Hello GreenKnight121; re your post #24.
The US Army UH-1B and UH-1C gunship versions were performance and payload limited which is why the Hueycobra emerged in 1967; but the Charlie models did a great job during the Vietnam War considering they were an early stage of development in armed helicopters and I am sure many of your countrymen can convince you in that regard.
The problem 1 Australian Task Force encountered in Vietnam was availability of gunship support due to US Army resource limitations. 9SQN RAAF was re-equipping with the higher performance UH-1H model which was not then envisaged as gunship adaptable in the US Army/Bell mindset. But that model Iroquois (thus Huey II) has fore and aft station hard-points and related racks for adaptation of various external stores. If you look closely at your UH-1Y image, those hard-points have been incorporated for broad multi-role application of the aircraft which will doubtless emerge downstream.
Through bartering beer and other commodities, we managed to acquire 3 complete Charlie model XM-21 system kits for experimentation with UH-1H adaptation and when a configuration was adequately proven, the Australian government approved the princely sum of $A94,000 for 'formal' acquisition of another 4 XM-21 kits for modification of some UH-1H for a gunship role. Some US Army units also adapted the versatile UH-1H for gunship roles (see the image).
Why did we not go down the Hueycobra track at that time? Primarily availability and affordability. US Army Charlie models were never totally replaced by Hueycobra during Vietnam involvement because they could not be produced fast enough and around 270 were lost. So much for the history stuff.
Your contention that Iroquois family adaptation for gunship roles 40 years ago is not relevant now is flawed - we see Kiowa versions being operated in Afghanistan in a close air support role. A whole bunch of helicopter platforms have morphed into armed versions over decades and they continue to emerge for versatility, flexibility and cost-effectiveness reasons. This is why the arms manufacturers keep producing modular versions of advanced technology kit and bolt-on weapon systems adaptable to a wide range of aircraft.
The Huey II is an enhanced new platform in multiple respects so certainly not a museum piece. Indulge in semantics about armed scouts, light utility helos, armed transport support, attack helicopters, etcetera if you will; but armed forces worldwide will adapt military platforms for whatever suits their needs best in particular operating environs. The major consideration for all nations now is the affordability of escalating military spending considering the worldwide economic scenario.
It obviously suits USMC concepts of operations to go down the expensive AH-1Z/UH-1Y track with pretty high operating costs, but the more affordable single engine Huey II could provide a very adequate range of capabilities in Australia's demanding regional tropical archipelago of prospective military interest, considering Huey II comparative technical simplicity and outstanding hot and high performance. Single engine helo reliability (if properly maintained) is now very good and multiple types are operated in marine and rugged onshore environments worldwide.
To reiterate; we are talking about an enhanced new platform in Huey II adaptable for virtually unlimited roles by outside the square thinking. Glass cockpit options are available and it can be fitted out with whatever modern kit is desired within payload considerations, as for UH-1N and UH-1Y (Penguin or Hellfire missilery also). At around $US2million each and with operating costs less than $5,000 per flying hour, it just has to be the bargain of the century in the 'arms bazaar', especially for smaller nations.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 26th Jul 2010 at 00:48.