Vnomadone thing that is quite laughable is that argument about russian bombers… to get to Denmark they only have to pass through or just beside several of:
Unless they come through the Arctic via Norway. But, yes its a fair point – Denmark doesn’t need the F-35 to protect its sovereignty.
That gives rise to another question – is a new fighter like the Rafale or Gripen required either, if its primary objective is protecting Denmark’s sovereignty (as opposed to expeditionary missions as a part of a coalition). For basic air policing something like the BAE Hawk or Alenia M-346 will do just fine, even if they aren’t quite that spiffy come parade time.
Denmark’s quandary is the same as that facing the NATO. With the USSR gone, its lost its raison d’etre. Now with Russia buying warships from France and co-developing aircraft with Boeing, even that threat has receded. The F-35 makes sense if Denmark wants the option of joining the US in its adventures around the world. In any event, I wonder how vigorously the underlying doctrines are being debated in the Danish local media.
Vnomadwhich is the most powerful radar on ship today ? , is that the SPY-1 on Arleigh Burke ? or that the 64N6 Big Bird on Kirov ? , what the average height of radar put on a destroyer ?
This one probably goes to the SAMPSON on the Type 45.
VnomadI’ll refrain from commenting on whether the USAF requires more C-17s. That is purely a function of the scale of airlift capability its required to possess.
But on the comparison with the C-5, while the C-17s unrefueled range is indeed much lower, there are other factors to considered.
From a report prepared by the Congressional Research Service
Cargo Capacity –
C-17 …………… 170,000lb
C-5 ……………. 270,000lb
Cost of operation –
C-17 …………. $12,000/hr
C-5 ……………. $21,000/hr
While the exact conditions within which those costs were identified has not been given, we can assume they were comparable conditions – perhaps full load or half load. In either case, the C-17 demonstrates a lower cost per unit of cargo.
Which may still be acceptable until you arrive at this point –
Mission Capable Rate (2008) –
C-17 ……… 86%
C-5 ……….. 52%
VnomadThese were UK based old Chinooks. obtain cheaply and flown directly not airlifted by expensive transports.
First, the Mi-17s weren’t used because they were ‘old and cheap’. Now you’re claiming the Chinooks were used because they were ‘old and cheap’. What the heck is wrong with you?
Those are old chartered. Mi-26T2 with advanced avionics and D-136-2 is not going to be cheap. there is another upgrade coming with PD-14 turbo shaft.
Doesn’t cost anything to operate ‘old’ Mi-26s. They too run on hot air apparently.
Dhruv superior to latest MI-171a2?. Mi-171a2 performance is closer to over 8000m altitude of Mi-38. 6000m altitude is now standard.
If you could just put the leotard and pompoms away for a minute, you’d realise India is acquiring the Mi-17V-5 not the Mi-171++.
And as per your theory, a smaller faster helicopter is always better for special operations than a heavier one. Greater troop carrying capacity is immaterial if not a downright hindrance.
Which implies a lighter helo like the Dhruv is ‘superior’ to the Mi-17. And something like the EC Fennec or Bell 407 is ‘superior’ to the Dhruv in turn.
As i explained those were older and cheaper Chinooks just like older Mi-17.
:rolleyes:
Flying by its own power is always cheaper than transported in giant cargo with stop for refuelling that is designed for 70 ton cargo but carrying a single 11 ton dismantled helicopter.
Just three posts back you were using a picture of an An-124 airlifting a F-18 to make a point (well such as it was).
VnomadIf 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.
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.
VnomadIts 5000km with Abram with (65+ ton) not nautical miles. And it will need long run way for such load.
Indeed. With the cost of asphalt these days, who can afford long runways. Its already begun to take a toll in the UK where the govt in its recent SDSR announced a 25% reduction in the lengths of all RAF runways. Further cuts haven’t been ruled out.
VnomadNone of them are the more expensive upgraded version.
Oho. So the forces involved in the operation opted for the Chinook because the Mi-17s available weren’t the ‘expensive upgraded version’?
CH-47 is way expensive for UN operations.
By the same logic the Mi-26 should never have seen UN service.
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.
So the troop carrying capacity of the aircraft is irrelevant? The HAL Dhruv is superior to the Mi-17 ‘in terms of altitude, speed and self protection suite’. And being of ‘smaller size’ it should be safer as well. By your logic, the Mi-17 will never participate in special operations.
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.
Chinook has already served in UN missions, so you’re a mite too late with your prediction.
As for the latter – for a single airlift, the difference in the cost between a self owned C-17 and a chartered IL-76 is humongous enough to make the entire venture a non-starter, but a Mi-26 that has to fly all the way to Russia and back for an overhaul is wonderfully good value.
VnomadAnd operating cost may skyrocket with such deployment wiping any savings achieved until then.
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.
VnomadChinook is not likely to get deployed to UN and most likely they will prefer a cheaper option like Mi-17.
There’s no hard and fast rule about it. With the Mi-17/Dhruv fleet being or set to be far larger, the IAF would prefer to deploy them on UN duties. But at the same time as Op Khukri proves, there need to be provisions for contingencies and the Chinook would be an appreciated acquisition as far as special operations are concerned.
btw, it looks like a commercially operated Mi-26 is cheaper than a commercially operated Chinook. Maybe that is the reason why commercial operator in Europe prefer Mi-17, Mi-26 and Super Puma for their business.
