Your comment and some of the others above brought something to mind: with the F-35 you'll miss some capabilities you had with the Hornet just because of its limited range, just like you lost some of the capabilities you had with the F-111 when you moved to the Hornet. Being able to fly an extra 50% (or whatever) further before firing a missile might have a tremendous amount of value if you have to do something like that, mid-air refueling tricks notwithstanding.
If it were me, I'd want half F-35s and half of the most advanced variant of the F-15 Strike Eagle I could afford, keeping in mind the F-15s would cost as much as the F-35. But you know, even keeping those two squadrons of Super Hornets they've got up to date would count for a lot.
A2A refuelling is still absolutely required for effective air combat, you can only fight for a short period before you are bingo. For strike you'd want a stand off weapon, but if absolute stealth was not required you can use conformal or off-board tanks.
If you used Strike Eagles you have the same problem as Supers -- they are 4.5G, not low observable, which gives warning of a strike. But I suspect the Supers will be in service for decades.
Extreme range strike is arguably complimentary to submarines, but there are no manned F-111-like platforms available to buy, and no one thinks that is a role UAS can do.
To be honest I wasn't thinking much about air-to-air combat. I guess New Guinea might get some ideas, but otherwise... anyway, the F-35 will probably perform admirably for that.
I think being able to hit ships at a distance is what the RAAF is most likely to want to do. I'd be intrigued to read a real analysis that indicates otherwise.
> Extreme range strike is arguably complimentary to submarines, but there are no manned F-111-like platforms available to buy, and no one thinks that is a role UAS can do.
I assume the Strike Eagle could achieve something not far off from the F-111 in terms of range with conformal fuel tanks. Although it looks like the Super Hornet has CFT available now, which can only be a good thing for the RAAF.
> If you used Strike Eagles you have the same problem as Supers -- they are 4.5G, not low observable, which gives warning of a strike.
The newer anti-ship missiles are meant to have a long enough range that that is less of a concern. I don't know so much about whatever version of the Harpoon missile the RAAF is flying. (or what they'd be up against, or their electronic warfare capability, which actually matters a lot...)
If it were me, I'd want half F-35s and half of the most advanced variant of the F-15 Strike Eagle I could afford, keeping in mind the F-15s would cost as much as the F-35. But you know, even keeping those two squadrons of Super Hornets they've got up to date would count for a lot.