The character of modern warfare is undergoing a fundamental transformation, driven by the proliferation and rapid evolution of unmanned systems.¹ Once relegated to niche intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) roles, drones have become central, and in some cases decisive, components of military operations. This shift is not merely technological; it is deeply doctrinal, compelling major military powers to fundamentally rewrite their operational playbooks and re-evaluate long-held principles of combat.³ Unmanned aircraft now hold a central role in modern warfare, marking a technological tipping point that may deliver a genuine revolution in military affairs.⁴

The full-scale war in Ukraine has served as a crucible for this transformation, functioning as a real-world laboratory where new technologies, tactics, and operational concepts are tested and refined at an unprecedented pace.⁶ In this conflict, the cycle of innovation and adaptation is measured not in years or decades, as is typical for military procurement and doctrinal development, but in weeks.⁶ The Ukrainian battlespace has starkly demonstrated the vulnerability of expensive, exquisite legacy platforms—such as main battle tanks and capital warships—to attack by low-cost, attritable, and often commercially derived unmanned systems.³ This dynamic has effectively “democratized precision strike,” granting small, dismounted units the ability to achieve strategic effects previously reserved for nation-states with advanced air forces or missile arsenals.¹

This period of rapid evolution has illuminated divergent strategic paths being pursued by key global military actors. The United States and the United Kingdom are increasingly focused on developing high-end, AI-enabled autonomous systems. Their goal is to create platforms that can interpret and execute a commander’s high-level intent, acting as force multipliers for existing formations rather than requiring constant, direct human piloting.⁷ Conversely, the Russian Federation has weaponized mass and disposability, employing thousands of inexpensive one-way attack drones in a campaign of economic and psychological attrition designed to exhaust Ukraine’s more technologically advanced air defenses.¹⁰ Ukraine, in response, has pioneered a model of rapid, decentralized adaptation. By leveraging commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technology, fostering a culture of bottom-up innovation, and implementing agile procurement systems, Ukrainian forces have achieved significant asymmetric effects against a numerically superior adversary.³ Meanwhile, the People’s Republic of China is pursuing a sophisticated dual-track approach. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is aggressively developing advanced, “intelligentized” swarm capabilities for a potential high-intensity conflict over Taiwan, while simultaneously studying and absorbing the tactical lessons from the widespread use of low-cost FPV drones in Ukraine.¹⁴

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of ten core strategies for the employment of unmanned systems that have emerged from this new era of warfare. These strategies are not mutually exclusive; rather, they represent the fundamental pillars of contemporary and future drone-enabled combat, illustrating the multifaceted impact of unmanned technology across the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war.

II. Strategy 1: Attritional Saturation and Economic Warfare

Core Concept

This strategy employs massed, low-cost, one-way attack (OWA) unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to achieve battlefield effects through sheer volume rather than the technological sophistication of individual platforms. The primary objective is to overwhelm, exhaust, and ultimately impose unsustainable economic costs on an adversary’s more advanced and expensive integrated air defense systems (IADS). It is a modern form of siege warfare, targeting not a fortress but an entire nation’s defensive capacity and economic resilience.

The Russian Model (Shahed/Geran-2)

The Russian Federation’s campaign against Ukraine provides the definitive contemporary example of this strategy in practice. The approach is predicated on a brutal but effective cost-imposition calculus. Russia leverages thousands of Iranian-designed Shahed-136 drones (domestically produced as the Geran-2) against Ukrainian air defenses.¹⁰ The core of the strategy lies in the extreme economic disparity between the offensive and defensive systems. Each Shahed-type drone costs approximately $20,000 to $50,000 to produce, whereas the surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) required to intercept them, such as those fired from NASAMS or IRIS-T systems, can cost several hundred thousand dollars or more per round.¹¹ This creates a fundamentally unsustainable economic model for the defender, where even a successful interception represents a significant net financial loss and a depletion of finite, advanced munitions.

