In my book the OPV situation is a much worse cock-up than any of the prior programs including the Attack program. Poor requirements from Defence that did not anticipate changes in the strategic situation and did not build in any room for future growth in capability. Couldn’t even get the gun right. Then to top it off bad execution with the end product stuck pierside for the last 2 (!) years for mysterious reasons that no one wants to talk about.
Hunter heading down the same path with cost and schedule blowouts - first hull won’t be delivered until 2034?! (But it should be a great ship)
At least Attack was progressing towards a useful military capability (the switch to SSN was a reasonable call of course). And the people who were complaining about 60% domestic content and 2032 delivery timeline are now all strangely OK with a 2040+ delivery for AUKUS subs that will have much less Aussie content, so one might wonder if all the criticism was entirely founded.
The OPV situation is concerning.
We have always needed a mixed fleet of inshore and off shore vessels. Three generations of patrol boats have realistically being supplement by major fleet units and other vessels of opertunity.
The ECapes will be fine for the inshore role. While only six OPVs is certainly better than the past it's not adequate going forward.
Remembering they were meant to free up the majors for their intended duty.
The Arafura class still has merit.
Not what we should of got but that's history.
The talk of their inadequacy for both constabulary and potential military roles is just political language of nonsense.
We work with what we have and that's it.
Two are in the water and four in various stages of production.
Unlike alot of the Review they are actually a reality.
We should capitalise on that reality for what it offers.
Additional stock standard OPVs with a 25mm bushmasters are much better than the alternative this side of 2030....................that been nothing.
Cheers S