Over the last fifteen years, the Department of Defense spent more than $24 billion buying a mix of capabilities to defeat guided missile threats to U.S. and partner naval forces and land installations. Despite DoD's urgency, these investments have not resulted in air and missile defenses with sufficient capacity to counter large salvos of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and other precision-guided munitions (PGMs) that can now be launched by America's enemies.
"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.
Today the Navy and Marine Corps are facing a fundamental choice: maintain current levels of forward presence and risk breaking the force or reduce presence and restore readiness through adequate training, maintenance, and time at home.
In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Robert Martinage argues that the roles and missions of the Armed Forces need to be realigned to better address U.S. national security challenges and preserve U.S. military superiority in the decades ahead. His remarks focus on three broad areas for change: the possible creation of new Services for space, cyber, and special operations; the need for increased Service specialization; and the concept of “competitive jointness,” meaning encouraging healthy intra- and inter-Service rivalry to foster innovation.
In his remarks before the House Armed Services Seapower and Power Projection Forces Subcommittee, Bryan Clark argues that American undersea dominance will increasingly be contested by competitors who are pursuing new detection technologies while growing and quieting their own submarine fleets. To affordably sustain its undersea advantage well into this century, the U.S. Navy must accelerate innovation in undersea warfare by evolving the role of manned submarines and exploiting emerging technologies to field a new "family of undersea systems."
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.
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.