Mi-26 Halo vs CH-47 Chinook

They are not really comparable.

The Mi-26 utterly blows the Chinook out of the water when it comes to heavy lift. Not even close.
However, if you don't need anything as big or powerfull as the Mi-26, then that extra size and power would be a disadvantage.

Most civies don't realise it but transport aircraft are tools, and they don't just happen by chance, there is a huge process in their development and introduction into service.

With transports you have different size tools like spanners, so for small objects you need small nuts, and for bigger heavier objects you need bigger nuts and bolts and for each job "weight range" you have a transport designed for it.

An example is the C-17... enormously expensive, but necessary because the US military likes to have a medium sized aircraft that can carry one MBT, so they have the C-17 able to carry a single 70 ton MBT. They might never use C-17s for that role as it is cheaper to use ship transport but that is the reason for the existence of the C-17.

The C-130 is another tool and it carries up to 20 ton payloads, so many missions for the C-130 will be designed around 20 ton payload or less missions over the flight range of the C-130s, and able to use the flight strips the C-130 requires.

The Mi-26 and Chinook are in different classes... like comparing a plane that can carry a 12 ton payload with a C-130.

You can claim the Mi-26 is expensive when all your missions anticipated a 12 ton capacity helo, but when 14 tons needs to be moved, or indeed 20 tons then the Chinook is simply not enough helo.

BTW talk of versatility, the Mi-26 is also a very versatile aircraft... about all it lacks is the amphibious performance of the Chinook, but I would say it more than makes up for it being able to deliver 20 ton light vehicles that the Chinook simply couldn't carry.

This is all that you need .

it is really quite simple. there is a statistical prediction of number of missions of any given type.
some missions are doable with 5 ton helicopters, some with 10 ton helos, some with 20 ton helos, some with 50 ton helos.

if there are something like 50% missions that are doable with 5 ton helos, 30% with 10 ton helos, 15% with 20 ton helos and 5% with 50 ton helos - you will tailor your helicopter fleet accordingly.

If the whole helo fleet does 30 missions per year where 50 ton helicopter is needed, you will buy only one such helicopter. If it's something more like 300 missions, you'll probably need 2, or even 3.

To have a 50 ton helicopter which 95% of the missions carries just a tenth of its payload would be a collosal waste of money, overall, especially in large fleets.

That is why there is less than 100 surviving mi-26 helos in the world, out of 300+ produced ones. And majority of those in use are in civilian companies or non-army goverment services, not in proper armed serviced around the world. It is a great airlifter for those few missions that require it, but even in civilian world there is seldom need for such a huge helicopter and number of military missions that require such a helicopter is really quite small.

Mi-26 is great for what it is, but it is also very much a niche helicopter.

Could say the same about the C-5 Galaxy, the point is that the Mi-26 allows you to do some things that no other helicopter could manage.

In the west airborne forces are very lightly equipped and the idea of a force that is parachuted behind enemy lines is almost gone in the west because such a light force is vulnerable and not very mobile and vulnerable to enemy air defences.

The Russian VDV however is fully mechanised so you take it behind enemy lines and land a large force in the middle of nowhere... where air defences are poor... with a western force that makes them useless, but a VDV force in BMDs can then drive 40-50kms and attack an enemy airfield. The enemy airfield will not have large powerful ground forces defending it... it is well in the enemy rear... it will likely have some air defence and a security detail... against which a vdv force will be a very serious danger. Once the VDV have captured the airfield they can fly in heavy armour and equipment to fight off any enemy attempt to recapture the air field.

Dropping off supplies is one thing, but flying in or out an armoured vehicle is another... VDV vehicles are more than 12 tons, but less than 20 tons, so one helo could manage and one would not.

Having a larger capacity transport like the Halo or the An-124 give you flexibility... if you need to move lighter loads then there will be plenty of smaller and lighter helos for that job.

Mi-26 cant be really compared to the Chinook. Its more like a skycrane with internal storage capability.

however why haven't the Russians developed a helicopter that has a payload similar to the Chinook for carrying smaller loads?

The Mi-6 Hook carries 12 ton payloads...

