Strike Options Should Compete on Cost Effectiveness, Study Says

[rangerrebew]

Strike Options Should Compete on Cost Effectiveness, Study Says
April 22, 2021 | By Tobias Naegele

The proliferation of long-range strike options under development across all the U.S. armed forces should prompt a comprehensive review by civilian leaders, a new report by two influential think tanks concludes.

The civilian review should ensure theater commanders have the most cost-effective mix of options available should they be needed in a peer fight, while eliminating duplicative capabilities, said Mark Gunzinger, director of future concepts and capability assessments at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies; Lukas Autenried, a Mitchell analyst; and Bryan Clark, director of the Center for Defense Concepts and Technology at the Hudson Institute.

Titled “Understanding the Long-Range Strike Debate,” the report argues that while a mix of options is always advantageous, the true cost of those options must be well understood and the opportunity cost of pursuing more options could deprive commanders of better options over time. It was unveiled at a virtual Aerospace Nation event April 22.

https://www.airforcemag.com/strike-options-should-compete-on-cost-effectiveness-study-says/

[rangerrebew]

Is the Air Force going to provide field commanders with user's guides to make sure they only use the most cost effective strikes possible when engaged in combat? Then the commanders could contact the enemy and tell them he/she needs a 24 hour pause while they study their guides.