It is of little of little consequence that both manufacturers 'screwed up'; we love to blame and point out 'error'.
The alternative is to consider what might be learnt.
Both manufacturers were directed by military requirement involving cost and time constraint, and specifications more often based on wish lists subject to change.
Modern large scale projects involve timescales greater than the changes in political and military objectives, yet in an era where technology is perceived to be easy to change or can meet any task. The reality is that any future requirement is difficult to define; countries lack the necessary foresight of future threats. The military require flexibility but cannot afford it, change appears easy, new regulation and testing constraints add complexity.
It is easy in hindsight to point out the 'errors', but there is greater value in understanding the evolution of programmes, the driving forces, and how these might be applied to future projects. How can we best manage uncertainty.
Unfortunately we often forget, there is always something better, and something worse ... politics.