Infantry: U.S. Army Moves To Mobile Brigade Combat Teams
September 26, 2025: Army Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) are the past. The present: Mobile Brigade Combat Teams (MBCTs). Why? The Ukraine war. We’re still talking infantry, but for infantry to survive and win in the age of First Person View (FPV) drones, on the electronic- and digital-intensive battlefield, and against long-range tube and rocket artillery bearing smart warheads—fast, agile, and informed are the difference between life, death, defeat, and victory.
Fast, agile, informed. Quick movement, the ability to switch axes of advance, knowing where you are, and knowing what’s coming at you. The 21st-century battlefield requires physical, mental, and digital mobility.
Is that asking too much? Is the MBCT the answer?
The transition is already underway. In May 2025, the Army decided to form 25 MBCTs by the end of 2027.
IBCTs had a variety of wheeled vehicles. MBCTs also have wheels—new wheels. One likely TO&E includes 108 Infantry Squad Vehicles (ISVs) and 165 Infantry Utility Vehicles (IUVs) per brigade.
The IUV is a smaller ISV. The ISV, modeled on the Chevy Colorado, can carry a nine-soldier squad. The IUV can carry five soldiers. Each brigade will have an assortment of other vehicles, including armed Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs).
Are the new vehicles cheap? They’re milspec, so they cost real money. But compared to mechanized and armored formations? They’re inexpensive. You can buy in quantity.
The MBCT is designed to dodge and weave. If enemy surveillance systems of any type (drones, electronic, eyeballs, etc.) detect MBCT elements, the MBCT has the vehicles and organic aerial and fire support systems to avoid enemy fire, maintain cohesion, and then, depending on the situation, rapidly withdraw, counterattack, or exploit. MBCTs can launch wheeled swarm attacks supported by drones, artillery, and aircraft. That’s the agile and mobile idea.
The MBCT’s most radical changes are in the number and variety of sensors, drones, and anti-drone systems. One proposed TO&E includes 99 soldier-borne sensor systems (SBSs). MBCT battalions will have at least three kinds of drones (covering short-, medium-, and long-range reconnaissance and interdiction). It appears an MBCT will not only be able to move but also strike enemy transport and logistics within 25 to 30 kilometers of the front line using organic weaponry.
Understand that the MBCT is a work in progress. However, it’s a very astute attempt to integrate unmanned and autonomous systems and real-time intelligence sharing into a mobile ground combat unit. If you can coordinate the intelligence, mobility, and lethal fires (of all types), you just might achieve the 21st-century version of precision mass at the decisive moment and point of engagement. (AB)


FYEO

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 29, 2025 - 03:55 pm: Edit

Air Weapons: American Drone Debacle
September 27, 2025: The United States has provided most of the military aid Ukraine needed in its war with Russia. American military advisers began working with Ukrainian forces in 2014, after Russia seized Crimea and portions of two adjacent provinces from Ukraine. The United States was not about to go to war with Russia over this. But that was always a possibility because Ukraine wanted to join NATO. Russia was opposed to this and believed that Ukraine should be part of Russia. Between 2014 and early 2022 there was some low level combat in the contested provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. That changed when Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022.
The invaders believed that the Ukrainians would not offer any effective resistance and would quickly surrender. Three and a half years later the war is still going on and the Russians are losing in terms of over a million dead, disabled or missing troops. Economic sanctions imposed on Russia have, according to Russian leaders, done serious damage to their economy.
Meanwhile Ukraine, benefitting from over $200 billion in Western military and economic aid, have seen their economy grow. At the same time Ukraine invented a new form of warfare, using millions of cheap drones to cause most of the casualties and rule the battlefield. Ukraine offered this technology to its NATO supporters, especially the United States.
The Americans quickly discovered that their defense industries were not prepared to manufacture cheap drones. This sounds absurd, but U.S. defense firms lean towards the bigger and more expensive systems. At the moment the Ukrainians are urging the Americans to overcome their self-imposed drone problems by seeking a manufacturer outside the defense sector to build drones. The Ukrainians pointed out that this was how they did it. Early on, drones were being developed and built by hundreds of small groups, using components imported from China. When Russia persuaded the Chinese to stop supplying the Ukrainians, the response was increased Ukrainian production of drone components and finding more firms in Europe willing and able to build drone components as well as completed drones. The Americans were also asked to help and, if the US can contribute, they will simultaneously solve their own problems with building drones for Ukrainian and U.S. forces.
.
FYEO

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 08:50 am: Edit

The flag officer meeting with Sec[InsertCurrentDeptNameHere] Hegseth is underway, and streaming live. It appears to be a combination pep rally and admonishment to follow grooming standards, while attacking the past several decades of the Dept. of Defense as "the Woke Department" and making clear that he plans to fire any flag officers who "contributed to woke". He's doing so in front of a giant flag, Patton-style.

It's theater (and expensive theater at that).

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 08:55 am: Edit

The American Drone Debacle thing is exactly correct.

Small scale manufacturing has a further advantage. It is harder to destroy 100 little factories than it is to destroy one big factory.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 08:56 am: Edit

Hegseth just made explicitly clear that he wants to go back to bunk-flipping, profanity-spewing, recruit-punching drill sergeants. I get the distinct feeling that he watched the first half of "Full Metal Jacket" and stopped there.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 09:03 am: Edit

...and he's finished. To say that applause was muted is an understatement. The expression of those flag officers seen on camera can best be described as "unamused".

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 09:53 am: Edit

Pres. Trump has been speaking for a while now. He's currently talking about how "we're seriously considering" bringing back battleships into service.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 10:01 am: Edit

So far, the President has touched on tariffs, quality of paper used for promotion letters, Pres. Biden's use of the autopen, renaming the Gulf of Mexico, his poor opinion of the Associated Press, a long litany of political complaints, and a claim to having been the 45th, 46th, and 47th President of the United States.

