Yuku free message boards

Two important points:
1). There is actually no compelling evidence of the F100 being either less expensive or less risky than the Gibbs & Cox AWD as they pertain to Australia, only speculation in the media clearly prompted by Navantia sourced 'leaks'. At a very basic level the most complex item in the design is the Aegis CMS, and that is as MOTS as it possibly can be, which means that the risk associated with either design is comparatively low.
F100 is not a risk-free option. We'll need to integrate Aegis Baseline 8 into the F100 (we've purchased Baseline 8, and the F100 has Baseline 7). If we want a second hanger or a horizon search radar (and we will) we'll need to integrate them into an existing design. Navantia has never built an F100 outside of Spain, nor for that matter have they built ships anywhere outside of Europe, and even then that proved to be too difficult (some of the F-310 were going to be assembled in Norway, but that was dropped on cost and risk grounds).
Compared to this, whilst the G&C AWD is still only a design, it has the advantage of coming to Australia as a clean slate. This should make integrating new systems somewhat easier than on an existing design. Similarly, without preconceptions about how the design has been built elsewhere it means that the build process can be tailored to Australia. Also, and very obviously, Gibbs & Cox are one of the most experienced naval architecture firms in the world, I sincerely doubt that they are capable of screwing up designing a DDG.

2). At the moment the CofA is sitting on a truly stupendous surplus. For the past few years the Treasury has had to find creative ways of spending the surplus to avoid inflationary pressure that would result from either massive internal spending or especially large tax cuts (either of which would create an economic headache after a short while). This has resulted in - amongst other things - endowments (i.e. the Future Fund and the Higher Education Endowment), and in increased procurement expenditure for the ADF (e.g. Abrams, C-17, F/A-18F etc.). In this framework the idea of spending an additional $1bn on the AWD actually isn't at all ludicrous: it'd mean that the money is still going into the Australian economy, but doing it in a comparatively predictable fashion over a number of years thus not fostering any inflationary pressure. It also would necessarily impact upon other projects which are increasingly being driven by need and capability and less by pressure from Treasury. The betting in some circles is that projects like the AWD and potential LHD will become very popular with government if the current economic climate continues as they're a great way to soak up cash and slowly release it back into the Australian economy at the same time as fostering the local manufacturing sector (which is popular with both sides of politics as a vote grabbing exercise in the key swing-state of South Australia), and that on this basis additional units are becoming increasingly likely!
Of course I'm not at all convinced that the G&C AWD would actually be much more expensive than the F100 or that there would an appreciable difference in delivery schedule.

I really think that everybody should be cautious in assuming that the F100 is without risk and would therefore be cheaper than the G&C AWD and could be delivered faster. The F100 will need to be modified (to accept Aegis Baseline 8 at the very least), and it'll need to be built in Australia, both of these inject a considerable amount of uncertainty into the process. At the moment the only sources indicating a considerable cost and price differential are clearly being prompted by Navantia. So far as cost goes it's also critically important to remember that the difference between the ships (both after all have broadly similar systems purchased from the same suppliers) is largely in costs spent in Australia (e.g. systems integration, some design work, additional metal bashing etc.), which goes a long way to offsetting them since they come back as tax. Finally, one very big advantage of the G&C AWD which Navantia thoughtfully always forgets to mention is that we'll own the IP for that design which means that we can either build more if the needs takes us without having to pay any royalties, or (and more excitingly, depending upon your perspective) be able to build AWD for export (apparently ASC believes that there is a market).
Again, and for emphasis: there is not as much of a risk and cost differential as Navantia is portraying, and there is no rreason to believe that the delivery schedules are going to be any different. Also, any cost differential is likely to be offset by economic and capability factors