To maximize this advantage, Russia employs saturation tactics. Drones are launched in massed salvos, often from multiple vectors and timed to arrive simultaneously, with attacks frequently exceeding 1,000 drones per week.¹⁰ These waves are often composed of a mix of explosive-laden drones and simpler decoys, a tactic designed to confuse and saturate the defender’s sensor and effector capacity.¹⁰ The operational goal is not necessarily for every drone to penetrate Ukraine’s defenses. Instead, the strategy accepts high loss rates—often over 75%—with the understanding that the cumulative effect of the constant attacks will degrade the IADS, exhaust missile stockpiles, and inevitably allow some drones to reach their targets.¹¹

The strategic objectives of this campaign are twofold. Militarily, the aim is to attrit Ukraine’s limited inventory of advanced Western-supplied SAM systems. By forcing Ukraine to expend these valuable interceptors on cheap drones, Russia seeks to create gaps in the air defense network that can then be exploited by more sophisticated and valuable assets like cruise and ballistic missiles.¹⁰ Psychologically and economically, the campaign is a central element of Russia’s broader “punishment strategy”.¹¹ By relentlessly targeting civilian population centers and critical infrastructure—such as power plants, grain silos, and industrial facilities—Russia aims to terrorize the Ukrainian populace, cripple the nation’s economy, and erode the political will to continue the conflict.¹⁰

The Attritional Dilemma

The strategy of attritional saturation imposes a severe strategic trilemma on the defending nation, forcing its leadership into a series of impossible choices regarding resource allocation. The defender must choose between three undesirable options. First, they can attempt to protect all targets, including civilian centers and critical infrastructure, by expending their high-cost interceptors. This approach, while politically necessary, leads to the rapid depletion of strategic reserves and plays directly into the attacker’s economic warfare strategy. Second, the defender can choose to preserve their limited advanced IADS to protect only the highest-value military assets, such as command centers, troop concentrations, and airbases. This conserves their most capable defensive systems but leaves civilian areas and the national economy vulnerable, risking a collapse in public morale and severe political repercussions. Third, the defender can invest in a greater number of lower-cost countermeasures, such as mobile fire groups equipped with machine guns or short-range air defense systems.¹⁰ While more economically sustainable, these systems may be less effective and easily overwhelmed by large, coordinated drone salvos, particularly at night or in adverse weather conditions.

This trilemma demonstrates that attritional saturation is not merely a tactical problem but a grand strategic crisis. The cost disparity established by the attacker means that every defensive engagement, successful or not, contributes to the defender’s strategic exhaustion. A nation with a robust industrial base capable of mass-producing cheap OWA drones—Russia aims to produce 190 Shahed-type drones per day by the end of 2025—can effectively wage a war of economic attrition against a technologically superior adversary that lacks a comparable industrial scale.¹⁰ This reality has profound implications for Western defense planning, which has historically prioritized exquisite, high-cost, and low-volume platforms over attritable, mass-produced systems. The Russian model demonstrates that in a protracted conflict, industrial capacity and the ability to impose costs can be as decisive as technological superiority.

III. Strategy 2: Asymmetric Precision Strike

Core Concept

This strategy leverages extremely low-cost, often commercially derived and locally modified, first-person-view (FPV) drones as tactical, disposable precision-guided munitions. It fundamentally alters the battlefield’s economic landscape by “democratizing” the ability of small, dismounted units to identify, track, and destroy high-value, heavily armored assets from standoff ranges. This capability upends the traditional cost-benefit analysis of ground combat, where significant resources were required to counter armored threats.

The Ukrainian Model (FPV Dominance)

The Ukrainian armed forces have pioneered and perfected the use of FPV drones as a tool of asymmetric warfare, inflicting disproportionate damage on the Russian military. The core of this strategy is profound economic disruption. FPV drones, costing between $400 and $1,000 to assemble from commercial components, are routinely used to disable or destroy multi-million-dollar military assets.³ These targets include main battle tanks like the T-90 and even the U.S.-supplied M1 Abrams (valued at $8-10 million per unit), as well as artillery systems, electronic warfare platforms, and supply vehicles.³ In some sectors of the front, FPV drones have been credited with causing up to 90% of Russian vehicle losses, demonstrating their battlefield-defining impact.³ The scale of these operations can be immense; in one instance dubbed “Operation Spiderweb,” Ukrainian forces reportedly used up to 117 FPV drones in a coordinated attack on five Russian airbases, damaging 41 aircraft, including strategic bombers.³

This effectiveness is not merely a function of the technology itself but of innovative tactics developed under fire. FPV drone operation is a demanding skill, requiring a “human in the loop” to pilot the device in its terminal phase, often while navigating a complex and contested electromagnetic environment.¹⁹ Ukrainian operators have developed sophisticated tactics, such as multi-drone attacks where the first drone might be used to clear an obstacle, like the “cope cage” anti-drone screens on a tank, allowing a second drone to fly through the gap and strike a vulnerable point.¹⁵ This makes the individual operator’s skill and ingenuity a critical component of the weapon system’s effectiveness.

