I've made various comments here in the past on how DoD acquisitions are failing and get mixed responses (none, sometimes agreement, but, surprisingly, also pushback), and this article gets into it in a brutal but unfortunately factual way. OCX is years late, as described in this article, and billions over budget. Lots of other systems are in the same situation. Years late, millions and billions over budget, and when they deliver are often delivered with a subset of the target requirements.
In the classic trilemma "fast, good, cheap; pick two" you at least get two. In the case of DoD acquisitions you're more likely to get none. Slow, bad, expensive.
Jtsummers•6mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44661215
which discusses this program on page 179 (in raw page count, numbered page 169).
The main reason I submitted it was as a kind-of answer to this recurring submission:
"Is the U.S. Ready for the Next War": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44649291 (links to previous submissions in the comments there)
I've made various comments here in the past on how DoD acquisitions are failing and get mixed responses (none, sometimes agreement, but, surprisingly, also pushback), and this article gets into it in a brutal but unfortunately factual way. OCX is years late, as described in this article, and billions over budget. Lots of other systems are in the same situation. Years late, millions and billions over budget, and when they deliver are often delivered with a subset of the target requirements.
In the classic trilemma "fast, good, cheap; pick two" you at least get two. In the case of DoD acquisitions you're more likely to get none. Slow, bad, expensive.