U.S. Army 2030 – in search of a new asymmetric advantage on the battlefield

Introduction
The U.S. Army is facing a series of new challenges arising from increased pressure from revanchist powers, namely China and Russia. This necessitates a reorganization of the Army to ensure it can outmatch the ground forces of these potential rivals. The primary goal is to shift the Army’s focus from counter-insurgency warfare, as seen in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, to a force capable of fighting in a conventional symmetrical conflict. The entire reform and modernization process is designed to address the challenges of LSCOs (Large-Scale Combat Operations). These operations are characterized by their intensity, high casualty rates, rapid pace, and substantial resource consumption [1].

Changing nature of modern armed conflict

The changes occurring in current armed conflicts suggest that the American continent can no longer be considered secure. This was of immense importance during World Wars I and II, when the oceans acted as a natural barrier, allowing industry and the war economy to expand to unprecedented levels. German submarine attacks, along with occasional Japanese attempts to strike the mainland, had minimal impact on the conduct of the war effort and failed to threaten the American economy or population. This sense of security became deeply embedded in American strategic culture. However, the advancement of modern means of influence, coupled with the rising intensity of Russian and Chinese hybrid activities, will present new challenges. This is particularly true for military modernization programs like US Army 2030. Cyberattacks targeting infrastructure, disinformation, and manipulation campaigns will pose significant threats to military logistics, recruitment systems, and mobilization capabilities. To address these threats, the U.S. Department of Defense has introduced the JADO (Joint All-Domain Operations) concept, which aims to ensure that the modernization efforts align with these emerging challenges.  

The air-land battle concept dominated the U.S. Army for two decades, with air forces working in tandem with ground troops to engage and neutralize the enemy’s combat capabilities. However, in 2001, it was replaced by the concept of full-spectrum operations.

Multi-Domain Operations (MDO), source: US Army accomplishments and investment plan

According to the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, MDO (or multi-domain operation) is defined by the rapid and continuous integration of all areas of the battlefield [2]. Field Manual 3-0 defines the MDO as follows: “The combined arms deployment of joint and Army capabilities to create and exploit relative advantages that achieve objectives, defeat enemy forces, and consolidate gains on behalf of joint force commanders.” The goal of Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) is to develop technologies across all areas of the battlefield to achieve dominance, while simultaneously deterring potential aggressors [3]. MDO is intended to significantly expand the existing concept of air-land battle prevalent in the US Army since the Warsaw Pact era. This is dictated primarily by the requirements of the modern battlefield and the possibility of potential adversaries from A2/AD (anti-access/area denial) ranges [4]. MDO assures that the battlefield will be significantly expanded compared to the earlier concept of air-land battle.

In response to the demands of multi-domain operations, Multi-Domain Task Forces (MDTFs) are designed to integrate intelligence, cyber, information, electronic warfare (EW), and space force components. Their purpose is to enable long-range precision strikes across multiple domains, employing both kinetic and non-kinetic means of influence [5]. The task of these units is to penetrate the environment and counter the A2/AD capabilities of a potential adversary.

At this moment, 5 units of this type are in the organizational phase [6]. These units are intended to be available at the Theater of War level and to support coalition forces.

US Army 2030

The U.S. Army 2030 program is designed to align with the priorities outlined in the National Security Strategy and the 2022 National Defense Strategy [7]. The documents identify China as a growing challenge and Russia as a current threat. Iran and North Korea are also listed as ongoing threats.

The U.S. Army plans to enhance its capabilities through a Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA) approach, which involves introducing new capabilities over a 2-5 year period. This concept was approved by Congress in 2016 and implemented by the Department of Defense in 2018 [8]. This approach allows for prototypes to be tested and integrated into the armed forces at an unprecedented speed. To date, over 100 projects have been executed under the MTA, the majority of which are small-scale, but 10% involve the modernization of key programs, such as the B-52, F-22, hypersonic missiles, and Protected Tactical SATCOM.

