Mil Mi-26T2 Halo vs Boeing CH47F Chinook

[Blackwater]

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.



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

good example of chinnook stability and versatility . MI-26 can noooooooot do this man

 

[trackwhack]

Adux, the Mi-17 and Mi 8's can easily do the troop movements illustrated by the Chinook above. On the other hand, the Chinoook cannot handle the eqyuipment movement that the Mi 26 can.

 

[Adux]

Indian Air Force Landing In Nyoma, 27 Kilometer Away From China Border


Now here is the video of a AN-32 landing at Nyoma (27 Kilometer from Chinese border), Do you know what is the height of Nyoma - 13000 ft, now check the video, look around? You will mountains still rising above the sides of the airfield,


Daulat Beg ALG is at 16,700 Ft, beyond the capability of Mi-26, Less said about ----e and Thoise; the better.
Daulat Beg Oldi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



And our moron special needs kid was talking about how we dont need more than 15000ft ceiling, Mi-26 isnt going to win this by a long shot. It is a machine which will not even pass the IAF and IA's technical specifications, IAF doesnt need the damn range and payload, it needs the aircraft to go the areas where their boys are manning those M-777 on steep mountainous crevices (where the ----ing tail rotor of Mi26 will make it death machine)

 

[Adux]

Adux, the Mi-17 and Mi 8's can easily do the troop movements illustrated by the Chinook above. On the other hand, the Chinoook cannot handle the eqyuipment movement that the Mi 26 can.

Trackwhack,

This is the last time, I am going to speak on the subject , you are more than intelligent and patient enough to understand this quite simple subject really, please look carefully, how a tail rotor will play havoc on the said pics? the tail rotor is located far away the ramp(where the goods have to unloaded), therefore when a pilot lands similar fashion to those pics above, it will hit the mountain surface because of the angle the helicopter has to place its ramp on the ground. The tail rotor is perpendicular to the ground, as the angle of the mountain or surface rises, it simply cannot land. It needs a near flat surface to land, while the chinook doesnt. That is a tremendous capability in FOB areas. Simply put Chinook is a better designed product for the mountains and its service ceiling makes it the perfect choice for us.

 

[Adux]

That is ----ing Mi-17 not a Mi - 26, its a brilliant machine, who examples has been made upto 12,000 and still being produced. The damn thing has a service ceiling of 20,000. I wonder who is trying to hoodwink who.

 

[Adux]

good example of chinnook stability and versatility . MI-26 can noooooooot do this man

What is the most premium and sought after thing on a mountain - flat surface, the Mi26 requires near flat surfaces (or its tail rotor will hit the ground) so as to put its unload ramp on the ground, while the chinook doesnt, simply because of its design.

 

[Blackwater]

go for chinook man

 

[Adux]

go for chinook man

Very good attempt at sarcasm.

 

[Blackwater]

Very good attempt at sarcasm.

No man good example to attempt sarcasm will be "GO FOR JF-17 MAN"

 

[pmaitra]

What exactly is this Chinook doing? Nothing, but hovering:

What is this Mil-17 doing? Again, nothing but hovering:

All right, we are not talking about inserting troops. We already have a solution for that. We have Mil-17 and HAL ALH. They can do this job pretty well.

The question is, who can lift how much and for what distance?

Adux, the Mi-17 and Mi 8's can easily do the troop movements illustrated by the Chinook above. On the other hand, the Chinoook cannot handle the eqyuipment movement that the Mi 26 can.

That is exactly the point. Why are we looking at pictures of troop insertion in the mountains? We already have helos that can do that. This is getting more and more ridiculous. Looks like someone is making a sales pitch for snake-oil at the local railway station.

Guys, heavy-lift is the key term here. Keep that in focus.

 

[Blackwater]

What exactly is this Chinook doing? Nothing, but hovering:

What is this Mil-17 doing? Again, nothing but hovering:

All right, we are not talking about inserting troops. We already have a solution for that. We have Mil-17 and HAL ALH. They can do this job pretty well.

The question is, who can lift how much and for what distance?

topic is chinook VS MI -26 not MI-17

now accept MI-26 can not do what chinook can do

 

[pmaitra]

topic is chinook VS MI -26 not MI-17

now accept MI-26 can not do what chinook can do

Read the thread properly. We are discussing transporting equipment. What Chinook can do, we can already do with what we have in our inventory.

