Army | Soldier Systems Daily Soldier Systems Daily

Archive for the ‘Army’ Category

Outthinking Adversaries: The Future of Warfare in a Multi-Domain World

Wednesday, December 24th, 2025

Military historians, professionals, and strategists attributed U.S. military victories in World Wars I and II to two basic points:

1) The U.S. possessed deeper industrial capacity to support the war, and

2) As a result of American cultural norms and values, U.S. Soldiers were better prepared to outthink their adversaries.(1)

While these variables’ impact on American success in the World Wars is debatable, the discussion frames a larger, crucial question for the U.S. Army: What should the Army focus on to remain the dominant land force in future wars?

The Army, along with other elements of the U.S. government, continually reflect on this question.(2) Most recently, the Army introduced modernization efforts, including the multidomain operations (MDO) concept and its subsequent doctrine.(3) These efforts emphasize adapting to the evolving nature of war by the integrating information and warfighting capabilities across multiple domains.

Other national capabilities, such as irregular warfare (IW) and counterterrorism (CT) forces, could be used to prevent our adversaries from escalating conflicts from competition to general war. However, if preventative IW and CT measures fail, the U.S. Army prioritizes employing smart Soldiers and synchronizing their military and intelligence actions in time, space, and purpose to generate outsized battlefield effects.

The Army may also leverage historical lessons from its past victories to think about how to address emerging battlefield challenges. Regardless of the solution, adapting to warfare’s evolving complexities and emphasizing the ability to outthink our adversaries is a critical requirement.

The purpose of this article is to advocate for increasing the American Soldier’s ability to outthink the Army’s adversaries within the MDO context, paying special attention to ensuring that Soldiers understand how to integrate technology and multidomain capabilities beyond a pure combat situation. To help illustrate this point, I briefly examine the evolution of Army doctrine from WWI to today.

MDO Definition

In response to the 2018 National Defense Strategy Commission (NDSC) report, military scholars and professionals identified the need for a new Army operating concept to account for how the Army and the joint force would explain fighting and winning against our adversaries in new and contested domains.(4) This call to action helped fuel today’s MDO doctrine, which the Army articulates in its Field Manual (FM) 3-0, Operations.

FM 3-0 defines MDO as “the combined arms employment of joint and Army capabilities to create and exploit relative advantages, defeat enemy forces, and consolidate gains.”(5) MDO is the Army’s approach to address the evolving character of modern warfare by focusing on the integration of its elements of combat power across five domains — land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace.(6) However, the Army went a step further and also incorporated new domains and threats, such as cyber and unmanned air systems, into MDO. Nonetheless, it is important to appreciate that many of MDO’s conceptual elements can be traced back to WWI and WWII.

Evolution of Military Doctrine

WWI and WWII

Military scholars and professionals argue that MDO principles are not new to the Army nor the Department of War.(7) During WWI, the U.S. Army synergistically combined maneuver, fire, and air support, creating a combined arms doctrine that allowed the Army to suppress enemy fire and seize objectives while applying rudimentary, multi-domain principles.(8) The Army’s use of the Curtiss JN-4 “Jenny” for reconnaissance and light bombing illustrates this approach. Initially produced as a training biplane, the Jenny also served in various roles, including reconnaissance and light bombing, and became one of the most iconic American aircraft of the war.(9) Similarly, in WWII, the integration of aerial artillery spotters into the Army’s existing combined arms teams also gradually nudged the Army toward multidomain operations and tactics while demonstrating how U.S. Soldiers are keenly aware of the need to outthink their adversaries.(10)

The Cold War Era AirLand Battle (ALB) Doctrine

During the Cold War, the United States and our allies needed a doctrine that could be utilized to effectively compete against the Soviets’ Red Army and the Warsaw Pact’s massive manpower pool.(11) This led to the creation of the AirLand Battle (ALB) doctrine in the late 1970s and 1980s. ALB aimed to integrate air and land forces to counter a potential Soviet invasion in central Europe, focusing on the synchronization of land and air power to create an overmatch.

ALB doctrine was built on four basic tenets:

(1) Seizing the initiative through proactive engagement with the enemy,

(2) Fighting at depth, striking targets throughout the entire operational area,

(3) Remaining agile to adapt to changing conditions, and

(4) Synchronizing operations across all domains, with all services to find the best solution to emerging militaries problems.(12)

Global War on Terrorism (GWOT): Full-Spectrum Framework (FSO)

While ALB was effective in large-scale operations, the GWOT dictated a different approach to armed conflict, leading to the development of the Army’s full-spectrum operations (FSO) doctrine.(13) FSO aimed to position the Army to thrive in the GWOT’s low-intensity conflicts and so-called small wars. During GWOT, the Army focused on counterinsurgency (COIN), IW, and CT to address the ever-present need to combat insurgents and non-state actors.(14)

This strategy enabled the Army to operate across both large-scale combat operations (LSCO) and small wars. However, the heavy emphasis on COIN, IW, and CT during this period resulted in the Army’s lack of preparedness for large-scale conflicts with near-peer adversaries.(15) Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia highlighted this issue, prompting the Army to reevaluate its operational doctrine.

