Guest Post | Soldier Systems Daily Soldier Systems Daily

Archive for the ‘Guest Post’ 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 »

Next-Generation Drone Pilots Face Off at Comp

Wednesday, December 24th, 2025

Army’s newest drone and robotics talent went head-to-head at Victoria Barracks last month in the finals of Rise of the Drones and War of the Machines.

The culmination of months of training, designing and testing at Battle Lab’s MakerSpace sites across the country had finals competitors assembling, configuring, flying and repairing first-person-view (FPV) drones and robotic ground systems.

The event represents a step forward in building Army’s uncrewed systems capability, with 161 new FPV drone pilots and 98 uncrewed ground vehicle operators trained through the MakerSpace program.

Commander Battle Lab Colonel Pete Allan said the competitions played an important role in supporting Army’s future capability needs.

“We’re clearly seeing that robotics and automated systems are reshaping how militaries fight, so activities like Rise of the Drones and War of the Machines are part of how Army rapidly adapts at the forward edge,” Colonel Allan said.

The Battle Lab MakerSpace training model, originally conducted over six weeks, was condensed to four weeks to demonstrate the ability to accelerate capability when required.

‘There are lessons to be learned from Ukraine and the Middle East. Innovating in the FPV space is critical.’

Participants received instruction and mentorship as they progressed from assembly to simulation to live flights. Some completed the initial training in less than three days.

Competitor Captain Jesse Wood, of Headquarters 7th Brigade, said the training was highly relevant to contemporary warfare.

“There are lessons to be learned from Ukraine and the Middle East. Innovating in the FPV space is critical,” Captain Wood said.

“The course stepped us through UAV fundamentals, flight characteristics, basic controls and customising the software and settings. We also spent time in simulation before our first flight.”

Private Dan Leeks, a competitor from the 8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, said the program armed him with the skills and confidence to employ FPV drones.

“We learned how to solder the boards and motors, program the drones and test-fly them. I started with no experience, but now I’d be confident employing them in my job,” Private Leeks said.

By Captain Andrew Lee, ADF

Posted in Drone, Guest Post, International, Robotics | No Comments »

How Burn Proof Gear Revolutionized Suppressor Safety

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2025

As suppressors have become more common on modern rifles, shooters quickly discovered a serious challenge that came with them: heat. Suppressors reduce noise and visible flash, but they also trap hot gases, causing temperatures to rise extremely fast during sustained fire. In just a short shooting session, a suppressor can become hot enough to burn skin instantly or melt nearby gear such as gloves, slings, packs, or clothing.

Early suppressor covers were often designed as simple accessories rather than true safety equipment. Many failed under real use, melting, slipping, or transferring heat instead of stopping it. Burn Proof Gear was created to solve that problem.

A problem solved by real-world experience

Burn Proof Gear was founded after its creator experienced firsthand the failure of existing suppressor covers. During a range session, a hot suppressor damaged clothing and gear, and a commercially available cover failed almost immediately when exposed to real heat. It became clear that most products on the market were not designed for sustained or hard use.

Rather than improving appearance or comfort, Burn Proof Gear focused on one goal: protecting the shooter from extreme heat. The result was equipment built to perform under demanding conditions, not just light or occasional use.

A smarter approach to heat management

Most early suppressor covers failed because insulation and outer fabric were sewn together, allowing heat to transfer directly through the cover, burning or melting the exterior fabric. Burn Proof Gear solved this by creating the original fully fire-retardant system.

Their design uses a two-layer system. The inner layer is made from braided fiberglass yarns and saturated with high temperature resins that improve the product’s stability and minimize irritating fiberglass dusting during cutting and installation, (stretchable mesh sleeving) designed to withstand extreme heat and create insulating air gaps around the suppressor. The outer shell is constructed from durable, heat-resistant fabrics such as Kevlar® or Nomex®, which protect against abrasion and wear without contacting the hot metal directly.

This layered construction allows the cover to reduce heat transfer effectively while maintaining a slim, secure fit.

Material choices that matter

Every material used by Burn Proof Gear is selected for durability and heat resistance. High-strength, heat-stable thread ensures seams remain intact even after repeated exposure to high temperatures. Fabric selection is equally deliberate, and Burn Proof Gear is transparent about performance differences between finishes.

