I didnot changed the subject?. read post# 1. You linked CH-47 and C-17 and put IL-476 in context. When there is none.

Its 5000km with Abram with (65+ ton) not nautical miles. And it will need long run way for such load.

Its big deal operationally to refuel C-17 as it cannot go in most efficient route.

why dont they use C-17.
They airforces you mentioned. You simply don’t understand there operational budgets and there use. India has big force structure in quantity it cannot afford money operationally on mundane things like sending engines in heavy lifter and wait there for engine to overhaul.

UK is the largest export customer of CH-47 and has obviously more experience with the type. And they bought most of CH-47 in cheaper times. (before all those expeditionary wars). India defence budget is still half of UK as strong pound ensures more purchasing power for both acquisition and operations.
These are not in latest Mi-171a2 class that take 5ton under external sling (850km range on internal fuel) with most efficiency. Mi-38 that is going to be exported in 2015 can lift 7 ton under sling and has achieved highest altitude record with cruising speed of 300km/hr. There simply no comparision.
I am not sure 10 ton lift ability of Chinook and 7 ton lift ability of Mi-38 has big operational difference.

You created a link between C-17 and Chinook engine overhaul when there is none.

None of them are the more expensive upgraded version. CH-47 is way expensive for UN operations.

Why would SF mission require a heavy lift chopper unless none of medium size chopper are of similar capability in terms of altitude, speed and self protection suite. It is more safer in armed assualt transport and smaller size than large single one with no external weopon ability.

Chinook is not going to go UN missions. It will need airlift by C-17 or An-124 make it expensive to transport. There is no cheaper IL-76 charter like Mi-17.

So a long rambling reply of excuses and changed subject points then JSR! No change there then! Yes there is context between C-17, Chinook and IL-476. in That the two types India purchased Chinook and C-17 have a proven record of operating together and if they had purchased the IL-476 they wouldn’t of had that synergy….as I predicted you would be rather butthurt over that!

Excuses about refuelling, excuses about foreign airforce budgets and lots of general rubbish. So no change then! Refuelling as an issue is all in your mind and India will benefit from the advice the other C-17 operators will give them.

I had to pick up this particular rubbish excuse you came up with:

They airforces you mentioned. You simply don’t understand there operational budgets and there use. India has big force structure in quantity it cannot afford money operationally on mundane things like sending engines in heavy lifter and wait there for engine to overhaul.

So hang on you are really saying that all these airforces have no understanding of their budget:
RAF, RAAF, USAF, RCAF, Qatar Emiri Air Force and United Arab Emirates Air Force

Do you have any idea how stupid and insulting that statement is! And yet again we see you twisting the meaning of the point!

You created a link between C-17 and Chinook engine overhaul when there is none.

We are talking about Mi-26 overhaul not the engines. Again your usual tactic of changing the subject! I did not create a link between the C-17 and Chinook overhaul. I was pointing out that to overhaul the ENTIRE Mi-26 it has to be flown back to Russia and pointing out that a Chinook could be airlifted in the same circumstances. I was also pointing out that the Mi-26 has to self deploy for any mission sometimes by ship that takes time! Actually there is a good chance that Chinook would be overhauled in India which is something Russia doesn’t allow with the MI-26 does it!

Why was that F/A-18 being transported by AN-124? simple it was the cheapest most logical option. If you had bothered to actually research that picture rather then use it as one of you lazy excuses you would find it was one of a pair being flown to Australia.

Grow up JSR.

C-17 is carrying Chinook with those rotors removed as well and might be having a tighter fit than in An-124.

So what?! Chinook is still air deployable in the C-17 as has been proven by more then one operator of the Globemaster!

Chinook is not likely to get deployed to UN and most likely they will prefer a cheaper option like Mi-17.

Any proof of that? Errrrr no! Considering Chinook hasn’t entered Indian service we can’t speak for what deployment decisions they make! What we can say is they will have an organic strategic deployment capability using their C-17.

JSR
This your own misinterpretition of pix. I put that pix in entirely different context. it just happens An-124 and Mi-26 at same place.

When challenged that the IL-476 can’t carry a Chinook and Mi-26 has to self deploy due to it being too big to be carried in a transport aircraft you put up a picture of an Mi-26 apparently being loaded onto an AN-124 (actually behind it) and clearly stated:

There is An-124 for this purpose.

The meaning of what you were saying was clear for all, you found a picture that you thought supported your view and are now frantically back pedalling and trying to change the subject into a C-17 vs AN-124 debate.

JSR
United Nations deployment has zero relevance to high priced copters like Chinook.

Really?…Chinook had a cheaper direct purchase cost and cheaper through life cycle cost. You can’t use that excuse.

It is better to charter An-124 to fly Chinook for overhaul to America. Because if you do it with C-17. That C-17 will need a stop over some where in EU. There goes all the fuel economy advantage in landing and takeoff. And what will be C-17 doing for return trip? Wait for Chinook for weeks to overhaul?. A Charter of An-124 have no obligation to wait.

JSR tactic 101, can’t win an argument about one subject…twist it into a debate about something else. C-17 will have the long range fuel tanks installed and other users deploy large items like Chinook over long distances in the type. Even if it did need to stop for fuel that is hardly a big deal over chartering AN-124. Errrr and a C-17 operated by the India has no obligation to wait as well…weak excuse!

But this isn’t about C-17 vs AN-124, it is about if India is retaining its Mi-26 alongside the new Chinook.

Well the Indian Air Force clearly disagree with you Owlcat. Anyhow Chinook is not replacing the Mi17 in Indian service.

yes indeed, surely the Mi-26 is in a different league..
but do some people need its large capabilities over a somewhat smaller but more efficient one? or is it cheaper to send two smaller cheaper ones than one big one?

Mi-26 is like the helicopter version of the An-22 c0ck. a large c0ck doesn’t necessarily mean its useful.. but its more important on how its used.. other wise everyone would want a large c0ck. but in hindsight, the smaller american ones seem more popular.

Indeed it is in a different league, a helicopter with a cargo area the size of a C-130 Hercules and a massive sling capability but also expensive to run and a maintenance hog. It also has to self deploy or hitch a lift on a cargo ship then self deploy…Chinook fits in the AN-124/225, C-5 and C17.

The Chinook has a significant lift capability, reliable and combat proven. Somebody brought up supporting a natural disaster like an earthquake…frankly India’s new Chinook should be more then up for that kind of task.

Boeing have been upping its sling load capability over the years, apparently they plan to exceed the current NATO heavyweight the CH-53 with an upcoming upgrade!

Surprise surprise JSR!

Firstly the picture shown is of an Mi-26 parked behind an AN-124, secondly whilst the cargo box is just wide enough it is not tall enough for the Mil and finally India has not purchased the AN-124.

If you could fit an Mi-26 in an AN-124 India wouldn’t fly the helicopter to Russia under its own steam for servicing!

Actually the Chinook is a tight fit in the AN-124 with the rotorhead and mast assemblies removed: