Originally Posted by
helispotter
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.
Yes - it is astonishing the price difference should be so high, but if you count in the MGB comes of the NH90 and into overhaul ten-times as often as on a Hawk, parts are not manufactured, extreme long lead times, corrosion on the airframe due to questionable design and everything takes time leading to 45 maintenance hours/flight hour and you sum up all this, yes then you explain much.
One must assume the MAJGEN Jeremy King compares apples to apples. However, the Aussies has not operated the UH-60M before, and he might be comparing to the older S-70s which are more expensive in operation. The Swedes have operated the UH-60M for over ten years and with a much smaller fleet than what Aussies are planning, and they have operated the NH90 for equally long: They should be in a perfect position to make comparable analysis: They claim FH cost of SEK 40 000, approx. USD 4 000 for UH-60M and close to USD 25 000 for the NH90.
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/bl...-per-flygtimme
https://www.svd.se/a/1kOo8M/forsvare...00000-i-timmen
In Norway the CHOD reported an hourly cost of NOK 600 000 (approx. USD 60 000) per flight hours with the NH90. In addition to cost of sourcing new pilots to replace the ones that left the armed forces because they could not get enough flight hours to stay current and motivated.
https://www.finansavisen.no/nyheter/...sso_ott=7sqsBn
With regards to the cost of acquiring the Black Hawk you are basing your comment on the public figure of USD 1,98bn as reported by DCSA for a FMS case. That number is not necessarily accurate or could not be allocated to only accusation of the helicopters but also a lot of spares, support, training, tools, and ground support. The baseline price of a fly-away M is approx. +/- MUSD 20.
Wit 40 aircraft flying 300 hrs. each over 30 years the total number of flight hours is 360 000 and if you split the probably very high estimate of procurement on those flight hours you get USD 5 500 per flight hour in procurement cost. With a saving of USD 20 000 per flight hour a swap from the one to the other will save Australian taxpayers USD 7,2bn with procurement of the new system included. Even if you chop the saving per flight hour in half – you still see a USD 3,6bn saving by swapping fleet rather than continuing with what you have. And a positive side effect is that the aircraft will deliver the flight hours you need without needing 20 technicians for each airframe – being a scare resource around qualified technicians should not be used as patches for an aircraft that does not deliver.