Solid-color fabrics offer the highest heat resistance, while camouflage patterns, due to their dye processes, are rated for slightly lower temperatures. This allows customers to choose the right product based on how they shoot and how much heat their setup generates.

Extending protection beyond the suppressor

Burn Proof Gear applied the same heat-management principles to other rifle components, including the handguard. As gas systems heat up during firing, rails can quickly become uncomfortable or unsafe to grip. Products like the Rail-Rap provide an insulating layer that protects the shooter’s support hand without adding bulk or interfering with weapon handling.

Made in the USA, built with purpose

Burn Proof Gear designs and manufactures its products in the United States, maintaining direct control over quality and consistency. Producing in-house allows the company to work closely with specialized materials and ensure each product meets its performance standards.

Purpose-built for serious use

Today, Burn Proof Gear is known for equipment designed around safety, durability, and real-world performance. While many products on the market are intended for occasional or recreational use, Burn Proof Gear focuses on solutions for shooters who demand reliability under heat, movement, and sustained firing. Suppressor covers have become a critical node in the supply chain for Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and federal law enforcement.

By treating heat management as a safety issue, not a convenience, Burn Proof Gear has earned its reputation as a trusted name in suppressor and firearm thermal protection.

For more information on our gear or estimates please email sales@burnproofgear.com or visit BurnProofGear.com.

Posted in Guest Post, Suppressors, Weapon Accessories | No Comments »

Sustaining Expeditions: New Tech Keeps Warfighters Fed in Arctic Conditions

Tuesday, December 23rd, 2025

WASHINGTON — Batteries for cellphones and other small devices deplete quickly outside in the winter, and that’s no different for warfighters in the field. To make sure they’re focused on the mission — and not the temperature or malfunctioning equipment — War Department experts are creating specialized technology and adapting current equipment to survive in frigid climates.

More countries, including U.S. adversaries, are increasing their presence in the Arctic thanks to its vast natural resources and new shipping lanes that have opened due to ice melt. Those changes have helped to shift the future of expeditionary warfare toward small, self-sustained units that can function in the extreme cold. Supply lines aren’t well-established in those areas, so units often have to carry their own food and cooking equipment.

In temperatures that are often minus 25 degrees Fahrenheit or below, currently fielded cooking equipment used by troops just won’t cut it. Materials used throughout field feeding systems — such as plastic, rubber and textiles — can freeze and break, while other items lose their ability to function, affecting a warfighter’s productivity or even shutting down operations.

At the Army Combat Capabilities Development Command Soldier Center’s Combat Feeding Division in Natick, Massachusetts, researchers are working to create and supply equipment that will keep warfighters on task for mission success. While the division’s main focus is the nutritional needs of warfighters, how they’re able to prepare their meals to meet those needs is also important.

That’s where Ben Williams, a mechanical engineer and the division’s self-described de facto cold-weather sustainment expert, comes in. He’s helped develop numerous cold-weather field feeding and sustainment technologies for expeditionary forces.

Until recently, portable kitchens used in the field were built to feed between 250 and 800 soldiers and weren’t designed to work below minus 25 degrees. So, Williams and his colleagues set out to design and build newer equipment that’s smaller in scale but offers the same capabilities in a cost-effective expeditionary package.

Thus was born the Expeditionary Field Feeding Equipment System, or EFFES, a collapsible kitchen system developed with the help of the Marine Corps as a way to feed about 100 to 150 warfighters.

“It’s basically a kitchen in a box,” Williams said of the tent, equipment and gear that fits in a pallet-sized container. “It’s very mobile, very lightweight. You can airdrop it, you can sling load it, put [it] in the back of a pickup truck. You don’t need standardized military equipment to transport it.”

The EFFES cooks using most standard fuel types and has no external power source; it’s battery-powered and self-sustained through thermoelectrics, a process where a temperature difference creates an electric current. A majority of its components are commercially available, keeping costs much lower than if parts were custom-built. It also helps soldiers in the field when it comes to replacements.

“If something breaks, they can just use unit dollars to replace it,” Williams said. “And since most components are commercial off-the-shelf, the likelihood that they’ll be available and in stock is high. This ensures that equipment in the field remains operationally available.”

Service Member Tested

The Combat Feeding Division has tested 10 EFFES prototypes over the past three years in several locations, including with units at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center in central California and by the Army’s 11th Airborne Division in Alaska during Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center exercises.

