Maintain Schedule in spite of lack of performance and cost overruns. The old paradigm of design to cost is now replaced with design to the scheduled increase of budgeted production funding, in spite of how much more evolutionary development is required later to get the system to work in a manner that may succeed in battle. With all this bad performance you will need good logistics and the ideas for that are sensible, but involve new organizations, which will be hard to do politically. Reduce Total Ownership Costs to make money available for needed modernization, because the force is getting old, and the potential adversaries have access to good commercial technology. CAIV is a cousin of evolutionary acquisition, if it costs too much to get the performance, it must not be that necessary, so we ignore the equipment and move on.
Performance is sacrificed.
Blind faith that commercial things will work in harsh combat environment. Somehow the industry can repair items using outcome-based pricing cheaper than the depots. Outcome-based pricing will consider bad outcomes of poor reliability and bad maintenance design, and we will then pay to cover those things we allowed CAIV policies give away in development. New authority for the program manager. Let the program manager control tradeoffs for life cycle, include doing CAIV tradeoffs that lower performance.