Mi-26 helicopter lifts bulldozers for road construction in Uttarakhand

[SRP]

Yes I really want India to buy atleast 4 More for IAF + Chinook + C 17 + C130 + M777 + AH 64D = Total Punch .

AH 64E not D. No we are not going for Mi 26 for now.

 

[HK Indian MBT]

AH 64E not D. No we are not going for Mi 26 for now.

Yes . These are my Shopping list

 

[sancho]

Aaah yes...so @sancho and @Capt.Popeye we get another thread

Not another thread, just another example of the importance of internal lift capacity for important vehicles, not being dependent on weather conditions that would restrict slung load lifts, or the simple fact that a single Mi 26 at the end of his life (was expected to be phased out 3-4 years ago), can still to more that not even a fleet of Chinooks would be able to do, just because it doesn't have the capability to do so.
And it's actually sad to see our Capt. so desperatly trying to talk against the obvious good performance of Mi 26 through the Uttrakhand operations, especially since all he has is the same old claims about maintenance issues, because he obviously can't argue against the actual performance of the helicopter.

Btw, did you noticed that even Shiv Aroor must had to change his opionion :

This Mi-26 has been doing stellar work in flooded Uttarakhand in India's north.

Livefist: IAF Mi-26 Performs In Flooded North India

 

[vostok]

Chinook too can lift chinook.
Reasons why IAF chose chinook over mi-26,not because of quality but chinook is more suitable for mountainous terrain,narrow ridges and all weather duty and IAF will deploy these in mountanous china border.

Why would Americans askerd for help of Mi-26 to transport Chinook, broken in Afganistan?
Even their president thanked to Russia for helping.

 

[sancho]

Thats a Lame rebut.Its just one of its advantage. And if you think Chinook will not be transported to any other parts India its not a good thinking.

Not really, if it is needed it will be flown to other areas of India iteself, since it's needs too much time to remove the rotors and stuff first, to fit it in the C17 and later build it all up again. Not to mention the costs to move a single Ch47 with a C17 at such close ranges.

Its too Big for tactical operation. Indian Armed force is transforming itself in to modern force

Because "Boeing" told you that IAF plans to use it in tactical roles?
As I told you earlier, don't let yourself blind by PR brochures of a manufacturer, but look at what IAF really does with heavy lifters and how they see the roles of their fleets:

If you Still think Chinook is not better than Mi 26

It's not about which helicopter is better (btw, guess why Boeing needs to use Ch 53 pics to fake disadvantages for the Mi 26? ), but which capabilities are really important for the logistical support operations in "Indian forces" in the mountain regions, or according to Indian tactics?
The Uttrakhand operations already showed the importance of internal capacity, but Indian forces als showed the importance of heavy external lift capacity, to suit their tactics, by lifting armored vehicles, either to support a rapid force build up next to our tactical helicoopters, with the necessary fire power for the ground troops, or to transport them to areas where fixed winged aircrafts couldn't be used, by the lack of suitable road links or air strips.

 

[HK Indian MBT]

Not really, if it is needed it will be flown to other areas of India iteself, since it's needs too much time to remove the rotors and stuff first, to fit it in the C17 and later build it all up again. Not to mention the costs to move a single Ch47 with a C17 at such close ranges.

Why are you so adament with yous false CLAIM ? So are you saying at times for war Chinook will fly from Kashmir to Kanyakumari on its own ? And you think its cost effective Bhai ? And now you not only undermined Chinook but also C17 for which it is built for. If cost matters we should not be going to war in first place. Second I dont think MI 26 can moved to any parts of the country in any given but Chinook can do it .COST DOESNT MATTER. COUNTRY's Safety matters.

Because "Boeing" told you that IAF plans to use it in tactical roles?
As I told you earlier, don't let yourself blind by PR brochures of a manufacturer, but look at what IAF really does with heavy lifters and how they see the roles of their fleets:

Bhai what are you saying? PR Brochures points out What Chinook can do and What Mi26 cant.Whats wrong with it ? Are you telling me that these are fancy adverts ?Just lies ?And more over MOD of India tested Chinook too. Not to mention we already have MI-26 for years now yet we choose Chinook over Mi 26 WHY ? Not just because Americans Said SO

Again you are sticking with its Play Load.But what about availability of Helo ? Thats mtters. And Chinook is not LUH but heavylifter too. It can carry fully armed 44 fully armed men with External Load. And it can unload on Any terrain even at places where an Helicotpter cant land. Check the Pics i posted.

