Royal Thai Army chooses MI-17
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NZ
Age: 41
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess they don't have an unlimited budget like some countries seem to.
$9.1 million USD does seem like alot for one of those things though. Aren't they just a Mil 8 with a bigger engine?
Does anyone know what a new Black Hawk would set them back? A whole lot more than $9 mil I would expect.
$9.1 million USD does seem like alot for one of those things though. Aren't they just a Mil 8 with a bigger engine?
Does anyone know what a new Black Hawk would set them back? A whole lot more than $9 mil I would expect.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UH-60 Black Hawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
on the page on the right it says that the unit cost is $5,9 million. So they are a lot cheaper per unit and not in the least they look a whole lotta better.
on the page on the right it says that the unit cost is $5,9 million. So they are a lot cheaper per unit and not in the least they look a whole lotta better.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Here and there...
Age: 58
Posts: 854
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also could have to do with the requirements of the maintenance schedules and the manpower/spares costs involved, including price and availability of parts.
I take it these would be transport ships, mainly??
I take it these would be transport ships, mainly??
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UH-60 Black Hawk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
on the page on the right it says that the unit cost is $5,9 million
on the page on the right it says that the unit cost is $5,9 million
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 1°21'10.20"N - 103°56'36.21"E
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 cents ..
Mi-17 has proven itself as a very effective and efficient helicopter, and the support has been great, atleast of recent times.
And Mi-17 has some things that UH-60 cant do .. Allow people to stand up
, and a high mounted tail rotor, and .. and rear door with a ramp on Mi-171 (allowing cargo to be directly loaded in from trucks and such .. )
In any case, if you see the recent deployments of the UN and other agencies, you will notice that they are preferring Mils, for the ease of maintenance and also flexibility. They are not the nicest and beautiful looking machines, but they get the job done, and at a much cheaper cost.
For that matter, I was told recently even some European countries are leasing them, (indirectly, to avoid the embarassment of being accused of using equipment that was called unsafe and so and so .. )
Maybe The UH60 was quoted cheap, but with all the add-ons and support, the price would have gone sky-high.
For that matter, Malaysia and other regional countries operates Mils. And SK has Kamovs on their register. Comments on that ???
>> HEF
As for the difference between Mi8 and Mi17, a Russian guy once told us the difference, (and a way to identify them) apart from the bigger and newer engines with longer TBO, is, the location of the tail rotor. Apparently the Russians (err .. Ukrainians now .. ) switched it from Port to Starboard, or other way around ..
And the guys liked the Mi 17, due to it's excellent power at high altitudes.
Mi-17 has proven itself as a very effective and efficient helicopter, and the support has been great, atleast of recent times.
And Mi-17 has some things that UH-60 cant do .. Allow people to stand up
, and a high mounted tail rotor, and .. and rear door with a ramp on Mi-171 (allowing cargo to be directly loaded in from trucks and such .. )In any case, if you see the recent deployments of the UN and other agencies, you will notice that they are preferring Mils, for the ease of maintenance and also flexibility. They are not the nicest and beautiful looking machines, but they get the job done, and at a much cheaper cost.
For that matter, I was told recently even some European countries are leasing them, (indirectly, to avoid the embarassment of being accused of using equipment that was called unsafe and so and so .. )
Maybe The UH60 was quoted cheap, but with all the add-ons and support, the price would have gone sky-high.
For that matter, Malaysia and other regional countries operates Mils. And SK has Kamovs on their register. Comments on that ???
>> HEF
As for the difference between Mi8 and Mi17, a Russian guy once told us the difference, (and a way to identify them) apart from the bigger and newer engines with longer TBO, is, the location of the tail rotor. Apparently the Russians (err .. Ukrainians now .. ) switched it from Port to Starboard, or other way around ..
And the guys liked the Mi 17, due to it's excellent power at high altitudes.
Last edited by ecureilx; 7th Nov 2008 at 07:56.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown both the -8 and the-17. The Mi-8 has two engines at 1500 shp each, battery start using six lead acid batteries, and a pretty poor tail rotor. The gross weight is 24,455 lbs. The Mil -17 has two engines at 2225 shp each, and APU for pneumatic start, two batteries, and a much better tail rotor. The gross weight 26,454 lbs., I think. Anyway, the 17 is more capable and there are -8's that that have modified with bigger engines. My impression is that the 8 and 17 are not user friendly, not fuel efficient, but are rugged and very reliable. I wrote a paper for AHS several years ago about the -17 and with the available combat stores that can be installed, it can aguably be the most heavily armed helicopter in the world if that's the purpose. otherwis the clam shell doors and the stand up cabin are big pluses.
