Understanding the Long-Range Strike Debate
Arlington, VA (April 22, 2021) — The Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies in partnership with the Hudson Institute is pleased to announce a new entry in its Policy Paper series, Understanding the Long-Range Strike Debate by Mark Gunzinger, Director of Future Concepts and Capability Assessments at the Mitchell Institute; Lukas Autenried, Senior Analyst at the Mitchell Institute; and Bryan Clark, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute.
There is broad consensus on the need to increase the U.S. military’s long-range strike capacity. There is also significant debate over which investments would result in the greatest return for America’s warfighters. This policy paper compares the ranges, costs, target suitability, and other attributes of long-range surface-launched missiles with precision-guided weapons that can be delivered at scale by strike aircraft in peer conflicts. It offers insights and recommendations, to frame the debate on how DOD should maximize its long-range strike capacity in an era of flat or declining defense budgets while providing theater commanders with multiple options for creating effects on targets over long ranges. The Mitchell Institute Policy Papers is a series presenting new thinking and policy proposals to respond to the emerging security and aerospace power challenges of the 21st century. These papers are written for lawmakers and their staffs, policy professionals, business and industry, academics, journalists, and the informed public. For media inquiries, email our publications team at email@example.com Copies of Policy Papers can be downloaded at https://www.mitchellaerospacepower.org/publications