No doubt but as a military helo it is next to useless during times of conflict. Sometimes the biggest is not best.
I belive intially the CH-53K was in contention (in the early stages) alongised the Chinook and Mi-26 but it became clear the CH-53K wouldn't be ready before at least 2015 and the IAF wanted something much earlier so the CH-53K didn't go further.Yes, i was kind'a surprised how can they group these two choppers in the same league. Chinook should have been facing Sikorsky Super Stallion instead.
Mate, their are different philosphies at work- the Russian idea was to make it as big as possible ie MI-26,AN-124 and AN-225. The American approach is to make it big but but small enough it is manourvable and has genuine utility in support of frontline forces. Do you think the IAF would ever have used/use a MI-26 to support frontline units during conflict? The sheer size of the Mi-26 precludes it from such activity which means it would be relgated to rear-support meaning it can't take the equipment where its needed. It's all well and good saying it can carry x number of jeeps and x number of arty peices but if it has to deliver them 100s of miles from where they are needed, because the threat of them being targetted is so great, then what use is this in a military sense? The Mi-26 defiantly has its place but I don't think it is in modern day combat. In peacetime it is great-The IAF were using the Mi-26s heavily to support the BRO in the North and NE but as a combat helo it is severely limited.Will post a reply later in the IN thread to keep this thread on topic and because there are several things that you got wrong.
Which is plain wrong buddy and your pics even show it!
Why does the Chinook need to carry these 2 Jeeps externally? Because it can only carry a single of them internally, just like our Mi17:
A Mi 26 on the other side can carry up to 20t internally or externally and has a cargo hold that is 15m long, now a Humvee weighs around 2.5t and has a lenght of around 5m. That means, a single Mi 26 must be able to carry 3 x Humvees internally + at least 2 externally.
Other payloads in war times could be:
- a towed Bofors howitzer externally, while the truck that tows it internally!
- a BMP IFV externally
- a wheeled APC internally or externally
- support trucks with ammo internally or externally
- cranes or heavy machinery to re-build airstrips or roads
...in all these roles, the Chinook will be next to useless, because it can't offer similar capabilities, especially internally!
The Ch 53 would indeed be the much better choice, but the older versions are out of production and the K version under development only.
The best possible choice would have been CV22s now and CH53K later, because IAF would have added a good aircraft for special ops, that also can carry higher loads than our Mi 17s and has a rear ramp to unload cargo or troops at high altitudes, while the CH53K, latter could have taken the heavy lift roles, in IAF as well as IN LDPs.
Will post a reply later in the IN thread to keep this thread on topic and because there are several things that you got wrong.
Which is plain wrong buddy and your pics even show it!
Why does the Chinook need to carry these 2 Jeeps externally? Because it can only carry a single of them internally, just like our Mi17:
A Mi 26 on the other side can carry up to 20t internally or externally and has a cargo hold that is 15m long, now a Humvee weighs around 2.5t and has a lenght of around 5m. That means, a single Mi 26 must be able to carry 3 x Humvees internally + at least 2 externally.
Other payloads in war times could be:
- a towed Bofors howitzer externally, while the truck that tows it internally!
- a BMP IFV externally
- a wheeled APC internally or externally
- support trucks with ammo internally or externally
- cranes or heavy machinery to re-build airstrips or roads
...in all these roles, the Chinook will be next to useless, because it can't offer similar capabilities, especially internally!
The Ch 53 would indeed be the much better choice, but the older versions are out of production and the K version under development only.
The best possible choice would have been CV22s now and CH53K later, because IAF would have added a good aircraft for special ops, that also can carry higher loads than our Mi 17s and has a rear ramp to unload cargo or troops at high altitudes, while the CH53K, latter could have taken the heavy lift roles, in IAF as well as IN LDPs.
There is a reason Russia is the only military operator of the AN0124 and why the C-17 was developed to eventually replace the C-5; the C-5 and AN-124 are horrendously expensive to maintain and fly and their utility is limited to flying from one large full-fledged air base to another. These birds can't be used to take supplies right up to the end-user. The question is who will fill the role of taking the equipment right up to the end user? This is where the C-17 and Chinook excel as they can take the supplies (even if it is less) right to where it is needed.So the MI-26 and AN-124 would still need a Chinook or C-17 to take these supplies from a rear airbase right to the frontline. Look at the forward airbases along the LOC and LAC- how many can operate and facilitate a AN-124 or MI-26?