Unified Land Operations (ULO)

In 2011, the Army introduced unified land operations (ULO) to describe how it would seize, retain, and exploit the initiative to gain and maintain a position of relative advantage in sustained land operations. ULO aimed to prevent or deter conflict, prevail in war, and create favorable conditions for conflict resolution. However, ULO did not account for the technological advancements made by strategic rivals like Russia and China, particularly in standoff and anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) systems.

Unconventional Warfare (UW), IW, and CT operations can fill this gap during competition short of armed conflict. Special Forces (SF) Soldiers and other UW agents can operate in the gray zone to counter the threat of standoff and A2/AD without escalating military operations into war. These small SF units and agents conduct expedient and vital military operations to extinguish small fires to prevent the proverbial forest from catching fire.(16) However, if small conflicts scale into conventional war, special operations forces (SOF) evolve their activities into direct action operations to create favorable conditions for conventional units.(17)

Recognizing the shortcomings of FSO and ULO, the Army developed and adopted MDO to account for A2/AD’s prominence in LSCO.

Multidomain Operations to Address the Emerging Threats

MDO within the Diplomacy, Information, Military, and Economics (DIME) Framework

Prior to being called multidomain operations, MDO was initially called multidomain battle (MDB).(18) However, scholars and military strategists realized the limitation of using “battle” as part of operation concept, leading to replacing battle with “operations” to include other national actions as part of MDO framework.(19) Using battle indicates actions associated with military engagements, while operations include activities outside of military domains.

From the national perspective, MDO is defined as of various national means to deal with other countries.(20) These means include diplomacy, information, military, and economics.(21) DIME outlines the four pillars used in national strategy to achieve foreign policy objectives and address security challenges.(22)

The military domains are land, maritime, air, cyberspace, and space, while the social domains include politics, economics, and information. In total, there are nine “domains” that nation-state competitions could occur: politics, diplomacy, economics, information, cyberspace, space, land operations, maritime forces, and military air forces.(23)

While politics, diplomacy, and economics fall under the executive office and Congress, and information is managed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of War can influence the other five domains. During armed conflict, the military is responsible for five domains, making military actions significant factors in winning nation-state competitions. However, civilian leadership can utilize military domains at any time during nation-state competitions, but military actions are often restricted until a conflict threshold is crossed.

In the escalation of the force continuum, wars reside at the end of the continuum, while diplomacy resides on the opposite end, making military underutilized during nation-state competitions that are short of armed conflict.(24) Additionally, it is said that war is a continuation of policy with other means, making it challenging to identify when one activity ends and the other begins.

Blurred Line Between Diplomacy and War

Given that war and diplomacy exist on the same continuum, adversaries continue to blur the line between the two. Recognizing America’s military superiority, rival nations challenge the U.S. in non-military domains using methods short of war. To avoid direct military confrontation, they undermine America’s interests in other domains without crossing the threshold of armed conflict. Consequently, the blurred line between civil and military operations necessitates that military professionals stay informed about developments outside military domains. This awareness enables them to identify opportunities for contributing to nation-state competition, even in situations short of armed conflict.

Competitions Short of Armed Conflicts

Strategist Sun Tzu asserted that the greatest victory is winning a war without having to fight at all.(25) In alignment with Sun Tzu’s thinking, GEN James C. McConville posited, “In competition, our Nation’s goal remains winning without fighting by leveraging all elements of national powers.”(26) Hence, with MDO, the United States should leverage all available assets to deter our adversaries from escalating competition into armed conflict. Accordingly, even in competitions short of war, the military should play a role in deterring adversaries.(27)

For example, recognizing the blurred line between competition and conflict, the Army operationalized theater information advantage detachments (TIADs).(28) TIADs are specialized military units focused on enhancing information operations and optimizing the information environment within a specific operational theater. This capability could be leveraged by civilian authorities outside of armed conflict and employed by combatant commanders during armed conflict.(29) As a result, TIADs close the capability gap that adversaries could exploit during nation-state competition short of armed conflicts.(30) While they enhance the Army’s capabilities in information operations during competition and conflict, the evolving threats posed by an adversary’s A2/AD systems highlight the necessity for a comprehensive MDO framework to effectively counter these challenges.

