Think of it like that:After reading through the posts in the Nagorniy Karabkh thread I would think the focus for these type of ground units should/has likely shift away from fixed wing fast jets threat to the type of loitering / kamikaze UAS's that can pop up and be deployed in numbers even if air superiority is achieved (which is likely the case where US ground forces would be). Have to think that AAA is almost a necessity given the limited number of stingers that would be carried.
Large, manned fighters are for special ops.
Loitering munitions and UAVs are for day to day fighting.
Regarding IM-SHORAD, the whole system may look inadequate for some. Yeah, more energetic missiles would be desired.
A more powerful and faster firing gun would also be desired. You look at something like the Mantis on a Boxer and think "damn why can't we have that?".
But then, you really lose on the whole concept of interim.
First, despite the previous bad record of keeping interim items in service too long (Stryker, even though it was kept for very logical reasons), the Army is now proving with a Dragoon overhaul that interim really means interim.
Second, when you have some tools, even if they're not perfect, you can start working. And if the tech is prohibitive in some scenarios, you get creative and flexible to work around your issues.
When you have no tools and see a problem, you probably won't know how to start fixing it. But when you have some tools that aren't optimal for the job, you can already imagine a solution.
Relying on the end user to get creative with his product on day 1 to achieve his goal, is considered a bad design. But it's not necessarily bad when you're making an interim product.
Also, all major components are in mass use across the services. Moog really made it as low risk and as cheap as possible.