraq by The U.S. Army, on