SHAH ALAM:A Google search revealed that the base price for an Airbus H225 helicopter (the civilian version of the H225M or EC725 AP) is around US$30 million or RM126 million. The Aircraft Calculator website even stated that the average price of a pre-owned H225 is around US$13 million or RM54 million.
It stated that the cost of operating a single H225 helicopter for an hour of flight was about US$3K or RM12K (this was based on a $5.12 average price for the aviation fuel). The details are below:
Depending on numerous factors, the average price for a pre-owned AIRBUS H225/Eurocopter EC 225 is $13,000,000.00. A $6,500,000.00 loan over 120 months including $27083.33 per month in-interest equates to a $325,934.14 per-period payment. Based on 450 annual owner-operated hours and $5.12-per-gallon fuel cost, the AIRBUS H225/Eurocopter EC 225 has total variable costs of $1,117,468.80, total fixed costs of $372,497.50, and an annual budget of $1,489,966.30. This breaks down to $3,311.04 per hour.
Why I am talking about the H225 helicopter then? Well, I have been told that a number of companies will be offering the grounded MHS H225 helicopters to meet the requirement for the leasing of helicopters for the Army Air Wing or Pasukan Udara Tentera Darat (PUTD). The requirement came about following the retirement of the Nuri helicopters by the RMAF in 2019. At that time PUTD were operating at least four Nuri in the utility roles out of 12 they were supposed to get from RMAF.
PUTD had earlier asked a new medium helicopter – in the Black Hawk class – circa 2010 to 2014 but it was shot down in favor of getting the Nuri kept in storage with Airod. Apart from saving money – most of the Army money was sucked by the AV8/Gempita programme during that time period – it also helped Airod as the RMAF also wanted to buy new helicopters which they eventually did with the EC725/H225 but limited to 12 airframes only.
I was told that since the grounding and subsequent retirement of the Nuri, the PUTD aircrew assigned to the unit has had limited flight hours only. With RMAF leasing AW139 helicopters from Weststar Aviation Services Sdn Bhd, I was told that the Defence Ministry was amenable to a similar programme for the PUTD.
And despite the H225 offer, it is likely that the AW139 will prevail I am told as it is already in service and it will take just a variation order of the RMAF contract to add additional air frames for PUTD usage. If this happens I am guessing the RMAF will continue to use their EC725 to haul cannons and other things for the Army when and if needed (as with the lead picture).
— Malaysian Defence
View Comments (48)
Perhaps they should look at AW149? Both AW149 and black hawk is in the same category
Yes perhaps when funding is available for procurement
If they really can do VA order, they should have done that to the RMN AW139 buy. Add VA order for RMAF instead of the really expensive leasing.
BTW, MHS is fully owned by Boustead (and indirectly LTAT). Why are other parties that are offering those helicopters? So can do 200-300% markups? If Petronas can give so much to the military for free (UAVs, auxiliary ships, sea base, PASKAL weapons), why cant MHS pass those helicopters to RMAF for free too (or probably in exchange of tax cuts?)
As for used EC225, there is one for sale by Bristow US LLC for just 1.5 million dollars. It is in full SAR configuration.
Also by Bristow US LLC a 2014 version with just 1000 hours is up for 6 million dollars.
For PUTD, there are plenty of blackhawks around, that you can even get for free.
Agreed. Compared with the smaller AW139, the AW149 is closer in size and performance to the venerable Blackhawk. Still I would have pushed to get S70i civvie config with minimal or no modifications off the production line for USD $15mil each, simply for the ultra dependability, reliability, servicing, track record, and flexible adaptability. A militarised Caracal that is double the price of an S70i is way overkill for utility needs. We just need a dependable workhorse not a glam princess.
On paper a Cougar can perform the respective roles required by the army and RMAF an ideally for commonality both services should operate a common type. The key question is what does the RMAF about the Cougar? Does it desire follow on ones or does it for whwhatever ever reasons wants something else? As gonggok has pointed out, why does the RMAF have a requirement for 36? Is it due to concerns that it will still have t fill in for the army? As it stands the army's manpower k vel.and ground support infrastructure is somewhat limited and stretched. It took longer than expected getting ready for the Nuris.
