Read on Twitter
A favorite new throwaway line in Washington is to "cut legacy weapons systems" to invest in the future.
But none ever define what a "legacy system" actually is.
A short thread 1/
But none ever define what a "legacy system" actually is.
A short thread 1/
HASC Future of Defense Task Force report:
“To remain competitive, the United States must prioritize the development of emerging technologies over fielding and maintaining legacy systems.
https://armedservices.house.gov/_cache/files/2/6/26129500-d208-47ba-a9f7-25a8f82828b0/424EB2008281A3C79BA8C7EA71890AE9.future-of-defense-task-force-report.pdf
“To remain competitive, the United States must prioritize the development of emerging technologies over fielding and maintaining legacy systems.
https://armedservices.house.gov/_cache/files/2/6/26129500-d208-47ba-a9f7-25a8f82828b0/424EB2008281A3C79BA8C7EA71890AE9.future-of-defense-task-force-report.pdf
DNC Platform: “Rather than continuing to rely on legacy platforms that are increasingly exposed & vulnerable, Dems support funding a more cost-effective, agile, flexible & resilient force with modern transpo & logistics capabilities that can operate in more contested enviros.”
Former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper:
"My inclination is not to risk any of the modernization programs” but “to go back and pull out more of the legacy programs.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-05/esper-warns-of-legacy-systems-cuts-amid-virus-spending-surge
"My inclination is not to risk any of the modernization programs” but “to go back and pull out more of the legacy programs.” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-05/esper-warns-of-legacy-systems-cuts-amid-virus-spending-surge
The implication is that legacy platforms are usually thought of as the oldest iterations of a weapons systems in the services, such as A-10s, AWACS & JSTARS, U-2s, F-18 fighter jets, Navy cruisers, and more.
HASC Chairman Adam Smith @HASCDemocrats recently put it this way:
“It’s not necessarily about whether it’s a legacy platform or it’s a new platform… If you make systems that can survive, that’s what we’re looking for.” https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/10/19/hasc-chair-adam-smith-on-a-democrat-led-natsec-policy-modernization-goals-and-a-500-ship-navy/
“It’s not necessarily about whether it’s a legacy platform or it’s a new platform… If you make systems that can survive, that’s what we’re looking for.” https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2020/10/19/hasc-chair-adam-smith-on-a-democrat-led-natsec-policy-modernization-goals-and-a-500-ship-navy/
Of course, not all legacy systems are created equal. Some will be able to absorb new software & technologies; others cannot. That should be a deciding factor.
Ex.) Ford-class aircraft carrier is powered by nuclear reactors that produce >3x electrical power of its predecessor
Ex.) Ford-class aircraft carrier is powered by nuclear reactors that produce >3x electrical power of its predecessor
As a result, the Ford can support new weapons that will require lots of power, like directed energy, rail guns, and lasers. The Nimitz cannot, so concerns about its survivability in a high-end fight abound.
The Pentagon should not be trapped by the same failed Game of Thrones-like competition that sets legacy weapons v. modernized technologies.
Instead, set the conditions for a more nuanced discussion of modernizing some of the military's legacy systems with today’s technology now while waiting for the promises of tomorrow to materialize. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/use-legacy-systems-as-tech-playgrounds-for-innovation/?_ga=2.235571590.668946920.1605732314-461908618.1601929483
