Flood Rescue Underscores 2 Pending IAF Deals

[surya kiran]

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!




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!

@sancho the Mi-26 is a highly specialised lift helicopter. My point is with you clubbing it in the same league as the chinook. the difference in capabilities is vast.

With regards to what @Capt.Popeye is saying, there are major issues with maintaining and managing the Mi-26 at the operational level. The point is not if the chopper is good or bad, the point is in the IAF does it serve a purpose or should it be managed by some other force? National disaster management for eg? Which can then be used by the IAF during emergency requirements? It serves an extremely niche area of operations, which can be managed by the specialist agency. Hope this clarifies things ?

 

[sancho]

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

Or simply should have considered more options, that would suit our requirements far better, even if they require some more years to be available, instead of limiting ourselfs with options that are available today only. When you look at what helicopters are under development at the moment, you will see how things are changing in the transport area.
More and more coax rotor designs, that can lift way more payload, have less rotor diameter and are far more maneuverable in mountain areas, bigger Chinook designs, that can lift more payloads and with more internal capacity, tilt rotor aircrafts in the C130 class, and even super heavy lift helicopters, that really might bring back the Skycrane class, that Capt.Popeye wrongly put the Mi 26 in.
So while foreign forces and manufacturers actually going in the direction that IAF already has in the heavy lift class, to gain similar advantages, we actually are moving away from it and limiting ourselfs in future.

 

[sancho]

The point is not if the chopper is good or bad, the point is in the IAF does it serve a purpose

Exactly and the Mi 26 just showed again that it serves our purposes quiet well, the issues Capt.Popeye has, are based on the maintenance issues of the Mi 26 after the fall of the Soviet Union and doesn't fit to the new Mi 26T2 developed and produced in Russia anymore. That's why he base his points only on the past, not on the current Mi 26T2 offer, or on western alternatives that are available.

or should it be managed by some other force? National disaster management for eg? Which can then be used by the IAF during emergency requirements? It serves an extremely niche area of operations, which can be managed by the specialist agency. Hope this clarifies things ?

That's not the question at all, since IAF uses them not only in disasters, but also to support Indian military operations in war times, to support road, rail and airstrip constrictions in the northern / north eastern areas, or even to support ISRO. All this falls into logistical support, mainly for government sections and then logically falls into IAF range of duty.
Providing National disaster management with heavy lift helicopters on the other hand, would serve only a single purpose, when a disaster happens, not to mention that we would have to combine the helicopter fleets of 3 different forces which makes it even more complicated than it is today.

So the niche that you see, is just one role of IAF's heavy lifters in disaster relief missions, while the main role is the logistical support of our forces, just like any other force uses heavy lift helicopters!

 

[dbc]

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

No sorry I don't have pictures but I do know that the MV-22 Osprey - Marines Squadron 266 "Fighting Griffins" led by Major Eric Keith were in Pakistan in 2010.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

@sancho the Mi-26 is a highly specialised lift helicopter. My point is with you clubbing it in the same league as the chinook. the difference in capabilities is vast.

With regards to what @Capt.Popeye is saying, there are major issues with maintaining and managing the Mi-26 at the operational level. The point is not if the chopper is good or bad, the point is in the IAF does it serve a purpose or should it be managed by some other force? National disaster management for eg? Which can then be used by the IAF during emergency requirements? It serves an extremely niche area of operations, which can be managed by the specialist agency. Hope this clarifies things ?

Its not only just that really.
HOW GOOD is a Helo that cannot be maintained within the Country, whose spares Supply Chain is nearly non-existent, whose MTBO is abysmal, which is maintenance-hungry and fuel-thirsty, whose handling (flying) characteristics in the terrain/area where it is most likely to used is pathetic, and whose sole 'claim to glory' is being an unwieldy Behemoth (apart from earning a well-justified reputation as a Super-sized Hangar Queen)?????

As for me; I have the evidence of the 'actual users and asessors' of this "glorious" machine to go by; rather than "Paper-Specs" displayed by some "Persistent Rug Salesmen". Which is why; so far as the IAF is concerned the saga of the "Featherweight" is simply heading for a Finis; and a less than glorious one at that. If there are "wiser souls" than that; then so be it!

Enough said!!!!

 

[Capt.Popeye]

No sorry I don't have pictures but I do know that the MV-22 Osprey - Marines Squadron 266 "Fighting Griffins" led by Major Eric Keith were in Pakistan in 2010.

That is correct. They were flown off a Marine Carrier along with Chinooks and the CH-53s. And IIRC; pictures of all of those Helos deployed in that particular OP were posted here; most likely by @Solomon2.

 

[Kloitra]

No sorry I don't have pictures but I do know that the MV-22 Osprey - Marines Squadron 266 "Fighting Griffins" led by Major Eric Keith were in Pakistan in 2010.

Not clearly mentioned, but this could be a source, manufacturer's site:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/MungoBlobs/919/124/EN_V-22_GuideBook.pdf

During their most recent deployment, the USS Kearsarge based 26 MEU conducted a long range CASEVAC. While conducting split Amphibious Group operations, with assets ashore assisting Pakistani Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief efforts following devastating floods, the balance of the aviation assets operated afloat off the Horn of Africa supporting other operations. During this period, a patient aboard Kearsarge required medical support beyond the ship’s capability. The nearest facility that could provide the required services was 500 nm away in Mombasa, Kenya. A section of MV-22Bs was tapped to perform the CASEVAC mission, because, in the words of the MEU Commander, “The V-22 is the only aviation asset that can bridge the long ship-to-shore expanse.” The patient was successfully moved to the required level of care thanks to the Osprey.

It doesn't mentions the use of Osprey in Pakistan, but operation by 26 MEU based on USS Kearsarge. It can be inferred that Ospreys were used.

 

[dbc]

It doesn't mentions the use of Osprey in Pakistan, but operation by 26 MEU based on USS Kearsarge. It can be inferred that Ospreys were used.

Yawn! I bet the Mi-26 could have done that in half the time and that too with the pilot blindfolded and hogtied.
Just kidding in case it isn't obvious to Sancho.

Yes the Osprey was definitely there.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Thanx @Parul

In any case; that was not a very great act IMHO. For the following reasons:
1.It is far easier and much more efficient to set up what is known as a "Burma Bridge" (a slung rope bridge) than to do that stunt.
2.This puts many more lives/bodies at risk needlessly than the "Burma Bridge" can.

All in all; if my men under my command had thought of doing this; I'd have sent them "front-rolling" all over the country-side to knock some sense into their heads.

 

[sancho]

Yawn! I bet the Mi-26 could have done that in half the time and that too with the pilot blindfolded and hogtied.
Just kidding in case it isn't obvious to Sancho.

Yes the Osprey was definitely there.

Compared to the Ch 47 for sure, but the USMC uses the Ch53 for the heavy lift role isn't it? So they must be operated in the flood relief missions in Pakistan too right? And that despite of the disadvantages the Boeing Brochures mentioned.

 

[Solomon2]

That is correct. They were flown off a Marine Carrier along with Chinooks and the CH-53s. And IIRC; pictures of all of those Helos deployed in that particular OP were posted here; most likely by Solomon2.

.

While I have pics of MV-22s in my U.S. Navy Picture Thread none of these photos show the aircraft deployed in Pakistan or India.