Also, in this day and age stuff like a FLIR, INS, HUMS and glass cockpit are considered essentials; not luxuries.
Why would anyone want to get the AW149?
There are only 3 users of those in the whole world.
- thai police
- thai army
- egyptian army
By the way S-70 is simply the Sikorsky designation for the H-60. S-70 is not a civvie version of the H-60. As is the S-61 is the Sikorsky designation for H-3. RMAF S-61A-4 Nuri for example is not a civvie version of SH-3 Sea King.
Other examples aussie blackhawks are called S-70A-9. RMAF whitehawks are S-70A-34. If it is not called H-60 something, it just means that it is bought directly from Sikorsky, not through the US government.
Azlan- why does the RMAF have a requirement for 36? Is it due to concerns that it will still have t fill in for the army?
Think you explained it quite well yesterday. Every agency has a slightly different requirements while the gov want commonalities.
So it wouldn't hurt if they try their best to monopolies the acquisition to get the best platform that fit their own need best being chosen.
On top of heli it does seem TD & AF fought over who get to choose & operate GBAD while CG & RMN over OPV & FAC.
@gonggok
Yes,and?
Don't forget we're also considered as early adopter to EC725 and Super Lynx. Hell we also bought A400M, which, unlike EC725 or Super Lynx or even AW149, didn't have any legacy design to fall on and yet despite some teething issues, we're generally happy with it and it even opens up capability previously unavailable to, say, C-130
5Zaft - "while the gov want commonalities"
It's the armed services who desire greater commonality as they are the ones who have to deal with the mess.
5Zaft - "So it wouldn’t hurt if they try their best to monopolies the acquisition"
The final decision lies with the politicians and bureaucrats. The armed services are conscious of the need to reduce the logistical/support footprint.
5Zaft - On top of heli it does seem TD & AF fought over who get to choose & operate GBAD while CG & RMN over OPV & FAC"
No they didn't. The RMAF has long agreed that GAPU will evaluate whatever MANPADs are considered and that GAPU will have an integrated and layered GBAD. The RMAF interested medium range systems for installation.defemce. THe RMN has no need for FACs; nor does the MMEA and the closest the RMN wanted as far as OPVs go are follow on Kedahs fully fitted specific roles - unlikely. They never "fought" over those issues.
Azlan,
"The RMAF interested medium range systems for installation.defemce"
You don't use a medium range SAM just for installation defence. Medium wange SAM is usually used for wide area defence, such as a whole city. It has also been agreed that all land-based air defence will be under the coordination of GAPU. So why does RMAF plans to have medium range SAM, instead of leaving it to GAPU?
"They never “fought” over those issues"
Probably. But clearly they have not discussed the requirements among them. It can be seen from the duplications that their requirements are not discussed with other stakeholders. Which is why we can see
- both RMAF and PUTD has the same requirement to replace the Nuri
- RMN and MMEA fleet plans clash with each other, with RMN spending so much budget for patrol boats.
With proper deconflictions, budgets would be saved and priority could be given to important capabilities.
For example
- Leaving Nuri replacement and medium range SAM to the army will free more budget for RMAF to get more LCA/FLIT, AEW&C, Electronic Attack, and UCAVs.
- Leaving OPV and all patrol boats to MMEA will free more budget for RMN to get proper fighting frigates and submarines.
Dundun - Don’t forget we’re also considered as early adopter to EC725 and Super Lynx."
Both were based on widely used platforms and had already been operated/ordered by others.
Dundun - ". Hell we also bought A400M, which, unlike EC725 or Super Lynx or even AW149, didn’t have any legacy design to fall on"
By and large it's consisted not ideal to order something which hasn't even entered service or which is only operated by a few users. Other countries have the resources to withstand the impact if things going ratshit; we don't. We rejected the S-92 on the grounds it hasn't been ordered by anyone; as we did with various other things.
Dundun - .it even opens up capability previously unavailable"
That's with the benefit of hindsight. Things could have gone the other way; we were lucky. Cash for the A400Ms were also diverted from other things.