An influential lawmaker is proposing legislation that -- if enacted -- could establish a new framework for assessing the suitability of the U.S. military’s existing major weapon system inventory for potential future combat operations, directing a review that could reshape the $2 trillion roster of current projects by identifying programs for divestiture that are not keeping pace with emerging threats.
The chairman’s mark of the House Armed Services Committee’s fiscal year 2022 defense policy bill -- to be proffered publicly Sept. 1 by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) and obtained by Inside Defense -- includes a provision for a major weapon systems capability assessment process and procedure review. The provision -- section 143 of the draft legislation -- would require the Government Accountability Office to audit the Pentagon’s internal review -- and deliver lawmakers an independent report on the Defense Department’s findings.
The draft legislation would require the defense secretary to review the Pentagon’s process for managing strategic risk regarding major weapon system capabilities, including the process for “ensuring the suitability of major weapon systems to address current and emerging military threats” and “identifying for upgrade or replacement any fielded major weapon system that is not capable of effectively meeting operational requirements.”
The chairman’s mark proposes a one-year deadline -- from the date the legislation is enacted -- for conducting the assessment and delivering a report to Congress.
The DOD report is to explain how the U.S. military currently assesses the effectiveness and the costs of fielded major weapon systems in addressing the current, mid-term, and long-term threats as identified in combatant command contingency plans, according to the draft legislation.
In addition, the report is to account for how the department assesses tradeoffs in funding, time, capabilities -- as well as programmatic and operational risk -- between developing a new major weapon system compared to continued use of a fielded major weapon system.
Also to be explained is the underlying calculus for replacing a fielded major weapon system as well as developing strategies for the continued use or replacement of such systems to ensure their capabilities are viable and resilient against evolving threats. Lawmakers also want an explanation for how DOD goes about developing and implementing plans for the replacement and divestment of fielded major weapon systems to manage related strategic risk.
Lawmakers want the report to include a discussion of the regular intervals at which DOD reviews whether a major weapon system meets operational requirements and is capable of meeting “emerging and evolving threats” as identified in the National Defense Strategy.
In addition, the report seeks accounting from DOD regarding the routine for periodically assessing whether a fielded major weapon “should continue to be used or replaced and divested.”
If DOD determines a weapon system should be retained, the draft legislation would require the Pentagon to map out a forecast for projected relevancy in the force.
For weapon systems that require being terminated, the draft legislation would direct DOD to outline how long it will take to field a replacement, and a discussion of the expected capability improvements.