quote:
All combat aircraft that aren't "stealth" are in-fact becoming obsolete, especially when used during the opening parts of a theoretical war. That's why it's so important that NATO has the F-35.

It will be years before all aircraft are "stealth". In fact it may never happen because the mission some aircraft have to carry out does not lend their types to stealth. And do you not realize cocountermeasures can and will be developed to make today's stealth technology obsolete.

quote:

And yes, tanks are going to get countermeasures to guard against ATGMs, but the problem is not that ATGMs can kill them. The problem is that ATGMs and other RPGs are so prevalent and cost-effective compared to maintaining a tank force that the comparison becomes a blowout.

Would you rather 40 T-72s with countermeasures or 40 kornets? Which benefits you more in the long run?

You're still missing the point. Infantry with shoulder fired anti-tank weapons capable of killing tanks have been around since World War I. In WWII all major warring powers had infantry weapons to kill tanks. The Germans were especially good in this regard with their devastating Panzerschrek and Panzerfaust weapons. German infantry had at their disposal weapons capable of killing any armored vehicle they faced. So the concept of infantry being able to kill tanks is nothing new. And yet despite this, tanks were and still are part of the battle field today? Why do you think this is so?

The answer is simple. Namely there are things infantry can do on the battlefield and then there are things armor can do. And likewise there are things artillery can do. It take all three, working together to win on a modern battlefield when facing a likewise modern military foe.

If you were to try and fight a war with just infantry, artillery, and airpower, what you'd end up with is trench warfare where neither side is able to breach the defenses of the other.

This post was edited on 1/22/17 at 10:20 pm