Thanks John good catch, the RAN definitely is only intended to operate six of the proposed MRH fleet.
What I find interesting though is because a certain number of platforms or airframes are ordered it is often seen to be the ideal or final total that will ever be needed/desired/procured. While the numbers are often determined by role i.e. six is fine to support VERTREP from two AORs plus other anticipated utility missions the RAN foresees sometime the numbers are limited by availability, funding, crewing, logistics support assets, or platforms to operate from.
Vonnoobie mentioned specific number in his earlier post as if they were set in concrete, i.e. there was no point acquiring a helicopter carrier as the FAA doesn't will never have enough helicopters to justify it. The reason we ordered 24 verses 29 or 50 MH-60Rs is because that is what was needed to support a force of 11-12 major combatants.
Not so long ago the plan was for 16 SH-60Bs and 11 Super Sea Sprites to support a force of eight ANZACs and six modernised FFGs, the only reason we don't have this force is because the Super Sea Sprite procurement was stuffed up, as was the FFGUP. But for the almost $2 billion and the several years wasted by these two projects the RAN should have been operating fourteen major combatants, 16 upgraded Seahawks (with Penguin) and 11 Super Sea Sprites, with four AWDs coming into service. The reason we don't have this is not because it wasn't wanted, needed or funded, but because the projects were stuffed up and we had to spend more to get less, paid for, in part by cutbacks in numbers.
With the 11 AWD's and Frigates (and even if a 9th Frigate was eventually ordered to make 12), the number of MH-60R's appears to be about right.
Of the 24 eventually in inventory, having a guarantee of 8 available to be deployed at any one time would seem to cover things. Out of the 11 AWD's and Frigates, I wouldn't imagine that any more than 8 of those ships would be on deployment at any one time, certainly at peace time operating tempo.
But I do also remember, at the announcement of the order for the 24 MH-60R's, the Government did also say that there was a built-in 'surge' capability if and when required too, again, I think the number of MH-60R's is pretty well spot on.
As for the RAN's 6 MRH-90's, well I can't help but think that 6 is a bit 'light on'.
The two new AOR's (regardless of design selected) are, I believe, going to be capable of operating two medium lift airframes, but most likely only one airframe at a time (in peace time), then of course there is Choules, so there's another airframe that could be deployed on operations too.
So that's half of the RAN's MRH-90 fleet accounted for, and that doesn't take into account maintenance or having a back up or two available. Then to top it of, if the RAN was ever planning to have an MRH-90 regularly deployed on the LHD's.
I can't help but think that the RAN could probably do with up to another 4 airframes in it's pool of MRH-90's to cover all of the above.
The simple solution would be to rebalance the ratio of Army to RAN airframes out of the MRH-90 pool, but of course that would take capability away from the Army.
The next simplest solution would be to add another, say, 4 airframes to the order and increase it to 50 active airframes (plus the additional airframe that is going to be delivered as a training aid).
A third solution (we were discussing this over in the Army thread recently) is when the Special Forces eventually retire their Black Hawks, what happens then?
It may be that the SF's may just have to make do with the existing Army MRH-90 airframes (possibly with a SF upgrade kit to some that the French are investigating), which could also lead to the possibility of more MRH-90 airframes specific for that role.
And lastly, if the MRH-90's are definitely not capable of being used by the SF's, then that could open the door for the addition of another type, such as the MH-60S.
A purchase of, say, 20-24 MH-60S could end up being split between the Special Forces and Navy, Navy could then hand back it's MRH-90's to Army (increases the Army pool), and allows Navy to have a utility airframe that has a lot of commonality with the MR-60R.
So there's my list of options, from easiest (and cheapest), to less likely (and most expensive too!).
As to the order for the 11 SH-2G's for the Anzac Frigates, I do remember that at an earlier stage, there was also the possibility of 'up to' another 16 airframes being ordered, I remember that the Government had a whole bunch of additional retired SH-2F airframes reserved in the US for that possibility.
And that was at the time when Australia and Malaysia were both looking at the joint class of OPV/OCV's, which of course didn't happen and we ended up replacing the FCPB's with the ACPB's instead.
EDIT: One point I forgot to comment on.
You mentioned the 16 SH-60B's and the 11 SH-2G's, making a total of 27 airframes and now the RAN has 24 MH-60R airframes.
Whilst on the one hand I'd agree, the total is now three (3) less airframes, all true, but having two separate types made up of 16 & 11, would reasonably also see a 'higher' overhead in regard to training and maintenance etc.
This might seem to be splitting hairs, but I'd argue that 24 airframes of one type would probably deliver the same, or better, availability as 27 airframes (again 16 & 11) split over two totally different types.
Just my opinion of course!!
"won't be able to carry the army's m1a1 battle tanks because they are too heavy" Oh my god those comments now make those who discuss our submarines look smart.