I think we agree here.
The competing priorities part cannot be overstated in my book. The AS government has a long-held policy of ensuring a level of local industry involvement. This creates jobs, and ensures a market for some very specific and difficult to maintain qualifications. No-one is a fan of QANTAS sending its maintenance off shore, but plenty of people question why the govt will reward defence contracts that retain aerospace and marine engineering jobs in Australia.
FMS is the way to go for rapid acquisition of proven equipment, but then we find ourselves locked into an upgrade and sustainment plan not of our choosing. When a specific operational requirement comes up, due to a local threat, or local conditions, or introduction of some legislation like crash worthiness, we have to think long and hard about venturing away from the terms of the FMS contract.
In the mean time, we have DSTO, ARDU, and other agencies specifically to ensure we can do these mods, but when we do, everyone cries foul about 'Australianising' the equipment.
Govt wants value for money, but also wants top-end equipment. Govt distrusts defence because of bad projects, but are utterly reliant on defence opinion when choosing those contracts. Defence wants proven kit, govt wants assurances that the kit will last for years and years and still be relevant.
It's not like buying a car at all, really. It's more like buying a power plant in a national park with someone else's money when no-one knows if Australia First or the Greens will set policy next year.