It was also tested by the Army’s Cold Regions Research Engineering Laboratory during one of its yearly Arctic-led international expeditions, where the system was transported across 1,300 kilometers, and minus 30 degrees was the daily operational temperature.

“They were trading with the native population … cooking moose meat and making biscuits,” Williams said. “Military personnel who had no food service background were able to utilize the equipment with minimal training.”

So, how does this kitchen-in-a-box work in the extreme cold? Underneath a small, insulated tent, its users set up three cooking stations, each of which uses an insulated 2-gallon fuel tank that’s attached to a Marine Corps standard squad stove known as the MSR XGK stove, which is usually intended for individual use.

“We’re going to use three of those to cook for 150 people,” Williams said. It’s something they’ve managed by modifying the burner to triple the heat output and make some other functional tweaks.

“We can cook faster, and the fuel consumption is drastically lower,” Williams said. “We’re using 80% less fuel than burners we use in our other kitchens. It’ll run for about 30 hours off one tank. It’s a big difference.”

To pressurize the fuel bottles, they supplemented the stove’s manual hand pumps with insulated automatic air pumps.

Among other items, the EFFES also comes with flame-resistant, insulated covers that can be used with the system’s pots, pans and ovens; special adapters for heating group rations; and carbon monoxide sensors for safety. The larger components are collapsible.

“It’s got everything you need for prepping, cooking, serving and sanitation,” Williams said.

Crews also have specially insulated backpacks to hold 5-gallon water bladders that won’t freeze and can be folded when empty. “If you leave with 120-degree water from the tap, you can keep it above freezing for at least three days at minus 40 degrees, just sitting outside,” Williams said.

Climatized Indoor Testing

Williams and crew test all the equipment at the nearby U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine’s Doriot Climatic Chamber, which for decades has tested the effects of extreme environments on people and equipment.

“Every climate you could possibly imagine … we can re-create,” said Jeff Faulkner, the facility’s manager.

The chambers’ temperatures can range from 165 to minus 65 degrees, and they can create 40 mph of wind, rain and snow. Each chamber has inclining treadmills that can handle up to five soldiers at 15 mph on a 12-degree incline. Smaller conditioning rooms have the same capabilities as the chambers, except they can drop to minus 72 degrees.

Inside a tent in one of the conditioning rooms, Williams recently tested a prototype fireproof insulated combat equipment stove, known as the ICE stove. Unlike the EFFES, the ICE stove weighs 35 pounds, folds up and is transportable like a duffel bag.

“Everything’s thermoelectric, so there’s no external power,” Williams said.

The ICE stove’s burner, which is contained in an aluminum cradle for safety, is able to rapidly heat water or reheat meals, ready-to-eat entrees in temperatures down to minus 60 degrees. It comes with a cook pot for water and a second tank on top that can melt snow. There’s also an exhaust tube that allows the ICE stove to vent out the top of the tent, as well as carbon dioxide and monoxide sensors.

“The whole point of this is to rapidly heat enough water for a platoon of 50 people for their meal, cold water rations,” Williams said. “If you want to heat MRE pouches, other prepackaged foods or just some biscuits, you can do that in the top section.”

When warfighters want to create hot water or reheat their MREs outside the tent, the ICE stove’s insulated wrap maintains performance and keeps the water or rations warm. Water is then dispensed through a lithium-ion battery-powered electric pump and hose — much like a gas pump.

“A lot of things break instantaneously at [minus 40 or minus 60 degrees]. Rubber is one of them, so you have to get a special platinum-infused silicone hose, so it remains flexible,” Williams said. To keep the pump and other external parts running optimally, disposable hand warmers can be stuffed in specially designed insulated pockets.

The stove comes with several other small side components, including plasma lighters, matchless fire starters, an LED headlamp and a remote temperature monitor that can operate from several hundred feet away.

“The operator can be doing other things while his water or rations are heating. You don’t need to sit here and watch it and dedicate a soldier solely to cooking,” Williams said.

The water tanks can easily be exchanged to turn the stove into a tent heater as well, Williams said. A thermoelectric module can be plugged into the electric pump’s battery, acting as a power source. When Williams tested it inside a chamber at minus 50 degrees, it produced a small amount of heat, but it was enough to raise the temperature to a survivable level — about 62 degrees.

