Without wanting to get into it here, I think the JSF is an obvious and intelligent iteration of the same processes that first produced, and then obsoleted, the "night" fighter and the "all weather" fighter. Just the logistics win alone makes it an improvement over its predecessors.
Warships, on the other hand are a little different. But even there, "multi-role" is an important requirement for most surface combatants.
The destroyer, for example. It starts as a defensive picket for the fleet, screening against torpedo boats, and later submarines. The ASW job is vitally important to the fleet, so destroyers pretty much have to be able to operate ASW helicopters, use sonar, and launch torpedoes or depth charges.
With the advent of air power, the vital job of air defense must also be done. And it seems like it's simply more effective - you get more protection for the fleet - if every surface combatant can do both ASW and AD work. The pinnacle of this principle is the Arleigh Burke and similar classes. They can defend against submarines, defend against air attack, engage other surface combatants, and even support shore operations. This is vastly superior to needing four different ships to fill all those roles in your fleet. It gives you supreme flexibility in your disposition of forces. Any destroyer, anywhere on the picket line, can handle any threat the enemy throws at you, and do any job that happens to be in front of them.
Carriers do a similar multirole thing, but in terms of air power. The flattop itself is just an air base. But that air base can initiate air superiority, naval strike, and land attack missions with equal facility - often using the same airframes with different loadouts!
Anyway, I see the problem of the LCS as being one of too many "nice to have" features. Typical of an interwar design. A real wartime LCS wouldn't bother with "nice to have". It would be focused on closing an observed capability gap that was sinking ships, killing sailors, and losing battles.
One big problem the LCS is having is that it was designed for a requirement to operate in permissive environments. But that requirement doesn't really in a shooting war against a near-peer, or even a committed but inferior opponent in their home waters with restrictive rules of engagement (Iran and the Persian Gulf, I'm looking at you).
If a shooting war with Iran does kick off, we'll probably take the lessons learned from the LCS, and crank out something else that actually closes whatever capability gap emerges.
Probably it's going to be something similar to the
Sa'ar 5 class. Something focused on defeating small combatants in contested waters.
It might also just be a new frigate class, doing basically the same ASW/AD/surface combat job as the destroyers, but cheaper and smaller.
Current generations of air defense radars and missiles are increasingly capable against small surface targets and faster missiles. The distinction between a plane, an anti-ship missile, and a fast attack boat is pretty much going away, in terms of what weapon systems you need for each one. More multi-role!
I like multi-role. But there are limits. There's only so many different capabilities you can cram into a smaller boat. At a certain point, it makes sense to specialize, especially with smaller boats, which are cheaper. Part of the problem of the battleship in modern navies is that it combines over specialization (surface combat at short range) with huge cost. The only time you want to specialize a big ship, I think, is when there's a big payoff (container ships) or it's just a way to get the multirole you want some other way (carriers).
