Friday, January 30, 2009

Boeing presentation to IAF comparing Chinook with Mi-26


Boeing's presentation to the Indian Air Force comparing the CH-47 Chinook with the helicopter that the IAF currently uses, the Russian Mi-26 -- also the largest chopper around. The IAF wants 12-16 heavy lift copters. And soon. The other contenders are the Sikorsky CH-53 Super Stallion and Mil's Mi-26.

Additional info by Prasun K Sengupta here.

37 comments:

Anonymous said...

If IAF fells for this presentation then i have nothing to say.

Mi 26 can lift chinook itself, hence no comparison.

Although a bit expensive, but Mi 26 provides forward deployment of very very heavy equipment, like field guns and even a BMP, which chinook can never dream to do.

Anonymous said...

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/helicopters/size/mi26_01.jpg

Anonymous said...

the americans will never stop bitching abt their own stuff.

Kannan said...

I really like the "Rear Ramp" capability shown in the presentation..It would be awesome if NSG guys are given half a dozen chinook..or better V-22 Osprey would be the best..but don't Americans will be willing to give us that..

Anonymous said...

@ Anon at 4:45

You talk of BMPs? The Mi-26 has lifted a crashed MiG-21 out of a crash site!

And Shiv, your article is more of an advertisement. Stop being an Amriki agent!

Maximus said...

@Anon 4:45

Carrying chinook is different from what weight chinook can carry! An ant is said to have the power to carry 9 times its own weight. Does that mean the ant next to it is weaker?

Anonymous said...

"And Shiv, your article is more of an advertisement. Stop being an Amriki agent!"

Thats 100% true

Anonymous said...

Shiv gets to visit the US twice a year on invitations from Lockheed, Boeing and the likes....and they also invite him to meet thier Vice Admiral (read post below), which is for a select bunch of journos , not for everyone. He is invited despite being in a small, never watched channel....while the rest are left out..why wouldn't he advertise for them, and be thier agent.

Sorry Shiv , I had to give out your truth.

Bobs said...

nice pics,Shiv...i wish our special forces get hold of atleast a dozen Chinooks......regarding comparisons, Mi-26 is highly capable transport chopper than Chinook in any sense.....can u expect a Chinook to transport 3 RD-33 engines to a remote airbase????????

Abhijoy said...

Why is there so much hate on excellent blogs like livefist and trishul? I for one am extremely grateful to you guys(shiv, prasun, ajai etc.)for giving us access to some damn interesting info which would otherwise defiantly not see any coverage.
From my position most posts are completely unbiased and anyway this is a goddamn personal blog, its opinion media,so a slight bias is perfectly fine.
Seriously guys, stop the personal insults. Present your arguments and disputes cordially and give it factual backing. Be civil.

My 2 cents.

Prasun K Sengupta said...

The V-22 Osprey has been available for export to India since mid-2005. It has been in the US State Dept's list of approved-for-export military hardware since then along with the Super Hornet and P-8I and F-16IN. A more realistic comparison would have been between the CH-47F, Sikorsky's CH-53K and AW-101. The Mi-26T is in a league of its own, no comparison. However, the Mi-26T requires 100 man-hours of maintenance per flying hour, as opposed to the 40 man-hours figure for the CH-47F and AW-101. Therefore, in terms of direct operating costs the Mi-26T loses out. In any case, Rostvertol JSC (now part of Oboronprom) is developing the Mi-46, which will replace the Mi-26T. The Mi-46, which Russia is offering to India, will have a two-man glass cockpit, three engines equipped with FADEC (thereby reducing fuel consumption while increasing engine reliability), and up to 40% reduced direct operating costs.

style said...

Shiv,
Americans are known to be best Power Point presenters. They can make u beleive that 1+1 = 100 not 2.
It would have been better if u have analyzed their presentation and posted about what u beleive about the same.

Mayan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

iaf needs chinook for high altitude operations but not at the expense of mi 26

Anonymous said...

y don't boeing compare ah64 with
ka50,52 ,mi28n,mi35m.

which they sold toooooooo costly price to s.korea.

is just bullshit by comparing two helicopters.

mi26 is in its own class and can carry more payload than any other helicopter and thats y its heavy,

mi26 is built for totally different purpose.

left wing nut job said...

Mi-26 ceiling: 4,600 m
MH-47 ceiling: 5,640 m

Not to mention MH-47 is cheaper to operate and its parts base is MUCH larger than the handful of Mi-26 that are in operation now. The Chinook will have much better availability rates as well.

