I don't see the point in buying a licence as many of the packages are just the weapons or 'attachments' (I.e. A VLS system or canister SSM package) with ports for plugging into the combat system. Given many of the the OPV platforms use a 20' ISO container foot print in their mission spaces building packages (including control stations for things like towed array) based on this foot print would make sense.
No matter which way we go there will need to be some level of integration with the combat system and this is where much of the cost will go.
My understanding of the Stanflex system used by a number of Danish warships, is that there are cooling, power, and data links at each module socket so that different weapon modules could be plugged into the same socket, depending on mission requirements. Further, IIRC the data connections between the sockets are based off the COTS 100bT Ethernet network standards. Similarly, the control stations aboard the vessels are able to all control the different modules. So a control station which on one mission might be used to control a 76 mm/62 cal. gun, on the next mission might be used to control the Harpoon AShM launcher.
My idea behind the licensed production, would be for both the modules, and the control stations (to allow for a control station to change roles), as well as the interfaces the Danes developed so that the various modules and control stations could 'talk' to the sensors and combat system. The Danes have IMO already done much of the difficult work, which Australia could make use of. There would still need to be some development and integration work depending on the overall combat system and sensor fitout which Australia would use, but it should not be quite as difficult or costly as starting from scratch.
As for ISO containerized systems, I am still not sold on them for combat systems, for a number of reasons. One of the first issues I see as there being sufficient deck space for an ISO containerized weapon to be mounted and have clearance to fire. The Stanflex container is ~3m x 3.5m x 2.5m, while a 20' ISO containerized system would be ~6m x 2.4m x 2.6m. A 6m stretch is a pretty large piece of real estate on a ship's deck, especially if such a container needed to be located somewhere to permit a clear launch area.
One of the other issues I see, is that there do not really seem to be other, containerized weapon systems in service yet.
Also like Volk, I feel that the RAN should start to include space for modules in basically all future RAN vessels. Large warships like the Future Frigate and/or follow-on destroyers, would still have a large amount of fixed weaponry like Strike length Mk 41 VLS cells, a 5"/127mm gun, etc. but also have space/weight available for a few additional modules to be added, depending on what the mission was. To a degree, the RAN already changes the fitout of vessels depending on deployment, with certain vessels fitted with Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS depending on class and deployment area. Also, some of the FFH's are fitted with two twin, or two quad Harpoon AShM launchers, again depending on deployment.
While I do not know how long it takes to add or change the Harpoon launcher on an FFH, I would imagine that it would take more than the ~30 minutes it takes to change a Stanflex container. And then there would be the various connection tests to make sure the launcher is useable, etc. If the RAN had a pool of appropriate modules in the future, a future DDG or FFG could dock and get a module or two of AShM, or ESSM, to supplement the permanently fitted weapons.
Taking the AWD as a base, and deleting the Harpoon launcher and two LWT launchers in favour of a trio of Stanflex mission modules (I am aware that the physical location might require some rearrangement), it would still be possible to have an AWD with the same overall degree of armament using modules. However, if an emphasis was needed on Air Defence, then in place of the Harpoons and LWT's, a trio of Mk 56 6-cell VLS twin-packed with ESSM would be possible. Such a potential missile loadout could be 48 SM-2 and 36 ESSM, or reduce some of the SM-2 in favour of quad-packed ESSM, perhaps 40 SM-2 and 68 ESSM.
Now I freely admit that I do not know if the Stanflex system would be the way to go, I am concerned that the mission modules which are supposed to be under development for the LCS do not seem to be doing well in terms of cost, weight, capability, etc. I do believe that the RAN should start to introduce modules into service, to allow more flexibility in terms of the missions RAN warships can carry out, I am just concerned that what the USN has been working on is not the appropriate route to take.