The doctrinal impact of this strategy has been revolutionary. The omnipresence of cheap ISR and FPV drones has effectively eliminated traditional concepts of cover and concealment on the modern battlefield, creating a state of hyper-transparency where, as one analyst noted, “there’s nowhere to hide”.³ This has forced a radical rethinking of combined arms and armored warfare doctrine. The traditional role of the tank as a spearhead for offensive operations has become untenable due to its extreme vulnerability to top-attack from FPV drones. Consequently, both Russian and Ukrainian forces have been forced to adapt, shifting tanks to a fire support role, operating further from the direct front line to reduce their exposure to the constant aerial threat.³

The Inversion of the Force Protection Pyramid

The rise of asymmetric precision strike has inverted the traditional military hierarchy of force protection. For centuries, military doctrine and resource allocation have been structured like a pyramid, with the most extensive and sophisticated protective measures dedicated to the most powerful and expensive assets at the top: capital ships, strategic bombers, command headquarters, and main battle tanks. The FPV drone turns this logic on its head. It makes these high-value assets the most lucrative and vulnerable targets for the battlefield’s cheapest and most numerous weapons. In this new paradigm, the most survivable and effective combat unit may no longer be a platoon of tanks but a two-person FPV team with a backpack of drones and a signal repeater.²⁰

This inversion forces a complete re-evaluation of what constitutes combat power and survivability. The traditional method of generating “mass” by concentrating expensive platforms in a single area now serves only to concentrate vulnerability for an FPV-equipped adversary. The logical consequence is a doctrinal shift toward distributed, disaggregated, and mobile forces. Instead of a battalion of 70-ton tanks, the future of ground combat may favor hundreds of small, agile drone teams networked together. This paradigm shift creates massive ripple effects throughout the entire defense ecosystem. It challenges the military-industrial complex, which is optimized for producing large, complex, and expensive platforms over decades-long procurement cycles. It fundamentally alters personnel requirements, placing a premium on tech-savvy, adaptable operators who can master the complex skill of FPV piloting over traditional vehicle crews.⁶ It also transforms logistics, shifting the demand from supplying vast quantities of fuel and heavy ammunition for a few large platforms to distributing thousands of small drones, batteries, and explosive payloads to dispersed teams across the front. The intense focus of PLA analysts on this phenomenon confirms that they recognize this profound shift and are actively adapting their own doctrine to both exploit and counter it.¹⁵

IV. Strategy 3: The Integrated Reconnaissance-Strike Network

Core Concept

This strategy fuses unmanned ISR platforms with kinetic strike assets into a seamless, highly responsive, and networked “system-of-systems.” In this model, drones function as the persistent, all-seeing “eyes” of the network, providing real-time detection, identification, and tracking of enemy targets. This data is then fed directly to the “fist” of the network—which could be artillery batteries, loitering munitions, missile launchers, or other attack drones—radically compressing the “kill chain.” The process from target acquisition to engagement, which traditionally took hours or minutes, is reduced to mere seconds, enabling forces to strike fleeting, time-sensitive targets with unprecedented speed and precision.

Multi-National Application

This concept has become a central pillar of modern warfare, with all major military actors pursuing their own versions of the reconnaissance-strike network.