Mi-26 still has a niche to fill in the IAF but can't do what the IAF wants from the Chinook.

debu. said...

Chinook Vs. the Mi-26, a work horse vs. a elephant, if these are in competition for the same role, that will be news alright.

I think if they are in the competition then the IAF might have the idea that the Mi-26 capability is not required, in which case they could be right, as they have to fly these things and not us.

Anonymous said...

The Mi-26 has the same carry capacity as a C-130. 20 tonnes, it can carry 90-150 troops costs about $ 12 Million. It is old tech now - helicopter building tech has moved on far ahead. But still nothing can match the Mi-26, maybe as prasun sengupta says the Mi-46 will be more state of art. Besides there are problems with building the Mi-26 these days.

Chinook is way out of league here, it is more comparable to the venerable Mi-17 that IAF operates. That is what is being targetted here. While the Mi-17 transports 32 troops and lifts about 5 tonnes, the Chinook lifts 32 troops and lifts about 8 tonnes. Problem is, that the chinook costs nearly twice as an Mi-17.

My view - the Mi-26 is replacable by only the Mi-26. The chinook is not good enough to replace the Mi-17.

And to Shiv,
Your journalists copy what your western counterparts write. Why don't you copy their penchant of adding a "Chutki" in the middle or end of a news report? For example they never forget to mention Kahsmir along with India, or they never forget to mention tit for tat nuke tests whenever discussing India-Pak - in effect dragging us down to Pakistan's level - equal equal onlee.
Why can't you guys add a chutki likewise that the USS enterprise came with an intent to threaten India in 1971 - let everyone sweat once in a while. Equal equal onlee

Anant Dhamala said...

I think this comparison is more geared towards comparing CH 47 with CH 52 Super Stallion. I agree that Mi 26 is league apart from the CH 47, hence it would be more fitting to use this presentation to compare CH 47 with CH 53... JMT

Anonymous said...

bobs, why would you want to transport 3 rd33 engines to a remote airbase using helicopters ? i suppose the heavy transport aircrafts can do that

Prasun K Sengupta said...

To Anon@12:29PM: You seem to be echoeing the popular perception that is frequently parrotted about the so-called threat from the USS Enterprise's entry into the Bay of Bengal in December 1971. FYI all that was ordered by the US Joint Chiefs at that time was the aircraft carrier's re-deployment off India's eastern seaboard. As the Nixon Archives as well as declassified US State Dept correspondence of that time have since revealed, there were no clear or specific rules of engagement (ROE) issued to the Enterprise battle group by either the US President or the Joint Chiefs. And without ROEs, any naval battle group or task force is operationally impotent. From these one can safely infer that in December 1971 the US had no intention of intervening militarily in any theatre of operation in South Asia. That's my 'chutki'. Happy now?
PS: Rather than comparing the design/performance parameters of competing helicopters, it will be better-served if one were to dwell upon the ISAF experiences in terms of rotary-winged aircraft operations in high-altitude areas. That will lead to a far more realistic appraisal of what exactly is required not only by the IAF, but also by the Indian Army (let's not forget that the Army' s projected combat aviation brigades will be created in tandem with the mountain strike corps). Therefore the reqmts of high-altitude aerial logistics and high-altitude attacxk helicopter operations are viewed very differently by the Army and IAF and will in future lead to different RFPs being issued for fulfilling the respective QRs of two distinct end-users.

Bobs said...

anon @ 3:32 pm
I was talking about something that happened for real during my posting at a particular place......I have even seen a video which shows an Mi-26 lifting a Chinook to a safer location......so the bottomline is Mi-26 cannot be compared with anyone else.

Bobs said...

heck , the Mi-26 even lifted a damaged cheetah heli to the airbase once.....can u expect chinook to do all these stuff?....if the Mi-26 were to go , it would be better if we invest in a few skycranes like Kaman K-max,in its place.

Mihir said...

I have even seen a video which shows an Mi-26 lifting a Chinook to a safer location......so the bottomline is Mi-26 cannot be compared with anyone else.

That defies logic. Theoretically, even a Chinook could life another Chinook. Do we now conclude that there is no difference between it and the Mi-26?

This whole Mi-26 lifting a Chinook thing says *nothing* about the its capability. The latter isn't a particularly heavy payload for the former.

Mihir said...

Shiv, from the slides, it is pretty obvious that Boeing is comparing the Ch-47 with the CH-53, and not the Mi-26.

Anonymous said...

