Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

[pmaitra]

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...

That's very thoughtful of you, indeed.

 

[asianobserve]

That's very thoughtful of you, indeed.

That's the whole point. You should buy heavy equipments for the military not because they're Russian but because they're of practical utility to the force. The IAF already have 4 Mi26s they don't need more. They can modernise them if there's really a need for outsized cargo hauling...

 

[pmaitra]

That's the whole point. You should buy heavy equipments for the military not because they're Russian but because they're of practical utility to the force. The IAF already have 4 Mi26s they don't need more. They can modernise them if there's really a need for outsized cargo hauling...

"We should get Mil-26T2 because it has better range and lifting capability," is not the same as, "We should get Mil-26T2 because it is Russian."

I have mentioned range and lifting capability quite a few times, and its getting a bit annoying responding to your harangue. Sometimes when polite reminders don't work, rude profanity gets the message through. I will refrain from going that way.

 

[asianobserve]

And what are you going to do with the exceptional range of T2? I think the 4 Mi26's in IAF hangars can be modernised to T2 standards... Anyway, can't you not install refuelling probes to your Chinooks to increase their ranger if there's really a need for that...?

 

[pmaitra]

^^

Thank you. Now that you are talking about range, we can have a meaningful discussion.

Yes, mid-air refueling is an attractive option. However, the lifting capacity of CH47F is only marginally more than Mil-17, so I am not sure how this increased diversity of inventory and hardware helps IAF. Mil-26T2 makes more sense because Mil-26 is already part of the inventory, i.e. we have trained personnel to operate and maintain this Mil-26 series of helicopters. Personally, I'd rather get rid of those Mil-26s, and get several new Mil-26T2, because, among other things, it has the advantage of a smaller crew size. When it comes to crew size, Mil-26 is inferior to CH47F, but Mil-26T2 is not.

 

[asianobserve]

^^

Thank you. Now that you are talking about range, we can have a meaningful discussion.

Yes, mid-air refueling is an attractive option. However, the lifting capacity of CH47F is only marginally more than Mil-17, so I am not sure how this increased diversity of inventory and hardware helps IAF. Mil-26T2 makes more sense because Mil-26 is already part of the inventory, i.e. we have trained personnel to operate and maintain this Mil-26 series of helicopters. Personally, I'd rather get rid of those Mil-26s, and get several new Mil-26T2, because, among other things, it has the advantage of a smaller crew size. When it comes to crew size, Mil-26 is inferior to CH47F, but Mil-26T2 is not.

Your specs is tailor made for Mi26, ie. purely heavy lifting. The IAF do not see their need that way. And, quiet frankly they make more sense.

 

[pmaitra]

Your specs is tailor made for Mi26, ie. purely heavy lifting. The IAF do not see their need that way. And, quiet frankly they make more sense.

You are being disingenuous. Read the thread. It was always about heavy lifting. That is why I said, in my response to Yusuf, that if it were about a multi-role helicopter, then CH47F is a good choice. I also said that it has to be more than just heavy lifting, as was originally claimed by none other than IAF.

Again, CH47F has its own advantages, but if it is about heavy lifting, and I repeat, if it is about heavy lifting, Mil-26T2 beats CH47F hands down. There is more to it than we know or can see.

 

[asianobserve]

Like there's more to the selection C17s?

 

[sob]

IMO with the induction of C 17s the thinking in the IAF has changed a bit. Now they feel the reduced need for a Very Heavy Lift Helicopter. combined with the opening of airbases in the forward regions in the Himalayas, C 17 could push in more equipment than a Mi 26

 

[Kunal Biswas]

How do you know 4 MI-26 are enough ? if that so why need for a RFI for Heavy helos ? further Russian, US or French whatever suit us is practical..

IAF needed heavy lifting helos, MI-26 is still the best in range so does the heavy lifting than anyother in the Globe..

Your specs is tailor made for Mi26, ie. purely heavy lifting. The IAF do not see their need that way. And, quiet frankly they make more sense.

That's the whole point. You should buy heavy equipments for the military not because they're Russian but because they're of practical utility to the force. The IAF already have 4 Mi26s they don't need more. They can modernise them if there's really a need for outsized cargo hauling...

 

[tharikiran]

^^ Yup, we can push that chinook inside a C-17 and move it to wherever we want.I have this feeling, chinook won because of C-17.

 

[sandy_3126]

well the size of m26, you might be able to push the c17 inside it, jokes apart, I still think rusky behemoth should have won

 

[Ray]

Your specs is tailor made for Mi26, ie. purely heavy lifting. The IAF do not see their need that way. And, quiet frankly they make more sense.

That's right.

A skycrane is different from a tactical heavy utility helicopter.

 

[p2prada]

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.

Next time, if you are willing to put down the numbers, in digits, about how many kilograms either helicopter can lift, or speed in kmph or mph, or range in km or miles, we shall talk. Till then, happy prevaricating.

IAF chose Chinook because we are whoring ourselves to the Americans. Prove it.

You don't understand what is the meaning of requirements. It does not matter how far, how high the Mi-26 flies, nor does it matter how much it carries. If the ASR said the IAF wants a helicopter carrying 5 tons to 5000 ft and both helicopters can do it, it means the cheaper helicopter will win. It is such a simple thing to understand, so why can't you?

If we really wanted to whore ourselves to the Americans then we would have given them the SH deal and signing the NPT and CTBT without question.

 

[p2prada]

That's right.

A skycrane is different from a tactical heavy utility helicopter.

@pmaitra

This should end the discussion.

 

[p2prada]

The requirement isn't for a meaningless lifting capability over twice the Chinook's range and payload. The requirement is far more complicated that that. IAF is looking for a different requirement to what you have in mind, and what the Chinook offers is enough for that requirement.

Read this at least 10 times and then repeat for the next 15 days,

That's right.

A skycrane is different from a tactical heavy utility helicopter.

It is very, very, very simple. If something has been deemed by the services to fit the requirements, regardless of your amateur opinions, then it fits the requirement. That's about it.

 

[Drsomnath999]

excuse me everyone

BTW who won

 

[Apollyon]

This is getting ridiculous in this thread.

Speaking at the Royal International Air Tattoo at Royal Air Force (RAF) Fairford, Gloucestershire, on 6 July, Ministry of Defence (MoD) Chinook Project Team leader, Captain David Childs (Royal Navy), said the Chinook Through Life Customer Support (TLCS) contract between Boeing and the MoD had enabled the fleet of 46 Chinooks to accumulate a record 17,300 flight hours for 2011 (376 hours per helicopter).

"[The record flight hours] compare to a pre-TLCS figure of 11,000 hours across 40 helicopters [275 hours per helicopter]. We have seen a year-on-year increase of flying hours [since the contract came into effect]", he said.

Industry support drives record UK Chinook hours - Farnborough 2012 | IHS Jane's

:clap:

 

[Blackwater]

 

[pmaitra]

CH47F can lift 12700 kg or 14 tons. Mil-26T2 can lift 20000 kg or 22 tons.

Major said that the effort would be to invite manufacturers from around the world, and that in the heavy lift category, helicopters with 15-to-20-ton capacity would be considered.

Source: http://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories199.htm

@p2prada