Joint Experimentation - Unlocking the Promise of the Future,

Abstract

While everyone agrees that the Cold War has ended, we have yet to achieve a consensus on future military capabilities and the defense policies needed to realize them. The Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) concluded that we should pursue a balanced force structure in the near term but did not set priorities for developing new capabilities. While there is a template in Joint Vision 2010 to guide this quest it has failed thus far to effectively focus development efforts since it is regarded as being all things to all people. Consequently, those of us on Capitol Hill are presented with a range of competing approaches to future warfare. Some advocate precision strike by airpower and others argue for decisive landpower while still others favor rapid dominance that destroys an enemy's will to resist. The list goes on and on. The problem is that each approach requires a radically different investment policy, organizational structure, and doctrine. How can Congress determine which of these various approaches is best suited for the battlefield of the next century?

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jan 01, 1998
Accession Number
ADA356291

Entities

People

  • Dan Coats

Organizations

  • National Defense University

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Air Platforms
  • C4I
  • Counter WMD
  • Ground and Sea Platforms
  • Materials and Manufacturing Processes

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Air Force
  • Air Power
  • Aircrafts
  • Battlefields
  • Battlespace
  • Cold War
  • Command And Control
  • Doctrine
  • Force Structure
  • Investments
  • Military Capabilities
  • National Security
  • Naval Warfare
  • Organizational Structure
  • Training
  • Warfare
  • Weapons

Readers

  • Joint Military Operations and Doctrine.
  • Strategic Security Studies