“We really want it to be at least 40 degrees without anybody in there, and we’re getting to about 47 degrees,” Williams said.

Testing Other Cold-Weather Creations

Meanwhile, Faulkner said he’s also seen researchers at the climate chamber test a heated bodysuit that went inside of a high-altitude, low-opening jumpsuit. HALO jumping is a technique used for stealthy infiltration into an area in which the jumper exits an aircraft, often at about 30,000 feet, and free falls to a lower altitude before deploying their parachute.

Since the air is thin and freezing at those heights, specialized equipment is required. The test mimicked a three to five-minute free fall.

“[The suit] would keep them warm instead of using this huge, bulky insulated uniform,” Faulkner said. “And to mimic the falling, they had piles of giant box fans blowing in [the volunteer participant’s] face in minus 65 degrees.”

Just recently, the chamber hosted a company working with an Army drone team to test batteries and computer systems in extreme cold temperatures.

Faulkner said that while most of the equipment tested during his years at Doriot has been for cold climates, some warm-weather technology has been prototyped. Researchers tested a microclimate cooling vest that explosive ordnance disposal technicians and others who wear various nonbreathable suits could wear to prevent heat-related injuries.

By Katie Lange, Pentagon News

Posted in Arctic, Field Gourmet, Guest Post, Sustainment | No Comments »

Developing a 2U LTOWB SOP for Damage Control Resuscitation

Monday, December 22nd, 2025

Managing two to three casualties in the real world from a first-line aid bag is not an ultralight solution in the modern age of DCR and Blood Cold Chain. There is an argument to be made that light and fast is an advantage, which is valid, but “heavier” often equals more capable (a Role 2 is more capable than POI, etc). That’s not to say bring the kitchen sink to the POI, just that efficiencies must be incorporated into the first-line bag to adhere to the standard of care, which includes carrying LTOWB (Low-Titer O neg Whole Blood).

As protocols evolve, medics are asked to perform more tasks during Damage Control Resuscitation (DCR) at the Point of Injury. Due to advances in medical research that have driven protocols over the past 20 years, there is no choice but to increase the average Liter size of the first-line aid bag.

To optimize the most current standard, the two-unit SOP, we have developed a stand-alone aid bag that breaks a few barriers.

Overview of DCR

To understand why the first-line aid bag design must evolve, it’s essential to define the operational challenges it faces. Effective DCR in the field requires maximizing efficiency and minimizing time to treatment. Medics are now expected to perform tasks that entire teams in Level 1 trauma centers often struggle to execute under controlled conditions.

DCR at the Point of Injury includes:

Mastery of TCCC fundamentals

Employing LTOWB at the point of injury, including cold-chain transport and blood warmers

Administering POI medications such as TXA and calcium

An advanced understanding of acute traumatic physiology to manage hemorrhage, optimize resuscitation, and mitigate shock, coagulopathy, and hypocalcemia

M9 Aidbag

Legacy products like the M9 bag paved the way for modern systems, which explains their longevity. But twenty years is a lifetime in this industry– and the M9 is showing its age. It’s heavy for its size (due to outdated construction), inefficient for modern resuscitation (it lacks the capacity to carry 2U of blood), and constrained by space in the main compartment. In short, it no longer meets modern requirements.

What follows is the result of years of advancement in design, manufacturing techniques, and application of DCR principles at the point of injury.

Figure A. M9 vs. CRO 26L: Larger capacity, improved ergonomics, and purpose-built for DCR.

Our design philosophy is to maximize durability without unnecessary bulk– every medic remembers carrying “bomb-proof” gear that is far heavier than it needed to be (ie, STOMP bag).

We use modern materials and construction techniques. By utilizing double-stitch seams and eliminating excess fabric in the name of “strength,” we achieve a lighter product that is equally as “bomb-proof” as legacy milspec standards. This includes removing all edge bindings, doubling as a weight saver with visible workmanship (not hiding sloppy sewing).

Figure B. Increased depth improves closure and eliminates the need for supplementary external pouches.

