In Axis and Allies, the U.S. starts with the largest number of IPCs, and also has the furthest to go to reach the main battlefields. These conditions both suggest the use of strategies using (expensive) air units.
One strategy is build bombers. The U.S. can spare 30 IPCs to build two a turn. Send them to the UK (one turn) for the strategic bombing of Germany. With six bombers, there will be a loss of one per turn (on average) to anti-aircraft. The surviving five planes will average 3.5 hits on average, or 17.5 IPCs in total. Since a bomber costs 15 IPCs, this is a profitable strategy. And it hurts Germany's economy even if they get some IPCs from Africa.
A second strategy is to build 2-3 fighters a turn, and fly them to the UK, then to Karelia or wherever they are most needed in Russia. Enough of them will stop a German attack cold. Or the U.S. could use a "hybrid" strategy, build one bomber and one fighter per turn for a combination of both. Then spend 5 IPCs a turn on tech research.
Tech discoveries could alter the equation, especially if they were jet fighters or heavy bombers (using one of the "two roll" modifications #1, #2, not the standard three-roll rules). Perhaps I'd use the fighter strategy if I discovered the one and the bomber strategy for the other (some versions of the game don't allow you to choose which tech to research).
Would you use any of these strategies without tech enhancement? With tech enhancement, especially "modified" heavy bombers? Or is the shuck-shuck strategy still superior?