Well, things are often done for the point of Optics or speed.
Is a Superhornet a simple evolution of a Hornet? Is a Flight III Burke similar to a Flight I? If we have to have a Hobart looking ship, with Hobart suppliers, "Hobart" style contract and organizational structure, because that is the only way the selection/build/support can be done shaving 5 years off the build, actually reduce the operating costs of the existing Hobart's through using the same support/supplier network, I can live with that. The "Advantage" of flight II Hobart's, is that, the existing network, the existing suppliers, existing contracts, existing integration into the RAN logistics, happier SME's, etc. It really has nothing to do with the design, or the floaty ship itself.
I don't love the Hobart design. Its a ship. Now quite old. Its a compromised ship as it tries to be a mini-burke, but cuts a lot of corners to get there. You get 50% of the fire power ~60-70% of the other capabilities, for 80%-100% of the cost and 70% of the crew. So there is never a point why anyone would build say 12 Hobart's, you would have built Burkes instead. Even the US didn't build F105/Hobarts when they looked at distributed lethality, the constellation is much more modern and had a lower risk profile.
Even then the US spent heaps further developing the design and customizing it for its low cost need. For them it works, 1 x LM2500 vs 4 x LM2500 in the burke, saving costs and complexity and fuel, electric propulsion has huge advantages for the USN. 60% of the crew. Yes, far less firepower, but the US already has mega firepower, they want more presence, they don't need more firepower. So trading in a tiny bit of fire power for 30-40% the presence and, a faster build rate as these can be built at smaller yards. Arguably they are better a patrols, and enforcement, but less able at mega high end warfighting. They made compromises, to get an existing design in the water faster, but it still works.
But Fincantieri doesn't really exist in Australia for a quick instant build. Really the only two are BAE or Navantia. We spent a metric shit ton of money and time working with these guys over the past ~20 years and they are basically it. Thales, Babcock, exist and are around and do important and useful work, but don't really have the SME, the existing networks as well as being propped up by BAE global who is mega huge and at some points blurs into the UK government, and Navantia, which is taps into Navantia Spain, and is clearly owned by the Spanish government.
Which is why Babcock didn't say they could build a ship in Australia all by themselves. They would need somewhere to basically adapt their arrowyard concept. Which likely means spending money and time in setting all of those things up. Which is more time and money before cutting steel on the first ship.
Navantia and BAE and NVL also have other stuff. Its not like they have only one ship design in their catalog.
To get a quick build corvette, NVL OPV80 to C90 is probably the only real Australian build option.
To get a quick build DDG, a Hobart II from Navantia is probably the only real option.
To get a quick build Frigate, a Hunter variant from BAE/ASC is probably the only real option.
Anything else we have to set up a new project, spec, tender the prime, tender the suppliers, cost estimates, contract, IP legalities, due diligence on everything including SME's and sub sub sub contractors, Etc. This costs billions for something like a ship and can take 5+ years. If we break contract, then there are huge penalties, that can cost more than if we had just built the ships and towed them off into the water and sunkex them.
Building a ship requires usually a decade or more relationship to build up, which is usually part of the tender purpose.
Right now the Australian defence industry is hugely upset about the DSR. They feel like governments, of both persuasions are trying to kill their businesses, and kill them.
To our valued AIDN members,
aidn.org.au
The appetite for some wacky new arrangement that cuts existing suppliers out is very low. We aren't talking about unions or laborers here, but entire businesses and entire sections of the manufacturing economy. We are talking about completely wiping our the delicate defence industry (and those related to it) in Australia which has taken, more than 80 years to get where it is, and its barely hanging on.
In the type of war we are going into, having no logistically, or sovereign build capability is pointless. You might as well sink your navy before the enemy does. So ordering from existing projects that have significant Australian supply chains are strongly encouraged. It will speed up the project and make it more durable capability long term.
. Why on Earth would you Up gun the Hunters if you are going to build another 3-6 Hobarts and 9 GP Frigates? As it is the Hunters are going to have to be more than just ASW Frigates due to lack of Hobart numbers, with a fleet of that size you could leave the Hunters to ASW work alone, so why decrease their ASW capabilities.
