I get this sickening feeling that no US defense contractors would be able to upgrade an FFG-7 and not charge the price of a new LCS to do it (all that air warfare equipment, mind you).

 

Still, there have been advances in ships's sensors (radar, sonar, EO, IR, etc) and systems (RWS, UAVs, UUVs, USVs, power and automation, etc), since the FFG-7s were initially built, that might warrant consideration.

It all depends on how well it's determined the LCS can accept a capable AAW module, should the need arise.

Otherwise, will the LCS ever go anywhere without at least a Burke to back it up for long range air defense?

 

Minimally, development of an AMRAAM/SLAMRAAM VLS or NASAMS-type launcher should be considered: those RIM-116 RAMs are range-limited (shorter ranged than many ASMs launched from aircraft), and SeaSparrow family is too big to mount in number into an LCS without sacrificing some other capability.

 

If the US does build a more balanced frigate version of LCS for Israel, I wonder if the USN might consider some of those...?

 

Australia's upgrade program is a good model for other nations wishing to upgrade their Perrys, even if it didn't initially come cheap for Australia.

 

It still boils down to: can they be upgraded at a lesser cost than acquiring newer vessels that may already have some of those capabilities already installed?

If newer vessels can prove more economical to operate in the long run, then some loss of overall capability is deemed acceptable by some navies.