SIBLING RIVALRY: Military Services in High-Stakes Tussle Over Long-Range Fires.

• Date: 01 June 2021
• Author: Harper, Jon
• Published date: 01 June 2021
• Author: Harper, Jon

Air Force and Army leaders and their supporters are trading barbs over which branches of the military should be investing in long-range strike capabilities. The outcome of the dispute has major implications for service budgets and warfighting roles.

Following nearly two decades of counterinsurgency operations, the Army has made long-range precision fires its top modernization priority as the Defense Department refocuses on great power competition. Major initiatives underway or under consideration include the Extended Range Cannon Artillery; Precision Strike Missile; Strategic Long-Range Cannon; Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon; and modification of existing Navy SM-6 and UGM-109 missiles for ground launch, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The Army plans to spend billions of dollars pursuing these types of systems. However, some officials in other branches don't believe those are smart investments as the U.S. military gears up for a potential fight in the Indo-Pacific region against China and defense budgets are expected to remain relatively flat or decline in coming years.

"It's a stupid idea to go invest that kind of money and recreate something that [the Air Force] has mastered," Air Force Global Strike Command Commander Gen. Timothy Ray said in a recent podcast by the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, in which he touted the capabilities of his service's long-range bombers.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. David Deptula, dean of the Mitchell Institute, said the Army is "aggressively trying to grab missions that they think will help them become more relevant in our new national security strategy, and long-range strike is at the top of that list."

When asked about Ray's criticism, Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville suggested service parochialism is at play.

"Where you sit sometimes depends on where you stand," he said. "Your view of the future fight may be different from your perspective."

"Sometimes, you know, people say certain [critical] things, but ... at the chief level we're not going down that road. We're really trying to work together," he added.

The Army's ground-based long-range fires will give combatant commanders additional force employment options and present "multiple dilemmas" to adversaries, McConville said.

In an op-ed for Breaking Defense, retired Gen. Robert Brown, executive vice president of the Association of the United States Army and former commander of U.S. Army Pacific, called Ray's comments "a...