Having less combat tours and logistical concerns always saves money. Just having fewer bases to maintain, less equipment to ship, can save millions. Releasing them back into the workforce, though, will take time and finesse. ^_^;
It also helps that there is now an anti-sentiment in North America as to countries getting into the wars of others, so we're probably going to see a diminishing enthusiasm for occupations and invasion forces. Nowadays, no-fly zones and airstrikes - such as the one imposed upon Libya by NATO - was more likely, and aircraft (and carriers to launch them off of) are more likely alternatives. ^_^;
Well, for one, I do think that we can cut down on the size of the Army. We're no longer in an era where we need quite as many boots on the ground, and I'm generally opposed to the idea that we should go into places and solve their problems for them. We can intervene to stop bloodshed and conflict, but the idea that we can go somewhere, occupy it, and "show the heathens how it's done" inherently bothers me. ^_^;
Well, admittedly it depends on country. Air Force and Navy is absolutely essential to the United States; it dictates how well they can control the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, thereby controlling world traffic and protecting the mainland from any attacks that must first make it across the oceans or skies. ^_^;
I'm not sure how much is wasted with ground troops, but air forces and navies have so much testing that goes on when developing new technology. I can only imagine how much of it falls through and is never put to use.
Because Canada is about to buy a fleet of them while the Conservative Party under Prime Minister Harper is severely misrepresenting its price while asserting that F-35s are what Canada needs, even though much, much more cost-effective solutions exist. ^_^;