I am not @Jeff Head but I can tell you what he thinks on this by pointing to his own thread on the subjectThat't quite a ramp up in fleet size, do how do you see the FFG competition concluding?
He favors Lockheed Martin's Independence class FFG(X) Entry.
My opinionDo you think their is an appetite/capacity for the future FFG (X) to become the Perry for foreign Navies in the Pacific/China Sea?
on this one there already is with a number of nations expressing interest in LCS derived platforms and inspired designs.
That's a tough one as the existing LCS have been pointed to as "Undergunned" so the question would be who would want them? If you are more worried about insurgent operations and Piracy then LCS seems a good pick. Despite the critics that is still a relevant mission role. They are Peace keeping ships. Much like comparing the Army Stryker to a Bradley or a Super Tucano COIN aircraft to a F15. These are the product of a mindset where in the Opfor they were designed against is of a far lower technological level and a lesser need of actual battle.I wonder as the FFG design becomes the standard if we will see the USN start selling off the LCS ?
The problem that pushed for FFG(X) is less failures of the ships themselves (cue rant from critic) but more from lack of capacity against peer Naval power. The latest LCS variants call them Block1 if you will are the result of shifts in Naval priority from that lower threat level of running down some fishing boat with a bunch of Yahoo's armed with AKs a machine gun an RPG and a mortar into the potential of facing a vessel cutter or patrol ship firepower. This farther drives to FFG(X) which is the sort of Block 2 where in the Navy is targeting equal firepower.