Its a well known proverb, "Generals always fight the last war" going back to at least 1934 as a criticism of military doctrine. And while it is true, it is also

Its a well known proverb, "Generals always fight the last war" going back to at least 1934 as a criticism of military doctrine. And while it is true, it is also inevitable because nobody wants to lose knowing that the enemy did X in the last war and they didn't bother to develop a countermeasure Y to defend against that. That said, there are always new things to try on the battlefield as well and they are. Stealth bombers in Serbia, "three layer" attacks (top B-52, middle F-18, low Tomahawk) or any of the other tactics that appear as "new" in a conflict and then become "Yeah, they always do that." One of my classmates in high school went to West Point and at a reunion we were talking about the difference between engineering school and military school. There is a very deep base of knowledge there. And while it wasn't my destiny to go that path (even though the Marines tried really really hard to recruit me :-)) I recognize that fighting effectively is just as complex and nuanced as making a circuit that has 160 dB of noise margin. What has been interesting about F-35 project is what was called out in the article, developed during unprecedented visibility into the unvarnished ups and downs. And there are always people who exploit that to paint a narrative of incompetence and gross negligence. The real test though is when they go to war and whether or not they provide the capabilities that overcome the enemy or not right?