Technology in Warfare

"Many militaries are expanding the scope and speed of incorporating more complex data-driven techniques into the processes of determining courses of action, including when it comes to the use of force. These developments raise questions about the changing roles played by humans and machines, or human-machine interaction, in warfare. "This report contributes to ongoing debates on AI DSS by reviewing main developments and discussions surrounding these systems and their reported uses. It takes stock of what is known about AI DSS in military decision-making on the use of force, including in ongoing war zones around the globe. Section 2 provides a brief overview of the roles that AI DSS can play in use-of-force decision-making. Section 3 reviews main developments that we treat as indicative of trends in AI DSS in the military domain." "It focuses on three concrete empirical cases, namely the United States (US)’ Project Maven initiative, as well as systems reportedly used in the Russia-Ukraine war (2022-) and the Israel-Hamas war (2023-). Section 4 discusses opportunities and challenges associated with these developments, drawing inspiration from ongoing debates in the media and expert communities. The report concludes with some recommendations on potential ways forward to address the challenges discussed and with some questions raised by AI DSS that deserve further attention in the global debate on AI in the military domain." From Anna Nadibaidze Dr Ingvild Bode Qiaochu Zhang Center for War Studies, University of Southern Denmark

The rapid rise of combat drones illustrates a classic pattern described by Clayton Christensen. Drones represent a 𝐥𝐨𝐰-𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐡𝐧𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲: initially dismissed as inferior to established systems, yet capable of reshaping the entire competitive landscape. For decades, the Western defense industry focused on increasingly sophisticated missiles, precision bombs, and air-defense systems. These technologies became extremely advanced—and extremely expensive. In that environment, small and relatively crude drones seemed strategically irrelevant. Yet disruption often starts exactly there. Take the Iranian Shahed drones now widely used in conflicts. They are cheap, simple, and can be produced in large numbers. Their real power lies not in individual performance but in scale and swarm tactics. When launched in large waves, they overwhelm traditional air-defense systems designed to intercept a limited number of high-value missiles. Using million-dollar interceptors against drones costing a few tens of thousands of dollars is economically unsustainable. This is classic Christensen logic: incumbents optimize for high-end performance while the disruptive technology improves rapidly in a different dimension—in this case cost, scalability, and operational flexibility. But the real lesson is not only technological.Ukraine has shown that the decisive capability lies in how drones are used: agile combat strategies, distributed command structures, and operators who can adapt in real time. Human intelligence, battlefield learning, and tactical creativity matter as much as the hardware itself. It all has to go together. For Europe and the wider West, the implication is that defense strategies must shift from a narrow focus on expensive platforms toward learning systems that combine low-cost technology, rapid experimentation, and shared operational intelligence. And this knowledge already exists: Ukraine today is probably the world’s most advanced laboratory for drone warfare. Western militaries should accelerate collaboration and learning from that experience. The rise of low-cost drones and other low-end digitalized warfare technologies also forces a reconsideration of how military budgets are optimized. Rather than automatically increasing defense spending, the priority should be to reassess how military effectiveness can be maximized by reallocating resources—shifting a larger share of investment toward scalable, low-cost systems such as drones. #DisruptiveInnovation #Drones #MilitaryInnovation #DefenseStrategy #Ukraine #Security #ClayChristensen #DroneWarfare

