The only cope I guess I can find, is that there’s a good chance they just blow themselves up or something because they decided to “move fast and break things (TM)” with their weapons.
The rest of DOD has shifted to very conservative approaches to system development and sustainment (for better or worse, mostly worse IMO). It's stuck in the mindset of "This aircraft platform will be around for 50 years." Which is not conducive to the move fast, breaking things or not, approach.
Even WWII demonstrated that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_aircraft_product...
Nearly 300,000 planes built by the US during that war. Peak production in 1944 approached 100,000 new planes built in one year. The nature of the aircraft also changed substantially across the war, it's not like they took a few 1938 designs and churned out more and more each year. What was being made was constantly changing as their understanding of what was needed and what did or didn't work changed and engineering advances led to better systems (by some measure).
These weren't planes meant to last a century like the B-52 is currently targeting.
The JSF project began in 1993 (studies) with competitions later. First flight training batches delivered in 2012 and it reached operational status in 2015. 22 years from conception to operation. A grossly unsustainable approach for a military capability. It's not even one of the worst systems I'm aware of.
Tactical control and an embedded influence that ensures that "failure" never manifests in the way that it has for civilizations past.
"They" pivot. From keyboards to motorbikes. Nuclear power plants to...'sex toys'.
Pivot in such a way you can't really point a finger at who's to blame and before you've got a handle on it they've spun around into something else again.