Is the ILS really a factor? If they had glidescope would that have meant any better an approach seeing as they have seemingly missed/ignored several factors in their visual approach (airspeed, appropriate altitude, apparent nose angle, possibly config of the AT, observer call outs). With the ILS would that have been one more thing they were chasing to get right, or would that have been another layer of automation to save their bacon?
I work in IT, so as far as the IT comparisons go its limited by fact that its kind of hard to restore an airliner or a life from backup. I would also believe that the installation of equipment as technical as an ILS array would be performed by engineers capable of identifying if they have options to do it with minimum downtime. I know I hate it when people outside my area of speciality expect my work can just happen with the click of fingers without knowing what is involved.
Certainly there is going to be some very hard questions to answer about what occurred in that cockpit.