t68
Well-Known Member
That said when defence ruled in favour of the F-100 existing option over the G&C evolved design VAdmiral Russ Shalders pushed for latest configuration Flight IIA Burkes instead. This was regected and we ended up paying more for three F-100s than four us built burkes would have cost, more cost and more delay than the more comprehensively planned and understood evolved design would have cost and the same, if not more than a licence built Burke under the mentorship of BIW would have.
Basically we paid more for less, and waited longer to get it, but the point I am trying to make is the Chief of Navy, at the very end of the selection process said no and was able to put forward another option based on his experience and understanding of the RANs needs. At the end of the day the RAN can say they are not happy with any of the short listed designs if they do not meet requirements and push for something else, especially if there are changing circumstances or new information available. Far better to do this before a contract is signed, let along steel cut. Once work starts the RAN will be stuck with what ever is selected, even if it has been overtaken by events and is no longer the best option.
Agree 100% with what you are saying above, from my hazy memory it was only at the last minute that Navatia got a look in and was implied by goverment not to make waves on selection and you will get a 4th hull, it's not the RAN who determine it at the end but goverment and majority of the time they look at short term budget implications.