Citizen
I was referencing an F111 counter air capability-whether that be F15's or "other" platforms.
The justification of Aegis destroyers by the Navy would be the support of an amphibious lodgement. That FFG is an insufficient capability would suggest an area threatened by fighter-bombers in numbers and with a possible stand off anti-shipping capability.
If this is the war the RAN is planning to fight, the loss of an airborne long range strike capability has now unbalanced the ADF.
Sadly, I think the ADF will be forced to make do with P3 land attack missile capability. But in the environment you described to justify AEGIS- enemy air superiority- the P3 capability insufficient.
With joint US op's the catchcry, why double up on expensive and relatively inflexible capabilities?
Why is a shipborne capability of the JSF been so quickly written off considering the "need" for such an expensive shipborne anti-air capability re AEGIS?
Rivalries, Admirals' Barge, Unions and shipbuilding lobbies?
On your last remark- the requirment for an AEGIS and the deployment of large numbers of troops overseas IS insane.
Without a long range RAAF counter-air platform that can survive in the environment that requires AEGIS ( no air superiority) at the top end. Aswell as an inexpensive P3 force multiplier at the bottom end.