The A2/AD Problem

Due to the advancement of the adversaries’ A2/AD systems, the MDO framework and capabilities are essential to overcoming these new challenges.(31)These A2/AD systems are newly developed capabilities that aim at preventing or delaying the deployment of the U.S. forces into theater or to isolate our forces from being reinforced. For example, the advancement of A2/AD allows adversaries to use long-range precision strikes and integrated air defense (IAD) systems to create standoff distance and anti-access operations while manipulating electromagnetic spectrum to isolate or disintegrate forces within their respective area of operations.(32) Ultimately, our adversaries aim to undermine U.S. military superiority using those two systems: anti-access to prevent the U.S. from reaching the theater of operations, and area-denial to disorient units when inside theater of operations.

To counter adversaries’ strategy to undermine our military superiority via A2/AD, MDO aims to penetrate and disintegrate such standoff systems to facilitate our freedom of movement in and outside the theater of operation and freedom of maneuver within the battlespace.(33) The creation of multidomain units, such as the Army’s multidomain task force is an modernization effort designed to overcome A2/AD problems by posturing forces inside theater of operations to provide positional advantage.(34) The positioning of these MDO capabilities intends to overcome the A2/AD challenge by increasing multi-national and multi-services human and capabilities convergence.(35) The U.S. Army defines convergence as “the rapid and continuous integration of capabilities in all domains, the electromagnetic spectrum, and the information environment that optimizes effects to overmatch the enemy through cross-domain synergy and multiple forms of attack, all enabled by mission command and disciplined initiative.”(36)

To implement convergence, MDO prioritizes the synchronization of multiple assets to produce a great battlefield impact, also called synergy. Like the integration of land forces with aircraft in previous conflicts, synergy is the simultaneous employment of multiple military assets to produce greater effects on the battlefield and create multiple dilemmas for the enemy. Ultimately, MDO aims to overwhelm adversaries by simultaneously executing multiple actions across multiple domains to create a dilemma for the enemy to create a window of vulnerability to exploit.(37)

Recommendations

Integrating MDO Strategies Beyond the Battlefield

MDO emphasizes synchronization of multiple military efforts to achieve a greater military outcome. This approach should be extrapolated to other national efforts beyond just military actions. For example, during nation-state competitions, the United States should synergistically and continuously employ all nine domains to create continuous dilemmas even during competition short of armed conflicts. An example of this recommendation is demonstrated by what COL Mike Rose, 3rd Multi-Domain Task Force commander, asserted: “The U.S. Army needs to constantly advance and transform to not only combat foes but help ally nations with humanitarian assistance as well.”(38) This mindset demonstrates looking beyond the traditional role of the Army by examining other national and global initiatives.

Integrating Intellectual Growth into MDO Modernization

Future MDO modernization efforts should encompass not just the integration of military capabilities across multiple domains, but also a robust emphasis on Soldiers’ cognitive capabilities to outthink adversaries. The Army should prioritize intellect alongside technological advancement, ensuring that Soldiers are equipped to navigate the complexities of modern warfare. In alignment with this recommendation, GEN Charles Flynn explained, “Weapons are important, but weapons and material are not going to win, organizational change is what is going to drive our solutions.”(39) Organizational initiatives such as recruitment programs, Soldiers’ quality of life projects, and continuous education program are an essential part of getting the right Soldiers into the Army formation and developing them to perform effectively in complex operational environments.

Integrating AI to Future MDO Modernization Efforts

Future MDO efforts should put more emphasis on artificial intelligence (AI) integration to enhance greater situation awareness and responsive decision-making processes. To demonstrate the vital need of this capability, COL Rose explained, “The Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node allows us to integrate terrestrial, airborne, stratospheric and space center data to accelerate our abilities to understand the environment.”(40) As the battlefield becomes more complex, technology that could aid in quick and accurate decisions will be invaluable for military leaders. Hence, incorporating AI modernization initiatives now could increase operational advantages in future fights

Conclusion

While material and technological modernization efforts are being prioritized, Soldiers’ ability to outthink adversaries is the determining factor in winning past wars. Therefore, the prioritization of intellect should drive how the Army implements Soldier recruitment, conducts operational training, performs leadership development, and arranges organizational structure.

Like the two factors that determine the outcomes of WWI and WWII, winning future wars will depend on Soldiers’ ability to outthink adversaries and the availability of the U.S. military-industrial complex to support the war. We must enhance the MDO framework by expanding its application beyond military actions to include all nine domains — politics, diplomacy, economics, information, cyberspace, space, land operations, maritime operations, and air operations.

Moreover, this article emphasizes the importance of developing Soldiers’ cognitive capabilities alongside technological advancements, advocating for robust training programs. Finally, the article recommends integrating AI to improve situational awareness and decision-making. These strategies aim to prepare the military to outthink adversaries and maintain superiority in future conflicts.

Notes

1 Martin Van Creveld, The Transformation of War: The Most Radical Reinterpretation of Armed Conflict since Clausewitz (New York: Free Press, 1991); Wiliamson Murray and Allan R. Millett, A War to Be Won: Fighting the Second World War(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000); Martin Blumenson, “Review: The American Way of War,” Armed Forces & Society 2/4 (Summer 1976): 595-599, www.jstor.org/stable/45345986.

