July 26, 2021
The US Army’s new iron triangle: The coming budget crunch and its implications for modernization
It has come to be seen as virtually axiomatic in defense circles that the U.S. Army will serve as a bill payer for air and naval modernization, with even the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff predicting a “bloodletting.” At the same time, the Army believes it must prepare for three challenges, each with distinct implications for the future force: blunting Russian aggression along NATO’s eastern frontier, defeating China in a war in the western Pacific and hedging against everything else. As a result, budget cuts will likely present the Army with something of an iron triangle among these challenges — at best only able to afford a future force prepared for two, but not all three.
As Futures Command and the Army grapple with the implications of the looming budget crunch, it is imperative that they first answer two more fundamental questions: How should the Army prioritize these challenges, and where — and how much — can it afford to take risk?
The answers to these questions will do much to provide direction for the difficult trades the Army will face in a world of shrinking budgets.
How should the Army prioritize these challenges, and where — and how much — can it afford to take risk?
Each side of the iron triangle comes with its own implications for doctrine, force structure, readiness, posture and modernization. And while there is certainly some commonality and fungibility across them, the optimal force for each differs considerably. Blunting Russian aggression entails conducting large-scale maneuver warfare on highly contested continental battlefields. This means a future force centered on heavy armor — backed by artillery, mobile air defenses and other enablers — that is sufficiently forward-postured to be able to overcome the tyranny of time and counter a short-warning attack.
Defeating China, in the Army’s view at least, entails contributing kinetic and non-kinetic fires, air defense, and other enablers to support the joint force in a primarily air and maritime fight. This means a fires- and enabler-centric future force that can operate in a highly geographically dispersed fashion across the vast expanses of the Pacific theater. Although the strategic deployment problem is somewhat less acute as compared to Europe, the distances involved coupled with Chinese counter-intervention capabilities still calls for a force posture oriented on forward presence and rapid reinforcement.
Read the full article from Defense News.
More from CNAS
-
It’s Time for a True Industrial Strategy for American National Security
Commentary
For an industrial strategy to work, the president must make it a White House priority that pulls together all elements of national power....
By Becca Wasser & Mara Rudman
-
Sharper: Allies and Partners
Commentary
Amid intensifying geopolitical challenges, the United States is finding new ways to address security issues by cultivating and strengthening alliances and partnerships. How ca...
By Gwendolyn Nowaczyk & Charles Horn
-
How We Survive Ep 5: Wargames
Podcast
Dr. Ed McGrady, Adjunct Senior Fellow for the Defense Program at CNAS, joins the show to discuss how climate began to factor into humanitarian crisis war games as far back as ...
By Dr. ED McGrady
-
Wars Are Not Accidents
Commentary
The road to conflict is an action-reaction process. Leaders decide whether and how to respond to a rival’s moves, and they often search for ways to lower the temperature. Esca...
By Erik Lin-Greenberg
