Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

[Adux]

Are we moving the whole damn country to the mountains to warrant 'more chinooks'. What idiots, do they believe for a forward operating base, where space is a premium, they can stock beyond a point, What they require is continuous supply not one mega supply, when they cant store it. You know what continuous supply mean? UPTIMES.

If Himalaya's arent flat lands, then ofcourse we dont require a BMP carrying Heli, do we now. Now when I suggested to dud heads, that this is a doctrinal and joint requirement, all of a sudden we have them now spouting another garbage, IA will go for Chinook and IAF will go for Mi26T2, Stupid, Russia love, somehow they want to fund russian R&D and earn their rubles. IAF is the one who has the requirement, and they are going to select either Mi26T2 or Chinook, not both. if that was the case, they would have further purchased Mi26, similar to sukhoi and did an FMS on Chinook, just like M 777 and P-8.

Idiots cant even get around the idea, that we have to supply our guns which will placed at different altitudes in difficult places on the mountains. It is all about ceiling heights and ability to land in weird off places. Mi-26 is none of that, India is going to place these guns espeicially to deter a chinpak link up. Chinooks and M-777 are vital.

the idiotic russian agents wants to fund their own pockets and as well as make sure chinese gets steam roll through IA in the North East.

 

[pmaitra]

All C-17 related posts moved here: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/2405-c-17-globemaster-iii-iaf-27.html

No more off topic posts please.

 

[asianobserve]

All C-17 related posts moved here: http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/indian-air-force/2405-c-17-globemaster-iii-iaf-27.html

No more off topic posts please.

You transferred my post to C17 thread? That was intended for this thread... the mention about C17 was only to prove a point about my main thesis that the massive Mi26 isn't practical in the battlefield...

 

[pmaitra]

You transferred my post to C17 thread? That was intended for this thread... the mention about C17 was only to prove a point about my main thesis that the massive Mi26 isn't practical in the battlefield...

I copied it back.

 

[trackwhack]

Not really a concern, since we are not a expeditionary force, therefore what chinook carries good enough.



Being the most important of all aspects, We need ceiling height.



That is not important, the question is how much time does need to get to the said speeds. Chinooks are extremely quick. Quick drops during wartime hotzones is possible,



Do we just pooh-pooh the manoverability of Sukhoi? We dont, do we? Why the double standards. That slick manoveres saves lives in mountains, makes the pilot make awesome corrections in difficult conditions. Its not a slug.

Adux, the Service ceiling is a non issue. Unless we are talking about Siachen where even the Chinook is inadequate. All NE areas are comfortably within 15,000 feet. The rest of the reasoning given can go both ways. The more the load and range the better, why are you talking up the service ceiling which is almost a non issue but playing down the load capability which is critical?

And you comparing the Chinook's maneuverability to the MKI does not even make sense. For a fighter aircraft it is imperitive, for a heavy lift copter, hardly so.

 

[HeinzGud]

If both the Mi 26 or the chinook is not up to the task 100% why not purchase both types for the certain key roles...? AFAIK Mi 26 is white elephant or a mere propaganda machine other than a real work horse....!

 

[trackwhack]

If both the Mi 26 or the chinook is not up to the task 100% why not purchase both types for the certain key roles...? AFAIK Mi 26 is white elephant or a mere propaganda machine other than a real work horse....!

dont make retarded comments thats dont add value to the debate please.

 

[Mad Indian]

dont make retarded comments thats dont add value to the debate please.

Whats wrong with his comment?. Mi 26 is just a white elephant propaganda machine if Adux is right about the 60 hours / year flight history of the Mil 26 no?

 

[pmaitra]

The fact of the matter is, Mil-26 is a tried and trusted helicopter that has proven itself time and again by its sheer capability.