• Ukraine’s “Unified Combat Matrix”: Ukraine has been at the forefront of operationalizing this strategy, elevating drones from a supporting role to a central asset within a sophisticated network-centric model.¹² The core of this network is the Delta situational awareness and battlefield management system. This digital platform fuses data from thousands of drones operating along the front with other intelligence sources, including satellites, ground sensors, and human intelligence, creating a unified, real-time operational picture.¹² This allows Ukrainian commanders to rapidly identify Russian targets and assign the most appropriate strike asset, giving them a critical “engagement speed advantage” over Russia’s more hierarchical and stove-piped command structure.¹²
• Russia’s “Reconnaissance-Fire Complex”: While initially lagging, the Russian military has adapted and implemented its own version of this strategy, leveraging its significant advantage in conventional artillery. Military-grade ISR drones, particularly the Orlan-10, are used to loiter over Ukrainian positions, providing precise targeting coordinates for Russia’s vast arsenal of howitzers, multiple-launch rocket systems, and mortars.¹⁷ This integration has created a highly lethal reconnaissance-fires complex that has been responsible for a significant portion of Ukrainian casualties.
• US, UK, and Chinese Doctrine: The concept of an integrated reconnaissance-strike network is the cornerstone of future warfighting doctrine for the world’s leading military powers. The U.S. Army’s aspiration for drones to understand and act upon “commander’s intent” is an advanced expression of this goal, envisioning a future where the network itself can autonomously pair sensors with shooters to achieve a desired operational effect.⁸ Similarly, China’s overarching concept of “intelligentized warfare” is predicated on creating a cohesive network that enables real-time data sharing across all units and domains, allowing for AI-driven coordination of precision strikes.¹⁶ The ultimate objective for all these powers is the same: to create a battlefield where any sensor can provide targeting data to any shooter in the network, instantaneously and regardless of domain.

The End of Sanctuary and the Primacy of Networks

The successful implementation of a pervasive, integrated reconnaissance-strike network fundamentally eliminates the concept of a safe “rear area” in conventional warfare. Any location within the operational range of an adversary’s strike assets is now effectively part of the front line. The constant stare of unmanned ISR platforms means that logistics hubs, ammunition depots, command posts, and reserve assembly areas can be detected and targeted with the same speed and precision as a frontline trench. Consequently, the decisive factor in future conflicts may be less about the quality or quantity of individual platforms (tanks, aircraft, ships) and more about the speed, resilience, intelligence, and integration of the network that connects them. The conflict transforms into a battle of networks.

This shift has profound implications. If physical sanctuary is no longer possible, survival and operational effectiveness depend on achieving dominance in other domains. The fight moves decisively into the electromagnetic spectrum. The central contest becomes one of jamming, spoofing, and protecting one’s own command, control, and communications (C3) links while actively degrading, disrupting, or destroying the enemy’s network. Victory will belong to the side that can make better and faster decisions, which requires a superior and more resilient network architecture. The PLA’s 2024 reorganization of its Strategic Support Force, which created a new, co-equal Information Support Force, is a direct institutional acknowledgment of this new reality.¹⁶ It signals a doctrinal understanding that the information network is no longer a support element but is itself a central theater of operations and a key determinant of victory.

V. Strategy 4: Swarm-Based Overwhelm and Area Control

Core Concept

This strategy employs a large number of interconnected, autonomous, and collaborative drones that operate as a single, cohesive entity to achieve a military objective. A drone swarm is not simply a large quantity of individual drones; it is a unified system that can perform complex, synchronized actions to saturate defenses, conduct multi-axis attacks, or establish persistent, wide-area surveillance and control. The swarm’s power derives from its collective intelligence, resilience, and ability to generate mass effects that are impossible for individual platforms to achieve.

Doctrinal Development and Testing

The concept of drone swarms has moved from science fiction to active military research and development, with China emerging as its most aggressive proponent.

