The “new” weapon systems discussed in the article had very long lead times. As a practical matter, the choices a President has for immediately impacting the inventory are few. This President inherited multiple disasters in acquisition. His inclination is to simplify. But, among the many missions of the Department of Defense, are to fight both existential wars against comparable or near comparable opponents (in which numbers is paramount), as well as wars of choice against second and lower-class opponents (in which reducing casualties is paramount).
President Trump jaw-boned down the price per plane of the F-35. Also, we are already working on its replacement. As a result, I stopped criticizing that program.
Regarding the USN Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier, I am halfway thinking Trump is going to order its electric catapult to be ripped out.
Regarding the USN Zumwalt class “destroyer,” I doubt we’ll see any more than the three produced or in production. It is such an embarrassment. The Navy has “re-purposed” the thing.
Regarding the Littoral (Non-)Combat Ship. Like the Zumwalt, the Navy has re-purposed whatever you want to call this thing. It’s too vulnerable to be placed in a high-intensity environment. I guess that makes it a minesweeper costing 7 times the cost of the minesweepers it’s to replace.
Regarding the M-1 tanks and M-2 fighting vehicles: the M-1s have been upgraded several times, e.g., reactive armor. I doubt that it will have the tank-on-tank advantage it enjoyed during the Persian Gulf War or the invasion of Iraq, but it still is an awesome monster. It has a shortcoming in being as heavy as it is, so it’s not easy, at the strategic level, to deploy.
The M-2 fighting vehicle is also quite large and its anti-tank missile system might not be effective against tanks with reactive armor. The big problem with replacing the M-2 is nobody has come up with something that does the job the M-2 does, without also being big; and, smaller or lighter armored vehicles don’t have its capabilities.
I’m open-minded about a true light tank or a platform such as the Stryker, but I haven’t been convinced our inventories of M-1s and M-2s have to be replaced by “new” just because those armored vehicles are “old.”
The article did note the shift to unmanned drones and electronic warfare. Such things may make what we currently think of conventional weapon systems obsolete. Yet, how do incorporate such things into a parade or a static display?
The M-1 Tank can still destroy every armored vehicle on the battlefield. The ergonomics and fire control systems cannot be matched by our adversaries, and our training is an order of magnitude better than the rest of the world.
As for the M2, it destroyed T-54, T-59, T-61, and T-72 tanks with ease, most of them by lobbing 25mm HE into the Engine Decks. All of those tanks are self propelled super torches. The Bradley 25mm cannon are being replaced with a 30mm cannon with more room to grow. Again, they can take out tanks, because tank crews in the Middle East and in Russia aren’t up to snuff.
My preference would be to get a new engine for the M-1, the current one is a fuel hog and it costs to transport all that POL into theater. Then use that engine on a lighter vehicle to power electrical generators for directed energy weapons to take care of incoming artillery, mortars, airplanes, and drones, etc.