Redefining strength: America's armed forces reshape for future threats

The President of the United States serves both as the nominal and actual commander of the American armed forces. Although formally declaring war on another nation is within the remit of Congress, the president serves as the Commander-in-Chief. The strength of this position is reflected in practice: although Congress last declared war in 1942, the United States has been perpetually at war for nearly a century.

The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the interventions in Grenada and Panama, strikes on Libya, the Persian Gulf War, and the subsequent engagements in Iraq or Afghanistan, from the perspective of American law, were not wars. According to regulations, these were "hostilities" or providing allies with "limited support."

This complex legal puzzle is defined by documents such as the 1973 "War Powers Resolution" (WPR) or subsequent "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" (AUMF) resolutions. These enable the American president to wield extraordinary powers,

Although the president's freedom of action is constrained by detailed regulations, in practice, they can independently, after consulting advisors, initiate and conduct warfare (including nuclear warfare), which is not formally classified as war. They possess exceptional tools globally for this: the United States Armed Forces.

The American armed forces are currently experiencing significant changes. These transformations are informed by a new geopolitical landscape that compels a different assessment of priorities and threats compared to two decades ago. The Pentagon is moving away from strategies developed under the influence of the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and the Soviet Union.

For years, the army of the lone global superpower guaranteed the maintenance of a global order favourable to the West. It served as an expeditionary force, combating an enemy that was not only smaller but also poorly organised and, above all, entirely inferior to American technological prowess.

According to the Pentagon, those times are behind us, and the ongoing reorganisation of the American armed forces attests to these changes. Its significance is underscored by the fact that in 2022, for the first time in 40 years, a new doctrine was published: a set of principles according to which Americans are to engage in combat.

The "Field Manual 3.0" document proposes that the U.S. armed forces will undertake Multi-Domain Operations (MDO), where combat occurs simultaneously on land, at sea, in the air, and also in space and cyberspace. Six types of armed forces ensure readiness for such operations.

The Space Force is the most recent addition to the American armed forces – established in 2019, still being developed, and responsible for missions involving military shuttles like the X-37. The Coast Guard also possesses a special status – while formally part of the armed forces, it is not under the Department of Defense but belongs to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

What sets the American armed forces apart is their formal and actual readiness for global action. This readiness is facilitated by dividing the planet into various areas of responsibility, each with its own command.

The scale of operations is made apparent by the fact that the American armed forces are stationed - outside their homeland - in approximately 750 bases (depending on the methodology, some sources suggest even 850) across more than 80 different countries.

In addition to commands with a specified territorial scope, there are also commands without such assignments, responsible for special forces, joint forces comprising different cooperating armed forces, transport, and strategic forces.

The latter are responsible for the American nuclear triad which includes submarines armed with UGM-133 Trident II nuclear missiles, strategic bombers capable of carrying B61 nuclear bombs, and land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles such as the 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 several years, it has undergone a significant transformation from an expeditionary force into one capable of engaging in full-scale conflict.

This transition involves diminishing the role of the previously dominant brigade combat teams, which consist of several thousand soldiers. Higher organisational levels are becoming more significant – corps and divisions, offering better coordination of actions and support when tens of thousands of soldiers are engaged in combat simultaneously rather than just hundreds or thousands.

These changes reduce various support units and "light" units. An ongoing debate in the USA concerns the future of brigades using Stryker wheeled armoured vehicles. "Heavy" units are gaining importance, and their expansion and reorganisation (including changes in the number and composition of companies in a battalion) will increase the number of battle-ready tanks and infantry fighting vehicles by 20-30 percent.

The American Navy plays an exceptional role: it ensures the United States' free navigation and trade, which forms the cornerstone of the U.S. economy and much of the West. To this end, it possesses unique tools in the form of 11 aircraft carriers, also known as supercarriers due to their size and capabilities.

A generational replacement of supercarriers is underway as Nimitz-class ships are gradually replaced by Gerald R. Ford-class vessels of similar size and appearance but significantly more modern.

These ships form the core of the fleet, around which carrier strike groups are constructed, consisting of up to a dozen warships of various classes. For decades, American dominance on the seas has 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 is exclusively composed of nuclear-powered vessels. Among these are "boomers" – Ohio-class ships carrying intercontinental ballistic missiles (SLBM) with nuclear warheads, and multi-role vessels (Los Angeles, Seawolf, and Virginia classes) capable of engaging in anti-shipping, anti-submarine warfare, reconnaissance missions, and supporting special forces, as well as conventional attacks on land targets.

A reorganisation on the same scale as in the Army is also taking place within the Marine Corps. During the so-called war on terror, Marine units became increasingly similar to army units, losing their original character as forces designed primarily for amphibious operations.

The Corps is now returning to its roots, having been relieved of some heavy equipment, including armoured units.

The reorganisation of the Marines is centred on adapting the formation to the realities of modern warfare in the Pacific. New strategies include conducting operations in extremely hostile environments where enemy firepower saturation is so high that the use of large amphibious ships, which have been the logistical backbone of marine forces, becomes impossible.

Transformations are also impacting the U.S. Air Force. For years, there has been a trend that keeps the Pentagon's top commanders awake at night: the number of combat aircraft and trained pilots is steadily declining.

This trend is attributed to a restricted budget and the explosive rise in the cost of new aircraft, with the F-35 priced at about £70 million and the latest F-15 variant – the F-15EX – costing approximately £82 million. Consequently, the Air Force is indicating limitations in its capacity to provide close air support.

Under such circumstances, Americans are exploring ways to resolve the situation by researching unmanned or optionally manned systems and financing studies on future aircraft under the NGAD programme. However, its execution is threatened as a future combat aircraft could cost up to £248 million.

The proposed solution to the issue includes ideas to alter the way combat aircraft are designed and procured. Instead of revolutionary new generations of aircraft developed over decades, there would be a continuous development and regular procurement of relatively small batches of equipment.

This approach would ensure the ongoing modernisation of the Air Force while reducing costs and the risk of failure associated with highly ambitious but singular programmes for developing new aircraft types.