The strength of the Army 2030 concept lies in reinforcing what the U.S. military has dominated since World War II—systemic integration. The focus is placed equally on all elements of the puzzle, from recruitment and mobilization to logistics. The U.S. Army’s published Field Manual 3-0 Operations transforms multi-domain operations from a concept into a formal doctrine [9]. The doctrine is an evolution of the familiar concepts of air-land battle, full-spectrum operations, and unified ground operations. It also incorporates lessons learned from the past 20 years of counterinsurgency operations and insights from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.

For the past 20 years, Brigade Combat Teams have been the U.S. Army’s primary tactical-level units. However, the lessons from the war in Ukraine suggest that only higher-level units—such as divisions, corps, or armies within a given Theater of War—are capable of executing operations that can alter the situation on the front lines. To empower these higher-level units, the U.S. Army is investing in organizations such as:

1. multi-domain task forces,
2. security force support brigades,
3. fire units of the Theater of War,
4. Theater of War information superiority units,
5. Theater of War military intelligence brigades.

By integrating these units into the Theater Army, commanders are to be provided with a valuable tool to maintain dominance over potential adversaries like China and Russia. Corps have been identified as the primary level for synchronizing and executing multi-domain operations.

Corps commands will face the critical task of synthesizing vast amounts of data from diverse battlefield domains, including land, air, cyberspace, and space. Additionally, corps commanders will bear responsibility for sustaining pressure on the deep battlefield, extending beyond the first line of troop contact. This will be achieved using effectors such as loitering missiles, precision munitions, and long-range missiles. The coordination of these operations will rely on the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) system.

In the concept, divisions are defined as the fundamental tactical level. Their primary role is to position Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) to secure tactical advantages. Historically, divisions have functioned primarily as administrative entities, managing the operational deployment of BCTs. However, in a potential large-scale conflict, divisions must once again take on the role of primary operational units [10].

Divisional air defense battalions are expected to provide adaptable air defense capabilities, wherever the tactical situation requires. Meanwhile, division-level engineering units will face the increasingly challenging task of securing crossings in contested environments.

Reinforced Armor Division (Fig. 1)

The reinforced armor division will be the heaviest type of division in the U.S. Army. Its primary operational role will focus on breaking through enemy defenses, supported by advanced effectors on the battlefield, and exploiting breaches in the enemy’s rear. These operations will be enhanced by expanded division-level artillery and engineering units integrated into its structure. Plans include transforming existing units into reinforced armor divisions, such as:

1. 1st Cavalry Division
2. 1st Armored Division
3. 34th Infantry Division (National Guard)

The maneuver component of these divisions will consist of three Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) [11]. An intriguing and innovative addition to the divisional armor cavalry squadron is the Cross-Domain Troop. This unit will focus on managing, testing, and implementing cutting-edge technologies, including drones and loitering munitions.

The division’s firepower will be provided by divisional artillery, comprising three battalions of 155mm self-propelled artillery. Additional support for the entire division will come from an artillery battalion equipped with M1299 Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA), capable of firing 155mm shells at ranges of up to 70 kilometers. (Fig.1)

US Army Reinforced Armor Division, source: TRADOC (Fig.1)

Armor Division (Fig. 2)

However, the Reinforced Armor Division will not be the only unit established under the US Army 2030 modernization program. Plans also include the creation of lighter, more streamlined armored divisions. The primary distinction between these lighter divisions and the heavier reinforced divisions lies in reduced specialization and a lighter organic artillery component. Units slated for transformation into armor divisions include:

1. 1st Infantry Division
2. 3rd Infantry Division
3. 36th Infantry Division (National Guard)

The maneuver component will include two Armor Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs) and one Brigade Combat Team (BCT) equipped with Stryker transport vehicles. Unlike the reinforced divisions, these units will lack a divisional armored cavalry squadron [12].

The fire component will be managed by a divisional artillery brigade, which will consist of two field artillery battalions equipped with 155mm self-propelled guns and one field artillery battalion with 155mm towed guns. (Fig. 2)

US Army Armor Division, source: TRADOC (Fig. 2)

Light Division (Fig. 3)

The U.S. Army’s light divisions are set to be the most numerous units within the force. By design, the primary unit will be the Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), which are expected to be renamed in the future as Light Brigade Combat Teams (LCBTs) or Mobile Brigade Combat Teams (MCBTs). These units are planned to be converted into the posts:

1. 10th Mountain Division
2. 25th Infantry Division
3. 11th Airborne Division

While:

1. 28th Infantry Division
2. 29th Infantry Division
3. 35th Infantry Division
4. 40th Infantry Division
5. 42nd Infantry Division

are to be light divisions of the National Guard (NG).

