The Defense Department on July 1 released a new national military strategy that implores defense contractors to embrace innovation in a world where its own technological edge is eroding, but gave little detail on the game-changing technologies it needs or how it will pay for them.
There’s only a “low but growing” chance that the United States gets involved in a war with a nation state in the near future, but if it did, the consequences would be massive, the report states. Countries can now get a hold of ballistic missiles, precision strike technologies, unmanned systems, space and cyber capabilities and weapons of mass destruction easier than ever before. Non-state actors, too, are benefiting from leaps in technology and are evolving homemade improvised explosive devices (IED), suicide vests, and cyber tools to be more dangerous.
Those factors make it even more important for U.S. weapons programs to deliver on time and on budget, the strategy says.
“To win against the diverse range of state and non-state threats confronting us, we must think innovatively, challenge assumptions, and embrace change,” it says.
The Defense Department must be able to counter anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD), space, cyber and hybrid threats, and thus needs to invest in “space and terrestrial-based indications and warning systems, integrated and resilient ISR platforms, strategic lift, long-range precision strike weapons, missile defense technologies, undersea systems, remotely operated vehicles and technologies, special operations forces” and cyber capabilities. The Pentagon is reaching out to innovative businesses and trying to tap into technological investments in those areas.
New weapons must be adaptable so that they can adjust as needed to meet the needs of troops, who will be dealing with adversaries possibly using unexpected tools or methods to gain the upper hand.
“As we develop new capabilities to counter threats along the continuum of conflict, we also must procure sufficient capacity and readiness to sustain our global responsibilities,” the strategy says. “This may include evolving traditional platforms. Or it may require developing entirely new systems that are affordable and flexible.”
Technologies need to be more interoperable so that the services and U.S. allies can operate together even in contested environments, it says. Key priorities in that area include the Joint Information Environment that streamlines defense agency computing services, establishing globally integrated logistics and building an enterprise that allows for the joint use of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems.
One thing missing in the strategy is how the Defense Department will pay for everything. It notes that “the U.S. military requires a sufficient level of investment in capacity, capabilities, and readiness” to be able to execute its mission. The Pentagon is conducting “resource-informed planning,” finding efficiencies and streamlining processes. The Better Buying Power 3.0 initiative will also help the department save money on acquisition program. However, impending budget cuts and sequestration are not mentioned in the 24-page report.
The state of play has changed since the last military strategy was published in 2011, said Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin Dempsey in a foreword to the strategy. The military is facing simultaneous challenges from both nation states and non-state actors that are benefiting from rapid technological growth while the U.S. military advantage grows smaller.
“Future conflicts will come more rapidly, last longer, and take place on a much more technically challenging battlefield,” he said.
Pressures on the military are unlikely to let up in the near future, Dempsey warns. In fact, wars against violent extremist groups like the Islamic State will likely be longer and more difficult to bring to an end.
“We are more likely to face prolonged campaigns than conflicts that are resolved quickly…that control of escalation is becoming more difficult and more important…and that as a hedge against unpredictability with reduced resources, we may have to adjust our global posture,” he said.