U.S. defense strategy depends in large part on America’s advantage in undersea warfare. Multiple Quadrennial Defense Reviews, National Military Strategies, and Congressional hearing statements highlight how quiet submarines, in particular, are one of the American military’s most viable means of gathering intelligence and projecting power in the face of mounting anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) threats being fielded by a growing number of countries.

The Navy plans to beef up the firepower and defenses of its littoral combat ship fleet in the coming years, allowing the ships to operate in more dangerous waters.

Back in the 1990s, the U.S. Navy came up with a radical plan to replace its tried-and-true Perry-class frigates, at the time the sailing branch’s most numerous surface warship.

Congress is trying to have it both ways by cutting defense spending and expecting the Defense Department to continue with business as usual. But the savings will have to come from somewhere.

The federal budget process takes quite a beating. The government hasn't passed all its appropriations on time in 16 years, relying instead on continuing resolutions to keep the government open (or not, as we saw last year). Until last December's Bipartisan Budget Agreement (BBA), Congress went three years without deciding how much to spend before giving agencies their funding. And with the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA), we created a budget process Frankenstein that cobbled together inactive features of several previous budget laws and brought them back to life.

In early February, analysts from four Washington think tanks held a public event to recommend how the Pentagon could walk the fine line between developing a future military capable of meeting emerging security threats and staying within legislated budget caps.