counterterrorism missions, it is time to prioritize the capabilities necessary to deter and defeat technologically sophis- ticated peer military powers like Russia. Even if we do not fight a military peer competitor, we can expect to encounter their advanced equipment in the hands of their surrogates or customers. Tis will require big changes in how we build our force, and having the right analytic underpinnings will be important to pri- oritizing the necessary changes.
PRIORITIZING CAPABILITIES AND RESOURCES To inform these decisions, we need objec- tive answers to a few big questions: Do Army investment priorities match the highest-priority gaps and opportunities? How should the Army change its invest- ments to address peer competitors? Are we building the right force for the future?
Te most overarching of the Army’s recent efforts to focus modernization to deter and defeat peer adversaries is known as the strategic portfolio analysis review (SPAR). Consolidating several previously
FORWARD
An M1A2 main battle tank assigned to 1st Battalion, 35nd Armored Regiment breaches obstacles during AWA 17.1. Active protection systems for main battle tanks are one of several critical capabilities that would be key in any conflict with a military peer like Russia, but they have atrophied in recent years as the Army has faced nonpeer adversaries. The Army is focusing modernization efforts on those capability gaps. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Frederick Poirier, 55th Combat Camera)
separate modernization forums, SPAR is a new annual review process that exam- ines Army capabilities over a 30-year period, assesses cross-portfolio priorities and identifies investment and divest- ment opportunities. It divides programs into four “buckets” for recommendations to senior leadership: accelerate, sustain, reduce or divest. Tis information enables the Army to invest in the capabilities most critical for meeting our toughest threats, while taking risk or divesting in other areas that—while still important— are less threatening to the security of our citizens and our national interests.
A number of ongoing studies and efforts underpin this effort to better align our capabilities
and resources against the
prioritized challenges discussed above. For example, TRADOC’s Russian New Generation Warfare study identified modernization proposals based on deep analysis of a specific threat, and its annual capabilities needs assessment produces a detailed, prioritized list of capability gaps derived from analyzing a broad array of potential adversaries and conditions.
A particularly interesting example is the strategy-to-resource prioritization (SRP) framework, a new tool developed in partnership between the Army and the RAND Arroyo Center. By combining realistic RAND war games with Army data and analysis, the SRP effort aims to explicitly link Army acquisition decisions to operational risk and likely strategic
Analytical war games conducted by TRAC and CAA simulate prioritized threats, run multiple combat iterations under various conditions to identify critical capability gaps that impede the Army’s performance, and test the rela- tive promise of proposed capabilities or technologies. CAA also conducts the annual Total Army Analysis, which informs demand for capabilities through a scenario-informed look at required Army structure. Tis year, the Army G-3/5/7 developed a prioritized list of capability shortfalls, gaps and opportuni- ties that synthesizes the outputs of these and other efforts based on an analysis of operational demand and risk against a military peer like Russia.
ASC.ARMY.MIL
21
ACQUISITION
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176
