It's a very good question!
Would we today in selecting a patrol boat replacement have selected our current planned mix of OPV, MCM, Survey vessels.
I would doubt it.
We would go for a more robust mix of vessels.
Hamstrung by five decades of constabulary patrol boat culture we thought we were taking a big step by getting an OPV.
It was an impressive sized vessel from what had gone before, but when selected only five years ago we still held the eye glass to the blind eye.
We knew trouble was on the horizon in 2017 when the Lurssen OPV 80 was selected.
We new that we had a major challenge on the horizon with China way back in the 2009 ,which was articulated in the DWP.
We made the decision back then to acquire 12 submarines to counter this future threat.
We even had designs back in the 1990's for a gunned up middle tier vessel with a helicopter.
Remember the Sea Sprites. A helicopter without a ship. ANZAC's were plan B
So why did we get an under gunned OPV
Probably a few layers.
Lack of vision, budget battle ship , good construction project [ Which is fine ] and did I say lack of vision.
Today four Arafura Class vessels are in various stages of construction. One launched but still fitting out. None in commission!
As ddxx points out we will build some 20 ships which was what was initially suggested back in 2009.
So do we want to continue building 20 vessels of the same size and design?
NO !
We need to look at the opportunity of two classes of vessel.
One as is [Pragmatism ] and one larger to provide more robust options to government.
Time will be a challenge to design and build this larger vessel.
Lurrsen have larger designs which would accommodate our needs incorporating many of the Arafura's Classes systems.
11 majors and 20 constabulary OPV's are not the way forward.
If we can change tact with the submarine choice, we can change tact with an OPV.
As is they are a waste of money.
The world is changing too quickly and we need to be proactive in meeting future challenges.
Regards S