Why ‘Good Enough’ Wins More Wars Than ‘Cutting Edge’

Reliability Has Repeatedly Outperformed Complexity in Combat

U.S. military reviews and defense audits consistently show that reliability and sustainment play a central role in combat effectiveness. Systems that are easier to maintain, repair, and field at scale often provide more usable combat power than advanced systems that face readiness or sustainment challenges.

This conclusion is not theoretical. It appears repeatedly in Government Accountability Office audits, Pentagon strategy documents, and defense research focused on readiness and availability. These reports evaluate performance based on mission-capable rates, maintenance demands, and lifecycle costs.

The issue is not whether advanced technology works. It is whether it can be kept working in operational conditions.

Availability Is a Measured Indicator of Combat Power

The Department of Defense tracks readiness through standardized metrics, including mission-capable rates and maintenance hours per flight or operating hour. These metrics are used across the services and reported annually to Congress.

GAO’s annual assessments of major defense acquisition programs have documented cases where systems entered service with unresolved reliability or maintainability issues. In those cases, GAO reported lower availability than planned and higher sustainment costs than originally estimated.

From an operational standpoint, lower availability limits how often a system can be deployed, trained with, or relied upon during sustained operations.

Sustainment Is a Documented Strategic Concern

Pentagon strategy documents identify logistics and sustainment as core components of military readiness. The Department of Defense’s National Defense Strategy emphasizes the importance of operational endurance, supply chains, and industrial capacity in modern conflict.

RAND Corporation research examining historical readiness data and force employment has found that platforms with higher availability contribute more consistently to force readiness over time. These findings are based on documented maintenance data and operational usage, not projections.

Neither GAO nor RAND argue against advanced capabilities. Their reporting focuses on the relationship between sustainment, availability, and operational effectiveness.

Observations from Ukraine Are Based on Official Reporting

U.S. defense officials and allied military leaders have discussed sustainment challenges observed during the war in Ukraine in public testimony and briefings. These statements focus on documented issues such as munitions consumption rates, maintenance demands, and logistics capacity.

Pentagon officials have noted the importance of systems that can be repaired quickly and supported with available parts. These observations are tied to reported operational data and supply requirements, not hypothetical assessments.

Advanced systems have also played a role in the conflict, according to U.S. officials. Public statements do not frame the issue as advanced versus basic technology, but rather as sustainment under prolonged combat conditions.

Complexity Introduces Verified Program Risk

GAO has repeatedly identified complexity as a risk factor in defense acquisition programs when systems are fielded before technologies are mature. Its findings are based on testing outcomes, maintenance records, and cost growth trends.

In multiple reports, GAO documented how unresolved reliability issues increased maintenance time and reduced availability after systems entered service. These findings are program-specific and derived from government data.

Cybersecurity requirements, software update cycles, and specialized maintenance needs are identified in official reporting as sustainment considerations that must be managed to preserve readiness.

“Good Enough” Reflects Acquisition Tradeoffs on Record

Pentagon acquisition guidance and service modernization strategies increasingly emphasize modularity, open systems architectures, and maintainability. These priorities are documented in DoD acquisition reform efforts and service-level planning documents.

The stated objective is to improve adaptability and sustainment while allowing incremental upgrades over time. This approach is described in official guidance as a way to manage risk while maintaining operational capability.

These tradeoffs are presented in formal acquisition policy, not as informal preference.

What the Record Supports

Based on verified reporting and official analysis, several facts are clearly documented:

• Availability is a key measure of operational readiness
• Reliability and maintainability affect mission-capable rates
• Sustainment and logistics are identified as strategic concerns
• Advanced capability alone does not guarantee availability

These conclusions are drawn directly from audits, strategy documents, and defense research.

The Bottom Line

The documented record shows that wars reward systems that can be sustained over time. Reliability and availability are measurable factors that directly affect readiness and force employment.

Innovation remains important. The evidence shows it is most effective when paired with systems that can be maintained, repaired, and fielded consistently.

Sources

Government Accountability Office (GAO)

• Defense Acquisitions Annual Assessment (most recent editions), Government Accountability Office (.gov)
• Weapon System Sustainment: DoD Needs to Address Persistent Challenges, Government Accountability Office (.gov)
• GAO reports on reliability, maintainability, and mission-capable rates for major defense acquisition programs (.gov)

Department of Defense (DoD)

• National Defense Strategy of the United States of America (2022, 2023), U.S. Department of Defense (.gov)
• Annual Report of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, Office of the Secretary of Defense (.gov)

RAND Corporation

• RAND Corporation studies on military readiness, system availability, and sustainment (.org)
• RAND analyses on logistics, maintenance burden, and force employment in prolonged conflict (.org)