Ho! A wargame situation. What about a real situation? Insurrection in a city, and a budget of 10M$ for the defenders. Cheap old schools baloons (like WWII),

Ho! A wargame situation. What about a real situation? Insurrection in a city, and a budget of 10M$ for the defenders. Cheap old schools baloons (like WWII), drones maybe, 1000 persons paid to watch and use high EM beams to direct at planes, maybe 2-3 hackers asked to read the papers on how iranians where able to spoof GPS signals to steal drone .... I don't know, but war is assymetric. It has never been about who has the best weapons, but who can take with an inferior budget the expensive weapon of the opponents, using any trick possible. The allies attacked the nazis on their weapon's greatest vulnerability: resources and energy. That's the reason why the dam in Germany were bombed, and africa was invaded to cut access to oil/lubrificants. Having complex weapons to fight in situation you don't know is stupid. IED for instance are costing 100$, AK47 way less then USA guns. Still, Iraki & Afghanistan have proven they are efficient... against a better doted army. Vietnam with cheap radars and missile batteries was a pain for USAF. And aerial domination did not helped win the war. And well, given how it is a mess in middle east and how USA may not have the most solid allies there, what would happen if someone attacked the oil tankers or ridge? F35 would still fly, but what about the economical situation? How long can USA debts inflates and still stays sustainable for USA's economy? Remember Reagan triggered an arm race that resulted in USSR fall, not a military win. But, USSR army after that was way less of a threat. So, yes, cool F35 can export and if you buy it you probably have a super weapon. Will it be a good cost/benefits investment though?