F-22A in a spot of bother (major report)

[Julhelm]

Regarding the SR-71 designation, it was originally supposed to be RS-71 for Recon/Strike. It's the same prefix given to the B-70 before it was completely killed.

[Batman]

Batman: it looks like the SR prefix was Curtis LeMay's fault:

The originally planned USAF designation for the aircraft was RS-71, following on from the planned RS-70, a reconnaissance version of the XB-70. However Curtis LeMay preferred the SR designation and wanted the RS-70 to be named SR-70. When the aircraft was to be announced by Lyndon B. Johnson on February 29, 1964, Johnson's speech was modified by LeMay to read SR-71 instead of RS-71.

IOW, it's a nonsensical designation based on a gen'rul's preference. And since gen'ruls are at the right hand of God, so mote it be.

I know. I was just pointing out that while as an abbreviation for the strategic recon role SR absolutely makes sense, it's not supported by the US armed forces official designation system.
Neither was the RS designation for the Valkyrie from what I can tell.

[Sea Skimmer]

Skimmer, thanks for the info. The ausairpower argument earlier in the thread, proposing that Australia adopt the F-22 and an upgraded F-111 (newer avionics and radar, higher thrust engines, and supercruise capability) makes a lot more sense.

Keep in mind those proposed F-111 ‘upgrades’ basically amount to building a new aircraft owing the enormous demands of systems integration. If you want any real level of supercruise it’d also mean flying clean, which means you can only have a 4,500lb internal bomb load, no better then an F-35.

This is probably a stupid question, but has the Navy looked at a navalized version of the F-22 for the fleet defense role?

Yeah they did as and it would not work. The F-22 needed radical modifications including a swing wing and a longer foliage to accommodate longer landing gear. This required completely reshaping the aircraft, and the F-22 was already looking to be too expensive, so the Navy ditched the idea. This was around 1990 or so. Studies continued until the Navy came up with the AX design, which was canceled for good in 1993. JSF- now F-35 was launched instead.

The F-4, after all, worked well for both the Navy and AF and was the only plane the Thunderbirds and Blue Angels both flew.

The F-4 started as a carrier plane first though. That’s why it worked out when adapted by the USAF second. Adapting certain fighters design for land to carriers only worked back in WW1 and WW2 because all the aircraft were very light to begin with.

[Batman]

What land-based fighters WERE converted for carrier service in WW2? The only ones that come to mind are the Hurricane and the Spitfire, all the other ones (or at least all the ones that actually made a difference) were dedicated-designed carrier birds far as I know.

[Count Chocula]

Batman and Skimmer are both right. IIRC, the US F4F, F6F, F8F, F4U, TBM and Douglas Dauntless were all designed from the start as carrier planes. I remember descriptions of Hawker Hurricanes being launched from naval vessels, but those were rocket catapult launches where the plane either ditched or recovered at an airfield. The P-51, P-47, P-38 et al, even though the -47 and -38 saw Pacific theater service, were land-based designs. I guess I was channelling the Navy/AF 1960s F-111 discussion. Ironically, the F-22 variant Sea Skimmer described sounds a lot like the navalized F-111!

[Sea Skimmer]

What land-based fighters WERE converted for carrier service in WW2? The only ones that come to mind are the Hurricane and the Spitfire, all the other ones (or at least all the ones that actually made a difference) were dedicated-designed carrier birds far as I know.

To that you can add the Gloster Gladiator. I don’t think any plane except those three got into regular service, but a number of others satisfactory passed carrier compatibility trials. A slightly modified P-51D for example passed in 1944; the intention had been to fly large numbers off CVEs as escorts for B-29 raids. The need for this passed, but near stock P-51 and P-47s and a number of other fighters did operationally take off from CVEs for delivery to forward land bases. Initially loading was done with a crane not because the fighters couldn’t land necessarily, but because this enabled the CVE to haul more aircraft. The space needed for takeoffs was much less then the space needed for landings.

It also helped that since WW2 carrier planes had live spans measured in weeks (no joke) and crashed all the time landing anyway, overstressing an aircraft with carrier landings that wasn’t designed for it was not a big deal. For modern planes we expect to fly for at least 30 years, even a slight airframe overstress will soon become a critical problem. Never mind the catapult tearing off the nose wheel on the first launch.