𝗡𝗥𝗧𝗞 “𝗞𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗿”: 𝗨𝗚𝗩 + 𝗘𝗪 = 𝗧𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 🌊📡 Footage shows the NRTK “Kurier” — an unmanned ground vehicle reportedly equipped with electronic warfare payloads — crossing a water obstacle during training exercises. That detail matters. 🔎 What does this signal? 🚜 1) Mobility beyond roads   A UGV that can negotiate water obstacles expands routing options and reduces predictability. In a #DroneWarfare and #EW environment, predictability kills. 📡 2) EW at the tactical edge   Mounting electronic warfare modules on robotic platforms allows: • Forward jamming without exposing crews   • Rapid repositioning of EW bubbles   • Distributed spectrum denial rather than centralized emitters  This aligns with a broader trend: smaller, mobile EW nodes instead of large, static systems. 🌍 3) Training realism   Water crossing during exercises isn’t cosmetic. It tests: • Platform buoyancy and stability   • Antenna placement and signal integrity   • Power management under strain   • Recovery procedures if immobilized  In modern conflict — especially in Ukraine — terrain is rarely cooperative. Systems must function in mud, snow, water, and under constant electromagnetic pressure. 📌 The bigger picture for #MilitaryInnovation: Robotics are no longer just reconnaissance tools. They are becoming maneuver elements that carry sensors, jammers, logistics loads — and potentially weapons — into contested space. The fusion of UGV mobility and electronic warfare is not experimental anymore. It’s doctrinally relevant. “𝘔𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘔𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘷𝘢𝘭.”

The most dangerous assumption any military can make today is believing that malign actors aren’t using AI the same way the rest of us are - to upskill, automate tasks, meet goals, and shorten every feedback loop. In our latest policy briefs, Rida Lyammouri and I have been sounding the alarm on the need for red-team exercises and the growing use of AI by armed actors in the Sahel to enhance tactics (especially drone warfare). The benefits of the upskilling brought by democratized access to AI are obvious, but the asymmetric costs to global defense and preparedness are staggering. Sam Altman has warned that these risks are both under-appreciated and imminent, and we’re echoing that urgency. Take a look at the attached drone diffusion timeline from our latest brief:  innovation from Ukraine is spreading rapidly to non-state actors. The FLA adopted fiber-optic drones a lot faster than analysts expected, and it is likely just weeks or a few short months before we see cartels using them. Next is AI-enabled drone swarms, and this is a shift we’re not fully grasping or prepared for. This is why AI-enabled red-team exercises are so important: 1.  They simulate attacks from the adversary’s side to expose weaknesses before they’re exploited, and just as importantly, they force militaries and private-sector partners to confront what these groups are already capable of. That matters because AI is already accelerating their upskilling: terrorist networks are using it to problem-solve faster, coordinate operations, and innovate at speeds once unimaginable. 2. Integrating AI into these exercises strengthens the analysis itself. AI can generate far more scenarios, identify patterns humans might miss, and stress-test defenses with a speed and scale manual planning can’t match. 3. These exercises are also great at bringing together thematic & tech experts, with military stakeholders. As anyone who has participate in or run them know, they encourage the kind of outside-the-box thinking that malign actors rely on to stay unpredictable. 4. Militaries and private-sector actors should use AI not only inside these drills but also for continuous scenario planning to anticipate how groups will adapt next. Routine, AI-enabled red-teaming and scenario planning are essential to keep pace with a diffusion curve that is moving faster than current preparedness efforts. Our next policy brief will be exploring how to implement this in the Sahel context, which is ground zero for the rapid tech adoption of the fastest growing terrorist organization in the world.