Few points:

• Service Ceiling: We are talking about the North East, and Mil-26T2 is more than capable of transporting equipment in that sector. we do not need the service ceiling when we are talking about NE. Who cares if the Chinook can go higher than the Mil-26? We will not need to fly that high, so that is another meaningless comparison. I hope people see some sense.
• Service Hours: Citing service hours and calling the Mil-26 a white elephant is nothing but cheap rhetoric. How often do we use our Arjun tanks? How often do we use our T-90S tanks? How often do we use our Sukhoi-30MKIs? AFAIK, most of these machines have never been used. Military exercised do not count. On the other hand, Mil-26s have been used in real life operations and have proven not only reliable but imperative at certain situations. Citing flying hours is completely nonsensical, because, if we took the flying hours of our Sukhois, then it is even less. Now that beggars the question whether that is also a white elephant. This is the reason why people who do not understand or lack common sense should not be talking about military actions.
• Logistics and Service Staff: The more variety we get in our inventory, the more crew we need to train, the more spares we need to keep stock of, the more ground maintenance staff we need to train. This is a logistic nightmare. Let the IS Aviation go for Chinook, but IAF should stick to Mil-26T2.
• If war breaks out: We will be running helter and skelter and looking for transport aeroplanes and helicopters, and if we don't have enough of C-17, Ilyushin-76 and Mil-26, we will be seriously disadvantaged. So yes, even if they are sitting idle for most of the time, we need to have them.

It is a very well designed and capable machine. Chinook has its own advantages, but when comparing with Mil-26T2 and keeping the NE in mind, it simply loses out, except for the fact that it is more stable in crosswinds.

Now the only disadvantage Mil-26 has is the crew size. With Mil-26T2, that is also gone. Now what do some of these morons have to come up with? Ad hominems and false accusations. Shows how wrongly channeled some peoples' frustrations are:

Some people seriously need to relocate to Ranchi lunatic asylum.

 

[Mad Indian]

The fact of the matter is, Mil-26 is a tried and trusted helicopter that has proven itself time and again by its sheer capability.

It is a very well designed and capable machine. Calling it a white elephant is nothing but cheap rhetoric. How often do we use our Prithvi missiles? How often do we use our Sukhoi-30MKIs? AFAIK, these machines have never been used. Military exercised do not count. On the other hand, Mil-26s have been used in real life operations and have proven not only reliable but imperative at certain situations. Citing flying hours is completely nonsensical, because, if we took the flying hours of our Sukhois, then it is even less. Now that beggars the question whether that is also a white elephant. This is the reason why people who do not understand or lack common sense should not be talking about military actions.

Secondly, we do not need the service ceiling when we are talking about NE. Who cares if the Chinook can go higher than the Mil-26? We will not need to fly that high, so that is another meaningless comparison.

Now the only disadvantage Mil-26 has is the crew size. With Mil-26T2, that is also gone. Now what do some of these morons have to come up with? Ad hominems and false accusations. Shows how wrongly channeled some peoples' s frustrations are:

Some people seriously need to relocate to Ranchi lunatic asylum.

Three questions-

1. Is not the flying time an estimate of how much the aricraft will be used in the military, (approx.) since it shows the training which has been done with it hence an indirect measure?

2. Wont the Helis be needed for other sectors just in case?

3. Do you think IA is stupid to even short list Chinook if they think its completely worthless as all the Mi 26 Fan boys make it out to be when compared to Mi 26?


Again, i am a learner and i have preferance neither for Mi 26 nor Chinook

 

[pmaitra]

^^

Mad Indian, I have restructured my post. Please see if you think it makes sense or not.

HeinzGud, you might think Mil-26 is a white elephant, but if PRC plagiarises and copies that and then sells it to Sri Lanka, I bet Sri Lanka will lap it up. It won't be a white elephant anymore.

 

[pmaitra]

Three questions-

1. Is not the flying time an estimate of how much the aricraft will be used in the military, (approx.) since it shows the training which has been done with it hence an indirect measure?

2. Wont the Helis be needed for other sectors just in case?

3. Do you think IA is stupid to even short list Chinook if they think its completely worthless as all the Mi 26 Fan boys make it out to be when compared to Mi 26?


