The Constellation-class program failed because rather than simply building the ships as designed in Europe, American naval engineers effectively tore up the blueprints and designed a new ship. The U.S. Navy has different mission requirements than its European counterparts, so the ship’s design did need some modifications. Officials sold the idea of the Constellation-class program in part by saying the American version would have 85% commonality with the European version. They then lengthened the hull by nearly 24 feet, redesigned the bow, completely redesigned the ship’s superstructure, and added approximately 500 tons of displacement. The American design today has only 15% commonality with the original.
Navy officials compounded all those problems by committing one of the major deadly acquisition sins: starting production before completing the design. The practice of concurrency, the official term for the overlap of development and production, has been described by one former Pentagon acquisition chief as “malpractice.” Building a ship, tank, or aircraft before the constituent technology has been proven through testing all but guarantees the program will go over budget and fall behind schedule, yet it happens all the time.
Is this normal for military procurement?
XM7 was made because China and the US adversaries were getting better armour it was designed to penetrate that and “kill in one round” and to be fair it does it fairly well the problem is everything else, reduced ammo capacity, heavier equipment (in an era where surveillance is easier than ever and the army expects its troops to be constantly on the move) and also the idea of the weapon sounds neat but as we see in combat footage like Ukraine, Afghanistan etc combat is chaotic whenever you fire at someone they’re going to be ducking for cover, trying to get away from you or hiding themselves to such an extent that the only way you could see them is through their muzzle flash.
Only time will tell if this rifle is good enough