tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post7496766231473396748..comments2023-10-11T17:09:54.975+05:30Comments on LIVEFIST: Boeing presentation to IAF comparing Chinook with Mi-26Shiv Aroorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03510476258643893433noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-83025304142421193192015-09-17T11:47:49.036+05:302015-09-17T11:47:49.036+05:30Everybody loves to talk about the V22.... anybody ...Everybody loves to talk about the V22.... anybody heard how noisy it is!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-61084164167522076202012-10-29T18:37:51.707+05:302012-10-29T18:37:51.707+05:30And people who are spewing bile here untwist your ...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15886739750941162404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-52330424783581549812012-10-29T18:25:19.912+05:302012-10-29T18:25:19.912+05:30
A good one by Shiv Aroor.
I had been following yo...<br />A good one by Shiv Aroor.<br />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.<br />Its heartning to see not all hope is lost yet.<br />Keep up the good work Shiv!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15886739750941162404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-5080561011186326882012-10-29T18:20:53.745+05:302012-10-29T18:20:53.745+05:30
A good one by Shiv Aroor.
I had been following y...<br /><br />A good one by Shiv Aroor.<br />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.<br />Its heartning to see not all hope is lost yet.<br />Keep up the good work Shiv!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15886739750941162404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-22035063156397333132009-10-24T20:09:22.822+05:302009-10-24T20:09:22.822+05:30One cannot believe all Boeing says.Slides 5 and 8 ...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.<br /><br />www.avia-russia.com/page4/files/mi-26_3-2.jpeg<br /><br />www.segurancaedefesa.com/Mi-26T_6.jpg<br /><br />For those who truly want to compare the CH-47 to the MI-26, see this picture:<br /><br />www.helicopassion.com/images/MI26/MI26-25c.jpgGilleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07150310899503100085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-19388871191498443162009-02-08T00:22:00.000+05:302009-02-08T00:22:00.000+05:30CH-53K FTW. It will be almost as powerful as the ...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-22897986639111472172009-02-03T19:06:00.000+05:302009-02-03T19:06:00.000+05:30hey, isn't the last few anon comments by Prasun hi...hey, isn't the last few anon comments by Prasun himself?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-54814459697611337132009-02-02T11:46:00.000+05:302009-02-02T11:46:00.000+05:30Dear "Dr" Dayanand,Please learn some basic English...Dear "Dr" Dayanand,<BR/><BR/>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?Mihirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02836909002135971437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-11521406085549500942009-02-02T06:32:00.000+05:302009-02-02T06:32:00.000+05:30shiv @ 2:37amlook Shiv, Slide 4 may be correct in ...shiv @ 2:37am<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Mihir @ 11:18pm<BR/>R u a nut? study some basic mathematics and physics before blurting out blunders such as "a chinook can lift another chinook" !<BR/>do you know why the Mi-26 was built?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-66052191681757991742009-02-02T02:37:00.000+05:302009-02-02T02:37:00.000+05:30anon@2.08AM: look at slide 4. it says Mi-26 next t...anon@2.08AM: look at slide 4. it says Mi-26 next to the chopper.Shiv Aroorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03510476258643893433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-91361515923998473602009-02-02T02:25:00.000+05:302009-02-02T02:25:00.000+05:30Prasun,In 1971, the Nixon administration was beari...Prasun,<BR/>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.<BR/>Do you really believe that a Naval force that big entering a war zone goes in without a ROE ?<BR/>Your sense of imagination is amazing!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-19803204900982988112009-02-02T02:20:00.000+05:302009-02-02T02:20:00.000+05:30well prasun,It doesn't take a "Panch-Varshiya Yojn...well prasun,<BR/>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. <BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>All this left unsaid but understood by all. Unless of course a person doesn't want to see the obvious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-57613046061112291632009-02-02T02:08:00.000+05:302009-02-02T02:08:00.000+05:30Shiv, do YOU realize that the HELO in the image is...Shiv, do YOU realize that the HELO in the image is the <B>CH-53 stallion and NOT THE Mi-26 ??<BR/><BR/>LOL !! this is a major goof-up on your part I'm sorry to say.<BR/><BR/>Change Your Headline !</B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-12928772542428945402009-02-01T23:33:00.000+05:302009-02-01T23:33:00.000+05:30Shiv, from the slides, it is pretty obvious that B...Shiv, from the slides, it is pretty obvious that Boeing is comparing the Ch-47 with the CH-53, and not the Mi-26.Mihirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02836909002135971437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-91704252586515965292009-02-01T23:18:00.000+05:302009-02-01T23:18:00.000+05:30I have even seen a video which shows an Mi-26 lift...<I>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.</I><BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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.Mihirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02836909002135971437noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-42100207803543267792009-02-01T01:25:00.000+05:302009-02-01T01:25:00.000+05:30heck , the Mi-26 even lifted a damaged cheetah h...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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-73211296581812436822009-02-01T01:22:00.000+05:302009-02-01T01:22:00.000+05:30anon @ 3:32 pmI was talking about something that h...anon @ 3:32 pm<BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-59340282976491602792009-01-31T22:48:00.000+05:302009-01-31T22:48:00.000+05:30To Anon@12:29PM: You seem to be echoeing the popul...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? <BR/>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.Prasun K Senguptahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00369323150694008798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-59210372532785409952009-01-31T15:32:00.000+05:302009-01-31T15:32:00.000+05:30bobs, why would you want to transport 3 rd33 engin...bobs, why would you want to transport 3 rd33 engines to a remote airbase using helicopters ? i suppose the heavy transport aircrafts can do thatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-38915974741697241012009-01-31T14:16:00.000+05:302009-01-31T14:16:00.000+05:30I think this comparison is more geared towards com...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... JMTAnant Dhamalahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14170855904460548939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-64776988282709502422009-01-31T12:29:00.000+05:302009-01-31T12:29:00.000+05:30The Mi-26 has the same carry capacity as a C-130. ...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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>My view - the Mi-26 is replacable by only the Mi-26. The chinook is not good enough to replace the Mi-17.<BR/><BR/>And to Shiv,<BR/>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.<BR/>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 onleeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-58586662000304050242009-01-31T04:22:00.000+05:302009-01-31T04:22:00.000+05:30Chinook Vs. the Mi-26, a work horse vs. a elephant...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.<BR/><BR/>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.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-49209710935849952692009-01-31T00:40:00.000+05:302009-01-31T00:40:00.000+05:30Mi-26 ceiling: 4,600 mMH-47 ceiling: 5,640 mNot to...Mi-26 ceiling: 4,600 m<BR/>MH-47 ceiling: 5,640 m<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>Mi-26 still has a niche to fill in the IAF but can't do what the IAF wants from the Chinook.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-36667118916880701812009-01-31T00:11:00.000+05:302009-01-31T00:11:00.000+05:30y don't boeing compare ah64 with ka50,52 ,mi28n,mi...y don't boeing compare ah64 with <BR/>ka50,52 ,mi28n,mi35m.<BR/><BR/>which they sold toooooooo costly price to s.korea.<BR/><BR/>is just bullshit by comparing two helicopters.<BR/><BR/> mi26 is in its own class and can carry more payload than any other helicopter and thats y its heavy,<BR/><BR/>mi26 is built for totally different purpose.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6050542.post-83558880245246624892009-01-30T22:22:00.000+05:302009-01-30T22:22:00.000+05:30iaf needs chinook for high altitude operations but...iaf needs chinook for high altitude operations but not at the expense of mi 26Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com