Unusual Vietnam Hueys

Melgyver wrote:

Yes, it has M-60 door guns mounted!  Probably a 101st bird, I heard they armed theirs because of so much "fire" they would take up in the "north" country.  Only bad thing about doing a "hoist" mission is no crew member to man the "60".  The pilot could control the hoist but it would have been tough for him not being able to see what was going on below him.

Up north you often had to fly thru valleys, and found yourself constantly look up over your shoulders as well as what's beside you. The NVA loved to place four or five 51's or 50's on each side of the valley, and one in front of you. It was sorta like running the gauntlet. They'd wait for you to skim over the top of a hill, and as you came over they'd shoot the bird up from underneath. Then with your attention looking down fire would come from the sides. Thus the development of a second gunship running about thirty seconds behind the first one. I always seemed to find myself in the first bird. If you happened to be lucky enough to get to be part of an insertion on the Lao border you also got to know 37mm AA, and once in a great while a 57mm. If the coptor was carrying an external load it was considered prime meat, and they always had a couple fast movers on standby. Had to be tough or just plain nuts to fly one of those things. Might also add that it wasn't exactly a picnic shooting out the sides of one. If you think the guy's burning the NVA up, your kidding yourself. Rarely does he actually see them right off, and when he does they're shooting from three or four different places at him. Life expentancey for a door gunner was not a good thing.

gary

Randy,

Sure, I'd have thought that they'd have gone with the F-style suppressor too if they were going to use it on the H model Huey.  Thing is, that's the only shot I've ever seen of an H with a disco ball.  Could it be that the F suppressor upset the CG too much to install so they scrubbed it altogether?  Either that, or by the time the 144 was coming in service, the Blackhawk was already the primary utility helicopter and it was determined that the Huey didn't need it.

Jon

Cobrahistorian wrote:

Ray, I definitely think that's an odd shot.  Looking at the markings on it, I'd say it was probably a test bird of some type.  The 144 installation is very odd, and I think that it was probably not adopted.  If you look at its proximity to the upturned exhaust, I'd think that it probably didn't work too well in that position.  Can't really go into much detail on it, but that's my thought. Jon

If the exhaust was an issue they could have went with the later AH-1F - S style.  The ALQ looks like the same config and location as that and it worked well enough to implement on the AH.

Yep! 

He's actually installing it there too, which is intriguing in its own right.  It is amazing how much crap the Huey has actually carried throughout its career.  I agree with you about the twin 30mm pods though.  That is just too cool!

Jon

Jon,

  Thanks, I figured it wasn't a very workable setup, but the photo proves they tried it at least once.  But then again, the Army stuck just about every helo mod it could think of on a Huey at some point! 

    Ray
 

Ray,

I definitely think that's an odd shot.  Looking at the markings on it, I'd say it was probably a test bird of some type.  The 144 installation is very odd, and I think that it was probably not adopted.  If you look at its proximity to the upturned exhaust, I'd think that it probably didn't work too well in that position.  Can't really go into much detail on it, but that's my thought.

Jon

Steve,

  Nice shot!  Have you ever seen any H models with the 144 kit?

         Ray
 

Hey Ray,

Since you didn't specify "Model" and you "temporarily departed VN"......here is a Huey with the 144 kit.  I flew with the kit since the late 70s.

Regards
Steve

Ok, I know I'm cheating a little here since this is definitely NOT a Vietnam era Huey, but has anyone else ever seen a UH-1 with a AN/ALQ-144 IR jammer before?  I would be really interested to hear from you if you have.  Perhaps this isn't as unusual as it seems.

[img]http://[

Here's the acompanying text:

[img]http://[

I don't know what to make of all the marks through the text.  Maybe this wasn't taken in '78, but it does seem to have been taken at Ft. Drum, NY.

   Ray
 

Time for a change of direction here on the Unusual Huey thread.  How about a photo of the incredibly rare M5 cleaning system!

   Ray
 

[img]http://[

Chief,

  I am a scientist for SCIENCE not for me. I enjoy sharing data and discoveries with my collegues and I could really care less whether the general public thinks I'm the one who made the discoveries or not.  Those few of us who study dinosaurs for a living know what's what and their respect is all that's really important to me.  A hundred years from now no one will care that I figured out sauropod limb bones grow isometrically.  However, if that data helps a new scientist make his or her mark and allows them to be a success then I am more than happy for them to use my work.  Besides, all the good guys give credit to me in their acknowlegements if I had anything to do with their results.  I'm a teacher by trade and sharing data is my goal in that capacity.  I guess it's just part of who I am.  No worries though, I'm officially off the XM-26 research band wagon pending publication of Jon's book (which I am sure will be most excellent).

