Latest L2, Abrams etc. wouldn’t fare significantly better. Close enough for evaluation.
Performance in a real conflict has many dimensions. This large land war is the closest thing to the hot Cold War conflict most of the gear in question was built for. A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
There’s much more than tanks, guns and missiles to be tested.
They don’t want to hurt sales with bad PR. But they have to send something. Older, gimped models as excuse.
Costs are already massive. New production is often pitiful. As horny as many NATO generals are for this war, parting with what little working gear they have left, unlikely to be replaced soon if ever, stings.
That said, “testing ground” is also kind of a red herring. A side-effect, not really a cause.
AMRAAM-ER, for example.
>Is Storm Shadow actually state of the art?
"France, the UK, along with Italy are jointly developing the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon to replace SCALP/Storm Shadow and each nation's respective anti-ship missiles by 2028 and 2034." [0]
Two counterexamples don't add up to "nope".
But maybe, instead of "obsolete", I should have said "not state of the art". Is there anything that NATO has given Ukraine that is state of the art? HIMARS might be. Were the Abrams and Bradleys state of the art, or were they old revs? Is Storm Shadow actually state of the art?