2 U.S. Army, “Army of 2030,” Army News Service, 5 October 2022, www.army.mil/article/260799/army_of_2030; “The Future of the Battlefield,” Global Trends, April 2021, www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home/gt2040-deeper-looks/future-of-the-battlefield.

3 U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Publication 525-3-1, The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations 2028, 6 December 2018, adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/pamphlets/TP525-3-1.pdf; Field Manual (FM) 3-0, Operations, March 2025, armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN43326-FM_3-0-000-WEB-1.pdf.

4 “Evaluating DoD Strategy: Key Findings of the National Defense Strategy Commission,” Congressional Research Service, 19 March 2019, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF11139/2.

5 FM 3-0.

6 Tom McCuin, “Brigades Lead Transforming in Contact Initiative,” Association of the U.S. Army (AUSA), 22 October 2024, www.ausa.org/news/brigades-lead-transforming-contact-initiative.

7 Geir eidell Nedrevage, “What is a Domain? Understanding the Domain Term in Mult Domain Operations,” Forsvaret, 2023, fhs.brage.unit.no/fhs-xmlui/handle/11250/3087369.

8 MAJ Jose L. Liy, “Multi-Domain Battle: A Necessary Adaptation of U.S. Military Doctrine,” (School of Advanced Military Studies, 2018), apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1071121.pdf.

9 Ibid.

10 MAJ Edward Richardson, CPT Bol Jock, SSG Maggie Vega, and Mark Colley, “Testing the Newest Army Long-Range Weapons System: Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon and Mid-Range Capability,” Field Artillery Professional Bulletin 24/2 (2024), www.dvidshub.net/publication/issues/71667/#page=54; William G. Dennis, “U.S. and German Field Artillery in World War II: A Comparison,” The Army Historical Foundation, armyhistory.org/u-s-and-german-field-artillery-in-world-war-ii-a-comparison.

11 FM 100-5, Operations, August 1982, archive.org/details/FM100-5Operations1982.

12 Ibid.

13 COL Grant S. Fawcett, “History of U.S. Army Operating Concepts and Implications for Multi-Domain Operations,” (School of Advanced Military Studies, 2019), apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1083313.pdf.

14 Jared M.Tracy, “From ‘Irregular Warfare’ to Irregular Warfare: History of a Term,” Veritas 19/1 (2023), arsof-history.org/articles/v19n1_history_of_irregular_warfare_page_1.

15 COL Gregory Wilson, “Anatomy of a Successful COIN Operation: OEF-Philippines and the Indirect Approach,” Military Review (November-December 2006), www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/PDF-UA-docs/Wilson-2008-UA.

16 “U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress,” Congressional Research Service, 4 March 2025, crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS21048.

17 Ibid.

18 COL Marco J. Lyons and COL (Retired) David E. Johnson, “People Who Know, Know MDO: Understanding Army Multi-Domain Operations as a Way to Make It Better,” AUSA, November 2022, www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP-151-People-Who-Know-Know-MDO-Understanding-Army-Multi-Domain-Operations-as-a-Way-to-Make-It-Better-28NOV22.

19 Ibid.

20 David S. Alberts, “Multi-Domain Operations (MDO): What’s New, What’s Not? Presentation to 23rd ICCRTS,” November 2018, static1.squarespace.com/static/23rd_ICCRTS_presentations_51.

21 Nedrevage, “What is a Domain?”

22 Dr. Harry R. Yarger, Strategic Theory for the 21st Century: The Little Book on Big Strategy (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College Press, 2006), press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/723.

23 Nedrevage, “What is a Domain?”

24 Ibid.

25 Sun Tzu, The Art of War, classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.

26 “Army Multi-Domain Transformation: Ready to Win in Competition and Conflict,” Chief of Staff Paper #1, 16 March 2021, api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2021/03/23/eeac3d01/20210319-csa-paper-1-signed-print-version.

27 Alberts, “Multi-Domain Operations;” Nedrevage, “What is a Domain?”

28 Mark Pomerleau, “Army Tests New Information Unit in Pacific,” Defense Scoop, 23 August 2023, defensescoop.com/2023/08/23/army-tests-new-information-unit-in-pacific.

29 Ibid.

30 Fawcett, “History of U.S. Army Operating Concepts.”

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid; Lyons and Johnson, “People Who Know, Know MDO.”

33 Ibid.

34 Tristan Lorea, “‘Transformation in Contact’ Changes Army Approach to Combat,” AUSA, 16 October 2024, www.ausa.org/news/transformation-contact-changes-army-approach-combat.

