US army expert proposes drone brigades to replace heavy ground forces in Europe

Since the end of World War II, the US Army has been structured to defend Europe, maintaining large, heavy mechanised forces designed to deter Soviet and later Russian aggression. Despite detours into counterinsurgency operations in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, its core mission and its core design have remained European.

But as US strategic priorities shift, questions are mounting about what role that Army should play. The Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia” moved focus from Europe to the Indo-Pacific, and the Trump administration emphasised homeland defence and the Western Hemisphere. With Europe no longer the central theater, some experts argue that the Army must adapt — and that drones may hold the answer, Defense News writes. 

Benjamin Jensen, director of the Futures Lab at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., believes the future of US land power lies in smaller, more mobile drone formations rather than large garrisons and armoured brigades.

“Forward-deployed forces in large garrisons and infantry and armor-centric rotational force packages need to give way to mixed drone units that can be deployed faster and better increase partner combat power,” Jensen wrote in a recent analysis.

Under Jensen’s concept, NATO’s European members would continue to supply traditional combat arms — tanks, infantry, and artillery — while the US would provide expeditionary drone units capable of strike, reconnaissance, and electronic warfare missions.

“Imagine that instead of a 1,000-person battalion, there was a 250-person rotational battalion that has a mix of 500 FPV [first-person view] drones and octocopters,” Jensen told Defense News. “And they’re running missions with those European partners, and they’re able to flow in, operate and then flow out quickly.”

Jensen’s concept is based on “substitution,” an economic idea in which one product can replace another at a lower cost. He argues that flexible drone formations can substitute for large, costly armored forces while maintaining deterrence and responsiveness.

Substitution, he says, applies to both force structure and drone design.

“If drones can be rapidly reconfigured across different payloads — say, intelligence collection, electronic warfare, and strike — with little friction, then one drone is nearly as good as another that was optimized for the task,” Jensen wrote.

The US Army is already pursuing a drone-heavy future through its Army Transformation Initiative, which emphasizes rapid development of small unmanned systems. Yet Jensen cautions against abandoning medium-altitude, long-endurance (MALE) drones such as the MQ-1C Gray Eagle, despite their recent losses in Ukraine and Yemen.

“I want something that generates enough power and has enough payload coverage that I can cover an area for 24 hours and carry eight-plus Hellfires if I need to,” he said.

Jensen also envisions a role for the Army Reserve and National Guard in this new model, suggesting that existing aviation units could be repurposed into unmanned aerial vehicle formations.

Such a shift, he argues, would not only reduce costs but “has the potential to alter the grammar of deterrence.” Instead of permanently stationing armoured brigades in Europe, the US could deploy mobile drone units to signal support for NATO allies during crises.

“You can get a lot more interesting payloads, interesting performance and provide yourself a lot more flexibility than to committing to what was really 20th-century deterrence,” Jensen said.

By Sabina Mammadli