INDIA- HELICOPTER Competitions::News and Discussions

[Capt.Popeye]

---

---

I know the advantages of the Chinook, but those advantages that you point out here has nothing to do with the competition imo. Landing on small heli pads, lifting howitzers and so on is nothing that we need the Chinook for, because we already have 100s of Mi 8/17 to do that. This competition is for real heavy lifting and by the fact that we will replace older Mi 26, the replacemeant should offer comparable lift capabilities. That's why I see CH 53s, or if possible new Mi 26 as the best option.
That lifting howitzer argument makes no sense anyway if you keep in mind that even the first order of M777 howitzers was for over 100, but this helicopter competition is only for 15 helicopters!

Btw, imo the C17 deal was purely done for political reasons! There is simply no way that this is about actual increase of capabilities, but that's a different story and we can talk about per PN if you want.

Okay, let me tell you about the Mi-26 experience in the IAF. It has extremely poor serviceability. No point having the strongest helicopter in the world if it gives the least flight hours. The IAF will not willingly touch that chopper if they can help it.

About the Mi-17, it is a purely "value for money" helicopter. Did you think why the IAF has 100+ of them with more to come? Not just cost/price!

About lifting 100 howitzers, would that need 100 helicopters? 15 will do with multiple sorties. At best, 100 howitzers will need 100 tow-tractors/trucks to pull them around. Hope that helps.

About the Air-lifters, that topic is still open for discussion.

[sancho]

Okay, let me tell you about the Mi-26 experience in the IAF. It has extremely poor serviceability. No point having the strongest helicopter in the world if it gives the least flight hours. The IAF will not willingly touch that chopper if they can help it.

About the Mi-17, it is a purely "value for money" helicopter. Did you think why the IAF has 100+ of them with more to come? Not just cost/price!

About lifting 100 howitzers, would that need 100 helicopters? 15 will do with multiple sorties. At best, 100 howitzers will need 100 tow-tractors/trucks to pull them around. Hope that helps.

About the Air-lifters, that topic is still open for discussion.

That's why I said, if not new Mi 26, then why not Ch 53s?

No you don't need 100, but obviously more than 15 right? I just pointed out that that is no real argument to get the Chinook.

[MAFIAN GOD]

Okay, let me tell you about the Mi-26 experience in the IAF. It has extremely poor serviceability. No point having the strongest helicopter in the world if it gives the least flight hours. The IAF will not willingly touch that chopper if they can help it.

About the Mi-17, it is a purely "value for money" helicopter. Did you think why the IAF has 100+ of them with more to come? Not just cost/price!

About lifting 100 howitzers, would that need 100 helicopters? 15 will do with multiple sorties. At best, 100 howitzers will need 100 tow-tractors/trucks to pull them around. Hope that helps.

About the Air-lifters, that topic is still open for discussion.

I agree that mi-26 in IAF has poor serviceability but these are only true heavy lift choppers.Also according to some reports the new Mi-26 has better serviceability.
Chinook is also good chopper.The main advantage that Chinook has is it can go to higher altitudes than Mi-26.

[RoYaL~GuJJaR]

India needs apache attack helicopter despretly....

[Capt.Popeye]

That's why I said, if not new Mi 26, then why not Ch 53s?

No you don't need 100, but obviously more than 15 right? I just pointed out that that is no real argument to get the Chinook.

The real arguments are the other ones in my earlier post. Plus the Chinook is affordable (while being substantially more expensive than Mi-17s). The Tandem Rotor tech is a great plus for manouevers to confined helipads. The Chinook has a kneeling undercarriage. The tail rotor affords greater ground clearance. These two factors facilitate much faster turn-arounds. (Won't that help for the 100 howitzers).

OTOH, the tech is relatively simpler than the C-53 Sea Stallions therefore life-cycle costs come down. Also the Sea Stallion is a 'larger bird which needs a larger perch'.

So it is a weigh-off. i don't think that the IAF is looking for the fanciest toy, but the best tool.

[Capt.Popeye]

I agree that mi-26 in IAF has poor serviceability but these are only true heavy lift choppers.Also according to some reports the new Mi-26 has better serviceability.
Chinook is also good chopper.The main advantage that Chinook has is it can go to higher altitudes than Mi-26.

Is the IAF looking for a "sumo wrestler" to fit the requirement for a heavy lift chopper?
Actually it is only looking for a "heavier-lift" helicopter that is nimble, usable for more time (flying hours) and reasonably affordable to own and maintain.
Now make a choice.

[Syed TALHA SHAH]

i think 1 or 2 helicopters in above those are Indians...

[Young Wolf]

Okay, let me tell you about the Mi-26 experience in the IAF. It has extremely poor serviceability. No point having the strongest helicopter in the world if it gives the least flight hours. The IAF will not willingly touch that chopper if they can help it.

About the Mi-17, it is a purely "value for money" helicopter. Did you think why the IAF has 100+ of them with more to come? Not just cost/price!

About lifting 100 howitzers, would that need 100 helicopters? 15 will do with multiple sorties. At best, 100 howitzers will need 100 tow-tractors/trucks to pull them around. Hope that helps.

About the Air-lifters, that topic is still open for discussion.

the newer mi 26 come with better serviceability or so some people say... and the poor service of earlier ones was due to lack of spares because of collapse of soviet union.. am pretty sure the russians have improved this condition as their economy has gotten stronger.... spares shouldnt be a problem this time around. add to that equation that we already have the infrastructure for the mi 26 and they are probable cheaper than the chinooks.

