Largely? The dogfight officially died back in 1979, and the at-that-time "untested money pit" called the F-15 was partially responsible. But noooooo, "the Vietnam War proved that pilot skill is more important than technology," said by the same bellend who thinks that drones are a great idea!
As with political progressives, there is no consistency to found in the verbal diarrhea of military reformists, they are stuck in the past, they want things both ways, and they are friends to precisely no-one.
I'm having a hard time figuring out the deeper analogy, but for some reason all that comes to mind is an old meme...
Even the F-4 Phantom could be upgraded to handle modern ordnance if not for the inevitable fatigue on old planes. It's more about bragging rights and funneling money into the pockets of corporate cronies than practical analysis of warfare. Chinese balloons and guerrilla warfare are cheap. Drones and stealth fighters are not.
Forget the F-4, what about the Longsword? It's an AT-802 crop duster with missile racks!
By the way, another thing that pisses me off about the reformists: they are the corporate cronies, but they pretend to be anti-establishment. I presume you know the type: some time-wasting dinosaur who constantly brags about what hot shit they were "back in the day," but holds back the entire operation because they haven't kept up with the times, then blames everyone else for the collective failure. Here's a perfect example of such an individual working in the Pentagon:
BTW, LazerPig made a few mistakes in that video, but he corrected them in later videos. Most important among them: Pierre Sprey never designed a single aeroplane.