The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments today released a report on the future challenges in military vehicle modernization, recommending that the Army and Marine Corps find ways to make do amid an environment of fiscal austerity.
"Both services are in the early stages of modernizing their vehicle fleets. These modernization efforts will be severely constrained by the budget cuts looming over the Department of Defense," states the report. "The brunt of these cuts will likely fall on the services¹ modernization accounts."
The report, which was authored by CSBA President Andrew Krepinevich and Eric Lindsey, a CSBA analyst, includes four recommendations for the services.
"First, given prospective resource constraints, the ground forces should seek to 'use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without' whenever possible," the report states. "Generally, top priority has been given to fielding a new generation of vehicles. The ground services should do the opposite, pursuing recapitalization and off-the-shelf solutions whenever possible, upgrading existing systems as much as possible, and undertaking ambitious developmental efforts only when there is a high assurance that the new system will provide a discontinuous boost to ground forces combat effectiveness."
The Ground Combat Vehicle, which the Army is pursuing to replace its Bradley Fighting Vehicle, seems to fit the bill in this case, though the Army is conducting an exhaustive analysis of alternatives and reviewing several non-developmental solutions.
"If and when developing next-generation vehicles becomes necessary, the Army and Marine Corps should accord high priority to maximizing these vehicles' adaptability by pursuing an open-architecture approach and deliberately designing in surplus space, weight, and power (SWaP) in order to facilitate future modification," states the report.
"Ideally, these vehicles would not only have 'room to grow' to meet future needs, but also the ability to 'shrink' (i.e. shed capability) in order to better suit the needs of allies and partners that may have significantly different vehicle requirements (e.g., greater resource constraints; relatively unsophisticated manpower pools; lower force protection standards)." Such requirements for growth and flexibility are part of the GCV program.
The authors also recommend that the services find a way to continue to fund science and technology efforts as the "seed corn" of future capabilities/.../