Reference News Network, September 30 report. According to the U.S. "Stars and Stripes" website on September 26, a government oversight agency stated in a new report released on the 25th that outdated technical information and a lack of spare parts have led to a decline in the capabilities of tanks, armored vehicles, and trucks used by the U.S. Army and Marines for ground missions.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined 18 types of combat and support vehicles from both forces and found that the mission completion rate of 16 of them has declined since 2015.

The Army's goal is to ensure that its vehicles can complete 90% of potential missions at any time. However, the report states that over the past 10 years, only the "Bradley" fighting vehicle has met this target. The GAO found that other combat vehicles - including the "Abrams" main battle tank, "Stryker" armored vehicle, and "Paladin" self-propelled howitzer - have never reached the 90% target.

According to GAO data, in terms of readiness, only about 20% of Army vehicles have met the readiness objectives since 2015. The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, which was introduced in 2019, performed best, maintaining a 90% mission capability for three out of six years.

The Marines determine whether a vehicle is mission-capable based on whether it can perform at least one potential mission. Only vehicles that cannot perform any mission are considered not mission-capable. Of the seven Marine Corps vehicles investigated by the GAO, five showed a similar decline in readiness levels as the Army's vehicles.

The amphibious vehicle (an armored personnel carrier that can carry 16 people) had the largest decline in readiness, falling by more than 25% over the past 10 years.

The report said that since 2015, two types of vehicles in the Marine Corps - the Amphibious Assault Vehicle and the Light Armored Vehicle - have shown positive improvements in mission capability.

Officials interviewed by the GAO provided different explanations for the decline in readiness levels depending on the type of vehicle.

The report said the reasons include maintenance delays, shortages of personnel, and unscheduled maintenance. Overall, all 18 military vehicles face two major issues: insufficient spare parts and outdated technical information. For example, Army officials told the GAO that some technical data packages still use hand-drawn blueprints from the 1960s.

The agency found that reduced manufacturing sources, long production cycles, and reliance on a single supplier have also made it more difficult to procure required materials. (Translated by Lu Di)

Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7555688605931405867/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking on the 【up/down】 button below.