The maneuver component will consist of three Light/Mobile Brigade Combat Teams (LCBT/MCBT) and one Mobile Protected Firepower Battalion (MPFB). These battalions will be equipped with support vehicles armed with 105mm cannons, with companies of these vehicles supporting the Brigade Combat Teams. M10 Booker SPGs will be responsible for this task, with the first units delivered to the troops in April 2024 [13]. Interestingly, each brigade is to have a military intelligence company.

The fire component will be managed by a brigade at the division level, consisting of three field artillery battalions equipped with towed guns. In the future, it is possible that the towed guns may be replaced with self-propelled guns mounted on truck chassis or similar platforms. The first battalion will consist of 155mm caliber guns, while the other two will feature 105mm caliber M777 guns. These units will provide fire support to brigade combat teams. In the event of the need for “larger caliber” artillery, organic corps-level field artillery brigades equipped with HIMARS/MLRS rocket artillery systems will be available for additional support [14].

US Army Light Division, source: TRADOC (Fig. 3)

The next units to be created as part of US Army 2030 are:

1. Airborne Division (JFE – Joint Forcible Entry), similar to a light division in terms of staffing, but with a focus on airborne operations. The 82nd Division and 173rd Airborne Brigade are set to be restructured to align with this. The goal is to transform these units to meet the requirements of a fully independent brigade combat team.
2. Air Assault Division (JFE – Joint Forcible Entry), minimally motorized, using helicopter transport. The 101st Division is to converge to this staffing [15].

Despite the changes in command structures, the US Army 2030 concept does not discard brigade combat teams, which have been the backbone of the US Army for the past 20 years. The objective is to leverage their potential for rapid decision-making and flexibility while reducing their size to improve maneuverability and survivability through battlefield dispersion. Additionally, the plan is to shift the responsibility for air dominance coordination from the brigade level to the division level.

All of these changes are designed to function systemically at each level, a necessity in a modern battlefield increasingly dominated by means of influence not addressed in the previous air-land battle doctrine. Units at each level will be structured to target and assign tasks according to the specific level and type of unit involved.

Training

The most important element of the US Army 2030 concept is its people. They are the ones who form battle groups, lead teams, and manage battlefield operations.

In terms of training, Army 2030 will place a strong emphasis on learning from ongoing armed conflicts, particularly the war in Ukraine. Plans include the introduction of virtual reality training to prepare soldiers for all possible scenarios. Purchases of new equipment and the integration of new technologies will be paired with the most realistic training available, based on observations from Ukraine, as well as a focus on developing initiative and leadership within the armed forces.

New technologies

The U.S. Army 2030 is not only about doctrinal and organizational changes, but above all technological advancements. These range from cloud computing to hypersonic weapons. The portfolio of all programs being developed as part of the reforms is vast and diverse. Examples:

1. Next Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV)
2. Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD)
3. Army Integrated Air and Missile Defense (AIAMD)
4. Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD C2)
5. Indirect Fire Protection Capability – High Power Microwave (IFPC-HPM)
6. Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW)
7. Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM)
8. 155 mm Excalibur Projectiles
9. Indirect Fire Protection Capability – High Energy Laser (IFPC-HEL)
10. Booker Combat Vehicle – M10
11. Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV)

Given the rapid technological changes on the modern battlefield, the U.S. Army is working to adjust its procurement plans accordingly. A prime example of this is the acceleration of the Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) project. Taking into account the lessons learned from Ukraine, the Army has significantly expedited the implementation, procurement, and integration of projects like lethal unmanned systems, known as loitering munitions.

