Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

[pmaitra]

Quality? Just ask the IAF... It seems they're not as teary eyed as you when the topic comes to Mi26.

To me it seems there is more than just heavy-lift capability that went into this decision, if it is final, i.e..

Anyway, the strong points of the Chinook is not on numbers (ie. lifting capability as against the Mi26, there's no argument there) it is on cost, its flexibility tactical, reliability and lifting capacity, "everyday use" in civilian parlance. If your strongest claim to Mi26 is that it can lift downed Chinooks then I'm positive this is not going to be a regular occurence. And when it does occur the IAF is better off leasing private Mi26s for that purpose or better yet they can modernise their existing Mi26 fleet for that rare need (they can delay this activity if they wish to).

Of course the strong point of Chinook is not in numbers, w.r.t. range or payload, or even cruising speed. The only strong point is a sales pitch, where the customer says he wants a heavy lift helicopter, and a salesman demonstrates how wonderful the Chinook is in performing non-heavy-lift tactical missions.

Again going round in circles. Who cares whether the Chinook is good with tactical operations, when the primary purpose of heavy lift is not well done?

Here, going round in circles:

@asianobserve, what is the relevance of posting pictures of tactical operations, when we are discussing heavy-lift helicopters?

Again, I don't want to see pictures of Chinook dropping commandos on roof-tops, I don't want to see Chinook dropping people on hill-tops, because I have seen them many times, and they are not examples of heavy lift operations.

The closest ones are in former Soviet Central Asia. And how will IAF lease private Mil-26? How will they come to India? Over Pakistan occupied and PRC occupied territory? How about you look at the maps first before making such suggestions?

 

[asianobserve]

To me it seems there is more than just heavy-lift capability that went into this decision, if it is final, i.e..

Conspiracy theory...

Of course the strong point of Chinook is not in numbers, w.r.t. range or payload, or even cruising speed. The only strong point is a sales pitch, where the customer says he wants a heavy lift helicopter, and a salesman demonstrates how wonderful the Chinook is in performing non-heavy-lift tactical missions.

Then the guys at IAF are idiots...

Again going round in circles. Who cares whether the Chinook is good with tactical operations, when the primary purpose of heavy lift is not well done?

Again, not as heavy lifting as the Mi26 but very capable tactical lifter (Anyway, is there such a thing a "strategic lifting" for helicopters?)...

and

 

[Kunal Biswas]

@asianobserve, I think its void to stretch CH-47 with capability of MI-26, IAF is not a idiots but smarter look at RFI before going ahead..

Then the guys at IAF are idiots...

 

[asianobserve]

IAF is not a idiots

Exactly my point! Thank you!

 

[p2prada]

I acknowledge I have not read the ASQR, but it was well known India was looking for a heavy-lift helicopter. You believe that it was purely an IAF decision? You might as well be correct, but I don't expect you to be naïve in believing that there couldn't have been "other" considerations. Surely you are no stranger to India's politically motivated flirtations with Boeing and Airbus?

The AI and IA deals were too big. And they wee civilian deals, different from military deals where the customer has more robust and tougher requirements.

Airbus Wins India’s Tanker Rebid | Defense News | defensenews.com

The current tender is itself a rebid of a 2006 tender in which the A330 finished behind the Il-78 tanker, but the Indian Air Force preferred the European tanker. When the matter was sent to India's Finance Ministry, it said the lowest bidder should be the winner. The controversy led to the cancellation of the tender.

Case closed.

I am not naive but at the same time I am not a conspiracy theorist.

 

[p2prada]

The T2 that you're so fond of is just a simple brush up of the old Mi26, like how Russia is a brush up of the old USSR.

Not true. The Su-30MKM was also a brush up of the older Su-30 and the even older Su-27. But it costs 3 times lesser than the Block 1 Super Hornet in lifecycle costs and is easier to maintain.

This myth that Russian equipment is difficult and expensive to maintain is being thrown out the window with the advances the Russians have made compared to their Soviet days.

 

[asianobserve]

Apart from glass cockpit and new navigational instruments, reduction in crew size, what were the other changes to T2 model? But it is still going to be a behemoth of a helicopter with a very specialised use.

 

[asianobserve]

Another nice pic...

Congrats to my Indian friends! I envy you guys...

 

[p2prada]

Apart from glass cockpit and new navigational instruments, reduction in crew size, what were the other changes to T2 model? But it is still going to be a behemoth of a helicopter with a very specialised use.

These are only things that we know of. There will be others like quality of build material, new manufacturing techniques etc as compared to earlier models.

 

[pmaitra]

The AI and IA deals were too big. And they wee civilian deals, different from military deals where the customer has more robust and tougher requirements.

Airbus Wins India's Tanker Rebid | Defense News | defensenews.com

I think you are contradicting yourself. In military deals, the customer is more robust, but is ultimately guided by Finance Ministry? You need to make up your mind. AI and IA deals were big, well, and that proves what?

Case closed.

I am not naive but at the same time I am not a conspiracy theorist.

