Western version of the Mil 24 Hind

The UH - 1 Iroquois was modified in Vietnam to also act as a gunship and, in time was superseded in this role by specialist attack helicopters. What would we be a POD necessary for the Army / Marines to persist and further develop the UH - 1 Iroquois in this role? Additionally, how would the UH - 1 gunship variant evolve over time?

06e55e123bfc80ed022e678a4e57b09f.jpg
 
The UH - 1 Iroquois was modified in Vietnam to also act as a gunship and, in time was superseded in this role by specialist attack helicopters. What would we be a POD necessary for the Army / Marines to persist and further develop the UH - 1 Iroquois in this role? Additionally, how would the UH - 1 gunship variant evolve over time?
They did further develop the UH-1 into a gunship, its called the AH-1G Cobra, they were originally called UH-1H after all

The issue that lead to the Cobra was that adding external weapons to a transport helicopter increased drag, which meant that loaded but unarmed UH-1s were rather faster than the unloaded but armed escorts (30mph IIRC), which slowed the whole force. So the idea was to use a narrower body to reduce drag while maintaining the same powertrain as the transport variant, so that when adding external weapons the extra drag was cancelled out and they were the same speed

To avoid this you either need to curtail the use of unarmed transport helicopters severely, or abandon the idea of parts commonality and give the armed version much beefier engines, transmission and rotors, meaning added logistics headaches

And in any case the current UH-1Y can still carry rockets (included guided ones) and machine guns if needed, and has extreme parts commonality with the AH-1Z
 
The UH - 1 Iroquois was modified in Vietnam to also act as a gunship and, in time was superseded in this role by specialist attack helicopters. What would we be a POD necessary for the Army / Marines to persist and further develop the UH - 1 Iroquois in this role? Additionally, how would the UH - 1 gunship variant evolve over time?

Not a specific POD, but perhaps lessons learned from the Vietnam war might steer the Marines and Army to ask for a gunship that can survive up to HMG fire, while being ble to carry several dismounts? Or, Army can say - well, since the Cheyenne is cancelled, let's clap something together that can rain fire at enemy from above.
If we stick with UH-1, then it needs much more power & redundancy (= two engines), coupled with suitably sized reduction gear and main rotor. Crew will need some BP glass, in order to save weight the transparent area might be reduced. Electro-optical sighting system above the crew. Wings, slanted downwards, above the sliding doors, 2 hardpoints on each side. A 20-25-30mm cannon under the flying crew.
 
avxgun_07.jpg


If the Army wanted it, it could even come with a "Fan-tail". The Army couldn't speak French, so it wasn't a fenestron. So the Army has to want it instead of dedicated attack Apache without a six-pack of dudes in the cabin. The OTL decision was made before the crash.

BTW, most brochures specify resistance to 23mm. Does this explain the popularity of 25mm?
 
BTW, most brochures specify resistance to 23mm. Does this explain the popularity of 25mm?

23mm was the main Soviet light AAA calibre, obviously a main threat for something Western and low flying. Plus the 23mm that made sorta of a come-back on Soviet/WarPac aircraft.
Western 25mm (several versions) features far more in sales brochures than in military inventories.
 
23mm was the main Soviet light AAA calibre, obviously a main threat for something Western and low flying. Plus the 23mm that made sorta of a come-back on Soviet/WarPac aircraft.
Western 25mm (several versions) features far more in sales brochures than in military inventories.

The Soviet Hind is brochure-specified resistant to 23mm fire. Sure, that means friendly fire isn't a problem. What I was speculating is Hind versus John Rambo and a 25mm Bushmaster.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
The 2mm in caliber difference won't give much help in penetration. Velocity, weight, and penetrator design are far more important.

You could take a 203mm gun, give it a heavy, short, blunt penetrator, and shoot it at like 700m/s, and a 90mm shooting 1950's APDS will outperform it.
 
If the Army wanted it, it could even come with a "Fan-tail". The Army couldn't speak French, so it wasn't a fenestron. So the Army has to want it instead of dedicated attack Apache without a six-pack of dudes in the cabin. The OTL decision was made before the crash.

The quote about a six pack of dudes, made me envisage someone walking to a 7-11 counter and asking for a helicopter.

"Hey man, can I have a helicopter with a 20 mm cannon, hellfire missiles, fan tail and, throw in a six-pack of dudes as well."

I think the S - 67 is the helicopter that I unknowingly had in mind, how could the S - 67 evolved over it's service history?

From reading the specifications it appears as if it would have been well suited for service in hot and high climates like Afghanistan.
 
I can't help think doing this compromises the effectiveness of both missions, & reduces survivability in attack.

IMO, you only do this if you don't have the industrial depth, & depth of training program, to support two dedicated types.
 
Top