Shifting strategies: US armed forces adapt to global challenges

The President of the United States serves as the American armed forces' formal and actual commander. Although Congress has the competency to formally declare war on another nation, the president acts as the Commander-in-Chief. The strength of this position is evident in practice: even though Congress last declared war in 1942, the United States has been continuously engaged in military conflicts for nearly a century.

The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasions of Grenada and Panama, attacks on Libya, the Persian Gulf War, and subsequent engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan were not classified as wars under American law. These actions were considered "hostilities" or involved providing "limited support" to allies.

This complex situation is defined by documents such as the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR) and subsequent Authorizations for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) resolutions. These provide the American president with extraordinary capabilities,

Although the president's freedom of action is limited by detailed regulations, in practice, he can independently, after consulting advisors, initiate and conduct military operations (including nuclear warfare) that are not formally considered war. He has exceptional tools on a global scale for this: the United States Armed Forces.

The American armed forces are currently undergoing significant changes. These changes are the result of a new geopolitical situation, which requires a different assessment of priorities and threats compared to two decades ago. The Pentagon is moving away from methods developed in the post-Cold War era, after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union.

For years, the military of the world’s only global hegemon served as the guarantor of maintaining a global order favorable to the West. It operated as an expeditionary force, countering enemies that were not only smaller and poorly organized but also entirely dominated by American technological superiority.

According to the Pentagon, those times are past, and the ongoing reorganization of the American armed forces signifies these changes. This shift is demonstrated by the publication of a new doctrine in 2022—the first in 40 years—setting forth the principles under which Americans are to fight.

The "Field Manual 3.0" document assumes that the U.S. armed forces will conduct Multi-Domain Operations (MDO), where engagements occur simultaneously on land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace. Readiness for such activities is supported by six types of armed forces.

The Space Force is the youngest component of the American armed forces, formed in 2019. It is still under development and is responsible for missions involving military shuttles like the X-37. The Coast Guard has a special status as well—it is formally part of the armed forces. Still, it operates under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) instead of the Department of Defense.

The American armed forces are distinguished by their readiness for global action. This is facilitated by dividing the planet into several areas of responsibility, each with its command structure.

The scale of operations is evident in the fact that American forces are stationed outside the U.S. homeland at approximately 750 bases (depending on the methodology, some sources even cite 850) spread across more than 80 different countries.

In addition to commands with specific territorial responsibilities, there are also commands without such assignments. These are responsible for special forces, joint forces, transportation, and strategic forces.

The strategic forces oversee the American nuclear triad, consisting of submarines with UGM-133 Trident II nuclear missiles, strategic bombers capable of carrying B61 nuclear bombs, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles LGM-30G Minuteman III.

The largest component of the United States Armed Forces is the Army, which includes the National Guard and comprises about 450,000 soldiers. Over the past few years, it has been transforming from an expeditionary force into one capable of engaging in full-scale conflicts.

This transformation involves reducing the role of previously dominant brigade combat teams, which consist of several thousand soldiers. Greater emphasis is now placed on higher organizational levels—corps and divisions—to provide better coordination and support for operations involving tens of thousands of soldiers, rather than just hundreds or thousands.

These changes necessitate limiting various support units and "light" units. A current debate in the U.S. concerns the future of brigades using Stryker-wheeled armored vehicles. In contrast, "heavy" units are becoming more significant, with their expansion and reorganization (including changes in the number and composition of companies in a battalion), increasing the number of battle-ready tanks and infantry fighting vehicles by 20-30 percent.

The American Navy plays a crucial role in guaranteeing the United States free navigation and trade, which is foundational to the U.S. economy and much of the West. For this purpose, it operates unique tools such as 11 aircraft carriers, known as supercarriers due to their size and capabilities.

A generational replacement of supercarriers is underway—Nimitz-class ships are gradually being replaced by Gerald R. Ford-class vessels, which are of similar size and appearance but far more modern.

These ships form the core of the fleet, around which carrier strike groups are built, consisting of up to a dozen warships of various classes. American dominance on the seas has long been ensured by the AEGIS combat system, which allows for the creation of an effective anti-aircraft "umbrella" over a ship group and the defended area.

The submarine component consists exclusively of nuclear-powered vessels. This includes "boomers" such as Ohio-class submarines carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles (SLBM) with nuclear warheads, and multi-role submarines (Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia classes) capable of anti-shipping and anti-submarine warfare, reconnaissance, special forces support, and conventional land attacks.

The Marine Corps is also undergoing reorganization similar to that of the Army. During the war on terror, Marine units became more like Army units, losing their distinct character as forces primarily intended for amphibious operations.

The Corps is now returning to its roots by shedding some heavy equipment, including armored units. Poland benefited from this by purchasing readily available, recently retired M1A1 FEP tanks that previously belonged to the USMC.

The reorganization of the Marines aims to adapt the formation for modern warfare realities in the Pacific. These new strategies include conducting operations in extremely hostile environments, where the density of enemy arms is so high that using large amphibious ships, which have been the logistical backbone of marine forces, will be impossible.

The U.S. Air Force is also experiencing changes. For years, a troubling trend has been the systematic decrease in the number of combat aircraft and trained pilots, keeping Pentagon commanders concerned.

This situation results from a limited budget and the radical increase in the cost of new aircraft, with the F-35 costing approximately 85 million dollars and the latest variant of the F-15, the F-15EX, costing around 100 million. One consequence is a reduced capability for close air support, as indicated by the Air Force.

Under these conditions, the U.S. is exploring ways to break the impasse by researching unmanned or optionally manned systems and financing research on future aircraft, including those under the NGAD program. However, this program is at risk because a future combat aircraft could cost up to 300 million dollars.

The proposed solution involves changing how combat aircraft are designed and procured. Instead of revolutionizing with singular, ambitious programs developed over decades, it suggests continuous development and regular procurement of relatively small batches of equipment.

This approach would ensure the constant modernization of the Air Force while also reducing costs and the risks associated with highly ambitious but singular programs for building new types of aircraft.