Question: Is the synchronised keyword still required (ignore backwards compatibility, I'm thinking in terms of writing new code, today) or should we all be using the features available in the Concurrent and Collection packages?

Answer: 
Indeed it is needed (in specific situations). Just read through [*Java Concurrency in Practice*](http://www.javaconcurrencyinpractice.com/), it is used there many times over.

Of course, since Java 5 we can usually happily solve problems using (almost) exclusively the `java.util.concurrent` toolbox. And even if we need to write our own thread-safe classes, `synchronized` can often be completely replaced by nonblocking algorithms such as [CAS](http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp04186/index.html). However, CAS has its price as well, in that it requires very precise reasoning, tuning etc. and it is not well understood by lots of developers. Often it may provide no performance benefit, but it complicates the code. So there are cases when it is simpler and cleaner to just use a `synchronized` block.

Note also that locks are cheaper than they used to be as the JVM improves with every release. Long ago, this price was what turned off many developers from using them, but it is not so strongly justified anymore (and even if it is, only a concrete measurement can prove whether the performance bottleneck really is in locking).
Well, it depends.

You can basically solve any problem using the concurrent and collection packages.  

However, if you come to find, that you have a bottle neck just really in your synchronization, you'll probably need to do it by hand and the synchronised keyword might be just the friend you need.

I suppose, this is an unlikely problem to run into and usually, redesigning the thread responsibility will provide a cleaner solution than optimizing it by hand, while being sufficiently fast. I couldn't get my hands on the source of those packages, but I wouldn't be surprised if they actually used synchronised for implementation (but the opposite wouldn't surprise me either).