Since when was an OPV a surface combatant?
By this same logic, we should be putting tank guns on ASLAVs and expecting them to engage in close combat. But that's a dumb idea, because that's not their job, they're not designed to do it and they are needed to do other things. The whole, 'if your problem is a nail - use a hammer, not a screwdriver' thing.
You are always criticising every procurement decision in recent history for over-complicating matters and not meeting capability requirements, and now you want to turn off the shelf patrol vessels into surface combatants to fill a capability need that doesn't exist. Seems strange.
As an RAAC officer, veteran and expert on armoured warfare would you support, or rather question, a proposed acquisition of containerised, or worse, fixed fortress guns consisting of perfectly serviceable tank and other AFV turrets, requiring trained crews?
Besides I don't criticise every procurement, I often ask, I question, I listen and I ask and question again, but not criticise. When I criticise is when I see the same mistake being made over and over again, or when something is obviously so wrong it shouldn't have, or shouldn't be, happening.
Right now I am asking about and questioning a capability that none of our major allies possess, that as far as I can see has come completely out of left field. I'm sorry if I am not able to instantly absorb and understand why we are planning to acquire a capability that to my knowledge has never been seriously suggested for the ADF before. It may not be in your make up to analyse (or in my case over analyse) but then again that's why you do what you do and I did what I did.
My resume is basically a list of things I questioned and found to be wrong, then fixed. Not everything I questioned was wrong, but fixing the stuff that was worth the effort. I know I give you the irrits, I often do that to a lot of people and have had project directors asking "who the f..... is ..... and who does he think he is questioning how I do my job?" followed not long after by the higher up who assigned me to fix the problem laughing about it and telling the PD to pull his head in and do his job properly and stop costing the project $........ a month by doing things his way. I also designers and product engineers who change things to save a buck by demonstrating that their "cost down" has actually directly increased warranty and support costs exponentially. Once I even proved a product improvement, intended to improve durability in harsh climates was not only totally unnecessary, but had reduced reliability to such a degree that support costs exceeded our profit margin and almost cost that and all future contracts in that industry.
Likely you and most others are completely unimpressed by that but I don't care, its how I think, its how I work, its what I do and who I am. If you don't like it ignore me, but having a dig, knocking and criticising me wont stop me doing it. I am not always right, but then who is? If my posting style bothers you that much maybe you should have a Bex and a lie down.
Edit
Whoops forgot, of course any RAN OPV will likely be referred to as a combatant because the Armadales are rated as minor surface combatants and I know them as well as you know a Bushmaster.