Now the Mi-28 is not being purchased by Iraq what alternative makes sense.

Both RIA Novosti and Aljazeera
are quoting Iraqi Defense Minister saying otherwise.

Mi-35 continues being the common sense option for Iraq.

Perhaps because they are slower and thus more easily able to get a gun solution on an MQ-1?

Whatever the case they are playing with fire…

It’s not like flying a MQ-1 in the close vicinity of Iran doesn’t look like a bait at all.

Most probably Iranians were testing the behavior of the drone under threat, while the first performs the simulated attack the second one records the reaction.

I’d rather this thread be used for discussions of actual reality, in which India has already decided to get CH-46, and already operates C-17 and soon will operate A330MRTT. There is still an open question about what will happen to the old Mi-26 fleet, which I’m interested in hearing more about (the idea of selling them to a local Indian commercial operator, who would possibly upgrade them to T2 config seems like a good idea).

UTair operates in India but most likely they’re going to end up as scrap metal or rotting somewhere until someone in need of pocket money decides to revive them at an outrageous cost.

They’d achieve even higher savings by grounding the aircraft altogether but that defeats the purpose doesn’t it? The Chinook is cheaper to operate than the Mi-26 regardless of where its deployed. The fact that it can be airlifted overseas whether for deployment or overhauls only amplifies its cost advantage.

IAF has to work within a budget, if they get rid of one type of helicopter for a cheaper alternative costs are going to be lower as long as the new platform is used in the same fashion as the old one and maintains number parity. Since CH-47 is not cheap to operate if IAF starts using their more numerous fleet more often in roles previously performed by smaller and more economical platforms or decides to deploy them overseas the cost is going to surge and surpass without effort the associated spending of maintaining Mi-26s for specific operations.

The idea of airlifting sounds great, and can be handy under very specific circumstances, but at the end of the day Indian CH-47s fleet is going to sail to their destination because is cheaper, be it to reach Mangalore Port for delivery to IAF, for UN missions in Africa or for overhauling at Boeing facilities at CONUS.

How so? The savings are achieved vis-a-vis the Mi-26 rather than the Mi-17. A heavy lift helo will deployed abroad if heavy airlift is called for. In that light, if anything, the savings are magnified.

Compare it with the cost of flying the Mi-26 all the way to Russia for overhauls.

If operating costs are the main reason for this deal any savings achieved with CH-47 introduction are going to vanish with any deployment overseas, in the short run logistics and in the long run field maintenance.

Flying a Mi-26s through Asia and go on a hunt for spares to an aircraft graveyard may not be cheap and quick but sending a CH-47 to Pennsylvania by airmail or buying spares from Boeing at a bargain price are neither easy tasks.

And yes, Chinooks may be required on a UN mission or any other expeditionary operation.

And operating cost may skyrocket with such deployment wiping any savings achieved until then.

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.

With 200+ Mi-17s India has more than enough reliable, combat and disaster proven helicopters to face any earthquake without the need to spend a single rupee in a new platform.

F-35 el cheapo clone :dev2:.

Haters gonna hate and tales about stolen blueprints or counterfeit scrap metal are a magnet for them so it doesn’t matter what is supposed to be as long as those people can cry wolf.