While you base your opinion of UK products on a perception of the performance of the Spitfire V (!) and the Meteor, you seem strangely disinclined to pay any heed to Australia's recent record with the Kaman SH-2G(A), the C-130J and the SH-60. You then "Problem! What Problem?" us on the subject of the F-111.
And since you're so worried about the anti-shipping role, why do you prefer a design with two internal weapon's bays each of which is too small for a Harpoon or a Kormoran, and coming from a nation where the prime customers have no plans to use the type in a maritime attack role? Perhaps you think that Australia can easily, simply and cheaply integrate a suitable weapon as it did with AGM-142 on the F-111. That has been such a success, after all.....
Eurofighter, by contrast, can tote a pair of Storm Shadows a bloody long way, and with Italy and Germany looking hard at EF as a replacement for their maritime Tornados, a manufacturer-funded integration of even more suitable anti-ship weapons is not hard to predict.
Apart from range (and what are tankers for anyway?) Australia would have been better off buying Gripen than JSF - and certainly the advanced Gripens now on the drawing board with big conformal tanks and fuselage plugs would have presented a better match to more of the RAAF's requirements.
PS: If Hurricanes couldn't really cope against the Japs in 1941-42, what makes you think that P-40s could have done?