How DoD defines “legacy systems” will drive tens of billions of dollars of investment, sustainment activities, and force structure. Everyone criticizes legacy systems, and in an era of declining budgets and rising major power challengers, they are targets for cost-cutting efforts to fund modernization. But what are legacy systems? The services define legacy systems as old versions of systems that they are currently buying: an F-18 being replaced by an F-35, for instance. In contrast, many independent strategists define legacy systems as old kinds of systems―those based on outmoded operational concepts: Here, legacy might mean a manned fighter of any kind, as opposed to something truly novel, like a swarm of drones.
That was a nice Breaking Defense article from Mark Cancian and Adam Saxton, What’s In A Name? Billions In Cuts Depend On Defining ‘Legacy’.
My definition is probably closer to new kinds of systems with novel operational concepts rather than just focusing on age. The F-35 was touted as an affordable F-22. It’s primary name to fame is having stealth characteristics, which goes back to the 1970s and the F-117. So the operational concept of avoiding anti-aircraft fire with low radar cross section is really quite old, and the F-35 is doing that with perhaps slightly fancier sensors and communications systems.
Ultimately, every system has to be weighed in its own context. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. Of course old systems like the F-15 and F-16 still have military capability, and so do newer systems like the F-35. But remember, the F-35 started development in the 1990s! The average age of an MDAP is over 14 years old! That’s before cloud was popular, before mobile, AI/ML, eVTOL, and many other technologies.
The ability to say whether an F-35 or any other system is a “legacy” system depends on specific knowledge about alternative technological arrangements, concepts of fighting, and costs. Because most of that is still speculative — and is necessarily speculative or else it would already exist — it often gets short changed in debates over priorities and funding. It’s easier to look where the light already is, meaning, look to do slight improvements to what has been working for decades. It’s hard to experiment at scale with humility to say, “I don’t know, let’s see.” Here’s more from Cancian and Saxton:
CAPE has traditionally worried about long-term affordability. That may drive it to adopt elements of both definitions of “legacy.” Consistent with the service definition, it has often proposed upgraded current systems in the past… Susanna Blume [acting DCAPE] has focused especially on “kill chains” and their supporting sensors and shooters. Regarding the Army, she has referred to the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters, Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, and upgrades to the M-1 Abrams and Bradley vehicles as legacy systems. Instead, she calls for increased R&D in unmanned vehicles, along with manned-unmanned teaming.
[Endnote: this post’s picture comes from The Merge newsletter, which recently posted a picture showing the first photo of an F-15EX flying with an F-15E and an F-15C.]
Leave a Reply