The Pig had it's time and place, but the technology originally was problematic. When originally deployed into SEA during the tiff there, the loss rate in the first sorties flown was severe enough to get it withdrawn from the battle. Today, the capability to operate LL while in complete EMCON would have alleviated that problem, and perhaps the aircraft would have had a better life story. The F-35 is expensive, no question. The capability does permit a change in tactics that can give some levelling of that cost, but it is still an expensive capital weapon system even in a single ship sortie. The F-35 cost makes for an interesting discussion as to how will it be deployed in mud moving, if a CAS task is on the agenda, it is a multi role aircraft after all.
For my money, crank up the GAU-8, upgrade the TF34s on the Hog and give some numbers of CAS capability to the troops in the field. The F-35 does a potential CAP role well, if supported by wedgetail and presumably Jindalee (wherever that is today), and if ROE permits the use of it's capabilites; if BVR is off the table due to the ROE, then you are going to have a bad day on numbers. We are overdue of a Thunderbolt III, an aircraft that can support the guys who are in the field.
When acquiring attack helos, get one that can carry bullets past the barbed wire; that unfortunately today gets expensive, but darn if they don't lift the odds for the blue side troops.
Australia is an island, at least it has been for the last many millennia. We have not taken advantage of the large aircraft carrier that is Australia, where countries such as Singapore and Switzerland provided infrastructure for operational diversity, increasing the complexity of the problem in interdicting the operations that are necessary when we remove STOL from the equation. As a maritime nation, submarines make for a compelling problem for any potential adverary. Skimmers make fair targets, but wave flags. Range necessitates sizing which increased detection without stealth geometry/RAM, so there is a place for small, efficient, fast, and sea kindly patrol vessels, which points towards what the littoral combat craft could have been before it became Panama City Beaches coastal attraction. Modest size wave piercing hulls please, with geometric stealth.
At the same time, no one wants to pay more tax, in fact I'm not sure anyone wants to pay any tax. So getting the equipment that is necessary to give some measure of comfort to defence of the "realm" is going to annoy someone always.
On the bright side, selling off AUS to potential adversaries is a national past time. There is a fair ROI on giving the land away to the other side.
If armament advances, the adversary being a student of Sun Tzu (or his scribes) is going to propose asymmetry against the structure that we get with conventional weapons. That doesn't allow the state to avoid it's obligations, it does suggest that a smart adversary will tend to recognise what you perceive as a strength, and plan so to make that a weakness. Recall the Maginot Line... or Trumps 12' wall that can only be defeated by a 13' ladder.
ROE will make or break the F-35; it is an expensive mud buster, A-10's are cheap, and unloved by anyone in a blue uniform at fort fumble, hated by the other team, and loved by the guys they support on the ground. Give them to the Marines...
John Boyd's EM analysis spoke to the F-4, The F-14, and the F-111, the world has changed somewhat but the concept remains the same. As much as EM made the case against those aircraft, it was the basis for sound design in the F-16, until the blue suiters lost the plot, and gold plated it like the F-15. Johns work on OODA (hated by the USAF, loved by the Marines) would predict that the West has a fundamental flaw in technological program development cycles, we are now so extended in the R&D and rollout to IOE, that an adversary has the potential to get inside the loop, and mess with your day. The armament industry in the West does not have the ability to innovate rapidly any longer, it has become excessively bureaucratic and process driven, and that is a warning all of itself. Agility of mind is needed, and we have lost that battle in the West.
We are the age of asymmetry, and that means agility of mind and imagination is needed as much as gold plated arms programs with extended procurement cycles.
P.S. as much as I respect the A10 concept, structures and ballistic damage simulation and modelling has advanced sufficiently to make it realistically possible to develop a Thunderbolt III with advanced materials. The aircraft is about as cheap a weapon system as it is possible to produce, and while the 30mm makes a statement, smaller rounds are now available with smart technology that would make for a more efficient design. That would be a worthwhile program to have on the boil.