Summary

Sensorization is transforming the battlefield. Future warfare will no longer resemble the asymmetric conflicts the U.S. Army has experienced over the past 20 years. As a result, there is a pressing need to seek new advantages and coordinate emerging effectors to preserve the U.S. Army’s dominance on the ground against the potential forces of revanchist powers.

The primary goal is to create a more effective deterrent, which will be achieved by maintaining visible force superiority. The positions outlined above will evolve as the concept develops, meaning the final composition and size of the units will likely change over time.

The concept can be criticized for the excessive specialization of individual tactical units. Heavy divisions have too small an infantry component, which could pose a risk in the event of a high-intensity conflict. Meanwhile, light divisions feature too much infantry and lack sufficient heavy equipment support.

The US Army 2030 is fundamentally a series of organizational reforms, but it also places significant emphasis on doctrinal changes. Since World War II, the US Army has been a prime example of a military operating in a systemic manner. Systemic operation means giving equal importance to all aspects of warfare, from the economic base and logistics to the individual soldier.

The US Army expects to achieve full operational capability for Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) by 2035 [16].

Bibliography

1. MAJ R. Locklear, The Army of 2040: An Extension of the 2030 Goals, ausa.org, 08.03.2024, link: https://www.ausa.org/publications/army-2040-extension-2030-goals [dostęp: 18.01.2025]
2. Ibidem.
3. Ibidem.
4. Congressional Research Service, The Army’s AimPoint and Army 2030 Force Structure Initiatives, crsreports.org, 31.01.2022, link: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11542 [dostęp: 18.01.2025]
5. U.S. Army, AMERICA’S ARMY: READY NOW, INVESTING IN THE FUTURE, army.mil, link: https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/about/usarmy_fy19_21_accomplishments_and_investment_plan.pdf [dostęp: 18.01.2025]
6. Congressional Research Service, The 2024 Army Force Structure Transformation Initiative, crsreports.org, 21.08.2024, link: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47985 [dostęp: 18.01.2025]
7. Gen. James Rainey, Lt. Gen. Laura Potter, Delivering the Army of 2030, warontherocks.com, 06.08.2023, link: https://warontherocks.com/2023/08/delivering-the-army-of-2030/ [dostęp: 18.01.2025]
8. Pete Modigliani, Dan Ward, Matt MacGregor, Get to Know the Middle Tier of Awesome…Er, Acquisition, defenseone.com, 12.09.2022, link: https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2022/09/get-know-middle-tier-awesomeer-acquisition/377017/ [dostęp: 18.01.2025]
9. Gen. James Rainey, Lt. Gen. Laura Potter, Delivering the Army of 2030, warontherocks.com, 06.08.2023, link: https://warontherocks.com/2023/08/delivering-the-army-of-2030/ [dostęp: 18.01.2025]
10. Battle Order, U.S. Army’s Way Forward: 5 New Division Organizations, battleorder.org, 11.04.2023, link: https://www.battleorder.org/post/waypoint-divisions [dostęp: 18.01.2025]
11. Ibidem.
12. LTC Kevin Hadley, MAJ Savannah Spencer, MAJ Justin Martens, How the Army 2030 Divisions Fight (Formerly Known as WayPoint 2028), TRADOC Proponent Office—Echelons Above Brigade, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 02.02.2023
13. John Ashley, Army takes delivery of first M10 Booker Combat Vehicle, army.mil, 18.04.2024, link: https://www.army.mil/article/275419/army_takes_delivery_of_first_m10_booker_combat_vehicle [dostęp: 18.01.2025]
14. Battle Order, U.S. Army’s Way Forward: 5 New Division Organizations, battleorder.org, 11.04.2023, link: https://www.battleorder.org/post/waypoint-divisions [dostęp: 18.01.2025]
15. LTC Kevin Hadley, MAJ Savannah Spencer, MAJ Justin Martens, How the Army 2030 Divisions Fight (Formerly Known as WayPoint 2028), TRADOC Proponent Office—Echelons Above Brigade, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 02.02.2023
16. Congressional Research Service, The Army’s AimPoint and Army 2030 Force Structure Initiatives, crsreports.org, 31.01.2022, link: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11542 [dostęp: 18.01.2025]