Flood Rescue Underscores 2 Pending IAF Deals

[Zabaniyah]

Link below shows a CH-46 Sea Knight participating in post disaster operations:
File:US Navy 071126-N-1831S-104 A member of the Bangladesh Army helps unload bags of purified water from a CH-46 Sea Knight assigned to the amphibious assault ship USS Kearsarge (LHD 3).jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sancho]

@sancho wrt how the IAF uses its helos, do you not think the aircraft in question dictates how the force uses it?

Of course not, the IAF has requirements and strategies and procure things that has to suit the requirements and don't buy things first and build up a strategy around it. Be it the Mi 26, or the Ch 47, the aim was from the start heavy lifting and not tactical roles. As I told you once before, if IAF had the aims of roles Boeing advertise and you also think are important, they wouldn't have made so many follow orders of the Mi 17, but would have gone for a waaaay bigger order of the Ch 47, including tactical roles, similar to it's use in the US Army. However, that was never intended, nor is the case now. They only need it for heavy lifting, which only makes small numbers.
Another example are the Dhruv and the LCH, both born out of the requirement of havingh helicopters that can operate in high altitude areas. So first came the requirement, then the procurement and not the other way around!

BUT, if the need arises

Additionally the Chinook CAN be fitted with a winch to rescue survivors

Which both doesn't matter, since as explained that are neither roles of the Mi 26, nor of the Ch 47, but of Dhruvs and Mi 17s. Again you are confusing the roles in foreign forces.

 

[sancho]

for your eyes

Thanks, but please don't only use your eyes, but think about things too!

What you see on the pics mainly are tactical roles of US army, since they use the Ch 47 differently than we do with our helicopters. IAF basically does most of the roles with Mi 17s, that US army aviation do with Black Hawks and Ch47s, be it tactical troop transport, fire support, medium uttility transport and lift (howitzers, guns, jeeps...). That's why IAF keeps ordering Mi 17s in high numbers, while the requirement of heavy lift helicopters was only for 15 helicopters. Only because the Ch47 has some tactical capabilities, doesn't mean IAF will completely turn around their strategies and operations, especially not for a type that is used only in such limited numbers. The fact is, they will be procured for the heavy lift roles and then it's capabilities in that field are the most important to consider and when you look at the heavy lift roles currently, you clearly see the performance differences.

If one were to discuss the Chinooks and Mi-26s in tandem (which itself is somewhat fallacious); then one will have to understand that the Chinooks are far better suited to rough field operations.

If you compare them, you have to realize that operating them in rough or forwarded fields is not a priority for IAF, since IAF uses other helicopters for the forward areas.

Let us remember the most important thing now. What is going on in Uttarakhand and H.P. just now is a RESCUE OP. Only later when the weather abates some what, the ground stabilises to some extent (which will really happen when the Monsoon ceases) will the REPAIR & REHAB OP. be able to commence.

That's wrong! In many places in the area, there are not even helipads available to land Dhruvs or Cheethas, which means you first need to set up the grounds, before the rescue operations can be done. That's why forces and paratroopers were dropped in the area first, to do the first logistical work. Then you needed the basic things like fuel at these helipads, to keep the operations going, which exactly required the first use of the Mi 26.
Same goes to the airstrips for fixed winged aircrafts, which needed propper build up before even the C130J could land! Also that you need to open up the road links as fast as possible, since these are not restricted by weather. The sooner you have cleared the roads, the faster and simpler you can rescue and evacuate the people, even in such heavy rainy or windy situations.
So you can't simply wait for the logistical work till the end, infact you start with it simultaneously with the first rescue operations, because only a proper logistical base will make the rescue operations fast and efficient!

Only then will there be a call for Earth-Moving Eqpt to be moved up there. Any heavy vehicle moved up into that terrain will only slide and slither into the slush and most likely be written off.

How do you prepare an airstip without proper machinery? How do you clear roads or cities from blocks and debris without cranes and earth movers?