The Neglected Symbiosis Why Military Technology and Tactics Must Evolve Together The recent surge in defence spending across the UK and Europe has predominantly focused on acquiring cutting-edge technology - advanced weapons systems, sophisticated software, and next-generation platforms. Yet a critical oversight threatens to undermine this massive investment: the parallel development of Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) has been largely neglected. This disconnect creates a dangerous paradigm where technology, rather than operational need, begins to dictate the character of warfare. History has repeatedly shown that technology alone cannot win conflicts - it must be integrated within a coherent and adaptive operational framework. ➡️ Technology Without Tactical Evolution: A Recipe for Failure When examining historical precedents, we see this pattern repeating. The French military's investment in the Maginot Line without adapting their mobile defence doctrine, the US military's initial struggles in Vietnam despite technological superiority, and more recently, the challenges faced in asymmetric conflicts despite overwhelming technological advantages - all demonstrate that hardware without corresponding tactical innovation leads to suboptimal outcomes. ➡️ The Symbiotic Relationship Military effectiveness emerges from the symbiosis between technology and tactics. New capabilities demand new methods of employment, while tactical innovations often drive technological requirements. This relationship must be cultivated deliberately, not left to chance. Consider the revolution in drone warfare. The platforms themselves provide capabilities, but their transformative impact stems from how they're integrated into operations - from reconnaissance to targeting to swarming tactics. Without corresponding TTPs, these technological assets deliver only a fraction of their potential value. ➡️ The Way Forward Defence ministries and military commands must institute formal mechanisms for parallel development: ⚡️ Involve operators in technology acquisition decisions from the outset ⚡️Allocate specific funding for TTP development alongside procurement ⚡️Create rapid experimentation units to explore new tactical applications ⚡️Incorporate realistic technology integration challenges in training exercises ⚡️Develop feedback loops between equipment developers and field units The current imbalance in funding and attention between technology and tactics creates not just inefficiency but genuine strategic vulnerability. Our adversaries study these gaps and will exploit them. As defence spending continues to increase, we must ensure we're not just buying better tools but developing better ways to use them. The character of future warfare will be determined not by who has the most advanced technology, but by who most effectively integrates that technology into their operational art. Richard Gwilliam Benjamin Moody Ches Clark MA (Hons)

The recent conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and the Red Sea highlight how emerging, low-cost technologies are revolutionizing modern warfare. The U.S. military must take urgent steps to adapt, including rethinking its operational doctrines, training programs, and procurement processes. This shift is necessary to keep pace with the rapid deployment of innovative technologies that have allowed nations like Ukraine to achieve significant military successes against larger, better-equipped adversaries. Ukraine's experience, particularly its ability to cripple a substantial portion of Russia’s Black Sea fleet and resist large-scale ground assaults, demonstrates the effectiveness of integrating cutting-edge technologies into military strategies. Despite limited resources, Ukraine's use of mass-produced, cost-effective drones and other unmanned systems has been a game-changer. These technologies have allowed for the rapid scale-up of capabilities, something the U.S. must replicate through new initiatives and partnerships with defense manufacturers. The evolution of warfare underscores that we are at a critical juncture where traditional methods may no longer suffice. The future of combat increasingly involves inexpensive, mass-produced drones and robotic systems that can deliver substantial firepower and intelligence capabilities. The U.S. must learn from Ukraine's approach and incorporate these lessons into its defense strategy to maintain its military edge in an era of rapidly evolving technologies.

The UK has just published its most comprehensive defence review in 25 years, and it reveals a military on the cusp of its biggest technological transformation since the Second World War. The review's most striking finding isn't about threats or spending—it's about how warfare itself is being fundamentally redefined by technology. As the document starkly notes, drones now kill more people than traditional artillery in Ukraine, and military advantage increasingly comes from speed of innovation rather than size of forces. The technological revolution outlined is comprehensive: Artificial Intelligence becomes central to everything. The review calls for a protected Defence AI Investment Fund and a digital targeting web by 2027 that connects sensors, decision-makers, and weapons across all domains in real-time. Data and digital systems are no longer optional extras—they're foundational to every military capability. Autonomous systems transform the battlefield equation. The UK will establish a Defence Uncrewed Systems Centre by February 2026, moving toward a high-low mix where 20% crewed platforms control 40% reusable autonomous systems and 40% single-use effectors like attack drones. This isn't just about adding drones—it's about completely reimagining how forces operate. Space and cyber become contested battlegrounds. A new CyberEM Command launches by end-2025 to coordinate operations in cyberspace—the only domain under daily attack. Meanwhile, space capabilities become critical as China and Russia's combined satellite fleets grew 70% in recent years, with quantum technologies promising to revolutionise both encryption and navigation. Innovation cycles accelerate dramatically. Defence procurement must shift from 6.5-year contract cycles to three-month rapid commercial exploitation, with a new UK Defence Innovation organisation receiving a ringfenced £400 million annual budget to harness commercial breakthroughs. Advanced weapons reshape deterrence calculations. From hypersonic missiles travelling five times the speed of sound to directed energy weapons like the UK's DragonFire system, the review highlights how precision, range, and speed are transforming military mathematics. This isn't just military modernisation—it's recognition that the character of warfare has changed more in the past decade than in the previous century. The question for defence industries and tech companies is clear: are you ready for this transformation? #DefenceTech #Innovation #AI #AutonomousSystems #DefenceReview #UKDefence

