Sancho, what on earth makes you believe that the IAF wants the Chinook to do what the Mi-26 could do?? This requirement of the IAF is in line with the present operational doctrines of the IAF.
The fact that they are replacing older Mi 26, so the new helicopter has to carry large loads of internal and external cargos, vehicles if possible, as many troops or passengers as possible...and in all these roles, be it in war times or peace time the Chinook is not even close to offer the same performance.
If they wanted to add tactical advantages like you often claim, they simply could have replaced some of the older Mi 8 and with the Chinook even in higher numbers than just 15, but as we both know that's not the case, because IAF wanted Mi 17 in that role!
As IAF said it since they sent out the RFI, they want a heavy lift healicopter to replace older Mi 26 fleet and that makes the purpose pretty clear!
Can you tell us why the IAF even ended buying up the few Mi-26s that it did in the past?
Because of the fall of the Soviet Union, when that happened the production of the Mi 26 was stopped, which also caused the lack of spare parts and maintenance issues. Russia now started the new T2 version, much modernised and even better than the last one.
There is much more than "armchair strategic experts" really know about. Paper specifications are fine, but in the end may be just that, specifications on paper.
Yes facts, but you have to look at it a bit more open minded, then you might see it.
The fact is, that there are numerous written and visual proves for how well IAF operated Mi 26 in the heavy lift role for various different purposes, while there is nothing except the Boeing presentation of Chinook that hints on a tactical role. So when we know what IAF did in this role, why do we need to speculate about other roles? Only because the Chinook is inferior isn't?
As I saying for a long time, if spare supply and maintenance can be secured, the Mi 26 has to win, because it is a huge advantage for IAF in war scenarios, UN, disaster relief or even heavy civillian support roles to have the Mi 26T2. The Chinook on the other side will only be a minor advantange and it would be much more useful to add CV 22s along side the Mi 17s for tactical roles.
yes I am are of the effort of the Mi-26 in the BRO program's nationwide but that is pretty much because the helo could do little else with the IAF in terms of supporting frontline operations.
Ehm yes, Mi 26 was not used during Kargil conflict to carry cargo, troops, howitzers or heavy vehicles to the frontlines. It wasn't used on disaster relieft mission by IAF or to support ground bases in northern areas, at places where most fixedwing aircrafts can't land right? Buddy, a MI 26 is a VTOL MRTA! It can carry nearly the same ammount of payload, troops or vehicles but does not need an airstrip to take of and land. Having this capability in the force is a clear advantage.
This 15 will turn into 30 or even to 50 till 2020...
Not going to happen for the reasons mentioned above.
isn't it a tender of heavy lift helicopter and not a tactical helicopter???also, Indian air force handled mi-26 before.maybe maintenance and spare parts are present problems,but why should india buy costly chinook when india can buy 2 mi-26 at the same price ??also a mi-26 carries 3 times more passengers,has 4 times more range,carries 2 times more weight than a chinook....so,you draw the conclusion...
Yes it is a HLH competition and the conclusion about performance is pretty clear for most of us, although I'm not sure about the price though.
