FUTURE ARMY

THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY
Today, such experimentation rarely occurs in the
field level among operational units. Instead, it is
nearly always centrally dictated and often carefully
controlled by Training and Doctrine Command, Army
Materiel Command, or the Army staff in the Pentagon.
The Army should authorize more operational units
to conduct decentralized experiments, in order
to test the bounds of the possible with rapidly
evolving civilian technology and emerging military
equipment. 183 It should designate up to three BCTs as
experimental units, assigned to innovate, experiment,
and try out new ideas of fighting in likely future
environments—from urban megacities to high-end
unrestricted conflicts. These units could be either
active or hybrid formations, and ideally would include
infantry, armored, and Stryker units that could mix and
match capabilities and begin to stretch the boundaries
of today’s organizational structures. Each of these
experimental BCTs should be assigned to the ORF
(described above) with later deployment timelines.
Centralized testing will still be required to validate new
designs and apply scientific rigor to assess promising
technologies, but bright ideas from junior officers and
NCOs must be given space to grow and offer the value
of younger minds thinking about technology and its
application to tactical problems. 184 Since future combat
will require innovation and adaptability at the lowest
levels, at least some portions of Army peacetime
experimentation should follow suit.
Build Training Around Virtual Reality and Its
Successors
The gaming revolution has created a multi-billiondollar
commercial industry, but has hardly affected
the Army at all. Nearly every new soldier arrives in
the Army experienced in online gaming, yet the Army
uses little of this technology today to train soldiers
in the most difficult tasks. Over the next decade
and beyond, the Army must overhaul its training
so that it occurs primarily through virtual reality
(VR). Equipping all soldiers with VR goggles with
interactive training programs would enable soldiers to
train far more continuously and frequently than they
do today. It would also give them the opportunity
183 Elements of the Pacific Pathways program, an initiative of
US Army Pacific, are designed to achieve some of these
outcomes. See Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.,
“Pacific Pathways Increases Readiness Through Partnership,”
October 15, 2014, http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.
aspx?id=123421.
184 The newly designed Army Warfighting Assessments (AWAs)
include some of these bottom-up characteristics. However,
AWAs remain centrally controlled by Training and Doctrine
Command, and they only assess operational concepts
approved by that command. AWAs also do not include fulltime
experimental units that could independently develop and
test new and potentially radical ideas.
to train in teams while participating in intense and
highly realistic simulated battlefield environments
(e.g., urban operations)—experiences that may not be
available by any other means short of actual combat.
The Army should invest in building this technology as
the backbone of its individual, unit, and staff training
models as soon as practicable, and explore ways
to utilize VR capabilities to aid soldiers and leaders
during actual operations. Initial procurement costs
may be quite high, but such an investment would
likely save money over time and thus enable the Army
to focus its costly live training on the shrinking set of
skills that cannot be learned virtually. It will require
some ongoing investments, however. VR technologies
and their inevitable successors will undoubtedly evolve
rapidly, and the Army must commit to incorporating
updated technologies on a continuing basis to provide
the best possible immersive training experiences for
its soldiers.
Integrate Battlefield Robotics and Artificial
Intelligence into the Close Fight
The infantry close fight—the “last one hundred yards”
of intense face-to-face combat—is arguably the part of
today’s battlefield that has been the least transformed
by advanced technologies. In the next decade and
beyond, however, smart robots empowered by AI
will be able to serve as capable partners to soldiers
engaged in the dangerous close fight. They could
provide robotic fire support for infantry squads and
crew small, unmanned fighting and reconnaissance
vehicles alongside vehicles manned by their human
teammates. By 2040, smart robots might also be
able to operate independently on the battlefield,
supporting soldiers in the close fight by performing
high-risk casualty evacuations, providing close-in fire
support, or perhaps even conducting some assault or
breaching tasks in this deadly killing zone to better
shield soldiers from harm.
Build New Battle Staff Processes Around Artificial
Intelligence
AI can also speed battle staff work and leader
decision making by supporting commanders and their
overworked staff officers. Entirely new battle staff
processes could be designed around AI capabilities,
removing people and time from analysis and course of
action formulation. These AI capabilities should be able
to perform functions like rapid mission analysis, nearinstantaneous
synthesis of all available battlefieldrelated
data, and—following human decisions—quick
dissemination and implementation of new orders
throughout the C4I system. AI should also be able
to vastly streamline many other Army processes,
ATLANTIC COUNCIL
43