Interesting arguments.
My own take on things is that too much of the argument for specialised equipment is based upon the dysfunctional procurement processes and overly extended operational lives.
Wars are won with cutting edge equipment? Possibly, there is no doubt that conflict gives innovation and advancement a real kick - but how does that square with keeping equipment in service for 30 years. Obviously after 5 years most of this stuff belongs in a museum.
Buying equipment which is not yet developed is a hugely risky prospect - and leads to 'concrete' radar systems and the like - which obviously are not going to be any use.
Speccing the equipment is obviously critical and the military has a hugely unfortunate tendency to make it all far to too difficult. The best example I can think of is the coffee machine on a certain US aircraft, capable of operating at +6,-3g, massive temperature margins and can withstand a 27g impact. Not surprisingly an extraordinarily expensive coffee maker - based on a completely flawed premise. Nearer home look at military LandRovers - different really just for the sake of being different.
Far too much of this seems to be driven by the idea that the equipment must last 25 years. During a conflict nothing lasts that long - it is obsolete in 2 years. But is has too in peacetime because it takes the procurement process 3 to 5 years to buy anything. As noted in many of the posts above nothing IT can be made that future proof, accept that and change it out every 5 years - just like the rest of the world does!