Alright, imagine you're playing a big game of tag with your friends in a huge park. Here's what's happening:

1. **Human-piloted fighter jets** are like you and your friends running around the park trying to tag each other. You can only run so fast because, well, you're a kid! And if someone tags you too hard, you might get hurt and have to stop playing.

2. **Drones and AI-controlled aircraft** are like super-fast robots that some of your friends brought with them. These robots can go really, really fast (even faster than you can run!) because they don't get tired or need breaks. They're also tough and can handle being spun around super fast without getting hurt.

3. **Hypersonic missiles** are like a special tag that these robots have. It's so powerful and quick that it's hard for anyone to avoid once it's been thrown (or launched).

So, some people think that in the future, wars might be more like this game with the super-fast, tough robots instead of just kids running around because the robots can move faster, carry stronger tags, and don't get tired or hurt as easily.

Now, a smart man named Pierre Ferragu said we should use some of the money that our country's military has to work with cool companies (startups) who make new, interesting things like these super-fast robots. He thinks if we do this, it will help us have better stuff for protecting our country while also making more jobs and creating new inventions.

That's what's happening right now in a grown-up world version of your game of tag! Read from source...

Based on the provided text, here are some potential critiques and aspects to consider:

1. **Lack of Context**: The article starts with a vague statement about "systems" being obsolete without providing specific context or defining what these systems are.

2. **Overgeneralization**: The claim that human-piloted fighter jets will be quickly decimated in modern conflict oversimplifies complex military scenarios. Different situations and threats require different approaches, and the superiority of one system doesn't necessarily translate across all scenarios.

3. **Biased Sourcing**: The article heavily relies on perspectives from Elon Musk, Pierre Ferragu, Mario Georgiou, and a few others, who are all supportive of reduced government spending and increased reliance on innovative startups. While their arguments have merit, presenting multiple viewpoints would provide a more robust analysis.

4. **Rhetorical Devices**: The use of stark contrasts (e.g., "human" vs. "AI-controlled") can be an oversimplification or even a fallacy. Real-world applications often lie on a spectrum rather than in extremes.

5. **Lack of Caution**: While the potential benefits of AI and drone warfare are highlighted, the article does not explicitly discuss the challenges, risks, and ethical implications. This includes potential cyber vulnerabilities, civilian casualties in drone strikes, and the possibility that advanced weaponry could escalate conflicts rather than deter them.

6. **Comparisons without Nuance**: Drawing parallels between NASA's approach two decades ago and redirecting Defense Department budgets could be valid, but it ignores the unique contexts of space exploration and military development. The article also doesn't sufficiently address how startups would handle aspects like quality control, security clearance, or the need for robust testing periods.

7. **Emotional Tone**: The article occasionally shifts into a more emotional tone (e.g., describing potential savings as "fuelling innovation", "spurring economic growth", and delivering "the defense capabilities we deserve"). While these are aspirational goals, presented in this context they might come across as more promotional than analytical.

8. **Future-Predicting Caution**: The article makes predictions about future conflicts without providing data or scenarios to back them up. For instance, asserting that human-piloted jets will be quickly decimated relies on many assumptions about how future wars would unfold.

The sentiment of the article is generally **bullish** on unmanned aerial systems and AI-controlled aircraft compared to human-piloted fighter jets. Here are some indicators of this:

1. **Expert Opinions**: The article quotes analysts and experts (Pierre Ferragu, Mario Georgiou) who highlight the advantages of drone warfare.
2. **Advancements Highlighted**: It mentions specific improvements offered by AI-controlled aircraft, such as unprecedented processing speeds, ability to withstand extreme G-forces, elimination of human physical limitations, and potential for larger, more numerous deployment.
3. **Budget Recommendation**: Pierre Ferragu suggests shifting Department of Defense budgets towards innovative startups, suggesting belief in their capabilities.

However, there's also a **neutral** or **debate-oriented** aspect to the sentiment, as it presents differing views on traditional fighter jet programs (like F-35) and encourages discussion about the future of military technology.