• China’s PLA Focus: The PLA views swarm technology as a cornerstone of its future “intelligentized” warfighting concept, offering key asymmetric advantages against technologically advanced adversaries.¹⁴ Chinese defense firms and research institutes have conducted extensive testing. In one notable experiment, a swarm of 200 fixed-wing drones was successfully launched from a single truck-mounted launcher.¹⁴ The PLA is also developing “mothership” concepts, where a larger drone, such as the new “Jiutian” reconnaissance and strike platform, can carry and deploy a swarm of smaller micro-drones while in flight.¹⁵ These capabilities are being explicitly wargamed for a potential Taiwan invasion scenario. In such a conflict, PLA doctrine envisions using swarms in phased operations: first to suppress and neutralize Taiwan’s air defense radar systems, then to saturate the defenses of naval vessels with multi-axis anti-ship missile attacks, and finally to support amphibious landings with precision strikes.¹⁴
• U.S. Development: The United States has also explored swarm technology, most famously through the Department of Defense’s “Perdix” program. In a landmark 2017 test, three F/A-18 Super Hornets released a swarm of 103 micro-drones that demonstrated advanced behaviors, including collective decision-making, adaptive formation flying, and “self-healing,” where the swarm could autonomously adjust its structure to compensate for the loss of individual drones.²¹ More recently, the DoD’s “Replicator” initiative, which aims to field thousands of “all-domain, attritable autonomous” (ADA2) systems by August 2025, is intended to generate mass and could see these systems employed in swarm-like fashion to overwhelm an adversary like China.²³
• Technological Enablers: Functional drone swarms are dependent on several key technological advancements. These include advanced AI for decentralized command and control, which allows the swarm to operate without a single point of failure. Flocking algorithms, inspired by the collective behavior of birds or insects, enable the drones to maintain formation and move in unison. High-bandwidth, resilient, and often mesh-networked data links are required for real-time information sharing within the swarm. Finally, a high degree of autonomy is necessary for the swarm to make collective decisions and react to a dynamic threat environment without constant human intervention, a critical capability for operating in GPS-denied or communication-degraded conditions.²¹

The Shift from Platform-Centric to System-Centric Warfare

The emergence of the drone swarm as a viable weapon system marks a fundamental shift from platform-centric to system-centric warfare. A swarm is not just a collection of platforms; it is a distributed, intelligent, and resilient entity. Its defining characteristics are its emergent collective behavior and its redundancy; the loss of individual drones does not necessarily degrade the swarm’s overall capability until a critical threshold is passed.²¹ This reality renders traditional defensive paradigms obsolete.

The standard one-on-one engagement model of air defense—where one interceptor missile is launched to destroy one incoming target—is economically and logistically unsustainable against a swarm composed of hundreds or thousands of low-cost drones. Firing a million-dollar missile at a thousand-dollar drone is a losing proposition, and no defender has a deep enough magazine to counter the sheer mass of the threat. Therefore, the logical countermeasure to a swarm is not kinetic, but systemic. The objective must be to defeat the swarm’s “nervous system”—its internal communication and decision-making architecture—rather than trying to attrit its individual components.

This necessitates a new generation of defensive weapons. High-power microwave (HPM) weapons could be used to cast a wide beam of energy to disable the electronics of multiple drones simultaneously. Wide-area electronic warfare could jam the data links that allow the swarm to communicate and cohere. Advanced cyber-attacks could be employed to infiltrate the swarm’s network and corrupt its decision-making algorithms, turning the swarm against itself or rendering it inert. PLA researchers are actively studying these very concepts as potential counters to U.S. swarm capabilities, indicating a shared understanding that the future of air defense against swarms lies not in more missiles, but in directed energy and non-kinetic effects.¹⁴

VI. Strategy 5: Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) for Force Multiplication

Core Concept

Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) is a strategy that pairs unmanned platforms with manned systems—such as aircraft, ground vehicles, and naval vessels—to create a synergistic combat team. In this construct, the unmanned asset, often referred to as a “loyal wingman” or robotic partner, acts as an extension of the manned platform. It can be sent forward into high-threat areas to act as a sensor, a weapons platform, or a decoy, thereby extending the reach, increasing the lethality, and dramatically enhancing the survivability of the more valuable manned system and its human crew.

Applications Across Domains

MUM-T is a versatile concept being developed for application across all warfighting domains.

