If by requirements met you mean a very fast combattant with heavy anti-surface warfare firepower, a case can be made. But other nations could be seen as having this requirement much more than the U.S., yet none of them bought the PHMs. Other nations built smaller equivalents (Italy and Japan), but I don't think either still operates them. I am saying that the really fast, single mission combatant that has poor operational sustainment and is really expensive is a bad design, period. Hey, sounds like LCS, another ship on my list! I think to be considered successful, the ship has to have been successfully used by someone, not just look cool.
As for the FFGs, I agree that the Flight IVs were completely maxed out in space and weight, but the class DID grow considerably in capability since its initial design in 1974, which indicates to me that the initial design was still pretty good since it allowed for expansion. The FFG could only have benefited significantly from an upgrade to the SM-1 past block VIb, which could have been done with adoption of SM-2 components mated to a SM-1 modified seeker. The FFG would never be Aegis, but for half the cost, why should it be expected to be? Good AAW capability against air breathers and older SSMs still puts the ship ahead of most threats for considerably lest cost than many alternatives (like gutting the entire CS suite and installing a VLS). How can a ship be both overloaded AND had too many corners cut? From a space-weight perspective, the ships handled very well (rode a little rough). From a cut corner perspective, eliminating the MK13 is the biggest corner cut, but it would have been better for all the ships to get the Mk92 Mod 6 upgrade and class wide improvements in the ASW capabilities. It would have been cost prohibitive to modify all of the ships for LAMPS III. Current missions are not much of an argument when it comes to ships, it is projected missions that count. Given only current missions, ASW capability is redundant since we are not hunting subs, but it can be envisioned in several scenarios that it COULD be necessary. The decision to cut the Mk13 was made precisely because it was not projected that the FFGs would ever see combat again and would only be conducting a GWOT mission until retirement. This MAY prove accurate, but I personnally don't like the idea of sacrificing capability of a proven platform for the HOPE that global events follow your predictions. History has a nasty way of giving unpleasant surprises where MORE capability would be better than OK capability.