[Sea Skimmer]

Ironically, the F-22 variant Sea Skimmer described sounds a lot like the navalized F-111!

I forgot, the final product was called AF/X not just AX. Anyway it is kind of the same story compared to F-111, with two distinct roles being pushed onto one airframe. The USN needed an F-14 replacement and an A-6 replacement. When the A-12 and the Super Tomcat and NATF all got canceled or ruled out it at the end of the Cold War, it was left with a realization that it could only get one new plane. Thus AF/X would be a major strike plane but with a robust long range air to air ability and a fair bit of agility so it wouldn’t be the F6D Missilier all over again. A couple other companies, including Grumman with a reworked version of A-12 also made entries but all got shot down as too much strike, not enough air to air as far as I can tell. But even AF/X never had a real chance with people still demanding more of a peace dividend. Instead it died and became something of a basis for JSF proposals.

Rough evolution of F-22 into AF/X show below from a French aerospace magazine I forget the name of now.



Someone’s CGI work of what it would have looked like, notice similarities to F-35 but with twin bays in the belly and twin seats.

[Simon_Jester]

Batman and Skimmer are both right. IIRC, the US F4F, F6F, F8F, F4U, TBM and Douglas Dauntless were all designed from the start as carrier planes. I remember descriptions of Hawker Hurricanes being launched from naval vessels, but those were rocket catapult launches where the plane either ditched or recovered at an airfield. The P-51, P-47, P-38 et al, even though the -47 and -38 saw Pacific theater service, were land-based designs. I guess I was channelling the Navy/AF 1960s F-111 discussion. Ironically, the F-22 variant Sea Skimmer described sounds a lot like the navalized F-111!

The Germans adapted the Me-109 into a carrier version, but never actually built the carriers to put it on, so not many 109T's got made.

[Shroom Man 777]

Why does the proposed naval F-22 in the picture have such a tiny rhinoplastic nose?

[Akkleptos]

Why does the proposed naval F-22 in the picture have such a tiny rhinoplastic nose?

Isn't that the gist of it all? Cosmetics for justifying ludicrous expenditures in R&D of aircraft that hardly qualify as military priorities for the US right now?

Even in the near future... What organised state is going to try and launch a serious attack on the US that would require aircraft such as the F22 to retaliate against? Seriously... Who?

North Korea? I'd hold my breath. Besides, the nukes the US has are more than enough to finish a threatening nation several times over. No nation, except maybe Russia, could survive a real ICBM strike.

Again, why does the US need so costly and extremely-high-maintenance an air-superiority jet fighter when what they're up against (and more than likely will still be up against in the next decade) are terrorists and guerrillas?

[Shroom Man 777]

Will they always be terrorists and guerillas? Iraq circa 1991 was actually fairly modern in military terms. As was Yugoslavia. What if America wages war with a nation that's the modern equivalent of 1991 Iraq? What if that nation sports modern anti-aircraft weaponry that would endanger F-15s and F-16s? The F-22 would be more survivable, and is a better aircraft than the last generation of fighters.

What's wrong with having a better fighter? The best, in fact? Ludicrous expenditures? The F-22 isn't much more ludicrously expensive than other new-generation fighters.

Anyway, it looks like the F-22's become a symbol for both the Nitrams and the Sheps to either crucify or venerate, without looking at the actual-factual endemic problems of the US military.

[Akkleptos]

Iraq circa 1991 was actually fairly modern in military terms.

I was 17 back then, by the time Operation Desert Storm was going on. IIRC, it was a cakewalk. The only really difficult task wast that of the infanntry troops that had to get the targetting laser pointers set up. It is still recalled as the Nintendo Wars. The Republican Guard, the Elite Iraqi troops? They were surrendering en masse.

What's wrong with having a better fighter? The best, in fact? Ludicrous expenditures? The F-22 isn't much more ludicrously expensive than other new-generation fighters.

That I don't mind. What annoys me is that it's by all accounts costing more than it should, not to mention the operation costs.

[Shroom Man 777]

I was 17 back then, by the time Operation Desert Storm was going on. IIRC, it was a cakewalk. The only really difficult task wast that of the infanntry troops that had to get the targetting laser pointers set up. It is still recalled as the Nintendo Wars. The Republican Guard, the Elite Iraqi troops? They were surrendering en masse.

