In his remarks before the House Armed Services Committee, Mark Gunzinger argues that the Air Force has an opportunity to create a family of systems that will maintain America's long-range strike advantage well into the future. The U.S. military needs a penetrating bomber that is large enough and has sufficient range to ensure it is able to deliver high volumes of munitions deep into denied areas. Failing to field a long-range strike platform or procuring it only in very small numbers would extend America's long-range strike capability gap, allowing future enemies more time to mature capabilities that threaten our ability to project power.
"Nobody does defense policy better than CSBA. Their work on strategic and budgetary topics manages to combine first-rate quality and in-depth research with timeliness and accessibility—which is why so many professionals consider their products indispensable." – Gideon Rose, Editor, Foreign Affairs.
The U.S. military has enjoyed an enormous advantage in precision strike over the past 25 years. The success of America’s precision strike operations has not gone unnoticed, however. Potential enemies have invested in active and passive defenses that could force the U.S. military to fly more strike sorties and expend larger numbers of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) in future wars.
In this testimony delivered before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces on July 16, 2014, Robert Martinage challenges the dominant view on the core mission of UCLASS that drive the system requirements.
In what may prove to be a brief strategic pause following the end of major operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress and DoD have the opportunity to accord priority to developing a next-generation, balanced Combat Air Force(CAF) comprised of aircraft with the range, survivability, and connectivity with other combat systems needed to operate effectively over extended ranges and in contested environments. Sufficient resources must be allocated to support these priorities, rather than continuing to allocate a “fair share” of the defense budget to each of the Military Departments.
Although nuclear weapons have played a critical role in American defense strategy for more than 60 years, there is a growing debate over the number and type of nuclear forces that the United States actually needs to maintain its security and protect its allies. Over the past several years, calls for Washington to substantially reduce the size of its nuclear arsenal have become more prevalent, while the combination of declining budgets and looming recapitalization costs have made nuclear weapons a popular target for potential funding cuts.
Space is no longer a sanctuary for the United States military. An implicit assumption in the space domain has been that deterrence would hold and space systems would not be attacked in conventional conflicts.