Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

[mayfair]

Nothing revolutionary has happened in Mi-26's , mayfair especially regarding the Engine. It has a digital cockpit though, and it is completely unsuited for the role we have envisaged. There is a reason why the Americans didnt offer the MH-53 , also not the F-15K in MMRCA.

This

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...alo-vs-boeing-ch47f-chinook-5.html#post464383

says that

The engine also is being enhanced. The new version is powered by a pair of modernized D-136-2 turboshafts developed by the Ukrainian companies Ivchenko-Progress and Motor Sich. The new turboshaft also features full-authority digital engine controls, as well as a contingency power mode of 12,500 hp for extreme operations above 30C. Maximum takeoff power has been increased by 250 shp to 11,650 shp. The new engine's power parameters will expand the helicopter's altitude and temperature flight envelope and enable it to continue horizontal flight even with one engine inoperative, say officials for the engine consortium.

Should be quite an improvement if not revolutionary.

 

[Sancho]

So C-17 and An-224 are the same, I see. Nicely done.

See, shows again that you have no idea what you are talking. C17 offers additional advantages to IAF by using it from unpaved airstrips for example that no other aircraft in the fleet offers and the same is the point about Mi 26! It's not only about the tonnage, but that it gives IAF more additional operational advantages that neither the Chinook, nor any other heli in the fleet provides.

Again, You are forgetting the location, geography and the enviornment where this is going to be used...Bofors are going to kept on Mountain tops really? that too in the ranges of chinese theater, laughable.

You do know that IAF have used Mi 26 in exactly these mountain areas during Kargil war right? And which howitzers did they transported back then? Oh yes, Bofors howitzers. :thumb:

See, the difference between you and me here is, that I looked at what IAF has done in the heavy lift role with the Mi 26 and then compared both helicopters to these requirements. You on the other side just watched the Boeing PR and at what US forces are doing with Chinook and automatically trasfered it into, we must have it too. But neither have our forces the same requirements, nor am I as childish to think Indian forces needs everything that the US has as well. That's why I can argue with arguments, while you have only claims and personal attacks.

 

[Sancho]

This

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...alo-vs-boeing-ch47f-chinook-5.html#post464383

says that



Should be quite an improvement if not revolutionary.

It's defenitely much improved, but the key is still the maintenance. If the Russians have improved themself in that area from Soviet time problems, the Mi 26 has very good chances to win. Otherwise the Chinook will be procured since there is no other option available soon. The CH 53K is under development only and IAF seems to prefer a faster replacement, on operational terms it would be the much better choice than Chinook as a heavy lift helicopter, also if IN really goes for LPDs.

 

[Ray]

You do know that IAF have used Mi 26 in exactly these mountain areas during Kargil war right? And which howitzers did they transported back then? Oh yes, Bofors howitzers.

Can't say there were successful in Kargil.

They were extensively used for as the Gurez hopper.

 

[HeinzGud]

I
There is a reason why the Americans didnt offer the MH-53 , also not the F-15K in MMRCA.

Can you explain the reason?

 

[Adux]

See, shows again that you have no idea what you are talking. C17 offers additional advantages to IAF by using it from unpaved airstrips for example that no other aircraft in the fleet offers and the same is the point about Mi 26! It's not only about the tonnage, but that it gives IAF more additional operational advantages that neither the Chinook, nor any other heli in the fleet provides.

Son,

I have supported the C-17 acquisition from the early days, as do I have with M-17V5's, IAF is not going to a do it all, in everything it buys. It simply cant and it doesnt want to either. There are no operational advantage Mi-26 provides that Chinook cant, expect for the tonnage which is also of no use in the theater it is going to employed.

You do know that IAF have used Mi 26 in exactly these mountain areas during Kargil war right? And which howitzers did they transported back then? Oh yes, Bofors howitzers. :thumb:

Check out where Bofors were placed, and then understand where the M777 are going to be placed. They were firing 'at' the mountains and not 'from' them. There is a difference, that difference is vital. We are going to be firing at the Chinese from 10,000 to 18,000 ft from the top of mountains.

See, the difference between you and me here is, that I looked at what IAF has done in the heavy lift role with the Mi 26 and then compared both helicopters to these requirements.

Going back to the tonnage I see, Silly you again. And IAF has not been able to do anything in heavy lift department,, because those hanger queen mi26's rarely left the ground.

