Generally, a laser is expected to have more than 50 kilowatts of power to be used as a weapon. Within six to eight years, U.S. forces could begin using laser systems of more than 300 kilowatts, said Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. The military is also weighing the possibility of mounting lasers on drones to shoot down ballistic missiles, said Gunzinger. But the lasers will have to be much smaller before they can be used in combat aircraft. Engineers are currently running into physical limitations on how much portable power can be produced, and ways of cooling the technology.

“If there was something wrong with the program then I would hazard a guess that the cuts would be much, much more significant than $20 million,” said Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. A $20 million reduction is “really not that significant” in the context of a $55 billion-plus acquisition project, he added. “It would be erroneous to conclude that this is any kind of a signal of concern or displeasure” on the part of lawmakers, he said. “It’s certainly not going to cause any kind of a slippage to the program.”

Many often cited American plans for how to defeat China simply assume that nuclear war can be avoided. The most often cited of these is the Pentagon’s Air-Sea Battle (ASB) plan. A report by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) gives a detailed account of how an ASB-style war with China would unfold. In the opening “blinding campaign,” the U.S. attacks China’s reconnaissance and command-and-control networks to degrade the PLA’s ability to target U.S. and allied forces. Next, the military takes the fight to the Chinese mainland, striking long-range anti-ship missile launchers. Given that this is where the anti-ship missiles are located, it is only logical that the U.S. would target land-based platforms. And to go after them, one needs to take out China’s air defense systems, command control centers, and other anti-access weapons. In short, ASB requires a total war with China. This often cited and influential document does not speak to the question about what is to follow victory.

"Even fifth generation would be challenged to penetrate in certain ranges against these very capable air-missile-defense systems," said Mark Gunzinger, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a retired Air Force colonel, noting China has developed its own "very advanced" HQ-9 air-defense system. But he said the S-400 wouldn't create "no-go zones" for the U.S. and allies.

“So if you’re trying to block cave entrances or collapse rudimentary tunnel complexes, you might use the MOAB,” said Mark Gunzinger, a former B-52 pilot and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “If you’re trying to penetrate a very hardened, very deep structure, you might want something to penetrate into the target or to a deep enough depth that you cause damage inside. “You have to select the kind of weapon you want to use,” he said. “It’s not always a bigger blast.”

“Cruise missiles such as Tomahawks and JASSMs [Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile] would probably be used to surprise S-400s and S-300V4s,” airpower analyst Mark Guzinger—a former B-52 bomber pilot and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments—told The National Interest. “There may be little need to use manned aircraft against these threats, especially when other options exist to suppress them. I also suggest that an initial wave of standoff strikes would be launched by U.S. bombers operating from CONUS bases.”