Apples to oranges. The chances are that the Mi-26s were acquired from ex-Soviet stocks at throwaway prices while the Chinooks were bought upfront from Boeing. There both following different business models.
I personally have the opinion that it should be transferred to commercial/civilian operators like Pawan Hans (https://www.pawanhans.co.in/site/home.aspx) if IAF does not want it, so that itz better utilized. This will make sure there is a super heavy lifting capacity inside the country and military can use its capability on contract, like how NATO is making use of An-124 for cargo transport.
My thoughts exactly. The Mi-26’s capability of airlifting heavy outsized cargo has myriad of applications in the civilian world. That’s where it needs to be employed with the IAF chartering it, on the rare occasions when similar military cargo needs to be hauled.
VnomadIn year 2000. India does not have even modernized Mi-17 in numbers. They have to borrow it from UK which was the main force. There is no comparable chopper in Mi-17 class in West. Only more expensive CH-47. It is very inefficient to travel CH-47 on large distance.
India is the biggest contributor of helicopters to MONUC. And of that, the transport complement consists exclusively of the Mi-17.
Best part is put MI-17 into IL-476.
No that’s the most irrelevant part.
Upgraded Mi-17 is fast and can be converted into armed assault chopper. More efficient for SF type work. And with new engines cruising speed is improved by 13%.
There is no ‘most efficient’ about it. When an operation (including an SF mission) requires a heavy airlift, a Chinook will be employed. When medium airlift is called for the Mi-17 will be used, and when light aircraft are needed the HAL Dhruv will be employed. There is a reason the three are set to coexist.
And yes, Chinooks may be required on a UN mission or any other expeditionary operation.
VnomadThen Boeing would most likely lose.
Errr, yeah that was what I was implying.
VnomadSwitch the Mi-26 for the Chinook, and the Chinook for the Mi-17.
You would have even more cost effective airlift; a hell of a lot more in service, and more usefull for the majority of helo-lift requirements.I guess by that standard the Mi-17 carries less, but is a more capable machine in every other way. :rolleyes:
That’s not always a rule; the C-17 for example outperforms the IL-76/476 even with sub-50 ton loads. But in this case yes the Mi-17 v5 is a first rate aircraft comparable to any other in its segment.
What it comes down to is the question of whether the IAF is required to airlift loads greater than 12 tons in one go. Answer being – apparently not.
Ideally speaking the Chinook and Mi-26 are not in the same segment and should not be compared head-to-head. But given that Mil does not offer a model to bridge the Mi-17 – Mi-26 chasm, and that it chose to enter the Mi-26 in a competition against the CH-47, we’re forced to compare the two. And within the IAF’s scenario planning, it comes up second best to the latter.
Now if Boeing were entering the Chinook against the Mi-17 for a medium lift helo contract…
VnomadBased on what? Boeing adds?
As a heavy lifter, the Mi-26 blows the Chinook out of the water.
That’s the point isn’t it? The Mi-26 provides a capability of airlifting cargo over 12-20 tons. If that’s a necessary requirement for the operator, well and good. If that’s not the case; with over 750 aircraft operational today, the Chinook has a lower operating cost, higher availability, better serviceability, and if you factor in lower turnaround time, probably provides a greater net airlift capability.
VnomadNo that is not correct, the world fuel consumption has infact gone down, both in US and China, that is one of the reasons for the low Oil price these days, and the fact that stored Oil reserves around the world is very healty and world eco recession.
Prices may have dropped over the last quarter but its rise over the last decade is very clear. Oil prices have nearly tripled since crashing in 2009 and stand at 1.5-2 times higher than the pre-recession period.
Over the long term there is no denying the fact that the supply simply cannot keep up with the rising demand driven by rapidly developing countries in Asia and South America (and to some extent even Africa). Oil will comfortably breach the $200/barrel mark by the end of the decade.
A medium weight fighter is likely to consume 3-4 tons of fuel per hour. Over a lifetime of 6000 hours, that’s about 20,000 tons (assuming a mid-life re-engining). At today’s prices ($1200/ton), that’s a lifetime fuel cost of about $25 million in 2012 dollars. Factor in rising fuel costs and the result could be well in excess of $100 million, outstripping inflation.
VnomadThis your own misinterpretition of pix. I put that pix in entirely different context. it just happens An-124 and Mi-26 at same place.
Ah right. You wanted everyone to know what the Mi-26 and An-124 look like. Your work is much appreciated.
I am sure India can find stuff that C-17 can carry but IL-476 not. IL-476 is not meant to carry oversize choppers. Dismantling a chopper for a week or so maximum exercises is futile. Unless you want to spend year in that mission.
So true. No point in taking even fighter aircraft or soldiers all that way for just a week of exercises. Have the men interact on Skype instead.
It is better to charter An-124 to fly Chinook for overhaul to America. Because if you do it with C-17.
.
.
They will need tankers to support but with An-124 not for most missions. So tankers are free to feed bomber or fighter.
Quote a point of comparison between the Chinook and Mi-26, and then end up explaining why the An-124 is a better choice than the C-17.
Can’t say I’m surprised.
United Nations deployment has zero relevance to high priced copters like Chinook.
As recently as 2000, an Indian special forces detachment borrowed Chinooks from the SAS for a rescue operation during the UN mission in Sierra Leone. Zero relevance indeed. :rolleyes:
Sign In