GarryB wrote:The Mi-6 Hook carries 12 ton payloads...

is it still in service?

Not in Russian service anymore... it was first built in the early 1960s and production ended about the early 1980s.

Quite widely used in military and civilian roles, but now largely replaced by the Mi-26 in the heavy lift and sky crane roles.

Russia has no need for a Chinook class helo.
Mi-8 does most utility roles, and anything bigger is handled by Mi-26.
Light helos is where there has been some major domestic gaps.

d_taddei2 wrote:Hi all, hoping to see what peoples views are. On previous forums ive been they have mostly been in favour of the Chinook mainly due to versatility, agility, and less bulky size, some even say its cheaper to maintain and run. If you were to have a heavy transport helicopter for your forces what would you choose and why?????????? any views welcome.

me personally i would go for the mi 26 halo, due the extra capacity, better range, and how many times has a mi 26 halo helped out various forces around the world when there current helicoptors i.e chinook havent been able to carry out the task, one that springs to mind the recovery of a chinook. Having flown on a chinook and experienced what it can do, i still would go for the Mi 26 halo, and this isnt me being biased being on Russian military forum.

The question is somewhat poor and misguided...

It is like asking, "what is better, a hammer or a screw-driver" it all depends on whether you need to hammer a nail or screw a screw...

One might ask, "what is better, the BMP-2 or the T-72" it depends on whether you need to transport a squad of infantry across a battlefield with some level of protection or whether you need a tank for armored/maneuver combat.


Different tools for different jobs... In terms of sheer lifting potential/ability, the Mi-26 is definitely superior, but that's only way to measure the usefulness of a helicopter/aircraft.

What does one make of the write up

Why the Chinook is efficient and the Mi-26 is a heavy-lifting guzzler

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?p=1814476#p1814476

Stupid.

Comparing a helicopter who's lift is pathetically lower as more efficient is hilarious indeed.

Mi-8 is far more efficient than Chinook by that standard as well.

The average posting level on B-R is just embarrassing.

All of his "analysis" completley evade actual combat effecient analysis, instead you could also compare Bo-105 with LCH and the BO-105 would win every flight caracteristical comperision, but lose every single combat engagement comperision.

Really useless to compare in such methods.

Is this written by one of the same 'analysts' that keep on crapping over Russian military products and lauding Western ones?

Perhaps even the one that makes all sorts of wild claims about the PAK-FA and how unhappy the Indian side is with its technical issues or whatever?

India needs to keep these lads in check, have a look on their balance sheets just to see what money who gets from where - not that getting money from somewhere in return for writing certain BS is a crime of course - but then neither would it be a crime to publically expose these shysters for what they are.

It is written by Vivek Ahuja who is a Phd Student in US.

I told him to compare the latest Mi-26T2 because with FADEC the engine would be more effecient any ways thought not a fair comparision.

Would be funny to see him write an article about tanks... I am sure the Abrams is superior to the T-90 because it is a gas guzzler... and is a much heavier vehicle offering no huge advantage in armour or fire power...

Austin wrote:Why the Chinook is efficient and the Mi-26 is a heavy-lifting guzzler

It is for serious ?

I have seen in the past literally hundreds of horribly biased comparative "analysis pieces" pointing ,at best, on twisted reasonments or very narrowed data' selection only in order to promote a product over another one ,but until now i was still missing one attempting to promote a product ,literally smashed by the other in virtually any fundamental cardinal parameter pointing on the delta of performances decrease happening over the nominal limit declared by the designer and producer Company (the nominal maximum certified service ceiling limit of Mi-26T2 is 4600 m. or about 15100 ft, 21000 ft focused analysis  ? Oh yes sure     )

This open a new staple in the meaning of the words deceptive reasoning.


Someone should explain to this US Phd Student that any helicopter's engine at this world experience a sudden decrease in power output over the nominal service ceiling certified by the maker....but i suspect that it was already perfectly aware of that and has merely attempted to use the unique cardinal paramater (the impact of the difference of which is moreover completely useless in 99,99 % of military and civil missions) where the Ch-47F could boast any kind of advantage on its otherwise crushing superior opponent and on it attempt to write this ridiculous piece aimed at put in bad light the Mi-26T2.


