Another proof that you don't really understand the points of the video is that it talks about the difference on the doctrine between US and Russia. It's making your argument baseless and nonsensical.
My point is be careful with what we wish for. More VLS means more things that can break and need maintenance (one of the reason why western vessels aren't as weaponized as russian is, Western vessels are more maintainable). Is our Navy ready for that?
And about IH, 48 VLS is enough for me.
The Soviet doing what they were doing because their missile came in wide variety of size
I think you all right. Russia doctrine is how to fight outnumbered so they put lots of things in it and assume one or couple naval assets have more chance to engage enemy even out numbered. By doing it thus bring Umigami statement to be correct in a way. They have issues in fleet downtime/maintenance. Its more expensive, more complicated and required more time. In some cases they just scrap some of the kirov class and take missiles weapon systems out of their aircraft carrier.
To make matter worse for future upgrade as trishna said, their missiles came in wide variety of size making some of their older ships unable to receive the upgrade.
Again arguing about how many VLS we are going to have is fun but rather pointless without knowing the intended role of the assets. Just like our KCR 60, some have different weapon configuration, but if we put them together we might have some ideas on the intended role on each of the KCR.