That was then, and back then the F-15 and F-16 were hot-shit.

This is now, and the F-15 and F-16 are not hot shit anymore. What if we get another Operation Desert Storm, but this time the opponent - also a sizeable and reasonably equipped military made up of conventionals rather than guerillas - have relatively up-to-date surface-to-air weapons? Key word being relatively up-to-date, something which the F-15 and F-16 are now no longer.

If you want it to be another cakewalk this time around, then investing in the current present-day hot shit is most sensible.

If you want it to be NOT a cakewalk, then ditch modern weapons systems like the F-22 and go rely on rusting platforms like the F-15 and F-16. Castrate the conventional forces and "adapt them" to counter-insurgency warfare. Let's see how well they do when they take on a reasonable military. This time around, BECAUSE the US military has castrated its conventional combat capacity and turned it into counter-insurgency crap, then it WON'T be cakewalk, won't be a Nintendo War, and those Republican Guards and Elite Iraqi troops might actually put up a better fight.

[EDIT: To sum it short, the reason why Gulf War 1 was so successful was BECAUSE the US military back then was built up to fight a HUEG conventional war because they had just gotten out of the Cold War! Now, if the US military gets neutered because no one thinks they'll be fighting conventional war anymore - which is what's happening right now - then what do you think will happen the next time 'round?]

That I don't mind. What annoys me is that it's by all accounts costing more than it should, not to mention the operation costs.

As detailed by Shep and Co. that is BECAUSE the procurement numbers of the F-22 got cut down!

If I order 100 F-22s and Lockheed makes the F-22 costs $1 (for an agreed total of $100), then if I cut my order to 10 F-22s then to still make a profit Lockheed will compensate by making the F-22 cost $10 dollars! So in the end, you'd STILL have to pay $100 dollars but because you've cut the number of F-22s, now Lockheed is going to sell you more EXPENSIVE F-22s because you're buying LESS of them.

That's the same thing that happened to the B-2 bomber. They were going to buy a hundred plus of them for a reasonable price, but because the USAF downsized it to a dozen B-2s, then the price for each individual bomber ballooned to nearly a billion dollars. Imagine that!

The operation costs will cost more because there are so few F-22s, then each individual F-22 will have to do more missions, go out on more sorties, and thus NEED MORE MAINTENANCE. If there were more F-22s, then each individual F-22 would have a lesser workload. But since there are less F-22s, then each one will have to perform more missions, needing more maintenance, and decreasing its overall service life due to the strains of flying supersonic, landing and taking off at high speeds, and carrying the weight of ordnance.

The reason why the F-15s and F-16s are still flying is because quite many of them were purchased, which means that it'll take a longer time for the planes to degrade by virtue of attrition. But because the F-22s are fewer in number, attrition will take its toll much quicker. The same might happen to the F35.

When that happens, then what?

[Akkleptos]

That was then, and back then the F-15 and F-16 were hot-shit.

This is now, and the F-15 and F-16 are not hot shit anymore. What if we get another Operation Desert Storm, but this time the opponent - also a sizeable and reasonably equipped military made up of conventionals rather than guerillas - have relatively up-to-date surface-to-air weapons? Key word being relatively up-to-date, something which the F-15 and F-16 are now no longer.

That's just silly. What kind of fighters could Iraq have fielded this time around? I mean "Desert... whatever" it was) that were a match against the US' F15 and F16s, and F-whatnots-- piloted by top notch US pilots? I remember back then, when the Iraqi disadvantage became obvious (and sort of embarrassing for the US, which had been claiming that the Republican Guard was "the finest army ever assembled" before they came surrendering all by themselves) that some "inside-sources" likened Iraqui jet fighter pilots to lorry drivers, compared to the USAF's Formula 1 drivers.. again, what kind of fighters? what kind of tanks were they going to field that would pose such a great cold-war-like threat? Even back then...

What are they trying to ready themselves for, in Spartafreedomerica? A war against China, perhaps, which holds the most of foreign-held US debt and which has the US as the single most important business partner as of 2009?

