[scott_w]

> Historically they are rarely very good at being able to tell how the next war is going to be fought.

Is the fact they aren't good at knowing how the next war will be fought because they're bad at it or because that's a hard problem?

Put more specifically: if you were to fight that next war, do you think you'd do a better job than Admiral Sir Tony Radakin or General Randy George?

[qwytw]

> they're bad at it or because that's a hard problem?

Sometimes either, sometimes both. Historically it wasn't uncommon for mean who were exceptionally incompetent and ill suited to the position to end up leading the militaries of major powers (e.g. Gamelin, Cadorna, Fredendall and plenty of others)

Whether I would do a better job [obviously I wouldn't] seems entirely tangential and a pointless argument in general (especially considering I didn't even make any particularly strong claims. I certainly never claimed that the F35 is not the best fighter jet that's available currently).

Regardless decisions related to things like this are not made by individuals and are usually highly political, based on compromises and several decades in advance.

[scott_w]

> The thing is, we can sit here on HN thinking we’re so clever

This was the precursor to the statement you objected to. It seems pretty central to my point: we only have access to public data and have no experience leading any military campaign. I’m willing to have a discussion to learn more but I’m ultimately going to trust that military people are looking at drone warfare in Ukraine and still trust the F-35 to be good value for money.

> based on compromises and several decades in advance.

Using drones in war has been a theoretical possibility since at least 2010, so I believe it’s definitely factored into their thinking.

[qwytw]

> drone warfare in Ukraine and still trust the F-35 to be good value for money.

Well.. I trust they wouldn't be telling us even if they didn't.