As of now the biggest requirement is for both light and medium-lift helicopters. Heavy-Lifters have a very small role

That's why even with a Ch47, the Cheethas, Dhruvs and Mi 17s would do the prime rescue roles, while the Ch47 would support the logistical build up with it's lift capability!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

How do you prepare an airstip without proper machinery? How do you clear roads or cities from blocks and debris without cranes and earth movers?

One question; Sancho. Have you seen mountain roads, air-strips in mountainous terrain being built? In torrential rain? While rock-slides and Land-slides are taking place frequently? With highly unstable soil conditions? Better consult a civil engineer.

BTW, the largest machine that is capable of being used in Uttarakhand right now is a JCB sized machine; and in very few places at that.

 

[sancho]

@Abingdonboy, @Capt.Popeye

Hey guys, this might be interesting for you too:


@Abingdonboy, @Capt.Popeye

Hey guys, this might be interesting for you too:

Mi-26 makes maiden landing at Gauchar

Chandigarh, June 26

As the world's largest helicopter, the Mi-26, made its maiden landing at Gauchar in Uttarakhand amidst challenging conditions, ferrying in a refuelling truck for helicopters, it not only established a vital link in flood relief operations, but also underscored the need for heavy-lift rotor capability to reach out to remote areas in difficult times.

With road links washed away and Gauchar being unsuited for operations by fixed-wing aircraft (despite it being an advanced landing ground), deployment of the Mi-26 was the only option left with the IAF to ensure availability of aviation fuel in inaccessible areas.

The 126 Helicopter flight at Chandigarh, also called the Featherweights, was tasked with airlifting two 9,000-litre fuel bowsers to Gauchar and Dharasu along with some Army and NDRF personnel and evacuate stranded pilgrims. After having undertaken four sorties during the ongoing Operation Rahat, the unit is now looking ahead at airlifting heavy machinery and equipment for rebuilding infrastructure.

Flying into the flood-ravaged areas was not without risks and challenges. Not only was the crew operating in uncharted territory in bad weather with no prior experience of the terrain, there were several operational parameters to be constantly reviewed and "spur-of-the-moment" decisions to be taken.

"While flying, we had to re-work our flight plan and change altitude at times to cater to visibility, terrain and air traffic in the vicinity," Gp Capt GS Tung, the unit's commanding officer said.

"The valleys in Uttarakhand are very narrow and there were about 55 other helicopters operating in that area and we had to maintain constant radio contact with them," he added. With him were his co-pilot Wg Cdr AS Bajwa, navigator Wg Cdr A Kukreti and two JCOs.

The weather was also a major factor with visibility being just 2 km and clouds drifting across the flight path. Flying in the mountains without visual contact with the terrain is not possible. High-tension cables across valleys and increased bird activity during the monsoon were added threats. "Safety of the aircraft and those onboard is paramount," Wg Cdr Tung said.

The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Nation


Which once again confirms the things that I said before:

1. advantage of the big internal cargo capacity
2. advantage of carrying a C130 payload to much further places, with the VTOL capability
3. the fact that these heavy lift helicopters, are basically meant for logistical roles and not for tactical once


And although it's rather sad to see the Indian media (including Shiv Aroor) falling to completely useless hype of the US aircrafts, it also shows again, that only the Mi 26 was able to help in that situation, thx to it's capabilities to keep the rescue operations going on!
IF we had Chinooks and C130Js now only, IAF couldn't transport the refuelling trucks, or the fuel barrels to these areas at that time, because the Chinnok can carry heavy loads only externaly as slung loads (which wouldn't be possible under that weather conditions either) and the C130J couldn't be used at the air strips for the first few days. The result would had been, that the helicopter rescue operations would be reduced by the lack of fuel and that the people had to remain in that areas for several days longer, which definitely had caused further death!

 

[sancho]

One question; Sancho. Have you seen mountain roads, air-strips in mountainous terrain being built? In torrential rain? While rock-slides and Land-slides are taking place frequently? With highly unstable soil conditions? Better consult a civil engineer.

BTW, the largest machine that is capable of being used in Uttarakhand right now is a JCB sized machine; and in very few places at that.

