There is a profound difference between an integrated systems approach which takes into considerations today’s type of operations, where we predominantly operate, threat systems, and new technologies, vs. a series of band aid fixes.
What we have today are band aid fixes.
A bunch of applique upgrades to systems that are fundamentally antiquated and far beyond their intended/designed life span, i.e. M1, M2, M113, M109.
I know a little bit about armor and infantry type systems, so let be stay in the domain I am knowledgeable about in order to make this point.
When the M1 was developed, the battle space was Europe and predominately Germany. That tank was designed to fight in a place which could carry a 70 ton tank on most bridges (even if it damages them - could handle them for a while). The temperatures are moderate. We were in the defense and that means big buried IEDs and large mines were no real threat (on friendly territory). The threat was an armored mechanized force which would move quickly. Technology wasn’t there yet, regards enemy top and dive attack weapons (no concern). We didn’t have networks and fast computers, hard kill systems like Trophy, or even GPS for that matter. There has been substantial advancement in composites, alloys (example, 7068-T6 aluminum, AR 550 and even 600 steel) and ceramics since 1980.
What you have seen is a steady upgrade of the M1 platform, BUT that does not change the fact that the belly is lightly armored, flat, and low (not designed for big threats underneath). The roof is at it’s weakest point 1 inch of steel, that’s it (no real concern when it was developed). You can upgrade the tank, but because wide spread digital systems didn’t exist when that tank was developed, the full capabilities or usefulness of these technologies is limited (cost prohibitive). If you were to design a system like that today, everything on that tank would be talking. The concept of signature reduction was practically nonexistent except for CARC paint and a radar scattering cammo net (that was “state of the art” in 1980). Likewise, if you were to build a new tank today, you would incorporate soft and hard kill systems and into their base design in order to maximize their usefulness.
M1: 1980
M2: 1981
M113: 1960
M109: ~1966
***We are trying to keep an M1 alive in the era of proliferated drones, dive and top attack ATGMs, high penetrating RPGs and ATGMs (not even imaginable in 1980 and exceeding what you can do to stop them given the tanks size and weight constraints) large mines and IEDs, large-scale and common urban operations, in places that cannot support that tanks weight.
When we decided to meddle in Ukraine and push this into a war with our plan of expanding NATO, we set off an arms race, like it or not, that is where we are at today. Russia has R&D capabilities, they have the industry and manufacturing capacity and some of these older systems are rapidly showing their age today.
Way to evade the actual changes in the military structure new and more advanced weapons and adaptions and innovations of recent years as our military switches to near peer warfare and adapts to what they are learning from Russia’s deadly and costly quagmire in Ukraine.