Arms deals worth Rs 15000 crore cleared

[pmaitra]

Our Mi-26:Ch-47 ratio should be in 1:2 ratio. However it actually depends on what the force wants them to lift. If it's things like fast attack vehicles or M777 under-slung, then the Chinook would suffice (Tactical lifting, with Strategic lifting delegated to fixed wings). Also in Service ceiling and landing area requirement, Chinook is more suitable for Mountain OPS. Then again, the more the lift ability, the more the options open. But Russian supply of spare parts has been so lacking that we have had to cannibalize our other Mi-26 to keep the lone one running now.

Was IAF Operational Requirement manipulated to favour the CH-47?
India was looking for a heavy lift helicopter, in the 15-20 tons range. Here is the link. Mil-26T2 has a capacity of 20 tons. CH-47 has a capacity of 12.7 tons. A BMP-2 weighs 14.3 tons. The CH-47 does not even make the lower threshold. It is not a heavy-lift helicopter. It is good for tactical operations, but the requirement is for heavy-lift, which is essentially a strategic requirement. It looks like they have manipulated the requirements for a heavy-lift helicopter just to give this deal to Boeing.

(1 ton = 1000 kg, 1 ton assumed = 1000 kg)

Mil-26T2 is a production model and in service. It is about time India got rid of its older Mil-26 and got a fresh batch of the new Mil-26T2, with ToT for local manufacturing. The Mil-26 proved its utility during Operation Checkerboard. They can also add jet-packs like they did with the Fairchild Packets and increase its service ceiling.

If India needs a tactical troop insertion helicopter, the CH-47 fits the bill well. Let them induct it in that role, instead of calling it a heavy-lifter.

I also agree with your ratio. I will present my numbers as Mil-26T2:CH-47 = 15:30.

 

[SajeevJino]

So we can ask the US to give some M113 GAVIN as a Free gift along with Chinooks

M113 GAVIN weight is near 12 tons

otherwise we can use BMD-1 Airborne Version of BMP

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMD-1

We have undisclosed number of BMD in our Weaponry as of Wiki

 

[arnabmit]

Yes, I agree, Chinook is a medium lift chopper. It is no way a Heavy lift chopper. Now if the GSQR was changed (like in Piatus or AW101 or in so many others), we really do not know if it was for diplomatic reasons or kickback reasons or actual operation requirement change after the 2012 budget cutbacks. Or maybe the other features (Serviceability and sortie availability etc.) outweighed the lower lift capabilities...

Was IAF Operational Requirement manipulated to favour the CH-47?
India was looking for a heavy lift helicopter, in the 15-20 tons range. Here is the link. Mil-26T2 has a capacity of 20 tons. CH-47 has a capacity of 12.7 tons. A BMP-2 weighs 14.3 tons. The CH-47 does not even make the lower threshold. It is not a heavy-lift helicopter. It is good for tactical operations, but the requirement is for heavy-lift, which is essentially a strategic requirement. It looks like they have manipulated the requirements for a heavy-lift helicopter just to give this deal to Boeing.

(1 ton = 1000 kg, 1 ton assumed = 1000 kg)

Mil-26T2 is a production model and in service. It is about time India got rid of its older Mil-26 and got a fresh batch of the new Mil-26T2, with ToT for local manufacturing. The Mil-26 proved its utility during Operation Checkerboard. They can also add jet-packs like they did with the Fairchild Packets and increase its service ceiling.

If India needs a tactical troop insertion helicopter, the CH-47 fits the bill well. Let them induct it in that role, instead of calling it a heavy-lifter.

I also agree with your ratio. I will present my numbers as Mil-26T2:CH-47 = 15:30.

 

[drkrn]

Why? Please explain...

c-17 transports more luggage than c-130j.requires bigger runway than c-130j.
so obviously we use c-17 where we can't use c-130j

so we need more c-130j.is my logic reasonable??

 

[arnabmit]

The only thing is that the 12 planned is not the end of the fixed wing tactical lift capability. Tactical lift capability by C-130 fleet would be augmented with ingenious MRTA by the end of the decade, which would be much cheaper. Then MRTA would most probably be used for AGLs with paved runways and C-130s for unpaved runways.

c-17 transports more luggage than c-130j.requires bigger runway than c-130j.
so obviously we use c-17 where we can't use c-130j

so we need more c-130j.is my logic reasonable??

 

[pmaitra]

The only thing is that the 12 planned is not the end of the fixed wing tactical lift capability. Tactical lift capability by C-130 fleet would be augmented with ingenious MRTA by the end of the decade, which would be much cheaper. Then MRTA would most probably be used for AGLs with paved runways and C-130s for unpaved runways.

The MTA is a mini Ilyushin-76, so in all likelihood, it would be able to operate from airfields without the necessity of paved runways.

MTA

MTA

Il-76

 

[arnabmit]

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2010/07/its-official.html

http://www.livefistdefence.com/2013/02/schematics-of-hal-uac-multirole.html

Are both for military use? Which one got approved by cabinet recently for development?

The MTA is a mini Ilyushin-76, so in all likelihood, it would be able to operate from airfields without the necessity of paved runways.

MTA

MTA

Il-76