Again, i am a learner and i have preferance neither for Mi 26 nor Chinook

Answering the second point:

Well, helicopters and transport aeroplanes will be needed for all sectors, but then when you go up to height like Siachen, I don't think PRC is going to invade India through that route. There is very little scope of hand to hand fights or battles in those heights. Anywhere else, the lower altitudes of North East, Himachal Pradesh or Kashmir, the Mil-26 is fine. In any event, more than helicopters, aeroplanes will transport equipment behind the enemy lines. If helicopter are used, they will be shot down. Look at Afghanistan. Whether Mil-26 or Chinook, it will be shot down. So they will only be used to transport equipment to relatively safer regions away from enemy fire.

I'll let Kunal answer the other points because he knows better.

 

[Adux]

Adux, the Service ceiling is a non issue. Unless we are talking about Siachen where even the Chinook is inadequate. All NE areas are comfortably within 15,000 feet. The rest of the reasoning given can go both ways. The more the load and range the better, why are you talking up the service ceiling which is almost a non issue but playing down the load capability which is critical?

it does, simply. the greater leeway you have with your service ceiling, the more you have reserve power. The power to weight ratio, is quite important for a helicopter working at the limits of it performace stats. More load and range of the Mi-26T2 comes at a cost of nimbleness and maneuverability, what you are not getting is IAF is ok with 10 tons, It is the uptimes, and FOB cannot handle more than 10 tons, it has space premium.

Why do you need more range, when 300-400 kms range will do for IAF and IA
Why do you need more load capacity when 10 tons will do for IAF and IA

Mi-26T2 delievers more these two fronts at the cost of others, which are very important parameters for IAF, ceiling height, power to weight ratio, design and most importantly uptimes and life cycle cost.

And you comparing the Chinook's maneuverability to the MKI does not even make sense. For a fighter aircraft it is imperitive, for a heavy lift copter, hardly so.

Mi-26T2 is a giant, slow, lumbering, unresponsive and design wise not really apt for mountain top delivery. It is not because of its power or ceiling height but rather how it is designed, it will better in the mountains. Chinook doesnt have a conventional tail rotor, it changes the whole dimension of how a helicopter operates in closed space dangerous enviornment, So yes, Maneuverability is of paramount in mountains.

How have you imagined our FOB with their M-777 will look like? They are going to 40cents to 1acre small bases for 15-20 men on mountain tops or on the sides of mountains with dangerous wiggle room, now imagine 100's of such guns all over our mountains over looking the chinese. That is not a mean tasks at all counts, this our main chinese defense strategy, this is why we are raising 2 Mountain divisions especially trained for this kind of combat. This is not going to run along all over the Chinese sector, rather concentrated Ladakh over looking Aksai Chin, Sikkim and Burma. The Chinese threat is serious and a china-pak link up today a real possibility.

Please think, how our planners will look at it, not like fanboys. Please.

Simply put, Chinook is a far better option for our doctrine, strategy and economically than the Mi-26T2

 

[Adux]

Some people are just complete idiots on a power hungry trip with self righteous behavior that they cant even call a spade a spade, the combined hours achieved by the Indian Mi-26 are less than 8000hours in 26 years, that is less than 60/year/bird. What travesty, that they cant even call out a bad investment for their country, even it is slapping on their face. Must be because of their love for Russia and Rubles.

 

[Adux]

Some idiot on a power hunger trip, called Mi-26 a trusted IAF chopper, when the damn thing has only flown less than 60 hours very year for the past 26 years, somebody should show him the comparable stats for the Mi-17, Mi-8 and Cheetahs:

The guy comes close to laughable when he talks about ceiling height, yet he conveniently forgets what does it imply, today to siachin, we supply on Mi-17s till 13,000 ft, and from there the Cheetah's takes it further, please not, nobody even talks about the fact that even though we have a helicopter the Mi-26's which takes MORE LOAD than Mi-17's (4 times) yet, we dont use them regularly in siachin. Ask yourself, WHY? The idiot also doesnt know, that chinese sector also has AKSAI CHIN AREA, this the most link up area of chin-pak alliance, IA is in Siachin, especially to counter this issue, Ladakh has mountains which go beyond 15,000 ft, but dont bother, he has no clue about anything.