   Ray
 

Don't know if that's stupid but if you know it has merit and it was something you could take credit for, why didn't you do it?

Chief Snake 

Jon,

  Sorry man. I didn't mean anything negative.  I just meant personal pride in my ability to conduct research and find info.  It's not MY project.  It's history as I see it and the documents are public and thus belong to us all.  You are one of the nicest guys I have ever met and I definitely don't want to offend you or Chief Snake.  I should have ceased and desisted a while ago, but I'm a little stubborn in that area I guess.  I will post no more on this subject as per your request.  Please accept my most humble apologies.  I should rememebr, Pride goes before a fall!

   Ray 

PS: For what it's worth, I have given my complete measurements of 700 specimens to at least half a dozen people and have yet to publish the data myself.  Kinda stupid, huh? 

Ray, at this point your propensity for documentation of fact is overreaching the neccessity. For some reason the kill markings on both aircraft have a pattern. That is VERY unusual but could be a matter of the commanders' authority. The combinations of parts spelled out show on one airframe but not the other. The pattern of paint show on one airframe, not the other. The conclusions lean one way, not the other. The ability to pinpoint with absolute certainty is yet undiscovered. It may never be discovered concerning that one photo. If it's your personal pride that demands that absolute certainty, you have my regards. If you prove it the way you want, you have satisfied your personal pride. Will you take something from me? I have nothing for you to take. I'm a schmoe who likes helicopters; I don't publish books, I don't work in a museum. I have experience and knowledge that serve me in the needs I have or develop. Personal pride took a ship out of town for me years ago. Respect for the obvious is my main tenet.

Chief Snake 

Personal pride?  When did this become your project?

That is 554 probably in the first week of May 72.   After comparing numerous photos, we know that they had a standardized kill marking pattern.  Tanks up top, trucks below on the left, artillery pieces on the right.  Through the discussion here, I've been able to do some research and develop my historical knowledge of the teams.  

While I appreciate the historical debate here, I think I'm going to have to stop.  Too much of this information is getting out there and I'd like to have something to write about along with the interviews I am conducting.  Would you publish your findings on a new Apatasaurus knee discovery before you'd gotten it published?  We can talk circles around when certain antennas were removed from a particular aircraft until the cows come home.  Fact is, the bird doesn't have them now and dated photos of it in Vietnam don't have it either.  When they were removed is irrelevant.   

Jon 

Chief,

  Here's the point about the nose antenna. You stated earlier:

"The one constant in identifying one airframe from the other is the nose FM posts. Regardless of the other variations of paint, VHF blades, toilet bowls and kill tallies 553 had the nose posts removed, 554 still has them to this day."

  We now know that is not the case.  For instance, I posted this photo earlier:

[img]http://[

The only reason I can see for assuming this is 554 is the nose mounted antenna and possibly the dark VHF blade antenna.  Both you and Jon indicated that 554 wasn't known to have kill marks. Since this bird lacks the anti-strella package, it stands to reason it is a very early photo.  Why couldn't it be 553 BEFORE the antennas were removed.  As I clearly demostrated earlier, there are at least three distinctly different cammo patterns on birds with nose mounted FM antennas.  I guess the ultimate reason it's importnat to me is that I try to back up any conclusions I make with phtographic evidence or written documentation.  I definitely don't have all the answers and I certainly don't have the experience you guys do, but I woudl like for our efforts to ultimately make the picture clearer not add more layers of uncertainty.  I'm sorry if I seem nitpicky, but that's just the nature of being an anatomist I guess.  Ultimately, NONE of these nitpicky details are going to change history or the impact of the XM-26 on the Vietnam War.  It's just a matter of personal pride.

