NH-90 problems

[megan]

Does the RAAF have any role to play in Army aviation support? Not unknown for inter service rivalry to have a part to play, particularly as the RAAF lost the helos to the Army could there be knives out?

[pitchlink1]

AUS $2,7 billion saving might be very conservative

Originally Posted by Cyclic Hotline

This is an interesting counter-view on the actions taken with the Australian fleet, and a potentially identifiable source of some of the logistical issues. It is an interesting comparison between the experience of New Zealand and Australia, which has been discussed here in detail, but doesn't fully recognize the dissatisfaction expressed by other operators outside Australia, which is also discussed here.

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.c...nce-logistics/

Helicopters-There is nothing wrong with Tiger and Taipan – the problem is Defence logistics

An Australian Army MRH90 Taipan helicopter from 6th Aviation Regiment conducts reconnaissance at Shepparton, Victoria. Credit: CoA / Carolyn Barnett
By
Kym Bergmann / Canberra

(…)

Another issue in play is the figure being used by Army that retiring the MRH early rather than in 2037 will result in a $2.7 billion saving. The problem is that this improbably large number of $200 million per year can only be achieved if things are included that have no factual basis – such as equipment that isn’t needed or upgrades that don’t exist. It feels like someone has been given the job of finding a scary number and they have worked backwards to come up with the desired result. Defence has not responded to a request for a breakdown of the figure.

(…)
.

With 47 MRH90 each flying 300 hours per year and retirement is cut short with 30 years that equals 423 000 FH. The proposed saving of $2,7 billion divided by the FH gives a saving of $6k per FH. With a reported hourly cost of MRH90 of $50k per FH (which resonates well with other 90 users) and the FH cost of Hawks is $4-6k a saving of $6k/FH seems very conservative. Hence, the saving from early retirement is not $2,7 billion but three or four times that number. Possibly higher than $15 billion. Even if you add in the procurement cost of the new helicopters of $2,5 billion the saving is very substantial. Add better availability and less frustration and you have a extremely good case.

[noooby]

Originally Posted by pitchlink1

With 47 MRH90 each flying 300 hours per year and retirement is cut short with 30 years that equals 423 000 FH. The proposed saving of $2,7 billion divided by the FH gives a saving of $6k per FH. With a reported hourly cost of MRH90 of $50k per FH (which resonates well with other 90 users) and the FH cost of Hawks is $4-6k a saving of $6k/FH seems very conservative. Hence, the saving from early retirement is not $2,7 billion but three or four times that number. Possibly higher that $15 billion. Even if you add in the procurement cost of the new helicopters of $2,5 billion the saving is very substantial. Add better availability and less frustration and you have a extremely good case.

I'm sorry, why 30 years early? Isn't expected retirement, at least in the article you reference, set at 2037? That is 14 years away. That would be 197,400 hours.

I remember he Seasprite fiasco in RAN and how well they same airframe was operating in NZ. Looks to the same again with the -90.

[pitchlink1]

Originally Posted by noooby

I'm sorry, why 30 years early? Isn't expected retirement, at least in the article you reference, set at 2037? That is 14 years away. That would be 197,400 hours.

I remember he Seasprite fiasco in RAN and how well they same airframe was operating in NZ. Looks to the same again with the -90.

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.