You on the other side just watched the Boeing PR and at what US forces are doing with Chinook and automatically trasfered it into, we must have it too. But neither have our forces the same requirements, nor am I as childish to think Indian forces needs everything that the US has as well. That's why I can argue with arguments, while you have only claims and personal attacks.

Everything US has, You dont have any clue how the said machine is going to be used, you dont see the stark difference in both contendors and how they compare to the operational requirement. You think IAF's simply needs to lug cargo, but you have no clue what kind of cargo and where, what can kind of geography and scenario, what kind of uptimes etc etc. You dont get it, you go back to the same range and capacity, when that is not completely what IAF is looking for.

 

[Adux]

Can you explain the reason?

Yes, this. Americans know this is a joint requirement of IA and IAF, and is vital to India's defense strategy against the chinese, in the short-medium term. So are the M 777s, these acquisitions are centered around the Mountain Divisions India is raising along the borders with China. Only idiots think, Indian Armed Forces orders vital equipment's like these without cross consultations with sister services. This is to position and resupply on mountain tops, where the M-777 will be firing at the Chinese from the mountains.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Adux seems to have explained the doctrinal aspects of the accquisition well to me

 

[trackwhack]

Mi 26 has

a) twice the load capacity and more importantly twice the holding area - twice the number of troops.
b) Twice the range without external fuel tanks and 5 times the range with fuel tanks
c) 15,000 ft altitude ceiling against 18,000 feet. Being twice as large, thats expected
d) Identical cruise and top speeds

Of course it cannot perform those slick maneuvers that the Chinook can. But the question is whether the forces need an over engineered hybrid or a heavy lift chopper with capacity to deploy more men and equipment farther and faster.

 

[SPIEZ]

In Spring 2002, a civilian Mi-26 was leased to recover two U.S. Army MH-47E Chinook helicopters from a mountain in Afghanistan. The Chinooks, operated by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, had been employed in Operation Anaconda, an effort to drive al Qaeda and Taliban fighters out of the Shahi-Kot Valley and surrounding mountains. They ended up stranded on the slopes above Sirkhankel at altitudes of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) and 3,100 metres (10,200 ft). While the second was too badly damaged to recover, the first was determined to be reparable and estimated to weigh 12,000 kilograms (26,000 lb) (with all fuel, rotors, and non-essential equipment removed), which exceeded the maximum CH-47 payload of 9,100 kilograms (20,000 lb) at an altitude of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft).

The Mi-26 was located through Skylink Aviation in Toronto, which had connections with a Russian company called Sportsflite that operated three civilian Mi-26 versions called "Heavycopters". One of the aircraft, doing construction and firefighting work in neighboring Tajikistan, was leased for $300,000; it lifted the Chinook with a hook and flew it to Kabul, then later to Bagram Air Force Base in Parvan, Afghanistan for shipment to Fort Campbell, Kentucky for repairs.[2] Six months later, a second U.S. Army CH-47 that had made a hard landing 100 miles (160 km) north of Bagram at an altitude of 1,200 metres (3,900 ft) was recovered by another Sportsflite-operated Mi-26 Heavycopter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26

 

[asianobserve]

In Spring 2002, a civilian Mi-26 was leased to recover two U.S. Army MH-47E Chinook helicopters from a mountain in Afghanistan. The Chinooks, operated by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, had been employed in Operation Anaconda, an effort to drive al Qaeda and Taliban fighters out of the Shahi-Kot Valley and surrounding mountains. They ended up stranded on the slopes above Sirkhankel at altitudes of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) and 3,100 metres (10,200 ft). While the second was too badly damaged to recover, the first was determined to be reparable and estimated to weigh 12,000 kilograms (26,000 lb) (with all fuel, rotors, and non-essential equipment removed), which exceeded the maximum CH-47 payload of 9,100 kilograms (20,000 lb) at an altitude of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft).

The Mi-26 was located through Skylink Aviation in Toronto, which had connections with a Russian company called Sportsflite that operated three civilian Mi-26 versions called "Heavycopters". One of the aircraft, doing construction and firefighting work in neighboring Tajikistan, was leased for $300,000; it lifted the Chinook with a hook and flew it to Kabul, then later to Bagram Air Force Base in Parvan, Afghanistan for shipment to Fort Campbell, Kentucky for repairs.[2] Six months later, a second U.S. Army CH-47 that had made a hard landing 100 miles (160 km) north of Bagram at an altitude of 1,200 metres (3,900 ft) was recovered by another Sportsflite-operated Mi-26 Heavycopter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-26

I wonder if the IAF can put to effective use Mi26's much touted "Chinook carrying" ability without buying Chinooks first...? :cool2:

 

[Drsomnath999]

Expensive, less tactical advantage than a helo and limited space. Both the competing Helos offer more space and capacity.

