Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) constitute the Army's "light" ground forces and are an important part of the nation's ability to project forces overseas. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as current thinking by Army leadership as to where and how future conflicts would be fought, suggest IBCTs are limited operationally by their lack of assigned transport and reconnaissance vehicles as well as firepower against hardened targets and armored vehicles. There are three types of IBCTs: Light, Airborne, and Air Assault. Light IBCTs are primarily foot-mobile forces. Light IBCTs can move by foot, by vehicle, or by air (either air landed or by helicopter). Airborne IBCTs are specially trained and equipped to conduct parachute assaults. Air Assault IBCTs are specially trained and equipped to conduct helicopter assaults. Currently, the Army contends IBCTs face a number of limitations: The IBCT lacks the ability to decisively close with and destroy the enemy under restricted terrains such as mountains, littorals, jungles, subterranean areas, and urban areas to minimize excessive physical burdens imposed by organic material systems. The IBCT lacks the ability to maneuver and survive in close combat against hardened enemy fortifications, light armored vehicles, and dismounted personnel. IBCTs lack the support of a mobile protected firepower capability to apply immediate, lethal, long-range direct fires in the engagement of hardened enemy bunkers, light armored vehicles, and dismounted personnel in machine gun and sniper positions; with all-terrain mobility and scalable armor protection; capable of conducting operations in all environments. To address these limitations, the Army is undertaking three programs: the Ground Mobility Vehicle (GMV)/Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV), formerly known as the Ultra-Light Combat Vehicle (ULCV); the Light Reconnaissance Vehicle (LRV); and the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) programs. These programs would be based on vehicles that are commercially available. This approach serves to reduce costs and the time it takes to field combat vehicles. The GMV/ISV is intended to provide mobility to the rifle squad and company. The LRV would provide protection to the moving force by means of scouts, sensors, and a variety of medium-caliber weapons, and the MPF would offer the IBCT the capability to engage and destroy fortifications, bunkers, buildings, and light-to-medium armored vehicles more effectively. The FY2020 Army GMV budget request for $37 million in procurement funding supports the procurement of 69 GMVs for the U.S. Army Special Operations Command and 15 ISVs for the Army. The FY2020 GMV Research, Development, Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) request is for $3 million to support operational testing. The Army did not submit a FY2020 budget request for the LRV program. The FY2020 Army MPF budget request for $310.152 million in RDT&E funding supports the continuation of rapid prototyping efforts and the completion of 24 prototypes.

This work provides an organizational history of the maneuver brigade and case studies of its employment throughout the various wars. Apart from the text, the appendices at the end of the work provide a ready reference to all brigade organizations used in the Army since 1917 and the history of the brigade colors.

Using hard power in the context of an expanding set of threats is complex, expensive and risky. European medium powers, especially, must make tough choices on the future capabilities, roles and equipment of their armed forces, as well as their ability to act independently of alliance partners. Decision Points: Rationalising the Armed Forces of European Medium Powers examines these trade-offs and calls for policymakers to approach each key decision on the future of their country’s armed forces with a clearer sense of the consequences for the state’s foreign policy.

Examines alternative means to decrease the deployment time for the new Army medium-weight brigade, comparing air and sealift from the United States with air and fast (but short-range) sealift from forward bases or preposition sites. Historical experience and an assessment of U.S. regional interests are used to determine how much warning time the United States typically has before major force deployments and where it is most likely to deploy such forces

In 2003, the U.S. Army began a process to transform from a division-based to a modular force structure. Congress requested a study of the process and outcomes of the initiative to assess the impact on the Army's capabilities in a range of operations.

This volume chronicles the 16th Annual Conference on System Engineering Research (CSER) held on May 8-9, 2018 at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. The CSER offers researchers in academia, industry, and government a common forum to present, discuss, and influence systems engineering research. It provides access to forward‐looking research from across the globe, by renowned academicians as well as perspectives from senior industry and government representatives. Co‐founded by the University of Southern California and Stevens Institute of Technology in 2003, CSER has become the preeminent event for researchers in systems engineering across the globe. Topics include though are not limited to the following: Systems in context: · Formative methods: requirements · Integration, deployment, assurance · Human Factors · Safety and Security Decisions/ Control & Design; Systems Modeling: · Optimization, Multiple Objectives, Synthesis · Risk and resiliency · Collaborative autonomy · Coordination and distributed decision-making Prediction: · Prescriptive modeling; state estimation · Stochastic approximation, stochastic optimization and control Integrative Data engineering: · Sensor Management · Design of Experiments