[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

You can bet those pajama wearing crew chiefs don't like it. But it proves the CH-47 is a workhorse, so much so I heard rumor the Air Force was thinking of dropping the Ch-53 in favor of the 47,
- Shawn

It was indeed selected as the CSAR-X platform. Sikorsky successfully contested its selection, but what this actually means for the future of the HH-47 isn't entirely clear. The irony is that in 1962, the Air Force reluctantly selected the CH-3 over its first choice, the CH-47, because it wasn't yet mature enough. 45 years later the Air has finally gone back to its first choice, which will in all likelihood still be in service 45 years from now.

The altitude performance of the Air Force 53s in Afghanistan was fairly poor, especially compared to the Army's 47s. Undoubtedly, this informed the contract decision to a great extent.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Shawn 507

You can bet those pajama wearing crew chiefs don't like it. But it proves the CH-47 is a workhorse, so much so I heard rumor the Air Force was thinking of dropping the Ch-53 in favor of the 47,
- Shawn

The HH-47 will replace the HH-60, not the MH-53 in the Air Force. The HH-60 is used for SAR/CSAR, whereas the MH-53 is a special ops (AFSOC) airframe (granted, sometimes used for SCAR also, but no primary function). The MH-53 will be replaces by the CV-22 Osprey (AF version of MV-22).

However, there are problems right now with other contractors appealing the choice of the Boeing HH-47 for the CSAR-X competition, so nothing is quite set yet.

FVD

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by FormerViperDriver

The HH-47 will replace the HH-60, not the MH-53 in the Air Force. The HH-60 is used for SAR/CSAR, whereas the MH-53 is a special ops (AFSOC) airframe (granted, sometimes used for SCAR also, but no primary function). The MH-53 will be replaces by the CV-22 Osprey (AF version of MV-22).

However, there are problems right now with other contractors appealing the choice of the Boeing HH-47 for the CSAR-X competition, so nothing is quite set yet.

FVD

True, but the altitude performance of the 53s may well have biased the S-92 (in many ways an evolution of the 53, though a completely new airframe) in favor of the HH-47. The 101 never really had a chance on this one. Sikorsky was indeed successful in gaining official recognition that their contract protest had merit, but what this means for the final decision isn't clear, but it will be highly unlikely that the HH-47 will be unseated.