You must have just started paying attention to military weapons system development. They all have teething problems. With modern oversight any knownothing can read the problem reports and conclude stuff. If you want to go back in time you can find articles like that about every major (and minor) weapons system. If they naysayers had their way our military would be wearing furs and using clubs.
I’m well more than well aware of military weapons systems and the whole defense acquisition process from start to finish. There’s good ones run by competent people with an end goal that supports the Warfighter needs and there’s the bad ones with no leadership or goals and are in a constant state of disarray and those problems are the way the governmental defense acquisition process usually works... it doesn’t. It creates problems by default.
A simple example: If I tell you to build me box, contract you for a box, pay you to build that box because that’s what’s needed, you start to build the box and then I constantly change everything about that box that I asked you do and when it’s time for that “program manager” to rotate out and his/her successor comes in and wants everything changed and your box now becomes a round tube that doesn’t do anything that it was originally designed to do to start with and then to fix it you throw $$ after $$, slide schedules and paint a pretty picture to the tax payer that everything is fine but in reality it’s a disaster then you have what we call the Defense Acquisition Process.