What an idiot, if he is comparing our Sukhoi's, Tanks to a Transport Heli, He doesnt even know that Transports put in more hours than a Tank or Fighter, yet let me take his argument for humor sense, i like idiots, OUR SUKHOI"s FLY MORE THAN THEM, at 240-260 hours/YEAR. That is just humiliating, it is not cheap rhetoric , but cold clear facts, that we made a bad decision on these Mi-26's.

He further gibbers like old drunk fool about common sense, yet he fails to see the light of reason, even when it is banging him on his face.

Logistics and Service, What logistics, IAF is retiring those birds, no matter what. They have had it. The damn thing spends more time in the hanger than actually flying.

How the ---- did he come to the conclusion that Mi-17's and our other birds are sitting idle, they are so much in demand, that IAF cannot spare none. He doesnt understand, that when an aircraft is not flying, its in maintenance especially in a under equipped force like the IAF.


He further blabbers about crosswinds, yet the utter fool doesnt seem to have an idea, where IAF and IA is going to get the most cross wind in these mountainous FOB supply, Chinook's ability to work in cross wind itself will win it the competition. Gents, we are talking about difficult climatic and difficult terrain, littered with vallys and mountains, its going to be mayhem out there.

Some people and their false ego ( something vasco de gama said about indian men) , is up their own arses in rubles and bullshit, they cannot even see the simply military strategy very well spoken by various experts in the media, and even by the IA.

How I miss Brigadier, S2 and OoE in this thread.

 

[Adux]

Call to develop roads, striking capability along border
The Assam Tribune Online
r dutta choudhury

GUWAHATI, April 1 – There is urgent need for India to develop infrastructure and striking capability along the border with China to face any eventuality, while unfortunately some major proposals for strengthening India's striking power are pending before the Government for a long time. This was the observation of defence analyst Brig (Retd) Gurmeet Kanwal, who was the Director of the Centre for Land Warfare Studies till recently.

Talking to The Assam Tribune, Brig Kanwal admitted that the border with China in the North East was neglected for a long time and even today, India lacks proper infrastructure. He pointed out that the roads leading to the international border are very narrow and often those are blocked during rainy season and winter. There is hardly any lateral road for free movement of the troops, while, the bridges along the roads in the area are not strong enough for taking the load of heavy military vehicles and equipment.

Brig Kanwal said that the bends on the narrow roads are very sharp and very often the heavy artillery have to be offloaded on the sharp bends and re-loaded again. This takes a long time to carry heavy artillery to the border areas. There is urgent need for improving the road condition and lateral roads should be constructed without further delay, he suggested.

The second problem is that the telecommunication networks are very poor in that area. Of course, satellite phones can be used if required, but that will turn out to be a very expensive affair, he pointed out.

Brig Kanwal said there is need for construction of more airfields and helipads in the bordering areas. He said that ideally, every post should have a helipad in such a terrain but India has only a few helipads in the area. However, he said that it would not be possible for transporting large number of troops by helicopters in case of any eventuality as " we do not have enough number of helicopters and because of the weather condition, helicopters can be used in that area only in the morning hours. It will be possible to move a company of forces by helicopters, but it will not be possible to move a battalion or so," he pointed out.

On the strength of the troops along the border with China, Brig Kanwal said that with the raising of two more divisions of the Army in Arunachal Pradesh, the strength of the Army has increased. He said that with the induction of the new forces, the defence capability of the country has increased but India is still lacking offensive capability to project power across the line of control.

Brig Kanwal said that a proposal for raising a specialized strike corps of the Army for the hilly terrains is pending with the Cabinet Committee on Security for a long time. Personnel of such a force can effectively be used not only along the China border in Arunachal Pradesh but also in Ladakh, he pointed out.

Brig Kanwal also expressed the view that India should strengthen its ground and air surveillance system along the border with China and steps should be taken to induct more missiles and rocket launchers along the international border.

:: Bharat-Rakshak.com - Indian Military News Headlines ::

 

[pmaitra]

All right, let's dump all our money on the underpowered and short ranged Chinook.

I got some spare Roubles. Anybody want some?

 

[Adux]

India's plans to urgently purchase M777 ultra-light howitzers from the US for deployment along the China border in the east have hit a roadblock as the Defence Ministry has developed second thoughts following an Army report that the gun may fall short of desired specifications.