&

unproven and expensive product, but I see more and more helicopters being replaced by such machines, though not by V-22.

&

We will, if there will be a requirement to add tactical aicrafts with VTOL capability, but this is the heavy lift competition and that's why Boeing proposed the biggest helicopter they have.

well of course it is going to be expensive as it is a tilt rotor plane , of course it is going to have more tactical advantage than helo .simple common sense

Well yes CHINOOK offers more space & carrying capabilty & i would put my money on chinook

& yes to compare with V22 osprey is like comparing apples with orange

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Thats what i meant. How is Mil- 26 supposed to be a quick action ,nimble transport?

This History for all who have forgotten this:


Operation Chequerboard

Operation Chequerboard was a high-altitude military exercise conducted by India along the Chinese border in North East India. The exercise was conducted to test Indian military response in the Northeast Himalayan region and the US and Soviet reaction to potential Sino-Indian tensions in the region. The Chinese and Indian armies nearly went to war as both sides patrolled the desolate frontier and skirmishes were not infrequent.

The exercise involved 10 divisions of the Indian Army and several squadrons of the IAF and a redeployment of troops at several places in North East India. The Indian Army moved 3 divisions to positions around Wangdung,[1] where they were supplied and maintained solely by air. These troop reinforcements were over and above the 50,000 troops already present across Arunachal Pradesh. Operation Falcon and involved movements across the Sino-Indian border. Mi-26 heavy lift helicopters were used to deploy Infantry fighting vehicles and tanks into North Sikkim in the east and Demchok in the west. These deployments were viewed as particularly threatening by the PLA because they seemed to indicate that India had moved from a strategy of defence in its own territory to that of a larger offensive involving all of Arunachal Pradesh.

1987 Sino-Indian skirmish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I dont think we need a BMP on a mountain slope we would need a 155mm howitzer (Chinook can do that)-

You dont need a Airfield, You can deploy a Company size or more in one flight, Also you can deploy BMP or Light tanks and arty such as Heavy 155mm/52cal not just 155mm /39cal..

Chinook cannot do this..

 

[trackwhack]

This History for all who have forgotten this:


Operation Chequerboard



1987 Sino-Indian skirmish - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




You dont need a Airfield, You can deploy a Company size or more in one flight, Also you can deploy BMP or Light tanks and arty such as Heavy 155mm/52cal not just 155mm /39cal..

Chinook cannot do this..

Thank you Kunal. The simple fact is that the Mi 26 is a superior deployment platform due to load capability. Also due to twice the ferry range, refuelling timespan is reduced. The Chinook has to be refuelled every 400 miles, whereas the Mi 26 need to be refuelled every 1800 miles with external fuel and 800 miles with internal fuel.

An Mi 26 can deploy thrice the men and equipment in the same time as a Chinook due to its advantage of load and range. And please remember, the Siachen is at 18,000 feet, NE is not. The altitude ceiling of the Mi26 is 'not less than' 15,000 feet, which is more than adequate for all of NE areas. And NE is where we need heavy lift choppers.

 

[pmaitra]

The simple thing is that, even if IAF gets Chinooks, it will still need to have some Mil-26s on standby, just in case the Chinooks are shot down or disabled. If not for Mil-26, who will carry those disabled Chinooks back for repairs?

 

[Adux]

In Spring 2002, a civilian Mi-26 was leased to recover two U.S. Army MH-47E Chinook helicopters from a mountain in Afghanistan. The Chinooks, operated by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, had been employed in Operation Anaconda, an effort to drive al Qaeda and Taliban fighters out of the Shahi-Kot Valley and surrounding mountains. They ended up stranded on the slopes above Sirkhankel at altitudes of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft) and 3,100 metres (10,200 ft). While the second was too badly damaged to recover, the first was determined to be reparable and estimated to weigh 12,000 kilograms (26,000 lb) (with all fuel, rotors, and non-essential equipment removed), which exceeded the maximum CH-47 payload of 9,100 kilograms (20,000 lb) at an altitude of 2,600 metres (8,500 ft).

