What to read next

13 Comments

  1. 1

    Talk Nada

    Nice to see your blogs in quick succession. It encourages to visit your blog on regular basis.

    Reply
  2. 2

    Talk Nada

    Your blogs encourage us to visit your site on daily basis.

    Reply
  3. 4

    Anonymous

    This post looks like it has been copied from ch47 sales brochure.

    Reply
  4. 7

    Anonymous

    When were the Mil Mi-26 and the Boeing Vertol Chinook first flown, respectively? Does anyone have the apooroximate dates?

    Reply
  5. 8

    sweet

    "The IAF has had a troubled run with its spare heavylift rotory wing capability………… helicopters will give IAF planners the kind of heavylift rotory wing flexibility"

    is it 'rotary'?

    "aerodynamic, performance and safety constraints on the CH-53 Super Stallion/Mi-26"

    Where did CH-53 super stallion come from? Why have you included it along with Mi-26?

    I believe the CH-53 super stallion was never even on offer list to India, so where did the "aerodynamic, performance and safety constraints on the CH-53 Super Stallion" come from?

    From the previous article: EXCLUSIVE: Indo-Israeli LRSAM Range Extended By A Third

    "Top Navy tell Livefist that while the 2nd Kolkata-class… "

    Is it "Top navy officials informed"?

    Reply
  6. 9

    sweet

    I still believe the Mi-26T2 was the right option for us.

    To your first point on "severe serviceability issues", we brought this helicopter around the time it came into service. It was a new product developed on design methodologies of the eighties era. The Mi-26 became fully operational in 1983, and in 1986 we bought the mi-26. We bought just after it became operational, this is not the case with CH-47.

    Right from that time, I haven't heard much of up-gradation or modernisation of the Mi-26 fleet. But over the decades the technology has evolved dramatically, and so did the CH-47 along with it. To say that Mi-26 has low serviceability rate by considering the modern CH-47 doesn't do justice to Mi-26. All the issues we had with older models of the mi-26 were addressed and the Mi-26 performance was greatly enhanced in the newer platforms. We have been using the Mi-26 for quite a long time, we already have all the necessary infrastructure in place for these helicopters, so the natural progression would have been the Mi-26T2. Now we have to create the infrastructure and train the concerned people in handling the all new platform which will add to the cost.

    I remember quite well watching a documentary on CH-47; where in the beginning, the CH-47 too had many issues. Many were quite sceptical about buying the helicopter. But as the development and design improved, it proved to be an asset. And since this very category deals with "heavy-lift", the CH-47 cannot lift as much cargo as the Mi-26.

    As to your second point, the flight performance characteristics varies at different envelopes of altitudes. My question is, if the CH-47 can lift 'X' amount of cargo at very low altitudes, can it lift the same amount of cargo at the highest altitude it can fly? Or, can the CH-47 carry same load of cargo as the Mi-26T2 can lift at the highest altitude the Mi-26T2 can fly? For example, if the Mi-26T2 can fly only up to 4000m with around 2 tonnes of cargo, can the CH-47 fly to the same altitude with same load of cargo? I believe it cannot.

    To your points on the 'landing approach capability, centre of gravity envelope,higher degree of loading/unloading flexibility,significantly greater number of cargo/troops/equipment configurations,agility in the air,landing flexibility….'

    can we not employ the huge fleet of Mi-17's we already have for this? Doesn't the Mi-17's qualify to undertake operations on all the parameters mentioned above? They fit into all of the above parameters quite beautifully. The only question would be the load carrying ability of the Mi-17s at high altitudes. Since the Mi-17's too, can fly at high altitudes, I think we can employ these platforms, may be they may not carry as much cargo, but two to three sorties can be undertaken to deliver all the required cargo. Considering the Mi-17 are relatively inexpensive platform with low operating costs, I think even the costs will be lower for such operations. May be the realistic calculations on these may prove me wrong. But, I don't see how selecting the CH-47 over the Mi-26T2 tends to 'change the game'.

    Anyway, these are justy my views, happy if someone could point the inaccuracies in my view and point out in much detail why the CH-47 was a 'must have' for IAF.

    Reply
  7. 10

    Akhou Keditsu

    Now that the Chinooks are a done deal, when can we expect the same for the M777 howitzers?

    Reply
  8. 11

    Anonymous

    Where is special report about indradhanush 🙁

    Reply
  9. 12

    Anonymous

    Why are we getting excited over just 15 heptr? Our huge country should have at least 100.

    Reply
  10. 13

    Guru

    All said and done, the Mi-26 was called in to rescue a Chinook stranded deep in Afghan enemy territory by none other than the US Govt. Do google it up.

    I agree with the previous poster that the Chinook is not a necessary purchase. In terms of payload, it is more similar to the upgraded Mi-17 being bought in huge nos by the IAF (139 at last count) and the Chinook is not at all comparable to the Mi-26-in terms of payload. I agree on the lower serviceability of the Mi-26 but with the second gen Mi-26, this would have been resolved to a large extent.

    Also with the cost of 15 Chinooks-we would have been able to buy a minimum 30-45 Mi-26 helos. I am sure 30 Mi-26 helos would have provided more availability than 15 Chinooks.

    Would have been better if we bought 44 Apaches instead of the 22 as the Apaches genuinely provide a capability that the Russian platforms do not.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © . All rights reserved.