Realistically, by the time a Burke could be acquired, even through FMS, the first Hunter would be in the water.
Also, were would the crew come from? The Hunters will take crews from retiring ANZACs, but a Burke has almost twice the crew size, this means two ANZACs gone for each Burke. Recruiting, training and growing personnel numbers takes time, starting now, we may have the extra personnel available to crew additional ships in the early 2030s.
The time for Burke's was in the 90s and early 2000s as replacements for the Perth class DDGs. Once the fleet stated shrinking and the RAN had become a frigate and patrol boat navy, making the integration of such a capability far more difficult and time consuming.
To get DDGs within the next fifteen years, we need to start growing the personnel now.
This is something of an obligatory reminder, but the USN crewing & DC philosophy is somewhat different than that of the RAN and AFAIK most other navies. It also means that the USN will typically run a vessel with a larger crew, even when operating essentially the same class and design for a vessel. Take the USS Robert G. Bradley (FFG-49) which is an
Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate that when in active service, operated with a complement of 15 officers, 190 crew, and aviation support of 6 officers and 15 enlisted. Now compare that to the crew of the
Adelaide-class frigate HMAS Sydney (FFG-03) which had a ship's complement of 184 including 15 officers and not including the aircrew. Given that the two classes are essentially the same except for some Australian-specific modifications, that shows that the USN would run the same vessel with ~21 more crew than the RAN, or to put it another way, the USN would plan on ~11% more crew than other navies.
Depending on which specific flight as well as individual vessel one is talking about with respect to crewing USN
Arleigh Burke-class DDG's then I have seen numbers ranging from ~303 to upwards of 380 crew per vessel. When looking at similar classes of DDG in service with Japan and S. Korea, they seem to be listed with crews of ~300 as well. The RAN might be able to operate an Australian version with a crew of ~270, give or take. Still more crew than the current frigates or destroyers, but not quite as many as might be thought.
If one applies that same sort of crewing philosophy to USN SSN's, then a crew of 135 for a
Virginia-class SSN might become 120. Still significant but not as much as before.
Incidentally, not only would increasing the number of RAN personnel need to start now, but so to would planning for new/replacement DDG's need to start now, if Australia is to have a chance at getting them in 15 years time. I do however disagree on the apparent thinking behind getting three more/replacement destroyers. IMO it would be much better to have a larger number of destroyers built, otherwise the RAN could end up back in a situation that is going to arise as the
Hobart-class destroyers go through their respective upgrades. With the RAN currently only having three destroyers, soon to begin upgrades, there will be periods of time when due to the upgrades plus training cycles and deployments, the RAN will find itself without any destroyer available to send out. If more destroyers had been built, there would be a greater chance that one would be available at any given time. If a decent number (5+) destroyers had been built, then it would likely have been possible to manage the upgrades plus training cycles so that a DDG would be available for taskings if/when needed. With that in mind, I would rather the
Hobart-class DDG replacement end up getting brought forward if possible, to start building immediately after the
Hunter-class frigates are finished and that at a minimum four replacement vessels be built, and preferably more like 6-8.
