"After Ford came land based testing?"

EMALS first shot. Land based. 13 years ago...2013. 2:33 minute video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DeJBaFzl77Q&t=1s&pp=2AEBkAIB

EMLAS first Ford shots, 11 years ago...2015. 2:52 minute video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rOijb3JPCe4

Dedicated land based testing facility:

https://www.navair.navy.mil/lakehurst/product/Electromagnetic-Aircraft-Launch-System-EMALS

Yet we still have problems. Land based testing doesn't cure all ills. Still, it's useful, and we've done it, and continue to do it on systems for a lot longer than you think.

While you're right about LCS maintenance costs being from non-government furnished equipment, contractor serviced items, your prediction they'll all be scrapped is proven wrong by articles indicating that equipment is being removed and replaced with goverment furnished equipment, and crew training in shipboard maintenance and first line repair. You don't like the ships, so don't stay current. You've developed this narrative, and just keep posting it regardless of any reality.

Constellation is the epitomy of the current USN Navy. 80% the cost of a destroyer with 60% of the capability because we don't know what "good enough" means, and somehow expect a ship that is a destroyer, but cheaper. Except we (and Congress...mandating Tomahawks) keep adding and adding things, then wonder at the costs. It finally is so expensive it can't be built in any quantity, and we wanted quantity. We've lost sight of how to balance interests and capabilities, and build quantities of cheap "one function" ships. Everything's gotta be a destroyer or it's puny, underarmed and worthless. And why are they all so damned expensive? Geez, you'd think a ship that can do everything would be cheaper! The new frigate is under armed (but buildable in numbers and flights with various abilities.) LCS is under armed (but the basic hull is about 1/3 the cost of Constellation, and there's currently 28 of them, but only two Constellations.) The new drones can carry a handful of specialized containerized systems. Outwardly, they're singularly unimpressive. But, they're cheap and flexible. There are folks who declare them worthless and want a battleship.

What's really wrong with our Navy is that the public, Congress, and the Navy itself all want all the ships to have all the bells and whistles. Every ship a Cadillac! No Corollas in our fleet!

And there you've a point. When the Navy had an in-house design bureau, it had brains enough to keep focused on "good enough." Now, admirals gather at tech shows and are wowed by everything industry has to offer. And, like kids in a toy department at Christmas, they want every shiny thing there is. And what they actually don't want, Congress wants them to add. Industry simply practices good business, and offers the customer all the shiny stuff they crave.

My first microwave was gift for my mom. I knew nothing about them. The salesman showed me all the features on the top of the line model, then how basic the bottom was. I wanted the best for mom. We never used the popcorn setting, nor any of the other functions. We never cooked roasts in it. We punched in how long we wanted and left it on high power. How it actually ends up used vs. how the sales force captures your imagination of its use. My phone has more functions than I will ever be aware of, let alone use. I figured a while back I use it for 9 things. But, I got a near top end model "in case." This is human nature.

I agree the Navy needs to get back an in-house design force. Won't prevent political interference and upheaval, but will cure many other current ailments.