• Air Domain: The PLA Air Force is actively developing MUM-T concepts for its 5th-generation J-20 “Mighty Dragon” fighter. The J-20 is expected to team with stealthy unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) like the GJ-X, which would fly alongside or ahead of the manned aircraft.²⁶ The UCAV would perform high-risk tasks such as electronic jamming to suppress enemy air defenses, designating targets for the J-20’s long-range missiles, or acting as a decoy to draw fire, all while the human pilot remains in a safer, supervisory role.²⁶ This effectively transforms the manned fighter from a solitary combat platform into a command-and-control node for a team of semi-autonomous robotic systems.
• Ground Domain: This concept is also revolutionizing ground warfare. The PLA is integrating small, vertical-takeoff-and-landing (VTOL) reconnaissance drones with its latest main battle tanks, such as the VT4A1.¹⁶ This provides the tank crew with an organic, “over-the-hill” surveillance capability, allowing them to detect threats and scout routes without exposing the tank itself. The U.S. Army is exploring similar concepts, driven by the lessons of Ukraine. Doctrine is shifting to use drones to lead assaults and clear pathways for armored units, which would allow tanks to shift from a vulnerable spearhead role to providing long-range fire from more protected, defensive positions.³
• Human-Machine Collaboration: The ultimate vision for MUM-T is a deep integration of human soldiers and autonomous machines at the lowest tactical levels. The PLA has already conducted exercises testing “human-machine collaborative combat teams” in simulated urban warfare, pairing soldiers with “drone swarms and robot wolves”.¹⁴ This reflects a broader doctrinal shift articulated by PLA thinkers, who envision a future military that transforms from “a human-centric fighting force with unmanned systems in support, to a force centered on unmanned systems with humans in support”.²⁷

Redefining the Role of the Human Warfighter

The implementation of Manned-Unmanned Teaming fundamentally redefines the role of the human warfighter. The traditional model of a soldier, pilot, or sailor as a direct “trigger-puller” or platform operator is being superseded by a new model of the human as a “mission commander” or “system manager.” The cognitive burden is shifting away from direct, hands-on control of a single platform and toward the orchestration of a team of intelligent, autonomous agents.

In a mature MUM-T construct, the human operator is not physically flying the loyal wingman or driving the robotic ground vehicle.⁸ Instead, the human provides high-level commands, sets rules of engagement, and provides “commander’s intent,” while the autonomous systems handle the complex, low-level tasks of navigation, threat detection, and target engagement.⁸ This means that the most critical skills for the future warfighter will be less psychomotor (e.g., “stick-and-rudder” skills) and more cognitive. The ability to make sound tactical decisions under immense pressure, to understand the capabilities and limitations of AI systems, and to manage and interpret complex flows of information from multiple unmanned sensors will become paramount.

This has profound implications for military recruitment, training, and career development. Future training pipelines will need to place less emphasis on traditional platform operation and more on advanced simulation, complex wargaming, and developing the cognitive skills required to effectively “quarterback” a team of intelligent machines. The U.S. Army’s creation of a new Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), 15X, which merges the roles of drone operator and maintainer, and the development of a new UAS Advanced Lethality Course for soldiers from all combat branches, are early institutional indicators of this necessary and transformative shift.⁸

VII. Strategy 6: Drone-Enabled Maneuver Warfare

Core Concept

This strategy represents a doctrinal evolution beyond using drones for static attrition or simple reconnaissance-strike missions. It seeks to fully integrate unmanned systems into the core of offensive maneuver operations. In this concept, drones become the primary enabler for ground forces to achieve decisive outcomes—such as breakthroughs, exploitation, and encirclement—by creating temporary “corridors of chaos” in enemy defenses and providing maneuver elements with their own persistent, organic airpower.

Emerging Doctrine

The static, attritional nature of the trench warfare seen in Ukraine, largely imposed by the transparency of the drone-saturated battlefield, has spurred military theorists to develop new concepts for restoring maneuver.

