I'd be very angry if I purchased a car that unreliable, let alone a defence asset. Is this something that happens often? I have to plead ignorance, I'm more a foreign policy guy and less a defence spec person (specialist? Dare I say nerd, heh?). Part of the reason I I'm on this site is to make good that ignorance.
Anyhoo, went off on a bit of a sidetrack there, I'm somewhat interested in the MOOTW potential of these ships. It seems to be substantial.
The electrical thing is just what happens. Until you go proving your new shiny toy, you really don't know what sort of issues may crop up. Even with proven kit, you need a plan to handle issues like things breaking, or needing repairs. How many ships and aircraft have issues with life expectancy and structural cracking? Its fairly common and can be managed. It just depends if they are long term and if they inhibit operational capability.
The LHD have really significant capabilities in and out of war. Across all the services. They are going to be
the asset Australian defence capability is going to rely on as our region has such few suitable facilities even for commercial operations in good weather. I can see Australia really having a big amphibious focus after acquiring them, and more significantly after using them.
I notice the navy quoting over 1100 embarked
LINK and the intention to use both together to deploy over 2000
LINK.
So it looks like Australia is going to use them very differently than Spain intends to. We want USMC style LHD capabilities, while Spain is more after more conventional style capabilities that come from operation one ship.