Originally Posted by
ARRAKIS
A full list of FY 2023 reimbursement rates can be found below. Around 4 k$ for a UH-60M. Approximately 8 k$ for a CH-47F.
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Port...3/2023_b_c.pdf
EDIT
I'm just wondering, what would be, within the same organization, the rate for an AW101 comparing to a CH-47F?
Having studied the informative document at the link provided by ARRAKIS some weeks back, particularly the last two pages giving rates for rotary wing fleet, I have some questions regarding the rates listed as there are some curious features. Hopefully ARRAKIS or others might have some explanation:
(1) I assume O&M means "Operation and Maintenance" including fuel, parts and maintenance personnel costs but excluding aircrew costs?
(2) It looks like charge-out rates for "Other DoD components" waive the "MilPers" costs, however such costs are included when aircraft provided for other 'clients'. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) 'clients' are charged a somewhat higher rate for "MilPers" ranging between about 3-10% more than others, depending on the helicopter type. In any event, "MilPers" percentage of total rate for "All Other Users" remains as low as 0.7% to 10.7% so isn't particularly significant.
(3) I wasn't sure what "Asset Utl" account was about under the "All Other Users" category of 'client', but it turns out this is consistently about a 4% addition to the total charge-out rate beyond "O&M" + "MilPers".
(4) ARRAKIS noted the reimbursement rates for UH-60M was around 4 k$, or US$3,956 per hour to be precise. This is for the "O&M" component so excludes at least aircrew salaries. But looking across the range of UH-60 variants shown in the list, this "O&M" rate varies significantly from only US$2,697 for the Army MH-60K & L (special ops) variants to as much as US$6666 for the Air Force HH-60G (Pave Hawk) variant. That is almost a 4.3x difference. There is even a stark difference between the UH-60A (at US$6266) and the UH-60M (at US$3956). What could explain these significant differences? In contrast, there is no difference in reimbursable rate for CH-47D vs CH-47F versions of Chinook.
(5) How is it that reimbursable rate for HH-60G could be around 1.6x times that for the Chinook? Is it perhaps related to this being a limited fleet with a lack of 'economy of scale' for operation of the Air Force Pave Hawk?
I had originally intended to try to correlate costs against parameters such as installed power, MTOW etc, but given the broad spread of UH-60 variant rates there is obviously more to it than a narrow scatter about some basic cost trendlines!