• Integrated Organic Airpower: The central idea of drone-enabled maneuver is that ground formations will no longer be dependent on centrally controlled, and often slow-to-arrive, close air support (CAS) from traditional air forces. Instead, they will “carry their own airpower” with them.²⁹ This will be achieved through the integration of mobile drone launch platforms at the lowest tactical echelons, such as the battalion and company levels. These organic drone units will provide the maneuver commander with persistent, responsive, and precise ISR and strike capabilities that are available on demand, measured in minutes rather than hours.²⁹
• Enabling Maneuver and Tempo: The role of these organic drone units is to set the conditions for successful ground maneuver. They will scout ahead of advancing armored columns, identify and suppress anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) teams and other defenses, and isolate enemy formations by striking reserve forces attempting to move to the point of contact. This continuous, real-time reconnaissance and strike capability will allow the main ground force to maintain its tempo and momentum, exploiting opportunities as they arise without having to pause and wait for external support.²⁹
• Radical Organizational Shifts: Implementing this strategy requires significant organizational and doctrinal change. The British Army’s proposed “20-40-40” doctrine is a radical embodiment of this concept, envisioning a future force structure where 80% of the combat power is derived from unmanned systems: 40% from single-use loitering munitions and 40% from reusable ISR and strike drones, with only 20% comprising traditional heavy platforms like tanks.³⁰ Similarly, the U.S. Army is experimenting with the creation of specialized drone-led strike units designed to find and fix the enemy before traditional ground forces make contact.³ Ukraine has moved beyond experimentation, creating dedicated UAV strike companies and battalions within its combat brigades, and has even established an entirely new branch of its armed forces, the Unmanned Systems Forces (USF), to spearhead this transformation.¹²

The Potential Obsolescence of Static Defense

If fully realized, the concept of drone-enabled maneuver warfare has the potential to render the kind of static, trench-based defenses that have dominated the conflict in Ukraine obsolete. The current stalemate in Ukraine exists largely because persistent drone surveillance makes it nearly impossible for an attacker to mass forces for a breakthrough without being detected and destroyed by long-range precision fires.³ Drone-enabled maneuver offers a potential solution to this tactical problem.

An attacking force employing this doctrine would use its organic drone swarms to create a temporary, localized bubble of superiority at the intended point of breach. Inside this bubble, the attacker’s drones would be tasked with jamming the defender’s ISR drones, destroying their artillery observation posts, striking their command-and-control nodes with loitering munitions, and interdicting any reserves moving to reinforce the threatened sector.²⁹ The defending force would be simultaneously blinded, suppressed, isolated, and fixed in place. Within this artificially created corridor of chaos, the attacker’s main armored maneuver force could then breach the static defensive lines and pour into the enemy’s rear to exploit the breakthrough.

This suggests that future ground combat may evolve away from linear fronts and become a hyper-mobile contest between competing bubbles of drone-enabled maneuver forces. Victory would go not to the side with the strongest fortifications, but to the side that can more effectively and rapidly generate, sustain, and shift these temporary zones of local superiority. In such an environment, the concept of a static “defense in depth” becomes increasingly untenable, as it would be systematically dismantled and bypassed by an adversary who has mastered the art of drone-enabled maneuver.

VIII. Strategy 7: Asymmetric Maritime Denial

Core Concept

This strategy employs relatively low-cost, high-speed, and often semi-submersible Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) and Unmanned Underwater Vessels (UUVs) as asymmetric weapons to challenge the sea control of a superior conventional navy. These unmanned maritime systems can be used for a variety of missions, including persistent ISR, covert remote mining, and, most significantly, direct kinetic strikes against high-value naval warships and critical coastal infrastructure. This allows a nation with a weaker or non-existent navy to effectively deny a stronger naval power access to key maritime areas.

The Ukrainian Black Sea Campaign

The most dramatic and successful application of this strategy has been Ukraine’s campaign against Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Despite effectively losing its conventional navy early in the 2022 invasion, Ukraine has managed to neutralize a significant portion of Russia’s naval power through the innovative use of domestically produced USVs.

