Create articles from any YouTube video or use our API to get YouTube transcriptions
Start for freeThe year is 2030. A devastating cyber attack has just crippled America's major seaports and rail networks. Simultaneously, border incursions erupt along the Russian-Baltic frontier, China imposes a blockade on Taiwan, and Iran launches a barrage of ballistic missiles against US forces across the Middle East. This nightmarish scenario represents precisely the kind of multi-theater conflict that would stretch the US Army to its limits - and it's exactly the type of threat the Army is preparing to face with its radical new war plan and complementary weapons systems.
The Evolution of US Army Doctrine
To understand the significance of the Army's current transformation, we must first examine the historical context that shaped it. Military doctrine - the fundamental principles guiding armed forces in support of national objectives - has evolved significantly over the past five decades.
The Yom Kippur War and Active Defense
In 1973, the Yom Kippur War sent shockwaves through military circles, demonstrating the lethality of modern anti-tank guided missiles and exposing the vulnerability of tank formations. This conflict catalyzed a revolution in military theory, leading to the creation of the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) under General William DePuy.
DePuy, a battle-hardened veteran of World War II and Vietnam, recognized that warfare was evolving at an unprecedented pace. Under his leadership, TRADOC developed the Army's first official doctrine: FM 100-5 Operations, also known as "Active Defense."
Key aspects of Active Defense included:
- Emphasis on armored, mechanized warfare
- Positioning most firepower forward to engage the enemy immediately
- Controlled withdrawal to lure enemies into kill zones
- Defense in depth, fighting from successive battle positions
This doctrine was a response to several factors:
- Improved surveillance technology making surprise troop movements more difficult
- Shrinking US force size, potentially outnumbered 2:1 in Europe against Warsaw Pact forces
While innovative, Active Defense faced criticism for its potentially provocative forward posture and failure to account for enemy reserve forces.
AirLand Battle: The Aggressive Evolution
In 1977, General Donn Starry succeeded DePuy as TRADOC commander. Starry, who had commanded armored cavalry in Vietnam, set out to address the perceived shortcomings of Active Defense. The result was the AirLand Battle doctrine, which emphasized:
- Aggressive, forward-moving action
- Maneuver warfare concepts
- Exploitation and destruction of enemy forces
- Integration of ground and air forces for deep strikes against enemy rear areas
To support this new doctrine, the US defense industry developed the "Big Five" weapon systems:
- AH-64 Apache attack helicopter
- M1 Abrams main battle tank
- UH-60 Black Hawk transport helicopter
- M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle
- Patriot air defense missile system
These systems were crucial for implementing AirLand Battle, providing the speed, flexibility, and striking power needed to execute deep attacks against enemy forces.
Despite initial controversy, AirLand Battle proved its effectiveness during the First Gulf War in 1991, validating the US Army's approach to modern conventional warfare.
Full Spectrum Operations: The Counterinsurgency Era
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the US Army adopted a new doctrine called Full Spectrum Operations. This marked a significant departure from previous focus on conventional warfare, instead emphasizing counterinsurgency capabilities.
Key aspects of Full Spectrum Operations included:
- Deployment of self-sustained small units in remote areas
- Development of the Stryker armored fighting vehicle
- Reorganization into 31 separate Brigade Combat Teams
- Reduced emphasis on large-scale divisions
This doctrine reflected the unique geopolitical situation of the early 2000s, when the US believed great power competition might be off the table for the foreseeable future. However, while the US focused on counterinsurgency, potential adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea studied American strengths and developed systems to counter them.
The Rise of Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) Warfare
While the US Army adapted to counterinsurgency operations, potential adversaries invested heavily in long-range missile platforms and other systems designed to deny US forces freedom of movement. This approach, known as Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) warfare, posed a significant challenge to American military superiority.
The US Army's response to this emerging threat was initially lackluster. Between 2000 and 2009, the Future Combat System program attempted to develop new artillery, helicopters, and infantry fighting vehicles, but ultimately failed to materialize. Once again, as during the Vietnam War era, the Army had lost a generation of modernization.
