Pretty sure we are not going to see 3 helos for every hanger capable ship in our navy just because Australia does it, if we tried to maintain every ratio they have we would go broke(er).
Just because a ship has a hanger does not mean it automatically needs to embark a helo, its all mission dependant, and the chances of all our helo capable ships being at sea at once are slim. If 2 vessels were to deploy to the same area whats to say 1 helo can't support both, its all about prioritising. Its abit like how the phalanxs can be moved around depending on where they are going. Canterbury does not take a helo everytime she leaves port meaning the hanger space and deck can be used for other things ala ex Hamel for things like extra vehicles or crew PT space.
No offense, but I think you misunderstand what the RAN is doing...
The RAN Future Naval Helicopter requirement was for 24 naval helicopters to ensure that 8 were available operationally at any given moment. That is not at all the same as the RAN having 3 helicopters for every RAN helicopter capable ship, or helispot. The RAN already does not have every vessel embarked with a helicopter, there are expected to be ~12 surface combatants, plus the AOR with a helipad, as well as the
Bay-class LPD and
Canberra-class LHD's, each of which can support a number of helicopters.
The reasoning behind the RAN requirement for 24:8 or a 3:1 ratio aircraft to operationally available is there is a normal requirement that at any given moment one aircraft is available and/or operational, one is undergoing a maintenance cycle, and the third is in training or being stood up for a deployment and standing down from one. With the 5 RNZAF Seasprites, using that same ratio, at any given moment, one Seasprite would be operationally available and/or deployed. Given that both RNZN combatants have been getting deployed simultaneously and frequently in different operating theatres, there is a need to maintain a helicopter from both vessels at the same time. The RNZAF does not quite have enough aircraft to do that and meet a 3:1 ratio, nevermind if any Seasprites are given other taskings or deployed from other NZDF or RNZN assets.
Actually, the shortage of Seasprites is IMO illustrative of a larger issue which the NZDF is facing and that the RAN faced and encountered problems with. As has been mentioned by myself and others, a 3:1 ratio is fairly normal for many military assets, to achieve a sustainable capability. In order to sustain a company-level troop deployment, three companies are needed. In order for a ship to be kept on station or available, three ships are needed. Same holds true with aircraft.
Unfortunately for the NZDF, some of these assets there are so few of, that they are not being kept to a 3:1 ratio and that seems to be leading to sustainable operation issues. As the trend continues, I suspect things will only get worse. Take the two
Anzac-class FFH's for example. They have frequently been sent on months-long deployments to the Mideast. Given that there are only two, if one is in the Mideast, then the other is available for operations within the S. Pacifc and/or around NZ, unless of course it has been taken into dock for a maintenance or overhaul cycle. If that were to be the case, then the RNZN would find itself with a combatant thousands of miles away, and unable to dispatch a warship to a local situation. The other alternative (which the RAN did to a degree on the amphibs and we know how that ended up) is for needed maintenance and overhaul cycles to be deferred. This can be done for some time, but it does catch up. Eventually, either the systems stop working until they are repaired/replaced, or the maintenance is finally done and usually costs more because more work, or more expensive work, needs to be completed.
The same holds true for units. If a unit is regularly cycled back and forth from an overseas or local deployment, without the training and standup or standdown cycles, then morale and readiness begins to suffer. Equipment starts needing to be replaced or receive major repairs if the needed overhauls are not done. Personnel lose interest and/or do not re-enlist if they are kept apart from their homes, familes and mates too often.
Fortunately things have not gotten so bad that Gov't expects the NZDF to have a single example of a type of asset and have that constantly available. Yet. All the same though, I do feel that Gov't and the public really need to be made aware if capability
nn is a requirement for certain level of output, then the planning should be to determine in a worst case scenario what would be needed to deliver
nn. So far, it seems as though much of the planning has been revolving around either best case scenarios, or Gov't dictating a requirement and level of funding, and the NZDF needing to scramble to make it work.
-Cheers
