Agree totally ref the compromises made to achieve (well actually to not quite achieve) the required speed. Personally I can not see that specifying a far more reasonable 35kts, instead of 45kt (50kt specified) would have done irreparable damage to the LCS concept, what it would have done however is remove a lot of the compromise and perhaps many of the issues you listed. On the gun, I do prefer the 76mm but the 57mm is still a very capable and effective system. I don't really understand the point of the 30mm cannon arrangement when Typhoon is available and when it is actually less flexible and effective than the 57mm. To me for the money spent why didn't they go for either something as capable in every way but speed for a lower unit cost, or alternatively go for something more capable (in everything but speed) for the same money, i.e. the often mooted on these pages mini Absalon.Sorry Volk, but I tend to disagree with you here on a number of points. I do have a number of issues with the USN's LCS programme, chief amongst them is that due to decisions made to enable such a high maximum speed, there are a number of limitations which the LCS have. Deadweight tonnage for instance, puts some very sharp limitations on the number of personnel, victuals, bunkerage and munitions which an LCS can have. The can quickly become a significant limiting factor is an LCS were to attempt to sustain operations with four embarked helicopters and their associated air and ground crews.
Another area is the overall combat capability of an LCS v. an OHP FFG. While an OHP that had undergone modernization which deleted the Mk-13 launcher without replacement would have had a significant drop in combat capability, the OHP still retained the 76mm gun, which has a similar ROF to the 57mm of the LCS (once all ready-fire rounds are accounted for) but fires a larger, heavier shell, further. Once more mission modules are finished and really available for service, then an LCS might possess more firepower than a modernized OHP. When looking historically, IMO the LCS lacks a comparable level of firepower to peer-sized vessels, which the OHP FFG's did have when they first began entering service. IMO it would have been better for the USN to be less ambitious in terms of speed, and go with a more conventional frigate-type vessel with mission module sockets. Especially since there have been significant troubles encountered with developing said modules.
As for the whole OPV/OCV/corvette question for the RAN, from my POV the first question which needs to be answered is just what role(s) will these vessels actually have and/or be expected to carry out. If due to security threats and gov't policy, only constabulary tasks would be assigned, then spending more funding on upgraded weapon systems would be a waste of time and resources. OTOH if these OPV/OCV/corvette-type vessels might be tasked with independent operations in potentially threatening areas in lieu of a major fleet unit, then having enhanced systems, or at least the potential for them, is much more sensible.
The thing many miss in the LCS debate is that it is the low end of a high low mix that was meant to include dozens of DDG 1000s as replacement for the Spruance class destroyers, both being intended to serve along side the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class AEGIS destroyers and cruisers. The DDG1000 program was curtailed at three hulls but the USN has continued to order new DDGs and there are many more of them (62 so far and possibly as many as 42 Flight III) than there were Spuances (31) or Perrys (51). In fact if you look at it there were only 23 Adams class DDGs, 10 Farraguts (originally DLGs), 4 Kidds, 18 DLGs and 2 DLGNs reclassified as CGs and 6 CGNs, a grand total of 63 ships, not counting the 27 Ticonderoga class AEGIC CGs. This was all before the peace dividend at the end of the cold war that saw most major navies cut back combatant numbers by a huge amount (look at the RN). This is basically a very long winded way of saying the Perry's high end capabilities have very effectively been replaced by AEGIS DDGs.
To me, when you have so many high end DDGs that have so effectively replaced FFGs, DDs, DDGs, CGs and CGNs, would you really need a new FFG as well? A slower batch 2 or 3 LCS or FF (or corvette as this is the RAN topic) with a single 8 cell VLS and a 76mm with DAVID / DART could as well as RAM / SEARAM would easily be more capable than an SM-1 armed Perry, let alone one that had the Mk-13 GMLS suppressed.