A war against Russia? Again, I'll leave it to Stas and fgalking to clear out why that would be a verrry bad idea, for BOTH parties...

A war against whom?

Against... North Korea?
Against ... fucking... Venezuela?
Why don't you go ahead and say that Canadians are a menace to the US?

Since the end of the last NHL playoffs , Quebec redoubled its efforts to develop Pretzels of Mass Destruction (PMD) and Root Beer Floats(RBF)

.

(Actually, they ARE)...



That might make a lot more sense.

[D.Turtle]

The problem is quite simple: The US want to be able to invade and defeat any country in the world.

That is expensive.

If they would concentrate on being able to defend their country, they could make do with very different (less expensive) armed forces. This is what Germany did after the end of the Cold War: They looked at what could happen in the foreseeable future, and reacted accordingly. This meant downsizing the armed forces, this meant going from around 86 tank battalions to 6 - and similar downsizing in artillery, mechanized infantry, etc. Why? Because we are surrounded by allies, and there is no credible conventional threat to Germany. And such a threat will not emerge within a few years - such a threat would take decades to develop. This means that the armed forces only need a small conventional force that could be upsized if such a development is ever started.

The US however is incapable of making such a drastic change in direction, because of entrenched special interests, useless media, a ridiculously broken political system, and so on all wanting to promote the status quo.

If this would only affect the US, that would be your problem. However, you are pulling the entire world with you into a depression. You are destabilizing many areas of the world. In effect, you are creating - because of your jingoism - the very enemies you see everywhere. You are so afraid of losing your hyperpower status, that you will lose it.

And thats a good thing.

[Shroom Man 777]

That's just silly. What kind of fighters could Iraq have fielded this time around?

Not Iraq, but a hippotheticel future battlefield against another advesary of similar-scale. The F-22 is supposed to serve up to, what, 2040? How can you reliably predict what wars the US will fight in the next decades to come?

@ D.Turtle:

All the F-22 is supposed to do is be a good fighter that can take on and take down anything that's in the sky. That's what any nation would want, neo-imperialist hyperpower or not. It's ridiculous to think that any nation's military wouldn't want to get the best kit available for it.

The continued or discontinued production of the F-22 shouldn't really be the most concerning thing anyway. The most concerning thing about the US military's whatsits is, as Shep pointed out, the increase in manpower and the military's continuous shift into counterinsurgency-type of warfare doctrine.

Anyone and everyone wants a damn good 5th gen fighter plane or, failing that, a 4.5th gen plane then. A lot of other nations are following America's lead and are designing their own 5th gen fighters.

But not everyone is gearing their forces for continuous counterinsurgency warfare, with light and mobile easily-transportable gear, designed with the explicit purpose of taking the territories of shitpiece nations and holding them. The fact that Spartafreedomerica IS in fact shifting its forces to counterinsurgency warfare means that it expects more Iraq and Afghanistan-type battlefields and actually anticipates fighting in more of them.

Now that's the worrying thing.

[Intio]

You are destabilizing many areas of the world. In effect, you are creating - because of your jingoism - the very enemies you see everywhere. You are so afraid of losing your hyperpower status, that you will lose it.

What criteria would it take for you to separate the above-described situation, from one in which the U.S. attempted to stay on top of geo-strategic developments for more peaceful ends?

[Shroom Man 777]

Who's peace?

[Darth Wong]

All the F-22 is supposed to do is be a good fighter that can take on and take down anything that's in the sky. That's what any nation would want, neo-imperialist hyperpower or not. It's ridiculous to think that any nation's military wouldn't want to get the best kit available for it.

Of course. The problem is that the civilian government in the US seems to be expected to give the military everything it wants. You could name any department in any federal government and it will have a wish list as long as your arm. One normally tries to balance all of these competing interests against the economy, citizens' prosperity and happiness, etc. But in the case of the US culture, the military's wishes are treated as non-negotiable. That's the problem.

Is it understandable why the US military wants the F-22? Yes. But that is not an answer to the question of whether it's actually good government policy.

[Straha]

That's just silly. What kind of fighters could Iraq have fielded this time around? I mean "Desert... whatever" it was) that were a match against the US' F15 and F16s, and F-whatnots-- piloted by top notch US pilots?