It's not about which helicopter is better (btw, guess why Boeing needs to use Ch 53 pics to fake disadvantages for the Mi 26? ), but which capabilities are really important for the logistical support operations in "Indian forces" in the mountain regions, or according to Indian tactics?

OMG! Tats the point Ch 53 is more suitable for India for its Mountain region too. It also clearly given in PIC !

The Uttrakhand operations already showed the importance of internal capacity,

When was the last time u saw Mi26 sent for rescue mission like dhruv helicopter ? What was the role of MI 26 ? Mi 26 cant land on smaller helipads But Chinook can land on smaller space even if it is tip of the mountain. Chinook might had saved many if we had on

but Indian forces als showed the importance of heavy external lift capacity, to suit their tactics, by lifting armored vehicles, either to support a rapid force build up next to our tactical helicoopters, with the necessary fire power for the ground troops, or to transport them to areas where fixed winged aircrafts couldn't be used, by the lack of suitable road links or air strips.

Chinook ment for all you mentioned above.

 

[dbc]

You are a bad bad boy .
You should let folks read the entire report and the great feats the Mi-26 has achieved in service of the IAF.

http://www.cag.gov.in/html/reports/defence/2010-11_7AFN-PA/chap1.pdf

 

[sancho]

Buddy, you really should inform yourself a bit more where IAF used the Mi 26 in the last roughly 3 decades and how, before getting into conclusions! Anyway I just wanted to show you why you can't take anything a manufacturer says in it's brochures for granted:

Bhai what are you saying? PR Brochures points out What Chinook can do and What Mi26 cant.Whats wrong with it ? Are you telling me that these are fancy adverts ?Just lies ?

A manufacturer wants to sell it's product, therefor it will present situations that looks better for it's aircraft. Look at their claim of greater load capability for example:

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/varun22/5-714726.jpg


And at the reality of IAF operational experience:

http://s14.directupload.net/images/130715/dcodrnd5.jpg

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130627/nat4.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nbsyTh4Cw...nQ/eOsLKduy3Co/s1600/13+Jul+2013+2-732378.JPG


They purposly took the Ch 53 picture to show a loading problem, because of it's tail, but the Mi 26 height gives the advantage not only to position vehicles directly below the tail, but even directly into the helicopter to load and unload cargo. So they faked a problem, which doesn't apply to the Mi 26, just to make the Ch 47 look better or more suitable, although the Mi 26 has even a clear advantage in this regard!

Important however is only, what capabilities IAF will need to do the logistical support roles and with the Ch47 they might have taken an aircraft that is available soon, but also offers the most operational limitations for the future and the Uttrakhand operations just shows that.

The rest was often discussed here, please use the search function.

 

[sancho]

You are a bad bad boy .
You should let folks read the entire report and the great feats the Mi-26 has achieved in service of the IAF.

It's not new and was posted here quiet often, but the important point are the roles that IAF has diveded for the medium and heavy helicopters, which many people confuses here. Only because the Ch 47 has tactical capabilities, doesn't mean it is the prime tactical helicopter now, because Boeing advertise it like that.

 

[HK Indian MBT]

Buddy, you really should inform yourself a bit more where IAF used the Mi 26 in the last roughly 3 decades and how, before getting into conclusions! Anyway I just wanted to show you why you can't take anything a manufacturer says in it's brochures for granted:



A manufacturer wants to sell it's product, therefor it will present situations that looks better for it's aircraft. Look at their claim of greater load capability for example:

http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/varun22/5-714726.jpg


And at the reality of IAF operational experience:

http://s14.directupload.net/images/130715/dcodrnd5.jpg

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130627/nat4.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nbsyTh4Cw...nQ/eOsLKduy3Co/s1600/13+Jul+2013+2-732378.JPG


They purposly took the Ch 53 picture to show a loading problem, because of it's tail, but the Mi 26 height gives the advantage not only to position vehicles directly below the tail, but even directly into the helicopter to load and unload cargo. So they faked a problem, which doesn't apply to the Mi 26, just to make the Ch 47 look better or more suitable, although the Mi 26 has even a clear advantage in this regard!

Important however is only, what capabilities IAF will need to do the logistical support roles and with the Ch47 they might have taken an aircraft that is available soon, but also offers the most operational limitations for the future and the Uttrakhand operations just shows that.

The rest was often discussed here, please use the search function.

