SRP
BANNED
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,460
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Yes I really want India to buy atleast 4 More for IAF + Chinook + C 17 + C130 + M777 + AH 64D = Total Punch .
AH 64E not D. No we are not going for Mi 26 for now.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes I really want India to buy atleast 4 More for IAF + Chinook + C 17 + C130 + M777 + AH 64D = Total Punch .
Yes . These are my Shopping listAH 64E not D. No we are not going for Mi 26 for now.
Aaah yes...so @sancho and @Capt.Popeye we get another thread
This Mi-26 has been doing stellar work in flooded Uttarakhand in India's north.
Why would Americans askerd for help of Mi-26 to transport Chinook, broken in Afganistan?Chinook too can lift chinook.
Reasons why IAF chose chinook over mi-26,not because of quality but chinook is more suitable for mountainous terrain,narrow ridges and all weather duty and IAF will deploy these in mountanous china border.
Thats a Lame rebut.Its just one of its advantage. And if you think Chinook will not be transported to any other parts India its not a good thinking.
Its too Big for tactical operation. Indian Armed force is transforming itself in to modern force
It's not about which helicopter is better (btw, guess why Boeing needs to use Ch 53 pics to fake disadvantages for the Mi 26? ), but which capabilities are really important for the logistical support operations in "Indian forces" in the mountain regions, or according to Indian tactics?If you Still think Chinook is not better than Mi 26
Why are you so adament with yous false CLAIM ? So are you saying at times for war Chinook will fly from Kashmir to Kanyakumari on its own ? And you think its cost effective Bhai ? And now you not only undermined Chinook but also C17 for which it is built for. If cost matters we should not be going to war in first place. Second I dont think MI 26 can moved to any parts of the country in any given but Chinook can do it .COST DOESNT MATTER. COUNTRY's Safety matters.Not really, if it is needed it will be flown to other areas of India iteself, since it's needs too much time to remove the rotors and stuff first, to fit it in the C17 and later build it all up again. Not to mention the costs to move a single Ch47 with a C17 at such close ranges.
Bhai what are you saying? PR Brochures points out What Chinook can do and What Mi26 cant.Whats wrong with it ? Are you telling me that these are fancy adverts ?Just lies ?And more over MOD of India tested Chinook too. Not to mention we already have MI-26 for years now yet we choose Chinook over Mi 26 WHY ? Not just because Americans Said SOBecause "Boeing" told you that IAF plans to use it in tactical roles?
As I told you earlier, don't let yourself blind by PR brochures of a manufacturer, but look at what IAF really does with heavy lifters and how they see the roles of their fleets:
Again you are sticking with its Play Load.But what about availability of Helo ? Thats mtters. And Chinook is not LUH but heavylifter too. It can carry fully armed 44 fully armed men with External Load. And it can unload on Any terrain even at places where an Helicotpter cant land. Check the Pics i posted.
OMG! Tats the point Ch 53 is more suitable for India for its Mountain region too. It also clearly given in PIC !It's not about which helicopter is better (btw, guess why Boeing needs to use Ch 53 pics to fake disadvantages for the Mi 26? ), but which capabilities are really important for the logistical support operations in "Indian forces" in the mountain regions, or according to Indian tactics?
When was the last time u saw Mi26 sent for rescue mission like dhruv helicopter ? What was the role of MI 26 ? Mi 26 cant land on smaller helipads But Chinook can land on smaller space even if it is tip of the mountain. Chinook might had saved many if we had onThe Uttrakhand operations already showed the importance of internal capacity,
Chinook ment for all you mentioned above.but Indian forces als showed the importance of heavy external lift capacity, to suit their tactics, by lifting armored vehicles, either to support a rapid force build up next to our tactical helicoopters, with the necessary fire power for the ground troops, or to transport them to areas where fixed winged aircrafts couldn't be used, by the lack of suitable road links or air strips.
Bhai what are you saying? PR Brochures points out What Chinook can do and What Mi26 cant.Whats wrong with it ? Are you telling me that these are fancy adverts ?Just lies ?
You are a bad bad boy .
You should let folks read the entire report and the great feats the Mi-26 has achieved in service of the IAF.
So is this mean IAF and MoD been fooled ? And dont you think India must had verified itBuddy, you really should inform yourself a bit more where IAF used the Mi 26 in the last roughly 3 decades and how, before getting into conclusions! Anyway I just wanted to show you why you can't take anything a manufacturer says in it's brochures for granted:
A manufacturer wants to sell it's product, therefor it will present situations that looks better for it's aircraft. Look at their claim of greater load capability for example:
http://i613.photobucket.com/albums/tt220/varun22/5-714726.jpg
And at the reality of IAF operational experience:
http://s14.directupload.net/images/130715/dcodrnd5.jpg
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130627/nat4.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nbsyTh4Cw...nQ/eOsLKduy3Co/s1600/13+Jul+2013+2-732378.JPG
They purposly took the Ch 53 picture to show a loading problem, because of it's tail, but the Mi 26 height gives the advantage not only to position vehicles directly below the tail, but even directly into the helicopter to load and unload cargo. So they faked a problem, which doesn't apply to the Mi 26, just to make the Ch 47 look better or more suitable, although the Mi 26 has even a clear advantage in this regard!
Important however is only, what capabilities IAF will need to do the logistical support roles and with the Ch47 they might have taken an aircraft that is available soon, but also offers the most operational limitations for the future and the Uttrakhand operations just shows that.
The rest was often discussed here, please use the search function.
So is this mean IAF and MoD been fooled ?
Why are you so adament with yous false CLAIM ? So are you saying at times for war Chinook will fly from Kashmir to Kanyakumari on its own ? And you think its cost effective Bhai ? And now you not only undermined Chinook but also C17 for which it is built for. If cost matters we should not be going to war in first place. Second I dont think MI 26 can moved to any parts of the country in any given but Chinook can do it .COST DOESNT MATTER. COUNTRY's Safety matters.
Bhai what are you saying? PR Brochures points out What Chinook can do and What Mi26 cant.Whats wrong with it ? Are you telling me that these are fancy adverts ?Just lies ?And more over MOD of India tested Chinook too. Not to mention we already have MI-26 for years now yet we choose Chinook over Mi 26 WHY ? Not just because Americans Said SO
Again you are sticking with its Play Load.But what about availability of Helo ? Thats mtters. And Chinook is not LUH but heavylifter too. It can carry fully armed 44 fully armed men with External Load. And it can unload on Any terrain even at places where an Helicotpter cant land. Check the Pics i posted.
OMG! Tats the point Ch 53 is more suitable for India for its Mountain region too. It also clearly given in PIC !
When was the last time u saw Mi26 sent for rescue mission like dhruv helicopter ? What was the role of MI 26 ? Mi 26 cant land on smaller helipads But Chinook can land on smaller space even if it is tip of the mountain. Chinook might had saved many if we had on
Chinook ment for all you mentioned above.
Of course not, you was fooled by the pics mate. But IAF limited their choice by far, by considering only currently available options, instead of looking at the long run and the capabilities that really will be important in these roles.