> The experience with OCX runs counter to the Space Force’s recent emphasis on faster deliveries and commercial partnerships. “It’s important we refine and update acquisition processes to prioritize rapid, incremental capability delivery versus complex ‘all or nothing’ system deliveries,” said Tom Ainsworth, assistant secretary of the Air Force for space acquisition and integration.
At least they have people saying this now. That's progress, even if 15 years late on this system. The reason OCX failed was because it was exactly that all-or-nothing proposition. This all-or-nothing style can work on small systems, and some larger but well-understood systems, but is going to work very poorly (if it works at all) for anything complex.
EDIT:
OCX has had problems going back years, some GAO reports (not exclusively about OCX, but about GPS and OCX):
Jtsummers•1h ago
At least they have people saying this now. That's progress, even if 15 years late on this system. The reason OCX failed was because it was exactly that all-or-nothing proposition. This all-or-nothing style can work on small systems, and some larger but well-understood systems, but is going to work very poorly (if it works at all) for anything complex.
EDIT:
OCX has had problems going back years, some GAO reports (not exclusively about OCX, but about GPS and OCX):
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-657 - All the way back in 2015, 5 years into the effort and 11 years ago it was already struggling.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-250 - In 2019: "At least 2 years of work remain." That estimate was off by a bit.
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106841 - 2024, still having issues.