There were two paths.
One - Build three huge destroyers AB style. These are your kingpins in your fleet. One would be avalible at anyone time, you basically need a partner to project power outside of friendly waters, as one destroyer is not enough. The partner is the US. Korea has definately gone down this route, it is facing swams of missiles, shells that could overwhelm a AB II. It packs 128 missiles, two goal keeper systems, it proberly has some redundant systems as well. Anything less than this and it would be sunk very quickly. This isn't straying far from already strong coastal defences and aircover.
Japans Kongo is simular, not quiet as heavy as the Koreans, but they have more of them. Why? Because they are fleet ships, they can form a task force themselves. More ships = more power.
F100 is of the latter. Australia can afford 4, and will move heaven and earth to get four. With four we can surge atleast two. We can start any taskforce, five and we could sustain it indefinately. Two ships, one ship takes a hit the other still offers cover. There is no one in our region that could take one AWD so two makes it extremely powerful.
What would make up an Australian taskforce?
* The LHD. Mighty powerful ship, plenty of helicopters (16+), maybe even a few F-35B's but needs protection as its a mighty big target for a missile to find if fired. CIWS/RAM would be a good idea I think. Don't underestimate this one for a second, check out what sort of loads are possible in a mixed configuration.
* The AWD's. These provide the major form of naval protection, Two to cover a LHD. 96 cells between them. No one single point of failure. Mighty tough.
* A frigate. either FFG or ANZAC. Provides additional helicopter support, additional missiles, can perform contabulatory duties etc.
* A Collins sub (or two). Silent death. Anti surface and subsurface. Land attack weapons. With a firefight above collins would focus on the water threats. Ace in the hole, if the AWD's are disabled, you can bet this sucker will lay waste to any surface or subsurface target. Seamines etc.
Then any additional units from friendlys. An older destroyer from the UK or say the US would be great helping provide redundancy and cover yet not a key part of the task group. Does not need to always be there, or in the front line, just tagging along.
We are talking about a some sort of modern fleet to challenge this. A fleet including russian cruisers could do it. F-35's and JORN would make this an easily avoidable threat. Australia's destroyers don't have to be dreadnoughts of the sea, a deathstar of power, we aren't fighting off the coast of Korea against possibly 10's of artillery, subs, missiles as a flagship etc. They have to be capable, far more capable than any reasonably possible threat. That they are.
What they don't really provide is land attack. Thats okay, we will have to get some nice $50 mill, F-35B's then. No problem, that comes out of the other budget. Then we have land attack overkill and better sea control and air defence. Focus the missile load for a very few incomming munitions that are fired before launch platforms are destroyed..
F-100 price seems awefully steep (as does LHD). Me thinks Australia may end up with an extremely capable F-100, and four of them too. There is the money in that budget to do it. I think this budget has been designed to carry 4
