Yes! You do understand how forums work JSR? People speculate and then we discuss.

every one speculate. but there is solid reason for speculation. see the number of French ministers visits to UAE in past 5 years to clinch Rafale deal. There is no such basis for speculation in this case based on past history.

No it is not relevant JSR, European and Western manufacturers in general can ramp up engine production quickly if required. What are you basing your idea that somehow Russian manufacturers are much faster in this? Again this is a thread about the alternatives to the Mi-28N, Russian production capabilities have no relevance.

No they cannot ramp especially military engines. even LM takes 4 years to deliver new F-16. your confusing Civilian engines with Military. There is hardly any alternative.

What restrictions beyond American ITAR rules? Iraq is buying vast amounts of American defence articles already hardly appears to be an issue for them.

They havent been delivered and used yet. i want to see how they overrun Kurdish autonomy area with US weopons.

Why would Euro engine parts be a problem? there is no European defence sales embargo against Iraq. Iraq is already inducting European helicopters (small correction it has Canadian engines – then again Iraq does operate the Gazelle which does have a European engine). Do I have to post this picture yet again:

These were ordered when US was in incharge. not now. remember we already went through this one already. not even the desperate French can sell Rafale there.

Maybe, I detect the smell of internal Iraqi government turf wars here!

Certainly there has probably been some frantic calls from Russia to Iraq today!

Where is evidence of frantic phone calls?
infact only economic desperate countries leaders visit desert lands.

Infact the industry is under performing in timely domestic deliveries. Just Ruaf needs are in order of 1200 helicopters.

New Klimov engine plant with 600 engine output in 2013.

http://www.aviationunion.org/news_second.php?new=82
Saint-Petersburg motors” investment project was started
New enterprise will be built in 2013 and there will be produced up to 600 engines in a year.

Your jumping ahead. It is not cancelled. infact Iraq has increased Oil related deals with Russia. There will be pressures from various parts in Iraqi government but things will move on with time as it is in there own interest.
but important point is both Cameron and Hollande visited arabs and couldnot managed to sign deals there. Saudi are ordering C-130.
It means A400m is practically doomed without big deal from Middleast.

Oho. So the forces involved in the operation opted for the Chinook because the Mi-17s available weren’t the ‘expensive upgraded version’?

These were UK based old Chinooks. obtain cheaply and flown directly not airlifted by expensive transports.

By the same logic the Mi-26 should never have seen UN service.

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.

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.

Dhruv superior to latest MI-171a2?. Mi-171a2 performance is closer to over 8000m altitude of Mi-38. 6000m altitude is now standard.

Chinook has already served in UN missions, so you’re a mite too late with your prediction.

As i explained those were older and cheaper Chinooks just like older Mi-17.

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.

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.

I think you will find that you have changed the subject JSR, it is pretty childish but never mind. Simple fact is when you can’t take on a fact you try and switch debate to something you think supports your rather biased opinion.

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.

Refuelling is a big issue for C-17? Stroll on! C-17 has nearly 4500 nautical mile range with an Abrams tank and can land on an unpaved airstrip with it!

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

Try that with an AN-124! India has good diplomatic relations with European nations, if a C-17 wants to stop by for a dash of fuel it is hardly going to be a big deal.

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

Again you are spinning your opinions of glorious Russian technology vs the West with all your imagined logistic problems when you don’t like what you are reading and causing massive thread drift! RAF, RAAF, USAF, RCAF, Qatar Emiri Air Force and United Arab Emirates Air Force all appear to be able to deploy heavy loads globally in their C-17 with little trouble.

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.

Yes cheaper direct purchase according to the customer, or are you accusing the Indians of lying? And what does the UK have to do with this? India is spending billions on defence, some of it is going to Europe and America. Clearly when it come to helicopters the Apache and Chinook meet a need as far as India is concerned.

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.

No other Western helicopters in Mi-171 class?!!!!:eek: What are you smoking? Forgotten about NH90, Merlin and AS532 have we. Mi-17 is excellent and cheap, hence why it is such a sales success but that doesn’t mean it has the market it to itself.

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.

Also I see you are trying to twist debate by saying the Mi-17 can fit in the IL-476. Well that is very nice but this is not what we are talking about, we are talking about the Chinook that India are buying and how it can fit in the C-17 they are also buying.

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

India is the biggest contributor of helicopters to MONUC. And of that, the transport complement consists exclusively of the Mi-17.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Well your picture rather inferred An-124 could carry an Mi-126 when it can’t.

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.

But you do your usual thing of twisting away from points you don’t like! I was talking about the IL-476 which can’t carry a Chinook in its cargo box vs the C17 which can and India has purchased the latter. India hasn’t purchased the AN-124 so you can’t use that as an excuse for deficiencies in the IL-476. Indeed an AN-124 can carry a Chinook a long way but that isn’t relevant to the procurement choices made by India.

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.

http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28365:lack-of-strategic-airlift-capability-a-challenge-sa-dod&catid=111:sa-defence&Itemid=242
The South African Air Force’s biggest requirement is to have an aircraft big enough to carry Denel Oryx and Rooivalk helicopters with the minimum dismantling, as reassembling a medium helicopter like an Oryx is difficult in remote areas. The SAAF’s largest transport aircraft, its C-130BZ Hercules, can only take an Oryx with major dismantling, requiring the charter of Il-76 aircraft for external deployments.

As for “do India need to transport Chinook globally”? yes they do. India participates in global exercises and United Nations deployments regularly. C17 supported by A330 MRTT can do that for them. Also as I pointed out the Mi-26 has to be overhauled in Russia and to fly there under its own steam with all the associated costs, time taken and risks flying a helicopter a long way. Indian Chinooks in need of an overhaul in America can be rolled onto their C17 and flown over in hours!

So what is your next excuse?

How many exercises India do outside country that require transport or combat chopper outside country. And how many exercise they do combat aircraft outside country per year?
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.
For example for 20 ton load. C-17 has 10,300km range, IL-476 has 9000km range. An-124 not even the modernized ones 13,300km. This give you all the flexibility for direct flight. At 40 tons. Advantage further goes to An-124 as it still able 11,500km range. C-17 is still a tactical airlifter. See this Ruaf deployment to Venzeula. With IL-76.
They will need tankers to support but with An-124 not for most missions. So tankers are free to feed bomber or fighter.


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

That is not being conservative, it is Polet making a copy/paste error (note how full load range happens to be exactly the same 4750km as it is for the Il-96). Do you seriously believe there is a 1000km difference (*twice* of what is seen in the C-17’s case) with the 3800km figure quoted by the manufacturer and pretty much every other operator? Especially since Polet’s Il-96 figure is in fact conservative (Ilyushin and lessor IFC both say 5000km) rather than optimistic – why would the same company be slightly conservative with one aircraft, but *massively* optimistic with the other?

See JSR, sometimes a little interpretation can be a good thing :rolleyes:

I gave only 10% improvement for IL-476. I was using the empty weight and internal fuel capacity from Polet site.
IL-476 cannot weight less than 95 ton. and internal fuel capacity about 90 tons. it is good internal fuel capacity. if your using it in a military theatre for much shorter range refuelling under 1000km distance.

The UK got a lease for its C-17s no problem at all. Apart from that, this is actually a deceptive argument – if there is an entity who can offer leases on the Il-476, the same entity should be able to offer the same conditions on An-70s

They had problem with lease thats why they bought C-17. without USAF order C-17 prices are going towards $500m mark.
An-70 is simply too unreliable for lease.