Figure C. M9 vs CRO DCR 26L

CRO 26L Aid Bag

The CRO 26L represents a deliberate step toward the ultimate goal: fitting all required resuscitation equipment for 2-3 combat wounded (an M9 bag equivalent) into a first-line bag capable of carrying two units of blood, and scaling to Prolonged Casualty Care setups (vents, monitors, etc.). It replaces the RATS pack capacity with a fraction of the offset from the body and offers much better space utilization.

Specifications:

Chassis-opening design

Weight: 3.8 lb (Empty RATS: 8 lb for comparison)

Volume: 26L

Removable waist strap (no hip pads)

Adjustable shoulder straps

Chest strap

Lightweight adjustable chassis

Customizable interior loop field

Figure D. Chassis-opening, complete workstation, optimized for custom organization of resuscitative equipment plus two units LTOWB

Chassis-Opening

This feature is, to our knowledge, first-in-industry. After observing countless trauma lanes, most modern DCR-focused medics primarily work off their belt, making an effort not to drop their aid bag unless the patient needs to be resuscitated with blood. The chassis-opening feature eliminates the need to flip the bag over to access the main compartment. Something that seems so minor is one of the main features gaining attention from our user base.

Combined with its weight, capacity, and configurability, the 26L is designed to support best practices in DCR, including whole-blood resuscitation at the point of injury.

Thank you for your community engagement on this project and for supporting our mission to innovate medical equipment and improve treatment protocols to enable faster, more capable medics.

If you have questions or would like a quote, email us at support@cromedical.com at

cromedical.com/shop/dcr-26l

Posted in Guest Post, Medical | 1 Comment »

US Marine Corps Fields MADIS to 1st LAAD

Monday, December 22nd, 2025

MARINE CORPS BASE HAWAII – The U.S. Marine Corps took a major step forward with a state-of-the-art system designed for short-range detection, tracking and engagement of aerial threats. On Dec. 12, 2025, Program Executive Office Land Systems fielded two Marine Air Defense Integrated Systems (MADIS) to 1st Low Altitude Air Defense (LAAD) Battalion, Marine Air Control Group 18, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing (MAW). The fielding of these systems marks a pivotal step in enhancing expeditionary defense capabilities within the Indo-Pacific region.

The MADIS consists of two Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs), one focused on detection and the other oriented toward offensive action. Working together, they form a maneuverable ground-based air defense weapon system designed to defeat unmanned aircraft systems and manned fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft threats while on the move and at the halt.

The full-rate production configuration of the MADIS employs a powerful combination of 30mm cannons, Stinger missiles and multifunctional electronic warfare equipment. The 360-degree threat detection and protection allow the system to simultaneously engage and neutralize threats with both kinetic and non-kinetic forces.

“These systems will increase capabilities of counter-unmanned aircraft systems operations and provide automatic target recognition and weapon assignment to decrease engagement times and reduce the cognitive load on the Marine operator,” said Lt. Col. Mike Billings, product manager for Future Weapons Systems at PM Ground Based Air Defense. “The next step is to deliver the full rate production MADIS to all low altitude air defense battalions and littoral anti-air battalions across the Marine Corps, at a rapid rate.”

Since the reactivation of 1st LAAD Battalion in 2023, the unit has consistently advanced the U.S. Marine Corps’ force design initiatives. Key milestones include the activation of Firing Battery Alpha in August 2024 and Firing Battery Mike in December 2025. Most notably, the successful fielding of MADIS units, today, marks a pivotal step forward.

“Owning these systems gives us direct control capability,” said Master Gunnery Sgt. Mario Guadarrama, battalion operations chief for 1st LAAD Battalion. “Reducing the gap between training and combat employment allows seamless integration with partners and allies throughout the Indo-Pacific region.”

Fielding the MADIS directly to 1st LAAD Battalion significantly enhances expeditionary ground-based air defense capabilities in support of 1st MAW. The primary mission of 1st LAAD Battalion is to provide close-in, low-altitude, surface-to-air weapon capabilities, and the MADIS is a strategic step forward for the battalion.

Story by 2nd Lt. Joseph Adcock, 1st Marine Aircraft Wing

Posted in C-UAS, Guest Post, USMC | No Comments »

18X Hits Major Milestone: Command Pilot Rating

Sunday, December 21st, 2025

CREECH AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. —

In 1913, the first two military aviation badges, silver wings, were issued to members of the U.S. Army Air Corps. As time went on, pilots of all airframes have been awarded their silver wings and given the rating of pilot, senior pilot and command pilot. Since then, the Air Force has grown rapidly by constantly adapting to new playing fields and integrating technology into everyday operations while preparing for the future fight.