35 Ryan R. Duffy, “Convergence at Corps Level: Bringing It All Together to Win,” (Army Command and General Staff College, April 2020), apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1158906.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 SGT Daniel Lopez, “Multi-Domain Transformation in a Complex World,” 16 October 2024, www.dvidshub.net/news/483285/multi-domain-transformation-complex-world.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

By CPT Bol Jock

CPT Bol Jock, PhD, is a Field Artillery officer with the Fire Support Test Directorate (FSTD) at Fort Sill, OK. In his current role, he is the battery commander for FSTD and the operational test officer for the Army’s newly developed long-range missile systems, the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon System (LRHW) and Mid-Range Capability (MRC). CPT Jock’s previous position included foreign military advisor to the Royal Saudi Land Forces, brigade fire control officer, battery commander, company fire support officer, and platoon fire direction officer. CPT Jock has a Ph.D. in industrial and organizational psychology. His dissertation examined the correlations between authentic leadership and the workplace motivations of millennial information technology engineers.

This article appears in the Winter 2025-2026 issue of Infantry. Read more articles from the professional bulletin of the U.S. Army Infantry at www.benning.army.mil/Infantry/Magazine or www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Infantry.

Posted in Army, Guest Post, Profession of Arms | No Comments »

AV Delivers JLTV-Mounted LOCUST Laser Weapon Systems to US Army

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2025

ARLINGTON, Va., December 18, 2025 –AeroVironment, Inc. (“AV”) (NASDAQ: AVAV), a leading provider of counter-unmanned aircraft system (C-UAS) technologies, today announced the successful delivery of two Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV)-mounted mobile C-UAS Laser Weapon Systems (LWS) to the U.S. Army as part of the second increment of the Army Multi-Purpose High Energy Laser (AMP-HEL) prototyping effort. These systems were delivered to the Army’s Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO), now integrated into the Portfolio Acquisition Executive Fires, reflecting the Army’s ongoing transformation and acquisition reform efforts.

In September, AV announced delivery of the first increment of AMP-HEL prototype systems–two LOCUST LWS integrated on the General Motors Defense Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) platform. This second-increment system on the Oshkosh JLTV platform features the same 20kW-class LOCUST LWS with a larger aperture beam director, improving lethality performance.

“AV continues to deliver proven, efficient, modular laser weapon systems that perform and protect in real-world threat environments,” said Mary Clum, President, Space, Cyber & Directed Energy for AV. “Integrated as part of these AMP-HEL systems, LOCUST is a cost-effective, rugged, precise, and scalable solution that is addressing the ever-evolving UAS threats our warfighters are facing on frontlines today. With the technology proven, we remain focused on advancing capabilities while scaling manufacturing to meet the growing demand.”

AV delivered its first LOCUST LWS to RCCTO as part of the Palletized-High Energy Laser (P-HEL) program in 2022. With more than three years of operational deployment outside the United States, these state-of-the-art LWS have demonstrated exceedingly high operational availability rates for prototype systems after first generation lessons learned informed necessary improvements now supporting current technology development efforts. During these deployments, the LOCUST-equipped P-HEL systems, now integrated on AMP-HEL, have performed their designed mission against UAS threats in real world combat.

“Directed energy is no longer a future concept—it is a proven force-protection capability,” said John Garrity, Vice President of AV’S Directed Energy business unit. “Since deployed, LOCUST-equipped P-HEL systems have actively protected warfighters, allies, and critical infrastructure against aerial threats. With LOCUST’s target acquisition, tracking and precision beam control, warfighters have an easy-to-use, reliable, trusted, and proven solution against the very real and evolving threats of modern warfare.”

Designed to be platform-agnostic and rapidly deployable, AV’s directed-energy systems integrate seamlessly with Army command-and-control architectures, providing a critical C-UAS capability that protects Soldiers and assets across a wide range of missions and environments. These systems have been successfully integrated in fixed-site base defense systems and on maneuverable platforms, including the ISV and JLTV, and mounted on the Light Medium Tactical Vehicle for increased mobility.

www.avinc.com

Posted in Army, C-UAS, Contracts, Press Release | No Comments »

Scarlet Dragon Links Military, Industry to Test Artificial Intelligence for Warfighters

Sunday, December 21st, 2025

FORT BRAGG, N.C. — On a cold, December day deep in Fort Bragg’s training area, Soldiers, Airmen, Marines and civilian industry partners came together to test the latest drone and counter unmanned aircraft systems technology, while rapidly sharing targeting data through the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s Maven Smart System.

Scarlet Dragon is the XVIII Airborne Corps’ premier innovation exercise, where new ideas and technologies are tested to solve current issues on the battlefield. “We’re focused on bringing new technologies and approaches to solve operational capability gaps and requirements that we identify from operational plans around the globe,” said Rob Braun, XVIII Airborne Corps chief technical officer.

The Scarlet Dragon exercise series started in 2020 as a table-top exercise in the basement of the XVIII Airborne Corps’ headquarters and has evolved into a triannual innovation event where joint services, government agencies, and industry partners come together to test and integrate the latest technology for the modern warfighter.