Shiv, do YOU realize that the HELO in the image is the CH-53 stallion and NOT THE Mi-26 ??

LOL !! this is a major goof-up on your part I'm sorry to say.

Change Your Headline !

Anonymous said...

well prasun,
It doesn't take a "Panch-Varshiya Yojna" to issue ROE to carrier battle groups. For sure they were not in the Bay of Bengal for humanitarian efforts.
The intent was clearly to intimidate India - show support for pakistan, send a message to India, that extending the war in the western sector into west pakistan would lead to certain untoword consequences.

All this left unsaid but understood by all. Unless of course a person doesn't want to see the obvious.

Anonymous said...

Prasun,
In 1971, the Nixon administration was bearing down heavily on Indira Gandhi to end the war prematurely. They were openly calling for an end to hostilities, Track two was conveying more serious messages. Then the USS enterprise with its flotilla suddenly enters a war zone.
Do you really believe that a Naval force that big entering a war zone goes in without a ROE ?
Your sense of imagination is amazing!

Shiv Aroor said...

anon@2.08AM: look at slide 4. it says Mi-26 next to the chopper.

Dr. Dayanand Shastri said...

shiv @ 2:37am
look Shiv, Slide 4 may be correct in terms of technical parameters ......but the chopper displayed in other pics is the CH-53 SuperStallion .....just check out the sideviews of Mi-26 and CH-53 and you'll find out the difference...the point is the americans have horrribly failed while comparing the chinook aganist the Mi-26....at the best ,they can compare a chinook with a stallion ,as the slides show.

Mihir @ 11:18pm
R u a nut? study some basic mathematics and physics before blurting out blunders such as "a chinook can lift another chinook" !
do you know why the Mi-26 was built?

Mihir said...

Dear "Dr" Dayanand,

Please learn some basic English and develop passable comprehension skills before asking others to "study some basic mathematics and physics". What does the term "theoretically" mean? And why does my whole argument depend on that one word?

Anonymous said...

hey, isn't the last few anon comments by Prasun himself?

Anonymous said...

CH-53K FTW. It will be almost as powerful as the Mi-26 (22,500 shp vs. 23k for the Mil) and will be able to operate off a ship as well.

A taxpayer said...

One cannot believe all Boeing says.Slides 5 and 8 are false. It is NOT true that the back of the MI-26 has an 8 feet clearance due to its tail rotor. See for yourselves in the following pictures. The drawing in slide 5 of the Boeing slide-show represents a CH-53. I suspect they "converted" a CH-47 vs CH-53 presentation to clumsily attempt to apply it to the MI-26.

www.avia-russia.com/page4/files/mi-26_3-2.jpeg

www.segurancaedefesa.com/Mi-26T_6.jpg

For those who truly want to compare the CH-47 to the MI-26, see this picture:

www.helicopassion.com/images/MI26/MI26-25c.jpg

Unknown said...



A good one by Shiv Aroor.
I had been following you sparsely for some time and I have to say your insight in the defence,especially Indian defence is outstanding considering other journos who take regular Army movement as coup!Though your coverage is limited on TV but you do a commendable job on the internet.
Its heartning to see not all hope is lost yet.
Keep up the good work Shiv!

Unknown said...


A good one by Shiv Aroor.
I had been following you sparsely for some time and I have to say your insight in the defence,especially Indian defence is outstanding considering other journos who take regular Army movement as coup!Though your coverage is limited on TV but you do a commendable job on the internet.
Its heartning to see not all hope is lost yet.
Keep up the good work Shiv!

Unknown said...

And people who are spewing bile here untwist your undies please.Shiv only put up the slide of Boeing presentation.He did NOT lobby for either aircraft(atleast here).Though I admit I don't follow his every report but whatever I have,till now,he has been fairly reasonable and unbiased.

Now coming to the comparisons.If we leave Mi26 enormous lifting capability,Chinook maybe advantageous in the following.It is better defended against SAM,better maneuvering,better after service and possibly spares(if USA does not try to become a d***).After the whole Admiral Gorshkov debacle I am wary of Russian exports.It's not about supporting a Socialist comrade no more.Plus construction of base for Mi26 might be more cumbersome,especially for mountain terrain.Since this comes after the Apache deal,hence Boeing would be more serious in its services later.

Oh and regarding V-22 Osprey,VTOL aircraft are yet to prove themselves.They carry fewer weight and are slower than an aircraft.In short worst of both world.So depending on such critical need on them would be a blind play.Though I agree they look more sci-fi.