BR 71,
The UH-1 was a awesome machine in its day but unfortunately some of your arguments don't hold water.
what is achievable with the very versatile Huey II regarding cost-effective gunship operations, without the appreciable technical and logistic penalties associated with Hellfire and 70mm unguided rockets. Both Apache and Tiger require substantial support teams for field operations which would likely compound operating considerations in remote areas throughout the Australian regional archipelago.
This is like arguing that the fighter pilots should still be flying upgraded Mirages with only rockets and cannon. Warfare changes and weapon systems get better. If we accept something because it is easy, cheap and already understood we would still be riding around on horse back.
'Intimate' Close Air Support in my view is laying down accurate high density ball ammunition fire support with acceptable risk about 10 metres from own forces in necessitous circumstances
Close Air Support is killing or neutralising the enemy so they can't kill our troops. Whether it takes 1000 rounds of 7.62 from a teetering head helicopter aimed purely by the awesome skill of the pilot or 5 rounds of 30mm with laser ranging, it is the effect that is important not the method. Regardless of the calibre it is the off axis ability of a turreted cannon that puts it over fixed line systems. You don't have to fly straight at the enemy and you can cover the first 90 degrees of your own break (yes I know the Huey had an M-60 out the door but I'll take 30mm over 7.62 for that job).
The US Marine Corps has kept their UH-1N Hueys up-to-date,
They have done this because like the Australian Army they are the poor cousin and don't get to throw huge sums of money at interim capabilities or new ones. Oh to have $6 Billion and more people than you can poke a stick at for an interim capability. They are also moving on to the UH-1Y which apart from the name, basic shape and structure is a totally new helicopter.
proven Huey II would be way ahead of MRH90 for cost-effective utility helo operations.
It would still take 2/3 of them with a refuelling stop to do the same job as one MRH (not AAAvn's choice either).
Lack of cannon/gun redundancy on say Apache, Tiger and high recoil cannon cooling cycle constraints (where applicable) are serious negative factors regarding close air support.
Again this logic can be applied to fighter aircraft, tanks and modern frigates. They all have one gun. In the case of the ARH, it still has the option of Hellfire or rockets and it is also one of the reasons they operate as a pair.
You guys did a great job in Vietnam but just because it worked then in that specific war doesn't mean it is the way we will always do it.