[Capt.Popeye]

the newer mi 26 come with better serviceability or so some people say... and the poor service of earlier ones was due to lack of spares because of collapse of soviet union.. am pretty sure the russians have improved this condition as their economy has gotten stronger.... spares shouldnt be a problem this time around.

About the spares, improvements etc. has anybody verified it. The IAF is not likely to stick its neck out with the Mi-26.

[Young Wolf]

About the spares, improvements etc. has anybody verified it. The IAF is not likely to stick its neck out with the Mi-26.

wikipedia says that one of the variants is the mi 26m which is the upgraded version of mi 26 designed for better performance. spares situation has definitely improved or iaf would not be going for any russian stuff
the following is from globalsecurity
* Mi-26M: Upgrade under development; all-GFRP main rotor blades of new aerodynamic configuration, new ZMKB Progress D-127 turboshafts (each 10,700 kW; 14,350 shp), and modified integrated flight/nav system with EFIS. Transmission rating unchanged, but full payload capability maintained under `hot and high' conditions, OEI safety improved, hovering and service ceilings increased, and greater maximum payload (22,000 kg; 48,500 lb) for crane operations.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../mi-26-var.htm

[Capt.Popeye]

wikipedia says that one of the variants is the mi 26m which is the upgraded version of mi 26 designed for better performance. spares situation has definitely improved or iaf would not be going for any russian stuff
the following is from globalsecurity
* Mi-26M: Upgrade under development; all-GFRP main rotor blades of new aerodynamic configuration, new ZMKB Progress D-127 turboshafts (each 10,700 kW; 14,350 shp), and modified integrated flight/nav system with EFIS. Transmission rating unchanged, but full payload capability maintained under `hot and high' conditions, OEI safety improved, hovering and service ceilings increased, and greater maximum payload (22,000 kg; 48,500 lb) for crane operations.
Mi-26 HALO (MIL)

Fair enough, it may be possible (based on the fore-going) to assume that the new Mi-26 is vastly improved from the previous Mi-26. Which incidentally was never deployed by the IAF in the NE.
Does it still make it the helicopter that the IAF will plan to operate in the North East? The answer lies in the other information/attributes of the other choppers under discussion.

[sancho]

OTOH, the tech is relatively simpler than the C-53 Sea Stallions therefore life-cycle costs come down. Also the Sea Stallion is a 'larger bird which needs a larger perch'.

So it is a weigh-off. i don't think that the IAF is looking for the fanciest toy, but the best tool.

I have some doubts about the simpler tandem rotor concept, but the fact that the Ch53 gives it the advantage in lift capacity. These few helicopter should give IAF the capability to lift heavier cargos, that our Mi 8/17 can't and that's where I see Mi 26 and the CH53 as more capable. I mean a Mi 26 can even carry a APC internally!
That's something that really makes a difference, not carrying howitzers that the others can do too. That's also the reason why USN always prefered the CH53 for heavy lifts on their LHDs, or LPDs.
However, it seems that the CH53 is not evaluated and now it depends on what the Russians can offer with the Mi 26.

[MAFIAN GOD]

@sancho :
Do you think that CH-53 is better than CH-46?

[jha]

It is a shame that our aerospace industry is not matured enough to take care of the spares of helicopters..There would be no better option than to have a fleet of Mi-26 with spares being produced in the house..Hope this time Russia provides us enough tech to make us self-sufficient in spares front..This is the least they can do to sweeten the deal..

[GORKHALI]

---

---

APACHE AH -64 D BLOCK 3 VS MI 28NE HAVOC

MI-28 NE HAVOC



Specifications

Crew 2 - With Pilot seated above and behind Gunner
Engines 2× Klimov TV3-117VMA 1,950 horsepower
Dimensions L - 17.01 m
W (rotor span) - 17.20 m
H - 3.82 m
Weights 5,910 kg (empty)
11500 kg (max takeoff)
Max Speed 324 kph
Range 460 km
Armament 30 mm NPPU-28 (300 rounds)
80mm/130mm unguided rockets
up to 16 AT-6 anti-tank missiles
various cannon/machine gun pods
AA-11/ SA-16 air-to-air missiles
Avionics FLIR
Microwave Radar
Narrow-field Video
Laser Designator
Infra-red jammers
Radar warning receivers
Laser warning receivers


APACHE AH-64D BLOCK 3



Specifications

Accommodation: Crew 2

Guns: Main Gun Caliber 30 mm

Dimensions: Height 5.0 m, Length 17.7 m, Main Rotor Diameter 14.6 m, Width 5.2 m

Weights: Max Weight 7,530 kg (16,601 lb)

Performance: Endurance 3 hours, Max Range 483 km (261 nm), Top Speed 74 mps (265 kph)

Power: Power 3,780 shp

Other: Main Rotor Blades 4, Number of Engines 2

ARMAMENT
Guided Missiles:
AGM-114A Hellfire (16)
AGM-114B Hellfire (16)
AGM-114C Hellfire (16)
AGM-114F Hellfire (16)
AGM-114K Hellfire II (16)
AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire (16)
AGM-114R Hellfire II (16)

SAM & ABM Missiles:
FIM-92 Stinger (4)
FIM-92 Stinger-RMP (4)

Power plant:
T700-GE-701D (2)

Sensors & Communications:
AN/APG-78
AN/APR-48A RFI
Arrowhead

Guns & Missile Launchers:
M230 Chain Gun
M299 (4)

Protection Systems:
AN/ALQ-136
AN/ALQ-211 SIRFC
DASS