During this iteration, known as Scarlet Dragon 26-1, the XVIII Airborne Corps tested several initiatives. The 18th Field Artillery Brigade trained with the U.S. Air Force to rapidly load and deploy an M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System from a C-17 Globemaster III, all while simultaneously receiving targeting data through the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s Maven Smart System. The streamlined data-sharing allows the HIMARS unit to rapidly deploy anywhere in the world and quickly set up for offensive or defensive engagements. “We’re doing cold-load training with a C-130, putting the HIMARS on the aircraft, driving it off, executing a rapid-fire mission, and getting back on quickly,” said 2nd Lt. Ryan Mitchell, 18th Field Artillery Brigade, HIMARS platoon leader. “Through Scarlet Dragon, we are doing advanced targeting with data received through Maven, rapidly getting that information to the launcher so we can deploy and shoot faster.”

Another initiative included real time data sharing and tracking between AH-64 Apache helicopters from the 82nd Airborne Division’s Combat Aviation Brigade, drones and small UAS with the XVIII Airborne Corps Air and Missile Defense team, Sentinel radars from the 82nd Airborne Division, and newly fielded SGT STOUT systems from the 108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade. The Sentinel radars and SGT STOUTs tracked Apaches and drones, pushing data to the Corps headquarters to validate faster early warning systems for troops on the ground. Apache pilots tested their ability to identify and track small drones, while the SGT STOUT Short Range Air Defense system teams validated their tracking and targeting capabilities.

The integration of the SGT STOUT into the maneuver force is a critical step in providing protection against short-range air threats. “What I like about Scarlet Dragon is how I push, not just the Soldiers, but also the equipment that we have to our limits and to see what we are capable of and how we can improve our system capabilities,” said Spc. Daniel Rosas, XVIII Airborne Corps air defense battle management system operator. “With the way the world is currently moving, especially when it comes to UAS or drones, it is a big threat and it helps for us to push forward on what we can adapt when it comes to gauging and tracking these threats.”

Scarlet Dragon gives service members and industry partners the opportunity to test new ideas and innovations in an open and minimum-risk environment. “That’s what I really like about Scarlet Dragon,” said CW4 Sean Benson, XVIII Airborne Corps Senior Geo-Intelligence Imagery Technician. “It’s not an exercise with defined timelines or deliverables. It’s whatever we want to try to get to the outcome we need. If you have an idea and it sticks when you throw it on the wall, we’ll give it a shot.”

The Future of Scarlet Dragon

With every iteration of Scarlet Dragon, the integration process is refined and the technology improves. In the future, the Scarlet Dragon exercise series will be tied in with Fort Bragg and XVIII Airborne Corps’ new Lt. Gen. James M. Gavin Joint Innovation Outpost, which will officially open on Jan. 23, 2026.

“During Scarlet Dragon 26-1, the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg held a soft opening for our new Joint Innovation Outpost, or JIOP,” said Lt. Gen. Greg Anderson, commanding general of the XVIII Airborne Corps. “With the JIOP and our Scarlet Dragon series of exercises, we will be able to develop and test Soldier-driven, rapid innovation and technical transformation while providing the Army a model to revolutionize the acquisition process. It is making us more lethal at the tactical and operational levels of war.”

The JIOP will allow Soldiers to bring innovative solutions to the facility to work with civilian industry and academic partners to refine and produce new technology that can then be tested in Scarlet Dragon exercises and eventually shared across the Joint Force.

In 2026, Scarlet Dragon will shift to the Indo-Pacific theater and U.S. Army Japan for their annual combined exercise with the Japanese Ground Self Defense Forces, Yama Sakura.

By MAJ Matthew St Clair, XVIII Airborne Corps Public Affairs

Posted in Army, Guest Post | No Comments »

Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon System Battery activates on Joint Base Lewis-McChord

Sunday, December 21st, 2025

JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash — In a significant advancement of its military capabilities today, the U.S. Army activated the Bravo Battery, 1st Battalion, 17th Field Artillery Regiment, 3d Multi-Domain Task Force, a unit fully designated to operate the Dark Eagle, the services Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) system.

Soldiers and Families gathered in the overcast (location/1-17 FA motor pool) for a ceremony to stand up the battery that will utilize the Dark Eagle system. The ceremony represents a pivotal moment in the Army’s ability to deliver decisive effects in support of the Joint Force across the Indo-Pacific.

“The environment we face is complex and fast evolving,” said Lt. Col. Jeffrey M. Orban, the 1-17th FAR commander. “The Indo-Pacific is vast, dynamic, and critically important to global stability. Our allies, our partners, and our nation depend on our ability to deter aggression.”

Hypersonic systems, capable of flying at speeds greater than five times the speed of sound (Mach 5) provide a combination of speed, range, maneuverability, and altitude that enables highly survivable and rapid defeat of time-critical and heavily defended targets.

