No images? Click here [link removed]

Re: Building Defense is a limited series that highlights Hudson’s policy recommendations for revitalizing the US defense industrial base for great power competition.

The United States military still relies on explosive compounds, also known as energetics, that originated in the 1950s. To maintain its advantage over adversaries, America needs to rebuild its energetics enterprise.

How Do We Get There?

1. Build better bombs. [[link removed]]

2. Invest in innovation. [[link removed]]

3. Less talk. More action. [[link removed]]

Sketching Out the Details

1. Mike Gallagher: The Pentagon needs to break down systemic barriers in its acquisition process to build better bombs. [[link removed]]

For decades, the US had a comfortable lead in stealth, precision, and force integration. But that tactical and operational superiority has narrowed, if not vanished. Accordingly, the Defense Department is seeking to restore the energetics edge US forces took for granted. Achieving such progress requires the hard work of addressing the systemic barriers and aligning acquisition processes with technological readiness. But that effort underlies a more lethal future force. More agile acquisitions can put advanced energetics into more effective munitions, giving US fighters a decisive edge on the battlefield.

Read “America Needs Better Bombs” by Mike Gallagher. [[link removed]]

2. Fixing the industrial base for munitions and energetic materials will require investment in innovation. [[link removed]]

Fixing the industrial base for munitions and energetic materials will require a national strategy that includes the following steps:

Provide clear lines of authority and responsibility within the DoD for the munitions and energetics enterprise.Invest in munitions, energetics, and precursor chemical production to send a clear demand signal to the private sector.Drive innovation in energetics testing and evaluation, discovery of materials and concepts, and manufacturing processes.

Read Rocket’s Red Glare: Modernizing America’s Energetics Enterprise by Nadia Schadlow, Brayden Helwig, Bryan Clark, and Timothy A. Walton. [[link removed]]

3. Acting on ideas like the “munitions campus” is necessary for implementing these changes rather than merely talking about them. [[link removed]]

It’s now almost trite to point out the cracks in the foundation of the US defense industrial base (DIB). Many facilities are over a half century old, filled with outdated equipment, unable to meet production requirements, and often dependent on minerals and chemicals produced mainly by our adversaries. However, there is one promising development that has largely gone under the radar: The Defense Department’s recent suggestions that it is poised to create a “munitions campus,” as well as other campuses for other sectors, such as microelectronics, may be a step toward solving a host of DIB problems. The challenge, of course, is actual implementation. Too often, that’s where things break down. But if the munitions campus—and others like it—is built in a timely fashion, it offers an approach that even skeptics of industrial policy might get behind.

Read “Pioneering Progress: How a Munitions Campus Propels the US Defense Industrial Base Forward” by Nadia Schadlow. [[link removed]]

Act Now

Be a part of promoting American leadership and engagement for a secure, free, and prosperous future for us all.

Donate Today [[link removed]] [[link removed]] Share [link removed] Tweet [link removed] Forward [link removed] Hudson Institute

1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Fourth Floor

Washington, D.C. 20004 Preferences [link removed] | Unsubscribe [link removed]