{"id":13041,"date":"2016-12-15T16:11:28","date_gmt":"2016-12-15T21:11:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexingtoninstitute.org\/?p=13041"},"modified":"2016-12-15T16:11:28","modified_gmt":"2016-12-15T21:11:28","slug":"americas-marines-need-amphibious-combat-vehicle-program-counter-russia-china-national-interest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lexingtoninstitute.org\/americas-marines-need-amphibious-combat-vehicle-program-counter-russia-china-national-interest\/","title":{"rendered":"America\u2019s Marines Need The Amphibious Combat Vehicle Program To Counter Russia And China (From The National Interest)"},"content":{"rendered":"
The U.S. military has a dilemma. Having forgone more than a generation of modernization and facing rising adversaries who are investing in modern military equipment, it has to make a choice: focus on near-term modernization, buy what is available in order to close the gap with adversaries or make a bet to hang on for another decade or two until a new generation of superior technologies is available. The Army and Marine Corps are the two services most challenged by the choice between near-term and far-term modernization. As a result, both are facing the near era of great power rivalry with very limited options when it comes to modernization, particularly for ground combat systems. I have written a commentary for The National Interest here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The U.S. military has a dilemma. Having forgone more than a generation of modernization and facing rising adversaries who are investing in modern military equipment, it has to make a choice: focus on near-term modernization, buy what is available in order to close the gap with adversaries or make a bet to hang on for […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\n