The Mi-26 was located through Skylink Aviation in Toronto, which had connections with a Russian company called Sportsflite that operated three civilian Mi-26 versions called "Heavycopters". One of the aircraft, doing construction and firefighting work in neighboring Tajikistan, was leased for $300,000; it lifted the Chinook with a hook and flew it to Kabul, then later to Bagram Air Force Base in Parvan, Afghanistan for shipment to Fort Campbell, Kentucky for repairs.[2] Six months later, a second U.S. Army CH-47 that had made a hard landing 100 miles (160 km) north of Bagram at an altitude of 1,200 metres (3,900 ft) was recovered by another Sportsflite-operated Mi-26 Heavycopter

Mil Mi-26 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was used to hook up with a chinook fallen, in a fallen enviornment with no enemy at all, it doesnt replicate our scenario at all,

 

[Adux]

I wonder if the IAF can put to effective use Mi26's much touted "Chinook carrying" ability without buying Chinooks first...? :cool2:

Like I said,, I will give Rs.1000, to DFi or more even Rs.2000, when IAF selects the Chinook, There is no doubt it is the better choice.

 

[pmaitra]

I wonder if the IAF can put to effective use Mi26's much touted "Chinook carrying" ability without buying Chinooks first...? :cool2:

Awww, how cute, darling.

Yes, Chinooks have their advantages, having two contra-rotating non-coaxial rotors. They are more stable in cross winds and have greater efficiency than conventional main-rotor-tail-rotor crafts. However, why get Chinooks when Mil-26s can do the same job? We already have trained staff and operating experience.

Some of the excuses or marketing gimmics by Boeing:

Downwash:
Every helicopter will have down wash, and no, it is not unsafe, because it does no suck people up into the rotors, moreover, the downwash is zero if the rotors are not tilted. If the rotors are not tilted, no matter what the rpm, there will be negligible downwash. Look up how helicopter rotors work if you don't understand what I said.

Larger centre-of-gravity envelope:
Pffft. How many centres-of-gravity can an object have? How big is that? WTH is 'envelope' here? Was that marketing brochure meant for learned people? No matter how many rotors you have, there is one, and only one centre-of-gravity, and it is just a point.

And those landing pictures with forest:
The conventional helicopter can do exactly what the Chinook did there. That was ridiculous, and then some people are buying into that.

 

[trackwhack]

Awww, how cute, darling.

Yes, Chinooks have their advantages, having two contra-rotating non-coaxial rotors. They are more stable in cross winds and have greater efficiency than conventional main-rotor-tail-rotor crafts. However, why get Chinooks when Mil-26s can do the same job? We already have trained staff and operating experience.

Some of the excuses or marketing gimmics by Boeing:

Downwash:
Every helicopter will have down wash, and no, it is not unsafe, because it does no suck people up into the rotors, moreover, the downwash is zero if the rotors are not tilted. If the rotors are not tilted, no matter what the rpm, there will be negligible downwash. Look up how helicopter rotors work if you don't understand what I said.

Larger centre-of-gravity envelope:
Pffft. How many centres-of-gravity can an object have? How big is that? WTH is 'envelope' here? Was that marketing brochure meant for learned people? No matter how many rotors you have, there is one, and only one centre-of-gravity, and it is just a point.

And those landing pictures with forest:
The conventional helicopter can do exactly what the Chinook did there. That was ridiculous, and then some people are buying into that.

Awesome response, but do you really want to get into CG and CM with internet fanboys? You just have to look at most people's choice of cars to figure out that there is no point in bringing center of gravity and center of mass discussions into debates like this. Lets restrict our debates to simple range, payload, paint schemes and American/Russian themes.

 

[Killswitch]

If the MI 26 is so superior in range, and load (which it clearly is) the only thing that can hurt its chances is lack of spares and support, which Russia is notorious for in India. Getting spares for Russian platforms can take YEARS, and they cost mark ups are astronomical in some cases. Even then sometimes the spares are second hand garbage, and they get people killed.

If the Russians cant support our current fleet properly how is this going to change when we buy more of the same type?

If the Russians can guarantee spares in a time span of days instead of the current one (of years in some cases) then they can win the tender. If they cant, the chinook deserves the win, because the US can deliver the platforms quickly, and they have world leading support and supply chain.