I think you are misrepresenting the article. Its main argument is that the remote visual guidance system for the boom initially didn't work as intended and the fix is still in progess. Are you implying that is wrong?
I would say the main argument of the article is that the US Military Industrial Complex is corrupt and that the taxpayer is getting scammed by corrupt procurement officials into paying for things they don't need. I feel like this is pretty clearly a persuasive piece.
It’s very strange that the author go lengths to demonstrate how remote systems doesn’t work, just to, at the end, inadvertently providing an exemple where it works wonderfully (moral questions aside).