”1st. Sgt. Davenport and I are committed to building the formation and ensuring every Soldier within it pursues excellence,” said Capt. Adam Donlan, the Bravo Battery commander. “We must be ready once we receive the TELs [transporter erector launcher] to deploy to the Pacific and deter our adversaries.”

In July 2025 the 3d Multi-Domain Task force successfully deployed the Dark Eagle system for the first time, demonstrating the unit’s ability to project long-range fires capability.

Adm. Samuel Paparo, commander, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said, “The deployment of the LRHW system to Australia marks a significant achievement for U.S. Indo-pacific Command, as it validates the Army’s ability to deploy, position, and exercise command and control (C2) of the system in a forward environment.”

By 1LT Junelle Sweitzer

Posted in Army, Fires, Guest Post | No Comments »

2026 Retired Soldier Handbook

Saturday, December 20th, 2025

Knowing all the benefits and entitlements you’ve earned as a Retired Soldier is important not only for you, but for your family. The Retired Soldier Handbook is your guide to keeping updated on new or changing laws, regulations, and more from many government agencies specifically impacting Retired Soldiers, their families, and surviving spouses.

Get your copy of the 2026 Retired Soldier Handbook online at soldierforlife.army.mil/Army-Retirement/Post-Retirement.

Posted in Army, Veterans | No Comments »

US Patriot – Customized Army & Air Force OCP Uniforms

Friday, December 19th, 2025

US Patriot will deliver your ACU or IHWCU complete with all of the insignia attached where it’s supposed to be.

Build your regulation-ready uniform the easy way with their uniform builder. Look for products labeled Customizable, choose your sizing, and click “Customize.”

www.uspatriottactical.com/military-uniform-builder

Posted in Air Force, Army, Clothing | No Comments »

CHAOS Industries Selected for US Army G-TEAD Marketplace, Expanding Counter-UAS Support to US and NATO Forces

Wednesday, December 17th, 2025

Addition to the marketplace satisfies competition requirements and enables rapid acquisition of CHAOS systems across U.S. and NATO commands

LOS ANGELES — CHAOS Industries, the defense technology company building Coherent Distributed Networks (CDN™) systems that give warfighters time to act against border and autonomous threats, today announced its addition to the U.S. Army’s Global Tactical Edge Acquisition Directorate (G-TEAD) Marketplace following its participation in Project Flytrap 4.5 in Putlos, Germany. The G-TEAD Marketplace enables any Army Service Component Command and NATO partners to rapidly acquire emerging technologies and capabilities.

Project Flytrap 4.5 brought together U.S. soldiers and NATO partners in Germany to test a range of low-cost, portable sensors and shooters designed to counter unmanned aerial systems and strengthen NATO’s Eastern Flank Deterrence Line posture. The systems showcased during the event were evaluated and tested through a competitive evaluation process focused on quickly identifying solutions that can be deployed at the tactical edge.

“We applaud the Army in creating a marketplace to allow ASCCs to quickly acquire emerging technology,” said John Tenet, co-founder and CEO of CHAOS Industries. “The addition to the G-TEAD Marketplace represents a significant step forward in making our Coherent Distributed Networks capabilities available to commanders across the theater who need them, and we look forward to working with the Army and our NATO partners throughout 2026 and beyond.”

CHAOS’s addition to the G?TEAD Marketplace reflects the Army’s assessment of the company’s expeditionary sensing architecture and stay-behind capabilities, including its VANQUISH™ distributed early warning radar. VANQUISH™ provides low-SWaP, short- to mid-range detection and tracking of unmanned aerial systems, missiles, and aircraft. This Coherent Distributed Networks (CDN™)-enabled system gives air defenders more options to detect, track, and respond to unmanned aerial systems while complementing existing command and control and effector architectures.

CHAOS will support continued Army experimentation with a VANQUISH™ system in 2026, providing on-site training, integration support, and rapid iteration in response to operator feedback. This forward presence is intended to tighten the feedback loop from field use to product updates, ensuring the technology evolves in lockstep with soldier needs and emerging threats.

About CHAOS Industries

CHAOS Industries creates time. The company is redefining modern defense with omniscient systems that give the ultimate advantage—domain dominance. CHAOS Industries’ products are powered by Coherent Distributed Networks (CDN™), empowering warfighters, commercial air operators, and border protection teams to act faster, adapt rapidly, and stay ahead of evolving threats.

CHAOS Industries was founded in 2022 and has raised a total of $1 billion in funding from leading investors, including 8VC, Accel, and Valor Equity Partners. The company is headquartered in Los Angeles, with offices in Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Seattle, and London. For more information, please visit www.chaosinc.com.

