I'm not familiar with Brown, but I think I get what your alluding to re investment in a vessel.I'll have to dig it out but Brown in one of his books outlined how increasing the capability of a "disposable" platform causes it to cross a threshold where it is no longer a disposable platform. This then requires its survivability and durability to be improved, further increasing cost, and requiring greater investment in selfdefence.
I probably differ to some on DT in that I can see a place for a vessel in between a constabulary vessel and a MFU.
Robust constabulary vessel for want of a better description.
Many navy's / coast guards have vessels similar in size to a light frigate.
Eg the Holland Class from The Netherlands.
In general terms, a vessel of sufficient size to provide range and persistence from shore
for a respectable amount of time with good sea keeping ability.
Not a boat with a small gun , but a true medium calibre weapon , typically a 76mm with a full suite of aviation facilities for a medium sized helicopter.
A good number of RHIBs and a crew composition and sensor suite appropriate to the systems installed.
No ASW, SSM or SAM just the above, but still a platform that has some scope for limited upgrade should the need arise.
The problem I have always had with the Arafura Class is it is not one thing or the other.
Sure, it's a vast improvement on the former patrol boat generations, but for me it still falls short on capability.
It's a shame it's so close.
Just that bit longer and heavier it would do what I describe above.
Same sensors and a few extra crew and you would get that "robust constabulary vessel"
Is this what the Naval review is pitching for in a Tier Two vessel.
No bloody idea,
However this would be my pick.
A vessel that can provide more options than the Arafura design.
Additionally I'd still build a dozen MFUs.
This would be a balanced RAN in my opinion.