You should probably stop typing because your retardation is showing. They had top of the line Russian and European planes bought during the Iran-Iraq war that were in the hands of pilots who had eight years experience flying them against recent U.S. planes flew by U.S. trained Iranian pilots. The coalition was afraid that the skies were going to turn bloody until Saddam flew his planes to Iran for reasons that (as far as I know) remain utterly inexplicable to this day. The Iraqi Air Defense system was also first rate and was manned by crews who had years of wartime experience.

The quick and decisive resolution of Desert Storm wasn't because the Iraqi military was sub-par, it was the result of the massive coalition which was assembled against it and far superior American Technology.

I remember back then, when the Iraqi disadvantage became obvious (and sort of embarrassing for the US, which had been claiming that the Republican Guard was "the finest army ever assembled" before they came surrendering all by themselves) that some "inside-sources" likened Iraqui jet fighter pilots to lorry drivers, compared to the USAF's Formula 1 drivers.. again, what kind of fighters?

The memory cheats.

what kind of tanks were they going to field that would pose such a great cold-war-like threat?

T-74s (I think... Skimmer?) manned by crews who had fought and crushed British tanks (in Iranian hands) in the largest pitched tank battles since WWII.

A war against whom?
.

A war against an enemy thirty years from now. The U.S. Military wants this fighter to fight the next war, not to refight the last one, and they know that the next enemy is unpredictable. Thirty years ago the most likely enemy was the Soviet Union in the Fulda Gap and the U.S. invading and occupying Middle Eastern countries was unthinkable, but the weapons procurement was versatile enough that the weapons systems from then were able to fight the brushfire wars of the modern era. The military is trying to make sure that thirty years down the road they still have the flexibility that the U.S. has today (or had until it got tied down in Iraq.)

[Shroom Man 777]

But the thing is, the guys in the civilian and military government of the US who want to ditch the F-22 just intend to replace it with something else that might be as bad as well: Namely they're turning the US military into a force that's intended to continue fighting counterinsurgency operations that they'd anticipate they'd get into in the future while neglecting their conventional warfighting capacity.

Basically turning the military into a force meant to dick over tiny shitpiece countries ala AfghanIraq, while neglecting the modern military components (i.e. F-22) that's meant to keep the US military modern and conventionally up-to-date in the light of the rest of the world's advancements in order to be able to defend against any potential opponents' stuff.

A US military that maintains aircraft and weapons that are a match, or above that, of other nations is better than a US military that's shifting into a force dedicated to intervening and sticking its dick into more Iraqs and Afghanistans.

Well, that's just my interpretation of what Shep and Skim have said.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The quick and decisive resolution of Desert Storm wasn't because the Iraqi military was sub-par, it was the result of the massive coalition which was assembled against it and far superior American Technology.

The Iraqi military was sub-par. Their tanks were monkey tanks, and many did not even use the Kontakt-5 ERA armor, and they were firing old and lousy Soviet ammunition in the form of steel rods. The US isn't the only power that sells second rate stuff to foreign nations.

[Simon_Jester]

But not everyone is gearing their forces for continuous counterinsurgency warfare, with light and mobile easily-transportable gear, designed with the explicit purpose of taking the territories of shitpiece nations and holding them. The fact that Spartafreedomerica IS in fact shifting its forces to counterinsurgency warfare means that it expects more Iraq and Afghanistan-type battlefields and actually anticipates fighting in more of them.

Now that's the worrying thing.

I agree. An ass-kicking military that is aware it cannot hang around indefinitely is much less dangerous to the stability of the world than a military dreaming that it can hang around indefinitely.

What are they trying to ready themselves for, in Spartafreedomerica?...
A war against whom?

Against... North Korea?
Against ... fucking... Venezuela?
Why don't you go ahead and say that Canadians are a menace to the US?

Against we have no frickin' clue who.

The US has decided that it makes sense for the US to police the world, and since no one else seems to object or be willing to do it for themselves, the way the British Navy took a lot of responsibility for pirate hunting in the 18th and 19th centuries... we have absolutely no idea who we might or might not have to fight. We can guess some probable candidates, but we aren't specifically planning "Yeah, we're going to fight those guys in 2014."

