POLISCOPE
Back to feed
Part ofnational defense →
FEDERALhearing transcript
High Impact

Senate Hearing on the Future of Warfare

Original title: THE FUTURE OF WARFARE

January 1, 2016

national defensemilitary technologycyber warfaredefense acquisitionmilitary strategybudgeting

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing sets the policy agenda for how the U.S. military prioritizes research, development, and acquisition spending to maintain a technological edge against global adversaries.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

U.S. Military

The military faces potential changes in procurement strategies, technological focus, and organizational structure based on the committee's findings.

Defense Contractors

Traditional defense contractors may face increased competition from commercial technology firms for government research and development contracts.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2016.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The Senate Committee on Armed Services held a hearing on November 3, 2015, to discuss how the U.S. military must adapt to emerging technologies and evolving global threats. Experts and senators examined the need for defense reform to counter adversaries who are rapidly developing cyber, robotic, and anti-access capabilities.

Key Facts

  • The hearing took place on November 3, 2015, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
  • The committee is evaluating how to shift defense acquisition from traditional contractors to include more commercial technology companies.
  • Chairman McCain stated that the top four U.S. defense contractors combined spend only 27 percent of what Google spends annually on research and development.
  • The committee identified cyber, space, robotics, unmanned systems, miniaturization, directed energy, hypersonics, and data analytics as critical future warfare areas.
  • The hearing addressed the impact of the Budget Control Act and sequestration on military readiness and technological development.
  • Adversaries are increasingly using asymmetric strategies, including hybrid warfare and anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities, to counter U.S. military advantages.

Why It Matters

This hearing sets the policy agenda for how the U.S. military prioritizes research, development, and acquisition spending to maintain a technological edge against global adversaries.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of this hearing?
To identify necessary reforms to ensure the U.S. military remains effective and innovative in the face of evolving global threats and new technologies.
Why is the committee concerned about commercial companies like Google?
The committee noted that disruptive technologies are increasingly developed by commercial firms rather than traditional defense contractors, and the current system struggles to integrate these innovations.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Sponsors

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Pivot to Commercial Tech

The committee explicitly identified a need to move away from traditional defense-only contractors toward commercial technology firms to maintain a technological edge.

GoogleSenate Committee on Armed Services

Connected Entities

personBryan Clark“Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments”Map →
otherBudget Control Act“Federal legislation impacting defense spending”Map →
personPaul Scharre“Director of the 20YY Warfare Initiative at the Center for a New American Securit”Map →
personJohn McCain“Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services”Map →
organizationSenate Committee on Armed Services“Congressional committee overseeing military policy”Map →
personKeith B. Alexander“Former Commander of U.S. Cyber Command and former Director of the NSA”Map →
personPeter W. Singer“Strategist and Senior Fellow at New America”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance85
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy40
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment15
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz20
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record