Gnadenburg
Given up on sport ------
Jacko has nutshelled some of the important messages that the Brits tried to get across in the Air 6000 debate. I like to think we didn't fail: I really do think that there were those that did not want to absorb what was said. It's not that they were stupid, or that we were seen to be toting potentially outmoded kit. A US solution was deemed to be the only way to go, and with hindsight that should've been recognised much earlier - but we had to try (and I enjoyed doing it). The rationale (in the main, the US alliance and regional support ) is easily followed, but the outright rejective opinions from some high quarters - and some were very agricultural - was harder to understand. Not sour grapes - just some musing with a Wolf Blass to hand -----
You said 'Maritime strike is a primary RAAF role. Much more so than other air arms'. Your last assertion is questionable. Ask the USN. Also ask your colleagues who have served exchange tours on Buccaneer and Tornado maritime strike/attack squadrons. I think you'll find that (if you accept the valid AAR point made by Jacko) those outfits' weapon systems and tactics were as good as any ('specially on shiny Twelve! Hey-Ho).
So Typhoon in the maritime role -----
Given the planned CASOMs (and other possibilities) and CFTs it will outperform F111, F/A18E/F, or JSF (I leave Gripen comments to Jacko!!). Sorry to be so simplistic, but the arguments are not that difficult (and DSTO has all the numbers) - especially given the maritime opposition over the next umpty years. As for stealth (bear in mind we're talking stand-off delivery at sea with a highly capable DASS) and radar performance, they will be more than adequate in the role. The aircraft will also retain 6 AAMs in the role. And if anyone shouts 'F111 range!!' - then the only solution to that is buy another F111 (???)or use your new tankers. Not certain from memory, but I think even CK didn't rate JSF in the maritime role (but then again he wouldn't condone Typhoon either).
Cheers