Just saw your post, since you didn't mentioned me correctly, but JCBs were used from day one after the disaster to clear the roads and the Mi 26 would had been able to carry them to several of the cities for this purpose. Wrt the road constructions, the IAF works together with civil companies as part of their normal missions in road and rail constructions in the north / east, so that's nothing new or unusual for IAF and you can bet that the Chinook will be used in the same roles too, but wll be able to carry smaller vehicles and payloads only.

 

[surya kiran]

That's why I told Capt.Popeye as well, that not the maintainability of a 25 year old Mi 26 is the important point currently, but how fast and effectively the forces could go on with the rescue operations and which capabilities are needed for that.
In this scenario and for these roles, the superior lift and internal capacity of the Mi 26 is clearly a benefit for IAF, since it can lift more and heavier cargo in a single flight and is not dependent on slung load operations, especially because of the current weather conditions. That then paves the way for operating their fixed wing fleet later and to make the rescue operations more effective.




On what basis? None of us forumers should have access to the evaluation reports of IAF and MoD right? So we don't know how they ranked the spare supply and aftersale support of RUSSIA today. So you base your opinion now only on the experience we had in the last years after the fall of the Soviet Union, which once is a totally different thing and if you do it, you would need to include the experience of the Sea King helicoperts during santion times as well.
On the other side you can ask yourself...

...did we had any issues with the aftersale support of Mil with the Mi 17s? I
...isn't the order of high numbers of new Mil helicopters a clear sign that our forces don't have an issue?
...isn't the fact that the Mi 26T2 reportedly passed all IAF exercises and requirements for high altitude operations countering the limitations that often are hold against it?




To do what? Lifting vehicles and machinery, which it can't? Or to recue people, which it don't have to in our forces, since Dhruv and Mi 17s are meant to do that, at much more areas than the Ch 47 can, because of even less size, weight and altitude restrictions!

Again:

LUH, Dhruv, Mi 17 - uttility and tactical operations => therefor in high numbers, to support of IA and preferable under IA control

Mi 26, Ch47, or the best of both the EC FTH - heavy lift and logistical operations => therefor in low numbers and in support of IAFs logistical fleet

I would not even put these 2 in the same category. And definitely not so from capabilities.

you would have to further classify the halo and chinook. One is used for logistical support to move infrastructure building equipment. chinook would be used in special ops and in search and rescue. The halo is definitely not sar.

Experienced chopper pilots will tell you landing the mi 26 is a pain when it does not have sufficient load. Their complaint is that the engine is too freaking powerful to let it land smoothly. And if they have less load to carry, they actually increase weight to ensure the chopper lands, else there are chances of hard landings.

Having said that, it does fill in a niche.

 

[sancho]

I would not even put these 2 in the same category.

You might, IAF does not! They procured a new heavy lift helicopter and not additional tactical helicopters, meant to do the same logistical support as the Mi 26 does today and which will remain highly important. The problem is only, the Chinook is tactically comparable to the Mi 17 and it's internal capacity, while it falls clearly short in the heavy lift capability compared to the Mi 26, be it internally or externally. That's why IAF will remain to use the hundreds of Mi 17s in rescure missions or to lift the M777 howitzers, while the Ch 47 will try to do as much as possible to fill the huge gap the Mi 26 leaves.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

I would not even put these 2 in the same category. And definitely not so from capabilities.

you would have to further classify the halo and chinook. One is used for logistical support to move infrastructure building equipment. chinook would be used in special ops and in search and rescue. The halo is definitely not sar.

Experienced chopper pilots will tell you landing the mi 26 is a pain when it does not have sufficient load. Their complaint is that the engine is too freaking powerful to let it land smoothly. And if they have less load to carry, they actually increase weight to ensure the chopper lands, else there are chances of hard landings.

Having said that, it does fill in a niche.

It sure does. A very small and specific niche at that. Even Sikorsky had a Helo for specific tasks like that. They called it the "Skycrane". Not too many units were built and the ones that saw service were with Civilian Operators mainly.