Posted in Army, C-UAS, Contracts, Press Release | No Comments »

Army Teams with Industry to Refine AI Potential Supporting Command and Control

Wednesday, December 17th, 2025

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. — There are no algorithms in foxholes – yet.

While the U.S. Army has applied emerging artificial intelligence tools to streamline processes across the enterprise — most recently with the rollout of the Department of War’s new generative AI website, GenAI.mil — the impact of AI on the tactical edge Soldier and commander is still taking shape.

With the help of industry experts and Soldier experimentation, however, the Army is building a blueprint for algorithmic warfare at the edge across technology, training, concepts, procurement, and ethical implementation. The potential of AI supporting command and control, C2 — using tools to rapidly process data, inform commanders’ decisions, speed the fires kill chain, and reduce the cognitive burden on Soldiers — is a major focus of ongoing operational prototyping of Next Generation Command and Control, NGC2, the Army’s priority effort to leverage rapid progress in commercial technology to deliver information across all warfighting functions.

The overarching goal of AI for C2, leaders said, is to enable human decisions at machine speed.

“No other technology will have a bigger impact on future warfare than artificial intelligence,” said Brig. Gen. Michael Kaloostian, director of the Command and Control Future Capability Directorate, U.S. Army Transformation and Training Command. “The way we harness and adopt AI to support decision-making, and to make sense of what is expected to be a very chaotic battlefield in the future, will ultimately give commanders options to achieve decision overmatch.”

Applying AI at echelon — designing secure models for austere conditions, tailorable for specific missions and warfighting functions — was the focus of an industry workshop conducted earlier this month by the C2 Future Capability Directorate and Army Contracting Command-Aberdeen Proving Ground.

The market research event, with technical experts from a range of companies and Army organizations, produced feedback on how the Army can better leverage private sector innovation in AI for C2. Areas to maximize industry opportunities and expertise included prioritization of desired capabilities over time, as well as the availability and relevance of Army warfighting and training data that AI models can consume.

“Everybody sees private sector investment happening in AI, so where does the tactical Army fit in the AI market?” said Col. Chris Anderson, project manager Data and AI for Capability Program Executive Command, Control, Communications and Network. “The Army’s unique value proposition for industry is our data and access to warfighters.”

The workshop session also came on the heels of a request for information released on Sam.gov on Dec. 2, focused on gaining industry feedback on the emerging data architecture for NGC2. The Army securely shared the draft architecture on Sam.gov to foster transparency and invite industry ideas that will augment the current NGC2 prototype experimentation and designs underway with vendor teams supporting the 4th Infantry Division and 25th Infantry Division.

“The Army’s approach with Next Generation C2 has always been commercially driven, with industry as foundational partners,” said Joe Welch, portfolio acquisition executive for C2/Counter C2, and Executive Director, T2COM. “That means all of industry — not just our current team leads, but a large range of companies that can contribute to a thriving ecosystem. This RFI is another step in our commitment to sharing technical details and applying industry feedback as we move forward with NGC2.”

One challenge the Army and industry are jointly facing with AI implementation at the edge is that models are only as good as the data they can ingest and interpret. But available data, as well as computing and network resources required to process it, will vary widely depending on the tactical environment.

“For AI at the strategic level, that’s almost entirely unconstrained by store and compute,” Anderson said. “Down at the foxhole, it’s an entirely different story.”

Because of that complexity, the Army is designing the NGC2 ecosystem to rapidly onboard new AI models, building on a common foundation but able to address new missions and environments.

“We’re looking to really provide an ecosystem so that model developers and Soldiers have the capability to fine-tune models at the edge,” Welch said. “When we say that the Army has specific model gaps that we need addressed, it will be a pipeline to very rapidly move that through.”

Another element of the Army’s roadmap is determining what algorithmic warfare capability is required by echelon, from Corps to company and below, informed by the data each unit needs to make decisions, Kaloostian said. The NGC2 prototyping underway with the 4th ID’s Ivy Sting and 25th ID’s Lightning Surge events is providing significant insight into those requirements, as well as the tactics, techniques and procedures for employing different AI applications, he said.

Even as technology and concepts rapidly evolve, the Army will maintain its ethical standards in using AI to support C2 decisions made by humans, leaders said. For example, during the 4ID Ivy Sting series at Fort Carson, Colorado, the division has trained AI models to review sensor data and rapidly recognize, process, and nominate targets. The commander reviews that information and decides whether to order a fire mission. At the staff level, AI can also reduce the time Soldiers spend sifting through and organizing data from a constantly expanding range of data sources and digital systems.

“A lot of what we’re looking to provide here is a reduction in the cognitive burden that comes with the use of a lot of digital tools,” Welch said. “Not just AI target recognition, but generalized AI capabilities are going to help lower that cognitive burden so that our Soldiers can focus on their core tasks to complete the mission.”

By Claire Heininger

Posted in AI / ML, Army, C5ISR, Guest Post | No Comments »