Where would you make the budget cuts?

F-22s can handle those odds easily. They actually are that good. And if we spent enough money to build enough of them, there should be no problem with them being outnumbered.



That depends how smart we are in our use of them. If we try to use them to launch short-range fighters against the coast of an advanced enemy, they'll likely be damaged to the point where they can no longer be used as a weapon (not sure if they could actually sink). However, if they are used to interdict trade far from coastal defenses, they should be safe.

Also, we are developing medium-range unmanned bombers for our aircraft carriers. This will give our carriers a "Doolittle raid" type of range, allowing them to bomb an an advanced country while far out of range of their coastal defenses.



Yes. Many of our satellites are vulnerable to ASATs.

Even if we actually had a modern and up to date Navy and Air Force, that would not be a guarantee that all enemies could never land on our shores. And currently our Navy and Air Force are woefully obsolete.

And the invasion could well come from the north or south. It wouldn't have to be Mexico or Canada that invaded us either. Some aggressor country could invade them to then use as a pathway to get to us.



The submarines are a comfort. However, carriers will have only situational use against an advanced enemy. Launching medium-range bombers will extend their usefulness, but they really are yesterday's technology.



That I know of, France, Italy, the UK, and China.



After all our A-10s are shot down because we didn't have enough F-22s to protect them, we'll have zero A-10s.

It might be a small comfort to know that the enemy planes which will then be providing support to enemy troops will not be as advanced as our A-10s. But we'll still likely wish that we had protected our A-10s with F-22s.