US expenditionary model maybe relatively economical method for US to deliver global fires given US goals/constraints, but US choosing to be visiting team doesn'

US expenditionary model maybe relatively economical method for US to deliver global fires given US goals/constraints, but US choosing to be visiting team doesn't negate homecourt advantage for those who choose play at home. Reality is RU/PRC can deliver firepower cheaper in most reasonable scenarios we envision they'll get involved in. And currently both countries have autarkic enough MIC that PPP makes sense even accounting for smuggling in western machinery etc. They're not isn't Japan whose GDP in USD is 60% of ~2010 peak and need to scrounge for couch USDs to buy F35s. Or ~2B to buy 400 tomahawks over years when PRC MIC signalled they can make twice that in one day, at presumably magnitude lower costs, because they don't need 6sigma reliability to balance expeditionary logistics costs. That's before tactics changing procurement economics like RU ECM negating 100k per shell Excalibure rounds from 70% effectiveness to 6%, making it closer to 1k dumb shell. Or sanctioned to death Iran's budget ballistic salvo still managed to penetrate Israel+co's exquisitely expensive missile defense that was estimated to cost one day of IL GDP in interceptors (for just their share of interceptions). PPP is more appropriate comparison for powers whose MIC isn't dependent on US relative to their strategic goals i.e. PRC likely isn't going to spend trillions building/sustaining 11 nuke carriers and securing global basing to project power in the Americas, they're going to build a few 100s of billions worth of conventional ground launched ICBMs, stored in tunnels, to hit US strategic targets (like carriers in ports) in event of peer war.