How AI is Changing the Way We Concentrate Combat Power In military strategy, we’ve long prized the principle of mass—concentrating superior combat power at a decisive point to overwhelm an adversary. From Napoleon and Clausewitz to J. F. C. Fuller, military theorists have framed aligning mass against decisive points (objective) as the critical factor in seizing and retaining the initiative in war. But in the 21st century, mass isn’t just about having more soldiers or firepower. It’s about converging effects across domains—cyber, space, air, land, sea—and using data-driven insights to gain tempo and decision dominance. Information plays a more critical role than ever and as a result artificial intelligence is reshaping how we gather and analyze insights to see fleeting advantages in time and space. Modern mass hinges on this information advantage—identifying precise moments where combining different capabilities achieves disproportionate effects. It’s why the Army’s concept of multidomain operations focuses on convergence: harnessing tools from multiple domains in sync with maneuver forces. Relative combat power calculations shift. Yes, old fashion mass still matters, but having more stuff absent agentic insights and understanding leads to diminishing returns. Look at Russia’s struggles in Ukraine: throwing large numbers of troops into the fight without the ability to synchronize effects leads to attrition, not breakthrough. AI can help us avoid that trap by helping commanders see battlespace and anticipate how to generate the right effects at the right time, across multiple domains, while maintaining humans in the loop for critical ethical and operational decisions. Put bluntly, the new operational art is waged through algorithms. Failing to do so invites being on the wrong end of the next Austerlitz. If we’re going to adapt successfully, we need a new era of experimentation—wargames, simulations, and iterative exercises that integrate highly sensitive capabilities from space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum. These forums, akin to interwar professional military education, will refine both our operational concepts and the AI agents designed to support commanders. By aligning our “schoolhouses” with frontline innovation, we empower leaders to harness AI in generating modern mass—placing a premium on tempo, precision, and broad information advantage. The future of mass remains about focusing combat power for decisive outcomes. Yet, in this next evolution, data and algorithms have joined soldiers, attack aviation and artillery in the fight. The principle stays the same; the methods are changing. https://lnkd.in/eiZwRMT9 #Army #AI #operationalart #strategy

Every generation of warfare has a platform that changes expectations. The MQ-9 Reaper was one of them. Before the Reaper, commanders often had to choose between finding a target, tracking it, or acting on it. Those capabilities frequently came from different platforms, different crews, and different timelines. The MQ-9 changed that. It combined persistent intelligence, surveillance, precision strike, and real-time communications into a single system that could remain over an area. Instead of snapshots, commanders gained continuous understanding of the battlespace. That persistence transformed operational effectiveness. Patterns of life could be established over hours rather than minutes. Friendly forces could be supported throughout an entire mission instead of only during a brief overflight. Decisions could be based on continuously updated intelligence rather than isolated reports. The result wasn’t simply a more capable aircraft. It fundamentally changed the tempo of operations. The Reaper became a force multiplier, allowing a relatively small number of aircraft and crews to generate a disproportionate operational effect across multiple theaters. It demonstrated that persistence can be as decisive as speed, and that information can be just as valuable as firepower. Many of the technologies now defining autonomous systems, AI-enabled targeting, collaborative drones, and human-machine teaming build on a lesson the MQ-9 proved operationally: The side that understands the environment continuously has a decisive advantage over the side that only sees it intermittently. Some aircraft become icons. Others quietly redefine how wars are fought. The MQ-9 Reaper did both. #DefenseTech #MQ9 #ISR #MilitaryAviation #Autonomy #ArtificialIntelligence #FutureOfDefense #MissionCommand