Given the major manning and retention problems the Navy has, it shouldn't expect its ships to have the same sort of war complements they had in the past when designing vessels. The LCS went too far in that direction, but general trend is for smaller crew sizes.One of the huge mistakes being put into warships right now is the automation of just about everything to reduce crew numbers. This satisfies bean counters but fails to allow for the occasions when you need to fight to save the ship and critical manpower is missing. The Norwegians recently lost a ship that had a crew of 120. a collision tore a large gash in the ship and the damage was severe. The loss can not be directly attributed to crew size but must be taken into account. A 5,000 ton warship sinking from a collision is hard to believe with all the modern sensors. A roughly comparable sized ship the Hobart class has nearly double the crew on a slightly bigger ship. ie 1000 tons.
No modern warship (with the possible exception of a carrier against lighter missiles) can stand up to multiple hits by anti ship missiles. Even one strike will most likely mission kill a destroyer or cruiser. Improved structural strength and light antifragmention armor in key areas might make survival more likely, but no warship in the same weight range as the LCS (a frigate or corvette) is going to withstand multiple ASMs.What's the deal with all this aluminium in modern ships? How can a ship such as an LCS stand up to a couple of anti-ship missiles?