In reality, as explained previously, the cursed Indian Heavy Lift Helicopter bid has been plagued from the beginning by a simple but pernicious original sin : in order even only to an open competition to happen Indian authorities was forced to lower the maximal technical lift and range requirements within the parametrical limit boundaries of the lower performance product (Ch-47F).

In this way both products obviously passed the first stage of the selection but ,at the second, the much lighter/lower-performance contender (Ch-47F) was found as the lower bidder

Talking instead of serious performances and decisive parameters for this class of military products, i would be very happy to attend an Indian Army comparative exercise simulating wartime emergency lifting of 1230 fully geared paratroopers transported by part of 15 Mi-26T2 toward a critical sector at more than 800 km of distance and observe how much time and with what kind of fuel consumption and overall costs (for the joy of our dear Vivek Ahuja) the 15 Ch-47F that won for the lower bidder would execute the SAME IDENTICAL OPERATIONAL TASK.

For the less smart or ....intellectually deceitful or biased....among the readers should be important to remind that one helicopter ,among the two in question, should cover the entire distance to and from the aim delivering sector more times (with all the related costs-for-flight- hour, fuel consumption, maintenance and crew turnover implications) ,very likely with reduced payload for the necessity of external fuel tanks and with a resulting operational tempo, decisive in time of war, very very different .    

The exercise could ,in the meantime continue with the 15 Mi-26T2 lifting artillery pieces, infantry supplies, APC, munition's crates of various kind etc... toward the same sector at 800 km always 300 tons at time and observe, bitterly, how progressively faster increase the operational delay (and with it the combat potential) of the sector "served" by the Ch-47F as theirs military heavylift platform.

Indian MoD ,with the cursed conception of this heavylift helicopter bid ,initially conceived with the good purpose to prevent a single bidder acquisition program and to lower the costs, wrote one of the darkest pages of any international military product tenders and has severely damaged the combat potential and cast a shadow on the same lives of Indian military operatives in war times.

Austin wrote:What does one make of the write up

Why the Chinook is efficient and the Mi-26 is a heavy-lifting guzzler

Chinook and Mi-26 are different categories of helos to begin with.

Also there are factual inaccuracies in the article. Pakistan has already purchased the Z-10 helo from China.

Like i said, with such "analysis" that complete focus on some narratives of some uncrucial parameters, with an already flawed and biased comperision anyone could create such "analysis" to promote inferior systems as being superior.

Alone those comperisions of AH-64D with LAH LCH with 500kg payload, focusing on specific altitudes, while it has no real life coloration to actual combat missions for such altitudes, not in payload and not in faked parameters of climb nor fuel effeciency. Using a niche helicopter like the LAH that is absolutley inferior to Apache in every combat engagement, designed specifically for high altitude engagements only, by using such narrative comperision that is already favored for one system due its design requirements, is not only deseptive but also irrelevant to actual combat effeciency and combat capabilities.

I've seen similiar article prizing the LAH as some flying tank, better armored than Mi-35, which the article was trying to portrait that the Mi-35 cockpit glass was penetrated by 12.7mm and that can not happen with LAH, since it uses more modern armor, half the weight but superior in protective capabilities. The incident that was mentioned and is constantly refered by indian blogs and so called Phd "Analysts" is an incident of a penetration of 12.7mm of the acrylglass canopy, which is not armored, while they constantly mention it penetrated the frontal bulletproof glas. There is another point of constant biase and over glorifying their own LAH by calling Mi-35 incapable for hot and high environments, that of course comes from the fact that india did not upgrade their old Mi-35's with new engines, filters and new and more effecient Mi-35M weight, it will not reach 6000 m altitude but it is already 1800m above indian Mi-35's with 5400m LTOW.

Thanks Mindstorm. Informative post as expected.

Another post by Vivek

Aerial-refueling aircraft in the Indian context: a capability review

http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.in/2015/04/aerial-refueling-aircraft-in-indian.html

Ah, always enjoy a good Mindstorm post