Volkodav,

 

At the end of the day in 2007 the Australian Government made its AWD decision based on the best information it had available at the time. The F-100 came up as the best buy which would meet our requirements for an AWD which could be easily integrated with our major ally, in a reasonable time and within acceptable risk parameters. The only other option being floated at the time was a large, more expensive, more risky paper ship that was going to take at least 4 years longer to deliver. Stretched ANZACs weren't even on the table, it is as simple as that.

 

I personally find retrospective critisism of a decision not to take a policy option that wasn't available at the time to be idiotic and irritating. Therefore I'm not going to discuss this further with you, come back when you have something sensible to say.

I personally find retrospective critisism of a decision not to take a policy option that wasn't available at the time to be idiotic and irritating. Therefore I'm not going to discuss this further with you, come back when you have something sensible to say.

 

There were a number of options on the table and the government for better or worse made a choice.  They could have chosen a cheaper less risky options providing the RAN with more hulls earlier while still providing room to grow and evolve the capability using developing technology, they could have chosen a larger more expensive riskier design providing the same number of hulls later but will a much greater margin to grow and evolve the capability, or the could do what they did which is choose the middle of the road option wich was expensive, and lacked the required space and weight to grow and evolve over its planned life cycle.

 

These in a nutshell are the facts and refering to my comments as idiotic and irritation doesn't change the facts.

 

AG one the reasons we continue to make bad procurement decisions for the ADF is we don't make very good use of lessons learned from previous decisions.  Disagreement is good but shutting down decent is counter productive as if all you are willing to listen to is the opinions of those you agree with then you will never be open to any new ideas or potentially better ways to do things.

 

What we should have or should not have done with the FFG upgrade and the AWD procurement are vital to the successful conduct of the eventual ANZAC replacement program.

 

Its not what you think but how you think and how well you incorporate new information in to your thinking.

There are no lessons to be learned from hypotheticals based on falsehoods. The simple fact is that their was no PAR equipped, stretched ANZAC option in 2007.