Pretty sure on the M1 and SLEP item (although the Army may call it SEP). They upgraded 140 M1A2 to M1A2/SA models in 2009. The last major program was $18 million for roughly 2,000 LRS sensor package upgrades. Before that it was a program called TUSK (all of these intended to improve operations and survivability in urban environments). Not sure what Odierno was talking about, will have to research same. Could be Bradleys, Strikers or who knows what.
They built the M1 (105 mm main gun), M1A1 (125 mm main gun) and M1A2 (125 mm gun and improved targeting systems). They only built about 80 M1A2 tanks before they figure out (thanks to Desert Storm) that our tanks were waaaay better than the stuff being produced by the Soviet Union. After that they just decided to upgrade existing tanks and new manufacturing stopped. Upgrades of M1 tanks to M1A2 configurations started in 1998. Since that time, no new "tanks" have been manufactured for our military. We've made some for other countries (Saudi Arabia, Australia, Egypt come to mind) but all of our investment have been in upgrades from M1 or M1A1 variants to M1A2 with various service life/capability upgrades.
Yup, military spending could be vastly more effective. What you see with the F-22, F-35 and LCS (lovingly known as the "Little Crappy Ship" to some parts of the military) with manufacturing spread out across 40+ states is just the Pentagon playing games with Congress. Not sure about the F-35 but it was so bad with the F-22 that during final assembly a lot of the components had to be hand fitted (file, grinder, etc.) before they would work with the airframe. We spent a ton of money developing the DDX (Zumwalt class destroyer), built the first one and then decided to build more Burke class destroyers because the Zumwalt class was too freakin' big. I could list 20 other weapons systems that were huge wastes of money and time. Big problem. Huge problem.
I can't prove that we need the Tico (Ticonderoga class cruiser) investment but we have no replacement cruiser types in sight. We ditched the CGX program (new cruiser) so either we provide life extension upgrades to the Ticos or we just don't have cruisers. Without cruisers the Aegis fleet defense systems don't work. Without Aegis our carriers are big targets for anything that can shoot a cruise missile (not to mention we aren't building land based interceptors because we have the Ticos while at the same time supposedly trying to ditch the Ticos).
The Navy/Cruiser situation is not as simple as the budget comment in the article indicates. What the article seems to say about the situation vis a vis the Congress, Navy and Cruisers is basically wrong. A good article can be found here that explains what the Navy wants to do as opposed to what the article says.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140710/DEFREG02/307100032/US-Navy-Grilled-Cruiser-Plan
Quick version is that the Navy wants to take 11 of the cruisers out of service, upgrade them and return them to services in a phased plan. They would then do the same for the other 11 (or take them out of service if we have replacements). Cost is probably $6 - $7 billion for all 22 hulls. Congress is questioning the plan and funding for same, not forcing the Navy to keep the cruisers. The Navy does NOT want to get rid of the cruisers but is concerned that our cruiser force will start to wear out by 2020 if we don't undertake some sort of life extension and upgrade program.
If you want carriers that you can deploy, you have to keep a bunch of Aegis cruisers on line (2 or 3 per deployed carrier battle group). We currently have 22 cruisers (Ticos) and 11 carriers (one of which is out of service but kept on the books for political reasons). The carriers are nuclear and can deploy for months. The cruisers are gas turbine so they can't run as long on a deployment. You can resupply the carriers with food, jet fuel and munitions and leave them on station. The rest of the battle groups have to be rotated more frequently due to the maintenance required for the power plants and fuel. In other words, for every 2 cruisers you drop you lose the ability to deploy one carrier. We should be able to deploy 9 carriers in a crisis (one down for refueling which involves cutting the middle out of the ship) so the math dictates a minimum of 18 cruisers assuming none are down for maintenance. More simply put, unless you upgrade the cruisers for millions you lose the use of carriers that cost billions.
The cruisers have other uses and deploy frequently without carriers. The fleet air defense system is based on the Aegis cruiser. While two destroyers can partner up and shoot at incoming missiles or aircraft, if you want effective air defense you need an Aegis cruiser to run the show. The cruisers have the bulk of the processing power to identify, categorize and prioritize incoming threats and distribute defensive fire to same. Without the cruisers the other ships can and will engage a single target with multiple interceptors which wastes very expensive missiles. The cruisers also have more powerful radars that extend the range of the air defense systems beyond what the destroyers can provide on their own. So even without carriers to cover the cruisers have a big role to play in anti-missile and air defense operations. NKs or Chinese start testing missiles, we deploy a Tico and a couple of destroyers.
Hope that covers it in enough detail.
Thanks!