> I mean the obvious problem here is that they are completely untested in combat
The article mentions interceptors deployed to the UAE that recently successfully hit 29 Iranian drones out of 30.
Meta: this entire comment-chain accuses the article of not focusing on "the real reason" for success, but the article touches on everything mentioned: cost, IP sharing, IRL performance, and more (fast turn-around) are all mentioned in the article.
The thread head (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48612438>) makes the accusation of omission, but specifically as regards cost.
In my own initial response, I explicitly note "It does, correctly IMO, focus on..." and continue to list several of the issues raised, in addition to expanding both on those and adding others. Subsequent discussion seems to evolve from there, no longer anchored to the root.
Overall, the article isn't great insofar as it omits or demphasises some factors; but no, it's not obtusely bad or incomplete either. And your own characterisation of the discussion as a whole is itself inaccurate.