If memory serves we also built the P51 (Mustang) on licence from the US, which remained in service until about the first 6 months of the Korean war when this, our last propeller driven fighter aircraft, was replaced by the new jets (the Sabre)
As for the Boomerang, it is a poor example for the purpose of the point you want to make. It came into existence purely because, at the time, neither the US nor the UK could supply us with sufficient numbers of front line fighter aircraft to meet our requirements so we had to produce something locally. That something, when compared with what was being produced elsewhere was simply outmatched in every area, and as such, as soon as US and UK production increased to allow increased supply of better aircraft, the Boomerang was quickly relegated the role it was most suited, ground support/attack. That is if had more in common with the Bruster Buffalo than the Supermarine Spitfire.
So why don’t we build our own fighter aircraft here now, the simple answer is the cost of set up and tooling. To build a fighter back in the 1940’s was a relatively simple matter, engineering wise. In fact not much different to building a car. The problem is since WW2 military aircraft became more and more complex requiring equally advanced tools and production lines to build them. The point, if we were to attempt to design and build an aircraft remotely as sophisticated as the F35, for the same amount of aircraft (100), be prepared to pay 10 times as much for each.
ogQ!(U~$(KGrHgoOKjYEjlLmS1ctBJ1K-4Uyh!~~_7.JPG?set_id=81 "i-need-a-martini"){kind=avatar}
