The White Rabbit; re your post #22.
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.
As you say, military technology advances which is why emerging weapon systems are continually developed as optional fitments for different platforms; but the taxpayer is not a bottomless source of funding for highly expensive preferred hardware, in some cases relatively unproven. Any credible military force has to have an affordable balance of higher end and adequate capabilities which will vary according to threats and operating environs. Consider the wisdom of the Americans in putting most semi-obsolescent aircraft into dry climate storage so they can be refurbished and upgraded as appropriate.
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 l@ser 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).
Whether it takes 1000 rounds of 7.62 from a teetering head helicopter aimed purely by the awesome skill of the pilot...The Bushranger gunship configuration enabled moving the aircraft CofG forward to create a pretty stable gun platform which is why it was able to consistently deliver intimate close air support as near as 10 metres from friendlies. Those of us that had formerly flown fighters, embracing close air support, trained mostly junior pilots in Vietnam for the Bushranger gunship role and they excelled with many of them being later posted to fighters.
We sometimes operated in concert with Hueycobras in Vietnam and witnessed some alarming instances where hundreds of rounds from turreted minigun were loosely sprayed in direction of friendlies on target breakaway.
'You don't have to fly straight at the enemy...' Better to do so in my view and perforate them with dense accurate fire; it's warrior stuff.
'...yes I know the Huey had an M-60 out the door...' 2 each side for the Bushranger and I would much prefer to be able to see and hear groundfire, some of it only observable by the guys down the back.
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.
Come off it; had Australian Army Aviation gone for sensible progressive optimisation of Chinook, Blackhawk, Iroquois, Kiowa; the ADF could be operating in Afghanistan today with more comprehensive integral support.Tiger and MRH90 programs collectively total about $4billion plus the more justifiable cost of 7 x CH-47F and another $2billion or more in the offing for naval support helos. A very big spend is in train for ADF helicopters and may not work out very well on present indications.
Maybe you have not visited the Bell Helicopter website, but Huey II is essentially a factory rebuilt new aircraft with very long supportability envisaged and because it is such a versatile platform, can be easily adapted for multiple roles. The widely-peddled notion that Huey II is unsuitable old technology is just nonsense – consider the C-130 for example. And the clincher is Huey II only costs around US$2million with more than 150 in service and orders growing.
The AH-1Z/UH-1Y program is pretty costly overall so the USMC can hardly be considered poor cousins; and they have also been wise enough to move toward AC-130 gunship capability, a la USAF. Unit cost for the UH-1Y is not yet known but it might be a competitive or better platform than the MH-60S for naval support requirements. The operating cost per flying hour for the RAN Seahawk is around $45,000 compared with Huey II about $5,000. The UH-1Y will be much more expensive to operate than Huey II for basic battlefield support roles.
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).
More misinformation. Huey II can carry a crew of 4, door guns and 10 plus troops with outstanding hot and high performance. By the way, the Saudis have just ordered a lot more Blackhawks.
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.
Cannons/guns are all mechanical and stoppages are inevitable, mostly due to ammunition feed problems. I referred to the necessity for cannon/gun redundancy in providing reliable intimate close air support within very close proximity to friendlies (as close as 10 metres), which rules out 70mm unguided rockets and Hellfire due to safety distances for blast and fragmentation effects. Much of the video footage from Afghanistan ops indicates 'close' air support being maybe hundreds of metres from friendlies and many engagements seem to be at longish small arms range. Losing cannon/gun capability from one aircraft of a 2 ship flight seriously inhibits ability to keep steady fire on enemy positions.
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.
War-fighting methodologies will of course vary with technological advances and operating environs, but military operations still have to be conducted cost-effectively and the lessons from prior conflicts heeded. In my view, this is where Australian defence planners in particular are falling way short.