We ae getting miles off topic now and I apologise, but in terms of the ANZAC class the issue I have with the MEKO 200 is a number of design features that have nothing to do with the selected combat system and equipment load outs. Without going into excessive detail, the Principle Naval Architect I worked with on another project referred to them as glorified pleasure craft, while in comparison, the much maligned FFGs were warships. Things such as stability margins, bilge arrangements, propulsion access / withdrawal arrangements, ergonomic factors, OH&S / habitability, maintainability. Again I could go into detail of specific design features and the effects but its pretty tedious, needless to say that these were used as examples of what the navy wanted to avoid when they were finalising how they wanted to build their new destroyers.
An interesting comparison is USN warships are very highly regarded for the capability and reliability of their various systems while RN warships are renowned for their very capable platforms. Pretty much the ideal combination is US systems on a UK designed warship, i.e. what Australia is finally going to get with the up coming Hunter class variant of the Type 26 Frigate. Interestingly the RAN was offered a Type 23 and a Mini Type 23 for the ANZAC project, but not with US systems, while the cancelled RAN DDL was basically a RN type platform designed with US systems and prior to that the RAN had wanted an enhanced version of the Type 21 frigate fitted with US sensors and weapons, earlier still a variant of the County Class DLG with Tartar and US radars. With the MEKO 200 the RAN got US weapons and a mix of systems, following the ASMD upgrades a world standard combat capability, but with a platform that was inferior to either the British or US designs.