   Ray
 

None. But does it matter? There are as of yet no pictures of it in Vietnam with the antennas. But there are pictures of two distinct aircraft in Vietnam, one with them on and one with them off. Logic says that in the course of 553's probable use in the demo role they got removed, but that's not proof of anything. Sometimes there are questions that are raised that really have not got a clear answer unless you can find the individual/people that were directly involved. And I'd like to ask what the impact is of determining when they came off? Of course looking through the historical log would probably give the answer to most every single question one may have involving an airframes' history. My only guess about the import of so miniscule a fact would be if I was building a model of an airplane/aircraft as it appeared on a GIVEN day in time. THEN it might make a difference depending the degree of correctness required in the construction. The photo of 60-3553 in high vis paints with a bogus tail number leans strongly at being a taken in Germany (attributed?) during a demo for NATO allies. The topography leans to Germany, not the California ranges used by Hughes. Jon has discovered a Feb 1967 issue of National Guard Magazine that has artists renderings of two TOW gunships with the goofy 212553 and 212554 serials. From that I am led to believe that 60-3553 and 60-3554 were allocated to the TOW program (probably as demo airframes) prior to Feb 1967. The artist had to make his renderings from something, the picture of 60-3553 with an altered serial makes a perfect  candidate. The artists rendering and the photo show 60-3553 with the FM nose posts in place. The serial sequence of 212553 is not in accordance with US Army marking specifications which call for the serial to be 5 numbers. The exception for six numbers is the addition of a leading 0- in specified cases. So for reasons not exactly established it appears that the artists altered the TOW pod configuration and copied the altered (incorrect/bogus) serial number from the existing photo of 60-3553 during a demo firing. The date of photo is not established but it could have been from late 1966 (likely) or as late as early 1971. Taking the possibility (low) that the photo is 1971 then 60-3553 could have had it's nose posts that late. They don't show up in Vietnam photos early 1972. Somewhere between late 1966 and early 1972, they got removed. As for a photo proving they were removed prior to getting to Vietnam, I don't know of one nor do I know of one showing them in place IN Vietnam. The importance of the removal date escapes me at this time. 60-3553 did have them, no question. Pictures and evidence of removal attest to that. Logic, and only assumed logic, is that at some point during the demo phase (high use rate) they would be removed because they got in the way.

There clearly now is evidence of four NUH helicopters. There are pictures of 1 civil airframe designated with an army serial (64-18261) and fitted with a sighting system (Oct 1965) and has written attribution as being NUH-1B 64-18261 ( US Army Aircraft since 1947 Stephen Harding). There are photos of two NUH-1B designated helicopters with US Army serials 60-3553 and 60-3554 fitted with XM-26 pods and the needed sighting systems. Written evidence points to the existence of two completed sighting systems and 5 completed XM-26 pod systems. Written evidence defines the existence of an UH-1M used in the Cheyenne development, written evidence claims the existence of a single NUH-1M 63-8684, it is only assumed that the airframe was equiped with both pods and sighting system associated with NUH designated helicopters and was the UH-1M used in Cheyenne testing.. That accounts for all four NUH helicopters. The airframe UH-1C 64-14105 shows up equipped with XM-26 pods but the needed sighting system is unseen. The serial 64-14105 has no written or physical evidence of being attributed the NUH designation. So five airframes associated with the TOW exist, but only four NUH designations exist.

Now what?

Chief Snake 

Chief,

   "We've been looking too hard. That number is a replacement for whatever reason. It's art on 60-3553."

I agree, Chief that's what i said a couple of posts ago.  What is interesting to me is that if we accept that it is 60-3553, the photo clearly shows the XM-26 installed AND the nose antenna.  Exactly when were the antennas removed?  You both said in the states, but I have no documentation to indicate that.  What source do you have that clearly shows 60-3553 without nose antennae BEFORE it went to Vietnam?

    Ray
 

Also, I've been focusing on the combat application of the TOW system in Vietnam.  I have the information for the test phase but I have PURPOSELY not looked at it.  It isn't relevant except for basic information.  I have a tentative publishing deal on this book already and will be starting my research in earnest once I get back from the AH-64A course. 

Jon

We've been looking too hard. That number is a replacement for whatever reason. It's art on 60-3553.

Chief Snake 

Ray,

Nuts because I've got all of the documents, but I haven't had access to them and I've been posting strictly from memory.  The tail number issue is rather frustrating, but I am sure that 60-3553 is the correct bird and since it is in the same collection with 60-3554 I'm tending to think that that is correct as well.  I don't know what the deal is with 62-12553.  I do know that a historic aircraft like that wouldn't have been sold to Chile and its XM-26 system fitted to another aircraft with the same last 3 digits.  Considering the museum has a second XM-26 system (from what i've been told. I haven't seen it), I think there was a screw up with tail numbers somewhere along the line.  I do plan on getting down to Andrews AFB to check on 62-12554 that is supposedly there once I get back from Arizona. 

In fact, if you look at the tail number on 212553 there, is it just me, or does that second 2 look like it overpaints a 3?

