Of the Anzac replacements are going to use the same hull, they should also have the same amount of VLS, 48.  With no S3 missiles, they will have more EESM, S2 (probably S6 by then}, and/or cruise missiles.  They are not going to be equipped with the same radar/weapons systems as the AWD's, but will still be better armed than any (other than the AWD)  ship we have ever had.  

I would personally like to see the RAN with 4 AWD's. 6 AnzacII's. and a good number (6 - 8) of fast frigates based on the Austar tri-hulled craft that the USA have based there Littoral ships on. 

The slipage on the F-35 means we may be ordering additional SH's which would leave the option of employing the F-35 at a later date as a silver bullet strike asset.  50 is a realistic max if the SH's are retained.

 

I would not use the AWD hull for the ANZAC replacement, it is already a mature platform and by the time the ANZAC replacements are due it will be an old platform.  Things are moving very quickly in the platform system world and we will be able to do a lot better post 2020.  Think all electric propulsion, capacitors, new gen electric motors, directed energy CIWS etc.  A second or third helo is a must, as is a larger VLS  for land attack, stand off ASW weapon, all in addition to ESSM and, likely SM6.  VLS packs for multiple RAM and Nulka are also being developed.  The new ships will have a significant degree of LO designed in.

I am not quite sure about that. Manning 3 AWD require around at least  600 sailors, officers and specialists. Is economy of Australia that good that people are OK to piss money away on least urgent procurement? Whom are additional AWDs going to fight? Somali pirates or the Chinese? I don't think additional ships are needed to deal with Indonesians.

 

On the other hand, if it is OK with Australian public, I might start looking for jobs in OZ. I've heard that residency is easier there for professionals.

 

Hopefully no one, but if we only have three then chances are, when they are needed, none will be available.  Having three allows us to have one deployed most of the time having six would change the equation to 2 all of the time and 3 most of the time.

  

On the other hand, if it is OK with Australian public, I might start looking for jobs in OZ. I've heard that residency is easier there for professionals.

Great place to live and work, the fact that our lives are so good is one of he reasons many Australians don't see the need to spend more on defence.

The three AWDs are effectively replacing the 3 Adams class DDG's and 6 Perry class FFG's, a total of nine hulls with area air defence missiles. No matter how individually capable the AWD's are they still can not cover the same amount of ocean that 3 times as many ships once did. Pure and simple, we need more high end hulls.

The DDG's and FFG's wouldn't each have been covering their own patch of ocean, they would have been operating in mutually supporting task groups. In the Falklands the Brits proved that the Sea Dart on Type 42/Sea Wolf on Type 22 combination was very good for this as the former forced the Argentinean's low into the effective killing zone of the latter. As such the fact that the FFG's were armed with Standards rather than a shorter range system like Sea Wolf was a liability, not an asset.
 

I don't think things have changed that much, we still only need one area air defence asset per task group with the rest being anti-submarine/anti-surface assets with point defence systems. Of course nowdays those systems would be more effective due to networking and smaller, cheaper PAR's like CEAFAR. I'd like to see us get one extra AWD as I think it is good to have one ship for training while the other three are available for rotation during times of continuous deployments, but I don't think we need to spend the money on two extra AEGIS systems.

When do I get to cast my vote ;-).

The DDG's and FFG's wouldn't each have been covering their own patch of ocean, they would have been operating in mutually supporting task groups.

Yes but in having fewer AD ships we have fewer task groups, which is what I meant.  With only 3 AWD's we can only have a maximum of one mutually supporting task group most of the time and two some of the time, having all three ships available would be so rare as to be almost never.  The ideal the RAN was moving towards in the 90's was to have 8 air defence ships (ended up being 4 upgraded FFG's to be replaced with 3 AWD's) and 8 general purpose escorts (ANZACs).  These numbers would have permitted the RAN to deploy a minimum of one group outside our region and two groups within our region all of the time and an additional two groups some of the time.  Add to this the OPV / corvettes proposed at the time, that were intended to have decent self defence capabilities, and an offensive helicopter capability and the scope of the original ANZAC WIP, you can see we would have been well equipped to, simultaneously, provide meaningful contributions to any action against Iran, off Somalia, North Korea and Taiwan.

In the Falklands the Brits proved that the Sea Dart on Type 42/Sea Wolf on Type 22 combination was very good for this as the former forced the Argentinean's low into the effective killing zone of the latter.
  

Sea Dart Sea Wolf was a great combination, the trouble was they weren't on the same platform, infact HMS Coventry was lost because while taking evasive action she passed infront of Broadsword screening the attacking Skyhawks from a Sea Wolf missile shot.  Had Coventry her own Sea Wolfs, CWIS, or even radar directed 30mm + calibre automatic guns she likely would not have been hit.  Post Falklands, the Type 42's were retrofitted with a Phalanx port and starboard the funnel and Light Weight Sea Wolf (cancelled before deployment) was specifically designed to be retro fitted to the Type 42's and carriers, to provide a three tiered air defence system, in the light of Falklands experience.

I don't think things have changed that much, we still only need one area air defence asset per task group with the rest being anti-submarine/anti-surface assets with point defence systems. Of course nowdays those systems would be more effective due to networking and smaller, cheaper PAR's like CEAFAR. 

Yes but remember the FFG's are far better at ASW than the ANZAC's and the AWD's will be better still.  Post upgrade the
the ANZACs will have far more effective air and missile defence systems, but they will still be weak in ASW and still don't have a CIWS or VSRAD.  Now if you look at my suggestion of six each AWD and FF(G? if equiped with SM-6 and CEC) supported by say six to twelve of the proposed Offshore Combatants (upgraded systems for required mission, inc PAR, ESSM, ASM, etc.) we will be able to support two deployed task groups most of the time and 4 some of the time.

  
I'd like to see us get one extra AWD as I think it is good to have one ship for training while the other three are available for rotation during times of continuous deployments, but I don't think we need to spend the money on two extra AEGIS systems.

 

One or more ships are pretty much guaranteed to be in a maintenance period at any given time, if you only have three hulls or even four, you will still be struggling to deploy one ship most of the time.  That means, in all likelihood, a maximum of one task group will have an organic air warfare capability at any given time.