This innovation led to a new class of airframe, remotely piloted aircraft. They perform a multitude of missions including intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and precision strike. However, it was not until 2025 that remotely piloted aircraft pilots or the 18X career field could be awarded the rating of command pilot on just their airframe.

There have been pilots in the RPA career field who have obtained this rating, but only if they had been on other airframes prior to being an RPA pilot.

Pilots of all airframes must have 15 years of service as a rated pilot, and 3000 total hours of flight time for the rating of command pilot, which is the highest rating a pilot can receive.

Compared to other career fields, they are relatively new, and their history began a little over 15 years ago. In 2008, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz brought attention to the shortage of pilots for the RPA mission.

To combat the shortage, it was initially decided that 100 graduates from standard undergraduate pilot training each year would learn to fly RPA’s instead of manned aircraft, but an official career field was not established.

“When I first started in the career field in 2009, we were just this test group,” said Lt. Col. Eric Baldock, 15th Attack Squadron director of operations. “The command pilot rating for us signifies how mature our career field has gotten and shows that it was needed to meet the Air Force’s mission requirements.”

In 2009, the 18X career field was established to create professional RPA pilots to meet joint warfighter requirements. It officially began in 2010 by Air Staff officials institutionalizing it with undergraduate RPA training and rolling out the first class of trained RPA MQ-1 Predator pilots.

In 2010, Lt. Gen. Philip Breedlove, then-Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, plans and Requirements at Headquarters Air Force, stated that the formalized training signified the Air Force’s commitment to RPAs and the importance of the aircraft to the joint community.

“I have been in the 18X career field since 2013, and I always saw the potential of what this career field could be,” said Lt. Col. Justin Storm, 489th Attack Squadron director of operations. “This career field fits into the Air Forces overall mission, and I see that growing with mission planning, intelligence and how we contribute to air power overall.”

Since 2010, the RPA mission has grown to the size of two wings entirely dedicated to it, including the 432nd Wing/432nd Air Expeditionary Wing and the 25th Attack Wing.

The RPA community have continually changed and adapted, honing their skills while innovating their technology such as the recent change to Automatic Takeoff and Landing Capability-enabled Satellite Launch and Recovery. Additionally, they continue to adapt by re-designating their squadrons such as the 489th ATKS becoming the 42nd ATKS sometime in 2026 and 11th Attack Squadron returning to combat operations from being a training squadron.

“Our career field has such an innovative spirit,” said Lt. Col. Ahmed Nelson, 17th Attack Squadron commander. “We have always been adapting and integrating technology into how we operate, and I think we will see more of that as time goes on. We have also over time been integrated in multiple domains and I think that, along with our sister services, that will expand as well.”

Additionally, they have performed combat and ISR operations 24/7/365 in multiple Areas of Responsibility around the globe over the last fifteen years.

“We have changed so much over the years since I have been in,” said Nelson. ”We have had a greater emphasis on our standardized training in how we get our young officers to be full-fledged pilots. Additionally, there was no such thing as dwell time or the Air Force Generation model which is better for our airmen, and they now have time to rest, repair and to certify before going to deploy. We also have huge/tremendous support from organizations like the Human Performance Team, which is read into our missions and can provide us appropriate mental health care.

As time goes on, the 18X career field will continue to grow their operations and conquer even more milestones. The 18X career field being able to obtain the command pilot rating without being on any other airframe is a testament to the pilots’ dedication to the future fight as the Air Force continues to adapt to obstacles as they come with new innovation.

“Our career field has experienced so much, and we still have so much more to come,” said Nelson. “I, myself, am the first 18X squadron commander for the 17th ATKS and it is an honor to be one of the firsts.”

The 18X career field being able to obtain the command pilot rating without being on any other airframe is a testament to their career field’s dedication to the future fight as the Air Force continues to adapt to obstacles as they come with innovation. They will continue to grow as MQ-9 Reapers and other RPAs continue to take to the skies piloted by the vital 18X pilots.

By Senior Airman Victoria Nuzzi, 432nd Wing/432nd Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs

Posted in Air Force, Aviation, Guest Post, UAS | 1 Comment »

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 »