{"id":21151,"date":"2015-06-23T15:00:15","date_gmt":"2015-06-23T05:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=21151"},"modified":"2015-06-24T17:15:44","modified_gmt":"2015-06-24T07:15:44","slug":"to-build-or-not-to-build","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/to-build-or-not-to-build\/","title":{"rendered":"To build or not to build?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Chief<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2018A 30-40% premium<\/a>\u2019, \u20183 AWDs for the cost of 9<\/a>\u2019, \u2018500 more jobs in SA for future submarine sustainment<\/a>\u2019\u2014all snapshots from recent Government media releases. The Government appears to be preparing the political ground for a decision to buy ships and submarine from overseas instead of building them in Australia.<\/p>\n

I recently wrote on the necessity and benefits of building Australia\u2019s Future Submarines in Australia<\/a>. However, the Minister for Defence\u2019s recent endorsement of the RAND Report on the future frigate program<\/a> caused me to review other studies on warship building in Australia in the search for yardsticks.<\/p>\n

The AWD project has been in the news recently for all the wrong reasons. It involves some notable features and follies, including:<\/p>\n