Originally Posted by
pitchlink1
ADF orders for 12 MRH90 in 2005 and 34 in 2006 were not completed on time and not considered at FOC until 2015. A retirement in 2037 would leave only 22 operational years which is far less than expected when the system was purchased in 2005 and 2006. Hence planned retirement time must be calculated from FOC, not delivery. Regardless of whether retirement is cut short of 14 or 30 years the cost saving estimate of 2,6bn seems very conservative. If we use your 14 years and 300 FH per year the saving is 13k per FH which still seems very low compared to the reported actual difference in cost (6k vs 50k). Even if you add in the procurement cost of the new AC the numbers are greatly in favor of a swap.
I find it staggering that cost per flying hour of a UH-60M could be $4-6k while it is $50k for an MRH-90. Is this really comparing apples with apples? What is included in these figures? maintenance?, fuel?, crew costs?, other nominally fixed annual sustainment costs?
In an interview with Defence Connect, MAJGEN Jeremy King is indicating cost per flying hour of UH-60M will be around $10-14k per hour (presumably AUD), so those are already quite different figures, and he also says this is "a third of what we’re paying now” [for MRH-90] hence implying $30-42k per hour for MRH-90, so lower than the $50k:
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/la...wk-acquisition
But regardless, even a 3x difference in operating cost per hour seems a lot for what otherwise seem broadly similar helicopters. So what is the explanation for this? Inconsistent accounting? Some or multiple elements of maintenance or spares for the MRH-90 being incredibly expensive (to the point of being a rip-off)? Is there anything on the public record that explains this in more detail than just the overall figures? Equally informative would be to see how these figures may have varied over the years and whether they have been reducing, remained steady, or perhaps even increased (in real terms) as the capability 'matured'.
The cost of the 40 UH-60M has been reported as US$1.95B. Not sure what this includes apart from the helicopters themselves, but this equates to ~US$50M per aircraft. If we factor this cost up from 40 to 47 helicopters (to compare to the number of MRH-90's we had), it would still amount to a significant AUD 3.5B now having to be invested earlier than previously intended.
Lets hope the capability and cost benefit assessment for the UH-60M is more robust than the acquisition process for the MRH-90 seems to have been based on the ANAO's audit of the project, some of which I have skimmed through to try to understand what had gone wrong:
https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/defaul...13-2014_52.pdf
Part of it says:
...This led to a Defence recommendation to the Minister for Defence in June 2004 that the S‐70M Black Hawk be selected as the preferred aircraft for Phases 2 and 4.
...In accordance with direction provided by the Minister for Defence and government, Defence developed alternate draft submissions, initially to ask ministers to choose between the two aircraft options—the MRH90 and S‐70M Black Hawk—and later recommending acquisition of the MRH90 for Phase 2 only...
How interesting it would be to be a fly on the wall for some of the meetings.