Anyone old enough to recall the F111 debacle (looooong delays, immense cost overruns, cancellation of the naval version, huge reductions in final numbers, impossibility of getting an aircraft designed to be all things to all men [or to be more accurate, all services] to be a top performer in any one field - particularly air to air - because of the large number of compromises required to make it more or less work in every role) will recognise the futility of attempting to build a single multi-role aircraft, particularly if the main reason for the single design is cost savings. (Happy multi-role sucess stories like the F4 sometimes occur, but almost by accident, and not when the designers set out from the drawing board for it to be multi-role and cheap.)
But (dare I say it?) - a new generation of beancounters has tried to do it again, and with similar results. One could almost be forgiven for imagining they don't recall the F111.
The only thing that's not surprising about this whole sorry mess is that the Australians have again thrown huge - and terribly scarce - amounts of defence funding into what looks like becoming another lemon. Please don't get all Pavolian on me and start defending the venerable Pig. Yes, it's done a sterling job in the RAAF, but at what (unit/ongoing) cost, particularly since we've been the only operator worldwide?
And this Pig(let) has about a third the capability of the original Pig, at least in what should be THE primary consideration for the RAAF, unrefuelled range and payload capability.