Army Futures Command: A New Approach to Modernization
In 2015, recognizing the need for a more agile and effective modernization process, Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley established Army Futures Command (AFC). This new four-star command was designed to bypass the bureaucracy that had accumulated within TRADOC since its inception in 1973.
Headquartered in Austin, Texas, AFC was tasked with transforming the Army to fight and win future wars. With a budget of approximately $30 billion for modernization efforts, AFC has produced more impressive results than previous attempts at large-scale transformation.
Multi-Domain Operations: The New US Army Doctrine
In February 2024, the US Army published a white paper outlining its new war plans, centered around the concept of Multi-Domain Operations (MDO). This doctrine represents the next evolution in US Army fighting theory, reorienting the force towards conventional warfare in multiple theaters simultaneously.
Key aspects of Multi-Domain Operations include:
- Coordination with and protection of civilian assets (rail networks, ports, roadways)
- Creation of five Multi-Domain Task Forces, with three assigned to the Pacific Theater
- Theater-level planning and coordination
- Integration of multiple domains (land, air, sea, space, cyber, electromagnetic spectrum)
The primary goal of MDO is to counter enemy Anti-Access/Area Denial strategies. To support this new doctrine, the Army is developing and fielding a new set of advanced weapon systems, often referred to as the "Big Six":
1. Long-Range Precision Fires
The Typhoon launcher, capable of firing SM-6 missiles with a range of over 1,700 km, is a key component of the Army's new long-range strike capabilities. Each Multi-Domain Task Force will be equipped with a Typhoon battery, consisting of three missile launchers connected to a single control center.
Additionally, the Army is developing the Dark Eagle, a ground-launched hypersonic missile with a range exceeding 3,000 km and the ability to travel at Mach 5 while maneuvering to avoid air defenses.
2. Next-Generation Combat Vehicles
The M10 Booker light tank has been developed to provide infantry units with organic armor support, allowing for more rapid deployment of armored firepower in contested areas.
3. Future Vertical Lift
The Bell V-280 Valor is set to replace the UH-60 Black Hawk as the Army's primary transport helicopter, offering improved speed and range for rapidly deploying infantry to the front lines.
4. Network
Improved communication and data-sharing capabilities are being developed to support the coordination required for effective multi-domain operations.
5. Air and Missile Defense
To address the growing threat of enemy missiles and drones, the Army is adding 17 new air defense units, including:
- Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) systems
- Counter-UAV weapons
- Patriot and THAAD launchers for longer-range threats
6. Soldier Lethality
The new XM7 and XM250 rifles, along with advanced optics and fire control systems, are designed to give individual soldiers greater range and accuracy.
Restructuring for the Future Fight
To make room for these new capabilities, particularly in air defense, the Army plans to cut between 24,000 and 32,000 jobs across various specialties. This includes reducing some Special Forces and conventional force slots, reflecting the shift in focus from counterinsurgency to near-peer competition.
Challenges and Controversies
As with any major doctrinal shift, the move to Multi-Domain Operations and the associated force restructuring has faced criticism and challenges:
- Concerns about spreading forces too thin
- Debates over the balance between high-tech systems and traditional combat arms
- Questions about the effectiveness of new weapons systems in real-world conflicts
- The potential for adversaries to develop countermeasures to new US capabilities
Conclusion
The US Army's adoption of Multi-Domain Operations doctrine and the associated modernization efforts represent the most significant transformation of American land forces since the end of the Cold War. By integrating advanced technologies, long-range precision fires, and improved air defense capabilities, the Army aims to maintain its edge in an increasingly complex and contested global security environment.
However, as history has shown, no military doctrine or weapons system is infallible. The true test of these new concepts and technologies will come only in the crucible of actual conflict. As the Army continues to evolve and adapt, it must remain flexible and open to further changes based on real-world experiences and emerging threats.
Ultimately, the success of Multi-Domain Operations will depend not just on advanced weaponry, but on the skill, adaptability, and courage of the soldiers tasked with implementing this new approach to warfare. As the global security landscape continues to shift, the US Army's ability to effectively execute its new doctrine may well determine the outcome of future conflicts and the balance of power in the 21st century.
Article created from: https://youtu.be/ag7HX3jGLtc?feature=shared
