Yes, the system expects regular updating. But Arch is entirely pragmatic. What has enough popularity and a mainainer to do the work will be kept in the repositories, even more if you include the AUR (also stuff moving between them when popularity and/or demand of packages changes). And because it is constantly moving on with new packages a lot is kept in parallel: There are a lot of packages in the repos in different versions, one being cutting edge, one being the lower version dependency for other packages not upgraded yet.
For reference: Yes, Arch for example expected you to update to the new open source NVIDIA drivers the day NVIDIA dropped the Volta, Pascal and Maxwell cards (GTX 1080 and below). But at the same moment the nvidia-580xx driver was introduced to the AUR, including explicitly being supported officially still. And the same happened every time a set of hardware got dropped (nvidia-470, nvidia-390, nividia-340), still kept unofficially for legacy reasons as long as it's technically feasible. So I can in fact still run graphics cards from 2006 20 years later...
Or for another example: Yes, Arch runs kernel 7.0.12 right now and updates the kernel on a weekly basis. Yet it also has the LTS version 6.18 (guaranteed to get support until end of 2028 upstream) fully supported in the repos. And again, including the AUR I can still run the oldest still officially supported (until end of this year) long-term-support Linux kernel 5.10.
And those are basically the most extreme examples in terms of losing support, one being the constantly developed core of the whole system, the other on proprietary drivers of a private company. Otherwise the amount of 1990s tech still support by Linux is actually insane.
Written on an ancient toaster (AMD FX series from 2011, gtx750ti from 2014, non-EFI motherboard) running Arch... which nowadays runs -given: older- games with better performance than years ago, because "the newest stuff" does introduce constant improvements and optimisation instead of new drains on your ressources like you are used to because they want you to buy new stuff.


Soft kill systems (e.g. MUSS2.0), hard kill systems (Trophy, Strike Shield), independent remote-controlled weapon stations with anti-air capabilities (KNDS' Leopard 2-A-RC3.0 demonstrator for example came with one with a 30x113mm calibre).
(Bonus points for the smaller profile and the lower weight at the same or better protection level enabled by using remote turrets...)
The war in Ukraine is more defined by the lack of high-tech to neutralize drones (vehicles and air-defense being old -or available in very small numbers-, air-defense in Russia also not even close to performing to the standards they should on paper) than by the drones themselves. Future military planning will be more defined by adding those anti-drone capabilities already existing but not yet widely used than by mass spammed cheap drones themselves.
(For reference: Maybe you remember the Bayraktar hype in the beginning days of Russia's invasion... and then it just died quickly and silently. Because the actual factor was not the drone itself but the initial failure to close the gap exploited by the drone. And then Russia adapted by moving air-defense capable of handling those drones closer.)