There are design aspects of the UH-1 that fall far short of the UH-60 re survivability and crash worthiness. I guess there is a trade off between holding to the new standards and accepting the risks that occur when one uses less well designed equipment.
I struggle a bit with this 'crashworthiness' concept when it is applied to the helo transport in isolation. Is the crashworthiness of the helo more important that the battleworthiness of the combat system as a whole? Is there any point carrying a digger to battle in a crashworthy aircraft when the price of that is him dying in battle due to insufficent airframes to support, resupply, extract or medevac him during the subsequent campaign? Or is the military only concerned with preservation of aircraft and aircrew; the poor digger being a disposable commodity in the piece in order to preserve the reputation of the transport capability?
Let's take this to the ridiculous. What if you could buy a combat body armour that was impervious to all kinetic attack at all angles, weighed absolutely nothing and allowed the wearer to become completely invisible for periods of up to three minutes; but you could only afford enough of those to equip one third of the combat troops? Would you buy it? Or would you say 'Nice to have, but let's get real and buy something that is cheap enough so that we can get it for everyone so that everyone has an equal chance of survival?'
Who is being looked after here?