Jon

Chief,

  I was very happy when I found that paragraph.  It's nice to know I didn't "invent history."  I was very annoyed at myself for possibly having been taken in by a hoax.  There is NO doubt that 553 and 554 were in the test program prior to VN based on my readings of the available formerly classified TOW documents.  In fact, it seems more likely that the photo I posted is 553 with a doctored serial than 261 with a doctored serial.  It's just the FM antenna that might make you think otherwise.   What I want to know is why doctor the serial numbers at all?  What possibly sercurity reason could they have had for changing the serial to ANOTHER UH-1B serial number?  i could understand if they wanted the serial to match a different model of Huey, but why change it to a number that is also valid.  You guys lost me on that one.  It seems to me that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and you have older drawings showing it was a duck, it might just be a duck!  I'll keep digging on my end and you guys do the same. We'll figure this thing out eventually.  By the way, here's another interesting paragraph:

[img]http://[

Maybe 14105 was converted to an M after all.  However, this could also be the elusive 5th TOW bird since the picture I first posted of 14105 are from a 1971 article.  Anyway, i thought you might be interested.

    Ray
 

You know, I saw that when skimming the document and didn't catch the XM-26 designation. It doesn't say the helicopter itself was used in the test firings though. I had the impression they were fired from the ground rather than the air. It doesn't make sense that they would ship a highly secure project aircraft overseas to test fire it UNLESS they were trying to demonstrate something to NATO allies to get them in on the project. Is that addressed in there? So, if the system was indeed being shopped around then it falls into place that the aircraft known as 553 and 554 could have been made available for the system tests/demonstrations which gives rise to the "possible" use of phony serial numbers in the interest of security. I think the aircraft identified as 60-3553 and 60-3554 are the two legit combat aircraft, period. But I think the serial number boondoggle is a security measure. Jon says there is no such thing as coincidence and the 553 and 554 pop up much earlier (in art work and an article) than a quick read of the report led me to believe. That leaves me to think that both aircraft could have been involved or attached to the TOW development much earlier than the deployment to Vietnam. The wording of the report is vague about the location of the aircraft but does pretty much suggest that a system was removed from an aircraft in California and another stored system was shipped along with it to Ft Lewis to make up the deployment package. There must be some elements of the development/sales story that have been skimmed over or deemed irrelevant for the report content. I hadn't considered that possibility but it sure is sensible when you see just who DID wind up using the system, even though on different airframes.

Chief Snake 

Jon,

  Nuts because you didn't see the paragraph or nuts because it now seems clear the Army DID test the TOW in Germany?

          Ray
 

I figured that was how you would read that, Chief!

  How about this document:

[img]http://

  Somehow the title and CONFIDENTIAL notices make me think this wasn't a propaganda piece!

H ere is a paragraph from this document:

[img]http://What do you think about that?

   Ray
 

Wow, Redstone and the guys being fuzzy? Imagine that!

Chief Snake 

Anything you read in an unsecure publication about a security protected system is bound to be full of half truths or disinformation. Temper the information with the time of release and the global situation. In hindsight, the now unclassified documents and the un-doctored photographic evidence tells the truth. Sometimes photo doctoring/censoring is easily picked out, sometimes not. Also, having experience within the military enviroment makes it easier to understand the realities of something as opposed to the unclassified dissemination of noteworthy developments. Simply considering how and what words are used can make a huge difference. Does team leader mean unit commander? Maybe, maybe not. But the unclassified documentation consistantly points to, by name, Bentley Hill as the TOW Team Commander. He led one team or detachment also. The other mentioned name led a team also, the other detachment? In history, people will vie for recognition in very covert ways but if you corner them on it they can point to the words they use and twist them away from be called a liar.

Why would Redstone correct an article if the point of the article was to illustrate the technology available to the audience existing at the time. The nit-picking details you are getting confused over are inconsequential because they protect the security of the system at the time and place that the information is being released. And by the time the system became declassified the information in the article was well known worldwide anyway. Why correct something that for the time wasn't incorrect? Factually, the real information is available and has been garnered and reviewed. The fact that it doesn't agree with unclassified public release information is perfectly acceptable as required for the times.

Chief Snake 

Ray,

I don't know about the tail number. I know what I've seen.  I know what hard data I've accumulated.  After reading that article in-depth, it makes sense.  I missed McInnish's reference to US trials.  Had I not seen that, I'd still be skeptical.  But he does refer to the US testing of the system.  Also our guys had not fired LIVE missiles by that time.  They did fire missiles with live motors and dummy warheads, just like the Germans fired.  Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately for them) the Germans actually DID fire a live missile as their demonstration test firing. 

I am, however, still not sure about the tail number.  That doesn't make sense.  Could it have been doctored?  Sure.  Changed on the aircraft?  Sure (although it is a valid UH-1B tail number).  The answer is out there and I'm gonna find it.

I'm finding that the more I know about these aircraft and their mission, the more I realize just how much I don't know.  But I will figure it out, and soon.

Jon