Roller Merlin,
I agree entirely, you are preaching to the converted re: the RAAF's (and Australia's) best option being to "hitch it's wagon" to the US Defence juggernaut.
My bone of contention is our insistence on completing more & more complex "capability requirement studies". We are becoming too smart for our own good. I realise that bureacracy is an inevitible part of our capital acquisition processes, but do we really need to incorporate studies that ask: "an
aircraft could do this job but would we be better served by purchasing some sort of
gerbil powered UCAV utilising antigrav thruster technology integrated with particle beam stand-off weaponary?"
Jokes aside, the point is modern defence capital acquisitions are probably the second most expensive item in our nations budget (behind welfare I'm guessing). Our recent history has us ordering platforms that were not mature in their development or employment e.g. Collins, J-models, Anzacs, SeaSprites, the list goes on & on... Obtaining a "state of the art" military platform is impossible to achieve; the law of computer development coupled with the time required to iron out any platform deficiencies means that when equipment is fielded it is already obsolete. The benefit of choosing unproven or immature platforms is far outweighed by the risks of delayed IOC, cost over-runs and associated stop-gap replacement costs to maintain combat effectiveness whilst we await the arrival of the 'magic bullet'.
The RAAF (& ADF) would be better served by purchasing/leasing current, proven, viable and
available airframes that exist today.
The beauty of this is we can still be "USAF Det-A" and when/if JSF matures (at least 10 years from now) we could still avail ourselves of it...