« Possession | Main | Lost Blogs »

March 08, 2004

The Coming Trouble

Amid all the concerns regarding the costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is facing another financial crisis that is getting far less publicity. The United States Armed Forces is remarkably well-equipped, although the shortages it does have are well-documented by the media and those seeking to find a line of attack on the Bush administration. From the M1 Abrams, the best tank in the world, to the F15 and F16 fighters that provided the precision fire support that helped to keep the coalition casualties to a minimum during the war, American military might is second to none around the world. Unfortunately, this situation is a precarious one.

The newest major weapon system in the American arsenal is the B2 Spirit, aka the Stealth bomber. It was first used in the Kosovo Campaign, and its development dates back to the late 1980s. The M1 and M2, the Army's primary mechanized vehicles, both were developed in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The F15 dates back to the early 1970s. The list goes on and on, with old equipment that gets no newer, and that has no replacement in sight.

For most of the existence of the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, units would fly or bus to the Fort and draw a set of equipment to fight from there, rather than using their own equipment. The vehicles were notoriously poorly maintained, and units that were able to muster 85% of their assigned vehicles for a given battle were considered to be in good shape. My last journey there as a player was in 2000 when I served with 1-68 Armor (currently in Iraq). 1-68 AR has the oldest set of tanks in the active inventory; during our final train-up for NTC at Pinon Canyon in southeastern Colorado, we had so many tanks break down, we were forced to fight the last battle with only platoon leaders and above riding tanks. When we arrived at NTC, the Observer/Controllers were amazed at how well we were able to keep the NTC fleet running, but compared to our own tanks, the NTC fleet was a pleasure to use.

Thanks in no small part to the improved logistics flow available during combat operations, the battalion was able to keep its systems running during the war, although I'll wager there were more maintenance problems during the drive north of Baghdad than were reported by the media. Fifteen year old vehicles are going to break down, particularly under the stresses of combat. Yet the current intent of the Army is to maintain an average fleet age of fifteen years, and that age will almost certainly go up soon. There are no new tanks rolling out of any factories in the United States, and there is no replacement for the M1 even on the planning boards at the moment. Given that the Army first began planning the M1 in 1972, that means we are the better part of a decade away from any replacement for the Abrams. So we will see the current fleet continue to get older and less reliable, with no hope of a replacement on the horizon.

There are some very smart people out there who believe that the day of the tank is over. And they may be correct, as far as the heavy tank is concerned. As great as the Abrams is, it is obscenely heavy, which makes it very difficult to deploy. That's a huge drawback for the American Army, which is by nature and necessity an expeditionary Army. The Abrams' weight also means it cannot cross many bridges unless they have been significantly reinforced, making it of much-reduced or no worth in terrain such as southwestern Europe or Korea. But people who point to these failings to argue that the age of the tank is over forget that the operational requirement for the tank has existed far longer than just the past century. Whether it was men trained to fight from horses, chariots, war elephants, camels, or any of the many other possible conveyances humans used before we developed the internal combustion engine, armies have always had mounted combatants. An army needs the ability to penetrate its enemy's defenses and take the fight to the enemy's weak points. It needs the ability to scout. And it needs the ability to carry armaments greater than any person can bear into combat. Call the delivery device what you will, it's still a tank, and the U.S. Army is still going to need one for future wars.

And right now, we’re not even thinking about that need. Yes, the Army has brought out the Stryker, but the Stryker isn’t going to be able to fill all of the roles the Army needs. Wheeled vehicles like the Stryker will offer great speed over roads, but they will be of very limited utility for off-road work, and that is where wars tend to be fought. Some kind of tracked vehicle will be required for those battles. Set-piece battles are also not going to go away, although they will be a smaller part of war than in the past, and for those fights the Army is going to want something heavily armed and armored. Apparently, the answer to both of these needs will remain the Abrams for the foreseeable future. So too will the Bradley and the Apache remain the Army’s prime infantry fighting vehicle and attack helicopter for the next decade or more, apparently.

How many people out there would feel comfortable driving around in a ten year old car as their primary transportation? How about fifteen years old? Because that’s what we’re requiring our soldiers to do over the next decade. If we don’t start developing some new weapon systems to replace those we’re using now, we face the very real possibility of allowing our military to slide into second-rate status. It would be nice to believe that we could afford to do this, but there is little evidence to suggest that the world will become any safer over the next ten years. Maintaining a powerful military is one of our best tools for preserving the peace, which is advantageous not only to us, but to the world. It would be a shame for our understandable focus on our present requirements to lead us to neglect future needs.