I disagree. Unless there has been a massive change since 2006 there are still a lot of things that are not being supplied because of lack of funds. Maybe everything has changed drastically in 5 years and there are no longer shortages/crappy equipment being used, but I highly doubt it.
I also strongly disagree that the hyper advanced jet fighter is the way to prepare for future wars.
Not only what rooster said, but also, I made a very clear point about procurement/lack of procurement and it's effect on casualties. You don't seem to get it, so I'll be clearer this time. The casualty rate for US deployed, non-SOCOM forces is not much more than NON deployed, non-SOCOM forces (roughly 400-600k man-years in AF and 600-700k man-years in Iraq, with ~6000KIA, or roughly 4-6 KIA per 1000 per year, while the death rate for the 18-45yr old population as a whole is 1-2 per 1000 per year). what that means is the maximum POSSIBLE reduction would be a factor of 2-3x, and would be basically, not being there at all (non-deployed). To reduce casualties by even 20-30% would require an expenditure of effectively the entire budget, if it could be done at all--since while you could give everyone an MBT, that would reduce casualties by that level, but you couldn't perform the mission. Compare this to previous conflicts...for instance, Vietnam (10+/1000), WW-II (23+/1000), and really, we have made great strides---or do you think giving EVERYONE armor was easy?
Before you go off ranting, cite facts. I would like you to find me one analysis or think of one thing that says there are things we could procure RIGHT NOW that would reduce casualties by even 1 per 1000 man-years--for a cost of less than $20 billion per year. you can't, because if you could, you would have the military beating down your door to buy it.
Now, I've actually had to DO these analyses, talk to the people getting hurt and killed about what we can do, spent innumerable sleepless nights figuring out how to help, and even invested my own money to develop stuff to help our troops and keep them safe...so don't come at me with BS, you literally don't know what you are talking about.
You even state you have no facts post 2006, and even then you have only individual experience and anecdote, but that isn't what we are addressing, we are addressing the military as a whole, and the procurement/RDTE budgets--you may have had to serve with crappy gear (i don't know your background), but funding wouldn't have speeded that up...unless the funding was 5 years before we started.
As for the next war, most experts I know agree, this is the last major COIN we fight for a while...the next wars are going to be conventional, country on country, in a combined arms conflict. Not only that, you deride advanced fighter as being unimportant...the US has enjoyed effectively a perfect record since late WWII in establishing air superiority, and it's only because of that that we can have the low casualties we do...ever bother to look up what the casualty rates are on ground forces when they don't have friendly air superiority? I'll give you a hint, look at the Iraqi casualties in the air war of the fist gulf war. Given that most major military powers are developing 4/5gen fighters and have the numbers of 3/4gen to stand toe-to-toe with our existing inventory, we need a future silver bullet to even hope of obtaining air superiority--and that is the f22/f35.
Again, I don't believe you know what you are talking about in this case.