Quote Originally Posted by MattJ View Post
As a field grade officer in Army ILE, we often have conversations about what the future budgets of DoD, and particularly the Army, will look like. With ongoing operations throughout the world, but a huge deficit at home, what should DoD's share of the cut be (if any)? Is it worthwhile to continue expensive development programs such as GCV and JLTV? Would now be the time to take an operational pause in these programs until we have a clearer requirement?
Matt,

Members of Congress should do what they always do: keeping their constituents happy. Constituents express their happiness by (re-)electing the politicians they think will be most successful at that. Members of Congress express their willingness to keep their constituents happy by constantly adjusting their set of issue positions so as to benefit from "a daily majority" (see Dick Morris "The New Prince: Macchiavelli Updated for the Twenty First Century").

In the case of the DoD budget, this means cutting it without endangering soldiers in the field and jobs in their constituency. Combining both requirements is not always easy. Cutting the F22 program does not endanger any soldier, but it endangers 25000 jobs.

Therefore, the question is not what Members of Congress should do, but what the defence industry should do. The defence industry should make the politicians' job easy by focusing their production and their lobbying on weapon systems that matter for today's conflicts. In stead of putting their efforts in expensive development programs to win the fight on the (yet to materialize) near-peer competitor, they should focus on today's threats.

So, to answer your questions: NO, it is not worthwhile to continue expensive development programs such as GCV and JLTV. And YES, it would now be the time to take an operational pause in these programs until we have a clearer requirement. However, that initiative should not only come from Congress, but also from the lobbyists influencing its members.