While the Army, sources said, also took the line that these "deviations" were not that significant and could be waived, the Defence Ministry is taking no chances given the anti-corruption onslaught the government is under.

It is learnt to have asked the Army to further re-examine the deal as these specifications were drawn up by the Army itself.

The problem over this order of close to 150 guns, in fact, has to do with another global tender that the Army had issued for light howitzers. That tender process had run into a tangle after one of the key competitors — Singapore Technologies (ST) — had come under the CBI scanner in the ordnance factory scam. ST's Pegasus gun at the time was the lead contender in the trials.

The government had then decided to go for a direct government-to-government deal with the US, under the Foreign Military sales route.

The deal is important because India wants to significantly upgrade its presence and capabilities on the India-China border, particularly in the eastern sector. The light howitzer gun was assessed to be the most appropriate artillery equipment in the hilly terrain.

The US gun on offer, M777, was accordingly considered. At that point, sources said, the Defence Ministry had made it clear that the specifications ought to be the same as those issued while floating the earlier global tender.

The Army, on its part, had pointed out that using the same yardstick could result in deviations.

As a result, the US gun, which is made of titanium and weighs about 4 tonnes, does fall short on some counts:

The angle of depression is not enough for it to fire at tanks.

There is no automatic loading facility as it does not have an auxiliary power unit, which would increase the weight.

It lacks a safety catch mechanism.

At the same time, sources pointed out, the gun has other positives like being simple to operate and proven in battle. The Army top brass is said to be of the view that this order should therefore be delinked from the original tender, and that the M777s be purchased to fill the gap now. The tender can be pursued as and when blacklisted firms are allowed to participate in trials, the Army feels.

With some of these blacklisted companies obtaining a stay from the Delhi High Court, delinking the two deals may be the only way out, except that the same specifications have been used in both cases. The entire issue, sources said, will only get more complicated in the days ahead.

Boeing bulllish on Chinook winning Indian competition


Print
By: GREG WALDRON SINGAPORE 05:36 2 Apr 2012 Source:

Boeing is confident that the CH-47F Chinook will win India's competition for 15 heavy lift helicopters.

Flight trials for the CH-47F and the Russian Mil Mi-26 have been completed and offset proposals have been submitted to India's ministry of defence, says Boeing. The comments were made by Boeing executives at India's Defexpo 2012 show in New Delhi.

They say the CH-47F has met all technical requirements and that the next step is likely to be the opening of commercial bids, which could occur in May.


© Boeing
The request for proposal (RFP) suggests that the first aircraft will need to be delivered to the Indian army within three years of the contract signing. Following this, all 15 helicopters will need to be delivered within one year. The RFP placed great emphasis on the lifecycle costs involved in operating the two helicopters.

Boeing says it is currently producing five Chinooks per month at its Philadelphia factory.

The CH-47F and Mi-26 are radically different helicopters. The Chinook uses a tandem rotor layout compared with the Mi-26's conventional helicopter layout with a main and tail rotor.

The Mi-26 is much larger, with a maximum take off weight of 56,000kg (123,000lb) compared with the Chinook's maximum gross weight of 22,668kg.

The Chinook, however, can be transported in the hold of the C-17 Globemaster III, of which India has ordered 10 examples. Boeing says this greatly enhances the CH-47F's ability to be deployed to distant locations.

They note that the CH-47F used in the India flight trials flew into India aboard a C-17 and was able to conduct a flight just hours after arriving.

Read it in full

 

[Adux]

Dont we just love our forum jester, there must be some comical reason he has been given the banstick, like the special needs kid in the class being given preferential treatment and responsibilities to make him feel home. Little bugger talks about range of the chinook, 500 kilometers, so how much does he want 3000 kilometers? Bring supplies from kerala to ladakh? shows his understanding of military logistics especially in our geographical area. I am sure he would have lost his rubles after being taken to happy place in the gulag

 

[pmaitra]

Mil-17 at the Siachen Glacier, not the base camp.


Guys, don't be hoodwinked.