So what’s the problem? CRS says “these weapons might provide the United States with more capability than it needs under most circumstances.” It also discounts the Air Force position that launching conventional missiles from either coast would eliminate possible “misunderstandings.” Their only value, says CRS, might stem from a need for quick response and, its analysts ask, is that worth the risk? Sounds like the CRS reaction is not mixed at all.
As Air Force leaders consider concepts of operations for Collaborative Combat Aircraft, sustainment in the field—and easing that support by using standard parts and limiting variants—should be a key consideration, according to a new study from AFA's Mitchell Institute of Aerospace Studies.