As a former HH-3E pilot, I find the SH-60 replacement kind of short-legged. We had a cruise range on our Alaska models of about 5.5 hours with a 10% reserve. That translates to over 650 statute miles ON INTERNAL FUEL. Guess you have to give something up to get a faster platform (like being able to stand up in the cabin...) Humph. Give me the H-3 series, any day.
Having flown both types of aircraft (SH-3H, HH-3A and SH-60F/HH-60), there were some real tradeoffs. The Sea King was dependable, roomy, long legs 4.5+ hrs on internal fuel and had an amphibious capability. However, the H-60 airframe had some tremendous virtues over the H-3: speed, payload, better dependability, better survivability (both ballistic and crashworthyness), and easier to fly. For the Navy, endurance isn't as much of a concern. Having said that, the SH-60F, had about a 4.5 hr internal capacity with one external aux tank. Most HS squadrons routinely flew with them. The HH-60H usually was flown with two aux tanks, although that would change depending on the mission. All in all, I enjoyed the H-3 a little bit better, probably because it was my first helo. It was old slow and under powered, but it would always let you know when something bad was going to happen.