Think about it. Why would we buy Chinook for inserting troops when we already have helos that can do that?

Oh, BTW, I do not have a picture, so I will not make a claim, but I do not see why a Mil-26 cannot do that. AFAIK, Mil-26 is very much capable of hovering. So no, I do not accept Mil-26 cannot do that.

 

[Blackwater]

Read the thread properly. We are discussing transporting equipment. What Chinook can do, we can already do with what we have in our inventory.

Think about it. Why would we buy Chinook for inserting troops when we already have helos that can do that?

Oh, BTW, I do not have a picture, so I will not make a claim, but I do not see why a Mil-26 cannot do that. AFAIK, Mil-26 is very much capable of hovering. So no, I do not accept Mil-26 cannot do that.

twin rotor is always better and stable than single rotor.

chinoook has proven more in war front than MI-26.

we had MI-26 for the last 25 yrs. we had problem with its spares and high cost of operation. we should now take tried and tested machine which is also cost efficient

chinook paindabad

america zindabad

 

[trackwhack]

Adux,

I am not trying to antagonize you man. I am pointing out the shortcomings of the Chinook. It just cannot carry heavy equipment like the Mi 26. On the other hand there are other helos that can carry troops and are as versatile as the Chinook.

The question is what is the IA looking at airlifting. If the answer is heavy equipment, like tanks, APV's etc, the Chinook just does match up the Mi 26's abilities.

The Mi 17 can carry 30 troops, the Mi 8 can carry 25. These are excellent copters that also have altitude advantage when compared to the Chinook. And we have these in huge numbers. Most of the Chinooks advantages that you have highlighted pertain to troop deployment. I am just saying that those attributes are well met by other choppers which we have. The one attribute that distinguishes these two choppers is equipment lift and in that aspect, the Chinook is outperformed. Please note, we will never need the ability to land a tank or APV on top of a mountain.

 

[Adux]

What exactly is this Chinook doing? Nothing, but hovering:

Fool, do you see the most important part? Where is the ramp? Its in unload position on non flat surface which is not big enough to accomadate it, it can still deliever its good.

What is this Mil-17 doing? Again, nothing but hovering:

Moron cant even figure out where the ramp is? It is on ----ing air? Because if it tilts itself to align its ramp to the uneven ground, its tail rotor will hit, kaboom. I wonder how it will be able to roll out artillery shell packets and other goods in such situation. The special needs kid has just posted a picture which has got him with his pants down, also he also got shafted for the argument that Indian border mountains are lower than 15000, while our ALG's itself are all above 15,000 and the mountains are even rising above it.

Nyoma

Daulet Beg Oldi

 

[pmaitra]

twin rotor is always better and stable than single rotor.

chinoook has proven more in war front than MI-26.

we had MI-26 for the last 25 yrs. we had problem with its spares and high cost of operation. we should now take tried and tested machine which is also cost efficient

chinook paindabad

america zindabad

Did you read the thread? I have already said in this very thread that twin-rotor makes the Chinook more stable in crosswinds than Mil-26. Again, read the thread.

 

[Blackwater]

Fool, do you see the most important part? Where is the ramp? Its in unload position on non flat surface which is not big enough to accomadate it, it can still deliever its good.

What is this Mil-17 doing? Again, nothing but hovering:

Moron cant even figure out where the ramp is? It is on ----ing air? Because if it tilts itself to align its ramp to the uneven ground, its tail rotor will hit, kaboom. I wonder how it will be able to roll out artillery shell packets and other goods in such situation. The special needs kid has just posted a picture which has got him with his pants down, also he also got shafted for the argument that Indian border mountains are lower than 15000, while our ALG's itself are all above 15,000 and the mountains are even rising above it.

Nyoma

Daulet Beg Oldi

C-130 can perform better than this shit hole in LEH. air force has accepted .. its better u must also accepted that

 

[pmaitra]

Aaah, everytime someone's points are proven wrong, out comes the expletives.

Tsk, tsk, tsk, sorry, I have to call out bluffs whenever I see something like a sales pitch!

Kya kare yaar, aadat hi aisa hai.

 

[Blackwater]

Did you read the thread? I have already said in this very that twin-rotor makes the Chinook more stable in crosswinds than Mil-26. Again, read the thread.

i love u on this

 

[pmaitra]

i love u on this

Yeah man, gotta be fair. See the thread again, see all my posts, I have tried to be fair to both the aircrafts.