One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to compare the numbers, but failing to compare numbers and judging everything from sticker price is indeed naïve.

 

[pmaitra]

Apart from glass cockpit and new navigational instruments, reduction in crew size, what were the other changes to T2 model? But it is still going to be a behemoth of a helicopter with a very specialised use.

It is a "simple brush up," and such a comment could only come from a simpleton.

 

[asianobserve]

It is a "simple brush up," and such a comment could only come from a simpleton.

And this comment could only come from a hopeless Russophile...

 

[pmaitra]

And this comment could only come from a hopeless Russophile...

So comparing capacity and range of two helos makes one a Russophile. Hmmm. Have you considered that you are a blind Chinook fan?

 

[asianobserve]

Here's another good picture of the Chinook, this time lifting an Mi17...

 

[W.G.Ewald]

So comparing capacity and range of two helos makes one a Russophile. Hmmm. Have you considered that you are a blind Chinook fan?

lakeshorechinooks.com: Home

 

[p2prada]

I think you are contradicting yourself. In military deals, the customer is more robust, but is ultimately guided by Finance Ministry? You need to make up your mind. AI and IA deals were big, well, and that proves what?

One doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to compare the numbers, but failing to compare numbers and judging everything from sticker price is indeed naïve.

This notion is too absurd to even come to my mind.

You are comparing a civilian deal with similar technologies to a military deal with entirely different technological bases. AI and IA deals were decided people who were in charge of these companies, they were not chosen through tenders. Deals were made during Air shows in single company contracts.

The finance ministry has nothing to do with external affairs. They always look at the cheapest option and that's about it.

If the Finance ministry is looking at political gains by hooking up with American hardware, that's news for me.

In the MRTT deal, which is a more strategic asset than a bunch of helicopters, the finance ministry had no issues stopping the contract because IAF did not chose the L1 bidder. They were not thinking of setting up a strategic partnership with European countries in the process. That is MEA's work and completely outside the scope of the Finance Ministry.

If there were loose ends then that amounts to corruption and not an attempt to gain strategic partnership through a ~$1 Billion deal for 15 Chinooks.

You are attempting to create your own reasons as to why the Russians lost similar to what the Americans were doing after SH and F-16 failed to meet IAF's standards. Something as simple as requirements not met or higher costs seem to be an alien concept.

 

[Rage]

This, I am convinced is a continuous payment to Uncle Sam for the Indo-US nuclear deal. Let's not miss the bigger picture here, in all fairness the 26T2 should have clinched the deal if performance characteristics were the criteria alone, what with a ToW twice that of the Chinook. If the IAF wanted a truly heavy lift copter, this would be it. And God knows, we need a copter that can deliver such a payload! But although I haven't seen the ASQRs, I can pretty much bet they weren't.

The only other (but still very valid) reasons I can think of for the IAF going the Chinook way is: a) if they were unconvinced Rosvertol could secure the spare supply- and there is a good historical reason for that, what with the Mi-26 having consistently low serviceability rates that a CAG report put at a sorry 40%; b) that the Chinook had a better service ceiling, considering these are probably going to be deployed most in the forward mountainous areas, during peacetime anyway; and c) that the Russians did offer this deal to us with a cost structure that presupposed the delivery of 15 units to the IAF.

 

[pmaitra]

This notion is too absurd to even come to my mind.

You are comparing a civilian deal with similar technologies to a military deal with entirely different technological bases. AI and IA deals were decided people who were in charge of these companies, they were not chosen through tenders. Deals were made during Air shows in single company contracts.

The finance ministry has nothing to do with external affairs. They always look at the cheapest option and that's about it.

If the Finance ministry is looking at political gains by hooking up with American hardware, that's news for me.

In the MRTT deal, which is a more strategic asset than a bunch of helicopters, the finance ministry had no issues stopping the contract because IAF did not chose the L1 bidder. They were not thinking of setting up a strategic partnership with European countries in the process. That is MEA's work and completely outside the scope of the Finance Ministry.

If there were loose ends then that amounts to corruption and not an attempt to gain strategic partnership through a ~$1 Billion deal for 15 Chinooks.

You are attempting to create your own reasons as to why the Russians lost similar to what the Americans were doing after SH and F-16 failed to meet IAF's standards. Something as simple as requirements not met or higher costs seem to be an alien concept.

Seven paragraphs; lot of verbose beating around the bush*; details about MRTT and F-16; but guess what - not a single mention of the range or lifting capacity of either CH47F or Mil-26T2.

 

[pmaitra]

Here's another good picture of the Chinook, this time lifting an Mi17...

I don't recall comparing CH47F and Mil-17. I was comparing the former with Mil-26T2.

Anyway, what's your point, that Mil-26T2 cannot lift Mil-17 but CH47F can?

 

[asianobserve]

I don't recall comparing CH47F and Mil-17. I was comparing the former with Mil-26T2.

Anyway, what's your point, that Mil-26T2 cannot lift Mil-17 but CH47F can?

It's a nice picture, and it also shows how the Chinook can be of particular utility to the IAF which operates a large fleet f Mi17s...