So is this mean IAF and MoD been fooled ? And dont you think India must had verified it

This picture http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/varun22/5-714726.jpg clearly show the Chinook advantage over MI 26 . U can verify the Height too. If needed Chinook can raise its tail alone for more space needed.

 

[HK Indian MBT]

@sancho Boeing’s Chinook has emerged as the winner over the Russian Mi-26 helicopter since it turned out to be more cost-effective for India.

Boeing’s Chinook CH-47F helicopter turned out to be not only cheaper but very different from its Russian rival Mi-26. The Chinook helicopter uses a tandem rotor layout compared with the Mi-26's conventional helicopter layout with a main and tail rotor. While the Russian Mi-26 was larger with a maximum take-off weight of 56,000kg, the US-made Chinook 's maximum gross weight was about 22,668kg.

The US-made Chinook copter can be used for heavy-lift assault, troop movement, logistics support, aerial battlefield recovery and special operations. It is also capable of being refueled mid-air for extended range and can carry 55 combat-ready troops or over 11,100 kg of logistical supplies or weight. The Chinook can also be transported in the hold of the C-17 Globemaster III of which India has ordered 10 aircraft. Boeing had indicated that this greatly enhances the CH-47F's ability to be deployed to distant locations.

According to Defence experts, Boeing’s Chinook helicopter winning the race for the heavy-lift copters can be a good sign for the IAF largely because of the reliability and the secured spare supply it can offer besides the economical price. As for Russia, it does not a have good track-record in the recent times in terms of spares and supply.

In favour of the Chinook mainly due to versatility, agility, and less bulky size,

 

[HK Indian MBT]

Its like comparing C 5 Galaxy Vs C 130 J ... C5 is bigger but C 130 is tactical and Very mobile

 

[sancho]

So is this mean IAF and MoD been fooled ?

Of course not, you was fooled by the pics mate. But IAF limited their choice by far, by considering only currently available options, instead of looking at the long run and the capabilities that really will be important in these roles.

 

[Kloitra]

Why are you so adament with yous false CLAIM ? So are you saying at times for war Chinook will fly from Kashmir to Kanyakumari on its own ? And you think its cost effective Bhai ? And now you not only undermined Chinook but also C17 for which it is built for. If cost matters we should not be going to war in first place. Second I dont think MI 26 can moved to any parts of the country in any given but Chinook can do it .COST DOESNT MATTER. COUNTRY's Safety matters.

Removing wings and stuff, pack it an aircraft, transporting it and then again prepare it for use. How much time do you think it will consume? India is not so big that you would need to transport a heli by a plane. It is neither cost nor time effective. Do the maths.

Bhai what are you saying? PR Brochures points out What Chinook can do and What Mi26 cant.Whats wrong with it ? Are you telling me that these are fancy adverts ?Just lies ?And more over MOD of India tested Chinook too. Not to mention we already have MI-26 for years now yet we choose Chinook over Mi 26 WHY ? Not just because Americans Said SO

Again you are sticking with its Play Load.But what about availability of Helo ? Thats mtters. And Chinook is not LUH but heavylifter too. It can carry fully armed 44 fully armed men with External Load. And it can unload on Any terrain even at places where an Helicotpter cant land. Check the Pics i posted.

Different helis meant for different requirements. Chinook can't do some stuff that Mil can and vice versa. Chinook doesn't have that internal space nor does it has the load capacity of Mil. On the other hand, Chinook wins hands down on availability.

OMG! Tats the point Ch 53 is more suitable for India for its Mountain region too. It also clearly given in PIC !

When was the last time u saw Mi26 sent for rescue mission like dhruv helicopter ? What was the role of MI 26 ? Mi 26 cant land on smaller helipads But Chinook can land on smaller space even if it is tip of the mountain. Chinook might had saved many if we had on

Chinook ment for all you mentioned above.

Being on mountain doesn't always means you are doing rescue on hard to approach areas. It might mean just carrying heavy loads to helipads located at height. On high altitudes, the load capacity reduces a lot. But even with reduced capacity, Mil would carry significant load compared to Chinook, as its 50% capacity is still more than 100% of Chinook. Mil 26 can carry over 12 tons at altitudes exceeding 9000 fts.

 

[HK Indian MBT]

Of course not, you was fooled by the pics mate. But IAF limited their choice by far, by considering only currently available options, instead of looking at the long run and the capabilities that really will be important in these roles.

Peace is what we need