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 10:16 am: Edit

At least people can now stop worrying about a fascist take over of the USA. They should have remembered Hanlon's razor.

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 10:40 am: Edit

The President has just finished speaking. Response by the flag officers was more muted than it was to Sec Hegseth.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 11:22 am: Edit

Bringing back battleships? Did he elaborate on this at all?

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 11:51 am: Edit

Bring back BBs? Isn't that something the Navy should decide in its collective professional judgement? I mean, tech has changed A LOT since 1945. They may have been the queens of the ocean back in the day, and maybe innovations may make them remain useful, but what if modern naval warfare doctrine indicates that lots of smaller vessels are a more effective fleet design?

I'm *NOT* a naval expert and won't even pretend to understand all the ins and outs of modern fleet design, but it strikes me that the folks working day in and day out in the Navy think tanks should make those kinds of proposals...

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 11:59 am: Edit

Thyrm: he did not, other than saying that he wants six-inch steel armor, and not aluminum "that melts when a missile is within two miles". He also complained that modern ship design is "ugly".

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:00 pm: Edit

Bringing back the BBs is ridiculous. The cost to upgrade the ships too high, The youngest is now 81 years old. The number of crew needed is close to 1500 men and women. His knowledge on the subject is severely lacking, those with any knowledge at all are rolling in the aisles on this one.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:01 pm: Edit

Ryan Szimanski, the curator for the museum ship New Jersey, hosts a YouTube channel called, appropriately enough, "Battleship New Jersey". Some time ago he posted a video about what would really be required to get the ship back into active service. The costs and time involved were... NOT trivial.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:06 pm: Edit

Wait... six-inch steel armor???^*

This does not fill me with unlimited confidence that he has a detailed grasp of the subject.


^*Although, given that the armor thickness is different for different parts of the ship, I suppose that figure might be accurate for some part, somewhere...

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:12 pm: Edit

As to modern ships being "ugly"; Jessica, I believe you were in the Air Force, were you not? I don't know what organizations you served in, but among fighter aircrews there was a ditty frequently invoked when responding to some "higher headquarters" directive that seemed (at least to crew dogs) to have nothing to do with actual combat effectiveness and everything to do with looking good...

"Looking good's a full time job,
Doo-da, doo-da"

(Sung to the tine of "Camptown Races")

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:14 pm: Edit

Per wikipedia-
Armor
Belt: 12.1 in (307 mm)
Bulkheads:
Iowa/New Jersey: 11.3 in (287 mm)
Missouri/Wisconsin: 14.5 in (368 mm)
Barbettes: 11.6–17.3 in (295–439 mm)
Turrets: 9.5–19.5 in (241–495 mm)
Conning tower: 17.3 in (439 mm)
Decks: 1.5 in (38 mm), 6 in (152 mm), 0.63–1 in (16–25 mm)

By Matthew Lawson (Mglawson) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:16 pm: Edit

Maybe he recently watched the 2014 movie Battleship and saw how effective it was against an alien invasion...

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:29 pm: Edit

Thyrm: I was indeed in Uncle Sam's Flying Circus, yes, in ComSec Intel. And yeah, I'm sadly all too familiar with that general mentality (if not the ditty in particular).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:31 pm: Edit

He does have the Roswell files. Maybe 3I/Atlas IS an alien starship planning to seize a base on Mars. We'd need a battleship to deal with the tripods.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:51 pm: Edit

81 years old or not, a sixteen inch armor piercing shell can do a lot of damage.

The high explosive shells are useful against “soft targets”.

The Iowa class battleships were armed with nuclear weapons (designed to fire from the Sixteen inch guns.)

Modern technology (deployable fins, rocket propelled GPS guidance) can do amazing upgrades to the performance of “Old” weapons.

I forget what the original range of the main battery guns were, though one of the Iowas managed to extend the range beyond what the other sisters of the class were doing… might have been the U.S.S. Wisconsin, her captain intentionally “grounded the ship during combat in the early 1950’s in Korea in the mud of a tidal basin. Normally, the recoil of the main battery forces the ship to move broadside 50 feet, but being temporarily stranded in the mud, imparted more energy to the projectiles.

Just because something is old, does not mean it is ineffective.

Plus, the 1,500 man crew number might have included all of the gunners manning the ships anti aircraft battery.

Since all of the 20mm and 40 mm guns have been removed, and 40% of the twin 5” 38 cal secondary guns, the crew size may be somewhat different.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:57 pm: Edit

strikes me that the folks working day in and day out in the Navy think tanks should make those kinds of proposals...

You mean the ones that have tried ditching the A-10 for the last 30 years....

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 12:57 pm: Edit

Wikipedia lists:

“ The muzzle velocity for an Iowa-class battleship's 16-inch gun was 2,500 feet per second (760 m/s) for the 2,700-pound armor-piercing (AP) shell and 2,690 feet per second (820 m/s) for the 1,900-pound high-capacity (HC) shell.
Armor-Piercing (AP) Shell: Opens in new tabThe heavier, 2,700-pound AP shell had a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s).
High-Capacity (HC) Shell: Opens in new tabThe lighter, 1,900-pound HC shell had a slightly higher muzzle velocity of about 2,690 ft/s (820 m/s).”

It further stated that the guns range was 24 nautical miles.

By Eddie E Crutchfield (Librarian101) on Tuesday, September 30, 2025 - 01:35 pm: Edit

Jeff you need to do a better study of the Iowa, they do not move sideways when they fire, just a myth. The 1500 man crew is in the present config. If you like the real facts on the Iowas guns and other information try the NavWeapons site. The crew with all of the light weapons was very close to 3000. www.navweaps.com