Now about the Mi-26; wrt to the visuals of the Fuel Bowser being disengorged from its fuselage:
1.How many Bowsers like this (abt 8 KL) were flown in, and used?
2.How many Helipads (apart from Gauchar and Dharasu) operated Fuel Bowsers?
3.How many Helipads in the region (apart from Gauchar and Dharasu)) were able to operate Mi-26 Helos?
3.What are the other methods of fuel (ATF) storage and transfer available?
4.How was fuel stored and transferred at the smaller Helipads which could not accommodate the Mi-26 Helos (which means many more than 2 Helipads) and how were those re-fuelling operations carried out there?

Answers to those above questions will prove to be rather "illuminating" to the "presumptive utility(?)" of the Mi-26 Helos apart from the issues that @surya kiran has already high-lighted.

 

[sancho]

It sure does. A very small and specific niche at that. Even Sikorsky had a Helo for specific tasks like that. They called it the "Skycrane". Not too many units were built and the ones that saw service were with Civilian Operators mainly.

Lol, as if the Ch 53 or even the Ch 47 do other things. They do the same heavy lift of machinery, of crashed aircrafts, of cargo supply, of heavy howitzers..., because all this belongs to the heavy lift role. Only because the Mi 26 is the most capable one, doesn't suddenly bring it in a special class or special role, or is this a skycrane too?

Answers to those above questions will prove to be rather "illuminating" to the "presumptive utility(?)" of the Mi-26 Helos apart from the issues that ">surya kiran</a></u> has already high-lighted.

Trying to creat fake arguments?

The rescue helicopters (Dhruvs, Mi 17s and privat helicopters) were operated from main air strips, from which they started to their missions and returned. Logically, these main bases are the places where the helicopters will be refuelled, or repaired, just like that is the place where people were evacuated by the Mi 26 and later the C130J. So your questions hardly makes sense, since the fuel, the fuel bowsers and the fuel barrels were only transported to these main air bases and no, there was no other way to refuel the helicopters (otherwise they would have done it don't you think?), because the helicopters were neither air refuelable, nor do we have the capability to refuel helicoperts by a tanker aircraft. Also the IAF does not seems to have procured the removable fuel tanks, that the Mi 26 can use to be as a forwarded refuelingstation, be it for helicopters at such air bases, or for armored vehicles:

So we didn't needed another helicopter to use them at smaller helipads in rescue missions, but one at the main air bases to provide the necessary logistical support, that keeps the overall operations running. So even if we had the Ch47 now, it would be needed to bring troops and cargo to these main bases and to evacuate the a greater number of people from these bases, especially when no fixed winged aircraft could be used.
The next role is to support the road re-construction operations, transporting trucks, JCBs or material to that is needed. Not to mention that both, the Mi 26 as well as the CH 47 would be used to recover the crashed helicopters.

All these are logistical lift roles and not the shiny special ops that the US Army might do with the Chinook, but that's the way it is. The Chinook has it's design advantages in certain missions, while the Mi 26 has it's design advantages in other missions, but all in the same heavy lift roles!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Lol, as if the Ch 53 or even the Ch 47 do other things. They do the same heavy lift of machinery, of crashed aircrafts, of cargo supply, of heavy howitzers..., because all this belongs to the heavy lift role. Only because the Mi 26 is the most capable one, doesn't suddenly bring it in a special class or special role, or is this a skycrane too?

Trying to creat fake arguments?

The rescue helicopters (Dhruvs, Mi 17s and privat helicopters) were operated from main air strips, from which they started to their missions and returned. Logically, these main bases are the places where the helicopters will be refuelled, or repaired, just like that is the place where people were evacuated by the Mi 26 and later the C130J. So your questions hardly makes sense, since the fuel, the fuel bowsers and the fuel barrels were only transported to these main air bases and no, there was no other way to refuel the helicopters (otherwise they would have done it don't you think?), because the helicopters were neither air refuelable, nor do we have the capability to refuel helicoperts by a tanker aircraft. Also the IAF does not seems to have procured the removable fuel tanks, that the Mi 26 can use to be as a forwarded refuelingstation, be it for helicopters at such air bases, or for armored vehicles:

So we didn't needed another helicopter to use them at smaller helipads in rescue missions, but one at the main air bases to provide the necessary logistical support, that keeps the overall operations running. So even if we had the Ch47 now, it would be needed to bring troops and cargo to these main bases and to evacuate the a greater number of people from these bases, especially when no fixed winged aircraft could be used.
The next role is to support the road re-construction operations, transporting trucks, JCBs or material to that is needed. Not to mention that both, the Mi 26 as well as the CH 47 would be used to recover the crashed helicopters.

