Frankly, I think a big part of the problem is that Americans have grown insanely casualty averse. So we try and pack a bunch of tech into our systems so that we're less likely to lose them and their operators/crew, which makes them crazy expensive, and so now the weapon system itself presents a significant loss, so we put even more on it so we're even less likely to lose it, which makes it more expensive still. And it keeps going.
In my admittedly inexperienced opinion, we need to have a more utilitarian inventory of systems. That's not to say inexpensive necessarily, but more utilitarian. Say the marines and landing parties need more fire support. Give them a light mortar carrier. Put rockets/missiles or a 105 on the LCAC. Or put a maverick or harpoon launcher on the soc-r, or whatever is carrying your strike team. Have the sub that transported provide tomahawk fire. There are plenty of answers, but a purpose built destroyer should never have been on that list.
Any solution to a problem or threat should be timely first and foremost, and effective as a very close second, and affordable third. Everything else doesn't matter.
If loss of equipment is a major concern, it's a good argument that the mission hasn't been planned very well. If everything possible has been done and loss of equipment is still a major concern, maybe it's time for a new approach all together.
According to the book "Death Ground", written by a Marine Colonel who taught at the War College, there are only about 100,000 front line soldiers at any given time. The rest of the military are force multipliers. Because like you said, we are extremely casualty averse. But for good reason, what was it that Patton said about dying for your country?
