true....logistics....logistics....logistics....& more logistics. 
won't the ChiComs suffer as well, Are their systems as well developed?
The great irony is that what the USAF needs right now is not high tech, but inexpensive, durable, expendable, low tech aircraft. Not to do the sexy, stealthy, futuristic missions, but just endless, routine ordinary stuff.
If you look at the US Army, you will see what I mean. For every fighting soldier, there are 15 support soldiers. For every Stryker, there are probably 30 trucks. And the same thing applies to the USAF.
For every high tech fighter aircraft, you need a large number of transports, cheap and durable bombers like the B-52, UAVs that do close air support and reconnaissance for thousands of hours where it doesn’t matter if the enemy sees them, even blimps that just sit there while doing half a dozen missions at the same time.
I would say that the biggest design mission of the Skunkworks should be to design both a replacement for the B-52 that is more efficient yet still low maintenance; and to design a UAV that costs about as much per unit as an economy car.
true....logistics....logistics....logistics....& more logistics.
won't the ChiComs suffer as well, Are their systems as well developed?
What can be seen can be killed.
I tend to agree with your supposition about low tech to a small degree, after air superiority has been achieved.
Problem is, it takes the high tech stuff to gain air superiority and I would not want our soldiers to go without. After that, having some low tech options would actually cost us more as there would be still more different platforms with crews.
Having support staff is not new. Consider that every WWII war plane had it’s own maintenance crew and you soon find not much has changed.
The list is MUCH longer than this. Israel has many cheap UAVs.