All these are logistical lift roles and not the shiny special ops that the US Army might do with the Chinook, but that's the way it is. The Chinook has it's design advantages in certain missions, while the Mi 26 has it's design advantages in other missions, but all in the same heavy lift roles!

Thus speaketh another "Armchair Aviator" strictly on the basis of "Paper Specs"!!! LOL.

@sancho, if you are diligent enough and seek the answers to the questions that I have posed in my posts; you just stand to find some "enlightenment".
Those questions were/are based on information that I have gathered through physical observation over the years or based on information given to me by "Professional Aviators" (some of whom have been Course-Mates).
Beyond that; I feel no further need to disabuse you of your fondness for some favorite "Hobby-Horses".........

 

[surya kiran]

You might, IAF does not! They procured a new heavy lift helicopter and not additional tactical helicopters, meant to do the same logistical support as the Mi 26 does today and which will remain highly important. The problem is only, the Chinook is tactically comparable to the Mi 17 and it's internal capacity, while it falls clearly short in the heavy lift capability compared to the Mi 26, be it internally or externally. That's why IAF will remain to use the hundreds of Mi 17s in rescure missions or to lift the M777 howitzers, while the Ch 47 will try to do as much as possible to fill the huge gap the Mi 26 leaves.

If you were to read up on the chinook, you would realise that the us military asked for a heavy lift helicopter which was not the chinook, but a highly modified version of the same. Based on your above argument, they would not have? Anyways, you are basing your arguments on photos and figures. Operationally, there is quite a bit of difference between figures quoted and work conditions.

 

[Jango]

Yes I remember US Marines transported 5 million pounds of relief supplies to flood victims in 2010 not to mention rescue and evacuation. If I recall correctly that operation involved Osprey, Chinook, Super Stallion,Hercules and C-17's.

The US has offered any and all assistance to India but the Indian government has not responded to the US offer.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...photos-us-military-pakistan-flood-relief.html

I don't think any Osprey came to Pakistan...do you have any pics of that?

 

[acetophenol]

I say we buy Chinooks in large number but keep a few Mi 26s in service. We should have'em both.

 

[sancho]

Those questions were/are based on information that I have gathered through physical observation over the years or based on information given to me by "Professional Aviators" (some of whom have been Course-Mates).
Beyond that; I feel no further need to disabuse you of your fondness for some favorite "Hobby-Horses".........

That's the problem here mate, you put your personal opinion (bias) over the real operational benefits that we just have seen in the recent IAF operations! That's why you try to degrade the performance of the Mi 26, by distracting with nonsens about providing fuel bowsers to smaller helipads, only to argue that the Mi 26 can't be used at such. That's a lame try and if you had followed my posts, you would have understand that it's not about the Mi 26 itself for me, but about to retain IAFs capabilities to transport heavy cargo and if possible also vehicles to places where no suitable airstrips for fixed winged aircrafts are available.

That was the crucial capability that kept the rescue mission alive and that simply couldn't be done with a Ch 47!

Anyways, you are basing your arguments on photos and figures. Operationally, there is quite a bit of difference between figures quoted and work conditions.

On the contrary, I am basing my arguments on the operational service of heavy lift helicopters in IAF, be it in the recent operations, or in the past:

Press Information Bureau English Releases


and not just on how Boeing sees the use of the Ch47 in their PR borchures, or in US military like you mentioned, because that has not much to do with IAFs policies and their requirements.
The fact remains, that IAF would not be able to provide helicopter fuel, if they didn't had the Mi 26 now and that considers me, when I think about the future and our transport capability in the northern / north eastern areas!