Joint Force In 2025: A Case Study

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?” written by Stuart Bradin, Keenan Yoho, and Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew, the authors argued that despite the U.S. military maintaining a position of global dominance “without peer” during conventional operations, it is not the ideal force against current and future threats. The authors claim that there are several negative factors arising due to the past sixteen years of war against several state and non-state elements, inferior cultural differences of government bureaucracy compared to commercial firms, and a misallocation of defense spending that leaves the US military waging war inefficiently while simultaneously losing technological dominance against current and future threats.

Former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Donald C. Winter, in his article “Adapting to the Threat Dynamics of the 21st Century” states that the U.S. military needs to be well prepared for unannounced attacks from “terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever else al-Qaeda and its associates appear.” China and other nation have higher advantages in many key manufacturing areas than U.S. the military needs to have abundant funds, trained soldiers, invest in the air and sea mobility assets, and updated technologies. Winter acknowledges that a temporary reduction in some key manufacturing areas could cause the U.S. industrial stupendous harm. “It is the matter of ensuring the survival of America and the free world.”

should adjust its priorities and spending to address the changing nature of threats in the world: What all these potential adversaries—from terrorist cells to rogue nations to rising powers—have in common is that they have learned that it is unwise to confront the United States directly on conventional military terms. The United States cannot take its current dominance for granted and needs to invest in the programs, platforms, and personnel that will ensure that dominance's persistence. But it is also important to keep some perspective. As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined—and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners." (Staff,

Military planning and operations in the 21st century must take into consideration a number of different issues. One of the ways in which the late 20th century evolved was the change in economic, political, and cultural movements that, through technology, seemed to move countries of the world closer together.

While the United States Army is dedicated to promoting peace, stability and security throughout the world, there are challenges that are necessary to address. Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, the rising of non state actors in the Middle East, and future strategic campaigns all present issues that face the Army. Coupled with budget sequestration, these challenges are amplified.

Will the United States Army continue to train, equip, and employ Conventional Airborne Units to conduct Forcible entry operations within the throughout the next decade? The Airborne has deep roots in the Army's doctrine and history but a review of historical data, examination of a matrix of possible future outcomes, event mapping a “What if” scenario and very recent indicators of change suggest that it's only a matter of time until the full reality of impending changes reflect in both the Airborne ranks and in Doctrine and terminate the Airborne mission from the Conventional Airborne Unit.

Today’s security environment is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA). The challenges presented by globalization, emerging powers as well as the continuing threat of terrorism indicate the future security environment will continue to gain complexity. Adding to this complexity is the challenge of increasingly constrained fiscal resources. To protect U.S. National Security interests in this complex and constrained environment, Joint Force 2025 (JF-2025) requires four core capabilities, it must be agile, adaptable, survivable and integrated. This essay discusses the key strategic direction for JF-2025, the capabilities required of the Joint Force, each member services and the inherent associated risks.

The problem the total Joint Force (JF) 2025 will face will be consistent emerging “gray zone” threats that include hybrid and near peer competitors trying to tip the balance in the global security environment. In addition, as the Department of Defense (DOD) learned from past wars while its resources reduce, the total JF 2025 must adapt and become more agile in countering these emerging threats. The DOD has provided the strategic and military guidance along with associated posturing statements for the complementary capabilities of strategic adaptability and agility that will enable the rebalancing of the total JF 2025, support future contingency operations, and mitigate risk.

Throughout the history of warfare, the demands placed on the military from changes in fighting styles have pressured engineers from coast to coast to develop a software and hardware that would ultimately lend the title of the “World’s Strongest Military” to the United States. The fact that the engineering field has been able to constantly change and adapt to accommodate the United States military needs is reflected in the American soldier’s ability to adapt to any crisis from. The military field requires people to constantly keep up with the times and to use logical thinking in order to solve an issue. The engineering field in turn, runs parallel with the military field in that new strategies of thinking must be applied in order to keep pace with the ever growing demand for technological advancements in society. One could easily argue that the military field deeply ties with the engineering field in that without one, the other would be obsolete or left behind due to our modern society which heavily relies on new, state of the art technology. Whether it be in the dense, moist jungles of Vietnam, or the arid, blistering heat of Afghanistan, a soldier’s performance will reflect solely on his equipment. The equipment that soldiers carry must be top of the line in order to be able to defeat his enemy, especially in the case of The Vietnam War, in which the “enemy” had a superior home front advantage. This is where the field of engineering ties into the military and its

The multitude and truncation of the military is nearly impossible to capture as one entity, so here we will look at the seven technologies and pick the best application for their use on the military industrial complex as a whole. The military is continuously seeking ways to gain the upper hand against a formidable adversary or improving weapons capabilities and even sustainability. Looking at the military through the lens of the seven technologies, it is apparent their application is appropriate and needed.

Our nation, the United States of America, encounters the ongoing challenge that our military must develop quickly enough to be prepared to face the enemy. The enemy, now more than ever, is not always familiar because they have become so diversified. They also have a tendency to function in uncommon ways, making their actions difficult to predict. The threats that they possess towards our nation have the capability to put our maritime forces and infrastructure in serious peril. Unmanned systems, such as the Unmanned Surface Vehicle (USV), have the potential and ability “to reduce risk to manned forces, to provide the force multiplication necessary to accomplish our missions, to perform tasks which manned vehicles cannot, and to do so in a way

Clausewitz defines war as an “act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” The nature of war is enduring yet the character of war changes over time. Current US strategic guidance is advancing the point of view that since the character of war has changed to focus on irregular wars then the US military should prepare for a future of irregular wars. This shift in focus forgets that the nature of war is enduring and in order to be successful, we must prepare for all types of conflict. This paper will define the types of conflict and the likelihood of each followed by a discussion of US strategic guidance and ending with an analysis of the training resources and force structure requirements needed to achieve success for all types of

From the start of the century to current year (2017), there has been massive improvements in warfare technology. Firearms, nuclear bombs, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and even giant laser shooters. These are all projected to either be developed or improved on in the next 20 years. Moreover, it is projected that within the next 20 years, just the U.S. alone will spend about $54 billion more on their military and defence, than what they currently do today.

As the future of warfare becomes more sophisticated, what will be the military technology of tomorrow? The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, believes that there are three possible answers to that question: nuclear warfare, biological/chemical warfare, or cyber warfare. While nuclear and biological warfare is conducted on a battlefield, cyber warfare operates via the Internet and computers. All of these weapons have the same destructive potential, but the circumstances surrounding

SAF will have to move closer to the cutting edge and effective technologies which optimize the global arms market. The transforming phase of technological innovation makes cutting edge ineffective. Although there are some indications of countermeasures to optimize technology. It even moves more to the global cutting edge of military technology requires spending more amount of money. The SAF use the technology as force multipliers and particularly in the place of C4I integration which makes to operate its different units in an incorporated manner. The Navy, Air Force, and Army are interrelated through the advanced data links and networks to make coordinated attacks and support for several forces. Technology is the essential factor in the SAF transformation into 3rd generation fighting force.