We can probably rule out having to fight the guys with large nuclear arsenals, except maybe for a random skirmish with a few fighters taking potshots at each other or something. But there are a lot of countries out there with populations of several tens of millions, and GNPs in the high tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. But there are dozens of countries that are only a coup and a buildup away from building a large military, even if they don't already have one.

If one of those countries decides to spend serious money building up its military, it would take about ten years to be in the same general position that Iraq was in 1991: a military stronger than anything that the local powers can fight. In which case either they get to stomp all over their neighbors for a few decades, or someone from outside has to come in and break their conventional army.
________

And I don't see anyone except the US volunteering to do that. Which means that the US spends a ridiculous amount of money to maintain the capability to do it- to smash any army that anything less than a major power can field, anywhere in the world. If that cost were instead spread out across the world to fund an international force (they way people hoped the UN would work back in 1945), this would not be necessary. But it isn't, so either the US spends a ridiculous amount of money or no one steps in to stop random Third World countries from waging wars of conquest against other random Third World countries.

And it may be that the second option is OK. I'm not saying it isn't. But as long as we aren't prepared to accept international wars in the Third World, we can't turn around and condemn the US for spending enough money to build a military that can reliably crush Third World armies. Not unless we're willing to spend the money ourselves.

So that's why Spartafreedomerica is spending such an insane amount of money: because the next time someone decides it's a good idea to buy 400 tanks and 100 jets from the Russians and start glowering at its neighbors, everyone is going to look to us to pull those neighbors' asses out of the fire. Including ourselves, because we've gotten used to the idea of being responsible for and involved in random bullshit that happens halfway around the world, whether it makes sense or not.

[Straha]

The quick and decisive resolution of Desert Storm wasn't because the Iraqi military was sub-par, it was the result of the massive coalition which was assembled against it and far superior American Technology.

The Iraqi military was sub-par. Their tanks were monkey tanks, and many did not even use the Kontakt-5 ERA armor, and they were firing old and lousy Soviet ammunition in the form of steel rods. The US isn't the only power that sells second rate stuff to foreign nations.

Sub-par compared to the U.S. and the USSR, sure. Compared to everyone else? Not really.

For the tanks, sure they were export versions (funny, I only learned the designation "Monkey Model" a couple days ago), but they were T-72s and not third-world knockoffs, and they certainly held up on their own against British made Chieftains against Iran (even if they were 'Monkey Models' too.) They certainly weren't so inferior (or so poorly trained) as to justify the crushing defeat the Iraqis endured.

[D.Turtle]

@ D.Turtle:

<snip>

But not everyone is gearing their forces for continuous counterinsurgency warfare, with light and mobile easily-transportable gear, designed with the explicit purpose of taking the territories of shitpiece nations and holding them. The fact that Spartafreedomerica IS in fact shifting its forces to counterinsurgency warfare means that it expects more Iraq and Afghanistan-type battlefields and actually anticipates fighting in more of them.

Now that's the worrying thing.

Germany is doing that to. However, we are downsizing the forces optimized for conventional battle at the same time. The US however wants to do everything at the same time. They want to have the best in every area, etc, etc. That they are bankrupting themselves doing so is irrelevant - anybody who points it out is unpatriotic or a traitor.

You are destabilizing many areas of the world. In effect, you are creating - because of your jingoism - the very enemies you see everywhere. You are so afraid of losing your hyperpower status, that you will lose it.

What criteria would it take for you to separate the above-described situation, from one in which the U.S. attempted to stay on top of geo-strategic developments for more peaceful ends?

Getting rid of their massive conventional forces aimed at invading other countries and going over to a peacekeeping force aimed at pacifying areas. In effect what Germany started after the end of the Cold War and is continuing to do today - reduce the armored forces (tanks, mech inf, artillery) to a small core force aimed at retaining as much of the experience and doctrine of the same, do the same with the Air Force and Navy, get rid of the Marines. Focus on peacekeeping forces that could go into areas like Sudan under a UN force and help pacify the area, stopping genocide and the same.

A war against whom?
.

A war against an enemy thirty years from now. The U.S. Military wants this fighter to fight the next war, not to refight the last one, and they know that the next enemy is unpredictable. Thirty years ago the most likely enemy was the Soviet Union in the Fulda Gap and the U.S. invading and occupying Middle Eastern countries was unthinkable, but the weapons procurement was versatile enough that the weapons systems from then were able to fight the brushfire wars of the modern era. The military is trying to make sure that thirty years down the road they still have the flexibility that the U.S. has today (or had until it got tied down in Iraq.)

You are forgetting one very simple thing. Yes, you can not tell today what you might need in 30 years, but you CAN say what you need in the next 5 or 10. So what you do, is optimize the armed forces for what you need today, while retaining the capability to upsize in the case something comes up that makes it more likely that you need that upsized force. A huge new enemy that would require the massive armed forces the US has today will not suddenly appear out of nowhere. It will require massive political shifts and then lots of time in order to raise the armed forces capable of being a threat to the US. Time which the US has to react to this new threat. There is at this time no credible conventional threat to the US in the foreseeable future.

But not everyone is gearing their forces for continuous counterinsurgency warfare, with light and mobile easily-transportable gear, designed with the explicit purpose of taking the territories of shitpiece nations and holding them. The fact that Spartafreedomerica IS in fact shifting its forces to counterinsurgency warfare means that it expects more Iraq and Afghanistan-type battlefields and actually anticipates fighting in more of them.

Now that's the worrying thing.

I agree. An ass-kicking military that is aware it cannot hang around indefinitely is much less dangerous to the stability of the world than a military dreaming that it can hang around indefinitely.

Except if they are incapable of going in in the first place. Or if they can only go in if they are invited in. Or if they can only go in as part of a world-wide (or NATO-wide) alliance.

We can probably rule out having to fight the guys with large nuclear arsenals, except maybe for a random skirmish with a few fighters taking potshots at each other or something. But there are a lot of countries out there with populations of several tens of millions, and GNPs in the high tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. But there are dozens of countries that are only a coup and a buildup away from building a large military, even if they don't already have one.

But such a build up can't happen in secret. So instead of having a huge military in case somebody goes that way, why not down-size, and if an enemy emerges that starts a massive build up of their military, react to that specific threat and start a build up of your own?

If one of those countries decides to spend serious money building up its military, it would take about ten years to be in the same general position that Iraq was in 1991: a military stronger than anything that the local powers can fight. In which case either they get to stomp all over their neighbors for a few decades, or someone from outside has to come in and break their conventional army.

But there you have your timeline! If it takes 10 years for such a threat to emerge, then downsize to such an extent that it will take you 10 years to rearm in order to face that threat.

Thats what Germany did - except that they have a horizon of 20 years for a conventional threat to Germany to emerge.

And I don't see anyone except the US volunteering to do that.

Yeah, when the Soviet Union existed the US was the only one with a military capable of stopping them...

Which means that the US spends a ridiculous amount of money to maintain the capability to do it- to smash any army that anything less than a major power can field, anywhere in the world. If that cost were instead spread out across the world to fund an international force (they way people hoped the UN would work back in 1945), this would not be necessary. But it isn't, so either the US spends a ridiculous amount of money or no one steps in to stop random Third World countries from waging wars of conquest against other random Third World countries.

Yeah, the US is stepping into so many countries in the Third World - just look at Sudan today, or Rhuanda some years ago. And if they actually decided to do so, a huge armored military optimized for defeating another military will be a lot better than one optimized for going into Third World countries and doing some peace-keeping.

And it may be that the second option is OK. I'm not saying it isn't. But as long as we aren't prepared to accept international wars in the Third World, we can't turn around and condemn the US for spending enough money to build a military that can reliably crush Third World armies. Not unless we're willing to spend the money ourselves.

But a military aimed at counterinsurgency or peace-keeping would be able to easily crush any Third World armies. But the US wants a military capable of easily crushing any First World army.

So that's why Spartafreedomerica is spending such an insane amount of money: because the next time someone decides it's a good idea to buy 400 tanks and 100 jets from the Russians and start glowering at its neighbors, everyone is going to look to us to pull those neighbors' asses out of the fire. Including ourselves, because we've gotten used to the idea of being responsible for and involved in random bullshit that happens halfway around the world, whether it makes sense or not.

And if that happens, then you can rebuild your military - or even better build up the military of that country being glowered at and make them capable of defending themselves.