• Pioneering a New Form of Naval Warfare: Ukraine has become the world’s first nation to pioneer this new form of naval warfare.³¹ Using explosive-laden USVs like the “Sea Baby” and “Magura V5,” Ukrainian operators have conducted numerous successful attacks against Russian naval assets both in port and at sea.¹² These small, fast, and low-profile vessels are extremely difficult to detect and intercept with traditional shipboard defensive systems.
• Decisive Strategic Impact: The strategic impact of this campaign has been profound. Ukrainian USV strikes have damaged or destroyed at least 11 Russian vessels, including frigates, landing ships, and missile carriers.³¹ The constant threat posed by these drones forced the Russian Navy to relocate the bulk of its Black Sea Fleet from its historic and heavily fortified main base in Sevastopol, in occupied Crimea, to the port of Novorossiysk on the Russian mainland.¹² This withdrawal has effectively granted Ukraine a measure of sea denial in the western Black Sea, allowing it to reopen vital grain export corridors and mitigating the threat of Russian amphibious assaults on cities like Odesa. Ukrainian USVs have also been used to conduct strategic strikes on critical infrastructure, most notably multiple attacks on the Kerch Strait Bridge, which connects Russia to occupied Crimea.³¹
• Rapid Technological Evolution: The USVs themselves have undergone rapid technological evolution under the pressures of war. They have progressed from simple, single-use “kamikaze” craft to more sophisticated, reusable, and multi-purpose platforms.³¹ The latest versions of the “Sea Baby” have an extended range of over 1,000 kilometers, allowing them to operate anywhere in the Black Sea. They can carry heavier payloads of up to 2,000 kilograms and are being fitted with new modular systems, including multiple-rocket launchers and stabilized machine-gun turrets. Furthermore, they are incorporating AI-assisted targeting systems to improve their effectiveness.³¹

A “Dreadnought Moment” for Surface Combatants?

The demonstrated success of Ukraine’s low-cost USVs against the warships of a major naval power raises fundamental questions about the future survivability and cost-effectiveness of large, multi-billion-dollar surface combatants, particularly in contested littoral environments. This technological disruption could represent a modern “Dreadnought moment” for naval warfare. Just as the launch of HMS Dreadnought in 1906 instantly rendered all previous battleships obsolete, the proliferation of cheap, autonomous, and swarming maritime attack drones may be rendering large, expensive surface ships exceptionally vulnerable.

The cost asymmetry is even more stark than in the land domain. A Ukrainian USV can be produced for a few hundred thousand dollars, while a modern frigate or destroyer costs well over a billion dollars. A defending ship’s conventional weapon systems are poorly optimized to counter a swarming attack by dozens of small, fast, and low-signature USVs. The result seen in the Black Sea—where a major naval power has been effectively pushed out of a critical operational area by what is essentially a non-state actor-level capability—is a stark warning for the world’s premier navies.¹²

The broader implications for naval powers like the United States and China, which are both investing heavily in large aircraft carriers, destroyers, and cruisers, are immense. In a potential conflict in the confined waters of the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, these high-value assets could be exceedingly vulnerable to saturation attacks by swarms of cheap, attritable USVs. This threat may force a fundamental strategic shift in naval architecture and fleet design, away from a focus on a few exquisite, high-value platforms and toward a more distributed fleet architecture composed of smaller, more numerous, and potentially unmanned or optionally manned vessels.

IX. Strategy 8: Autonomous Logistics and Combat Sustainment

Core Concept

This strategy employs unmanned ground, air, and sea systems to automate, secure, and increase the efficiency of the military logistics chain. The primary focus is on solving the dangerous “last mile” problem—the final, most hazardous leg of delivering critical supplies like ammunition, food, water, and medical equipment to frontline combat units. By replacing manned vehicles and human soldiers in these high-risk roles, this strategy aims to reduce casualties, increase the speed and reliability of resupply, and enhance the overall resilience of combat sustainment operations in a highly contested and transparent battlefield environment.

Doctrinal and Conceptual Applications

Military planners are increasingly recognizing that logistics, long considered a secondary support function, is becoming a primary target and a critical vulnerability in modern warfare.

• Autonomous Ground Logistics: PLA strategists have identified autonomous ground logistics as a key area for development to reduce vulnerabilities and improve battlefield sustainability in a future conflict.¹⁵ They are actively testing unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) with modular payloads that can be configured for various missions, including hauling materiel, evacuating casualties, and even providing close-combat fire support.¹⁶ The key advantages of these systems are their ability to operate continuously in harsh or contaminated environments without fatigue and their use of data-driven algorithms to optimize resupply scheduling and route planning to avoid predictable, easily targeted patterns.¹⁵
• Rapid Aerial Resupply: The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the immediate utility of aerial logistics drones. Ukrainian forces are using specialized medical drones to deliver lifesaving supplies like blood and plasma directly to wounded soldiers at the front, cutting delivery and evacuation times from hours to minutes and dramatically increasing survival rates.¹³
• Drone-Enabled Convoy Security: A critical emerging concept is the use of drone swarms to provide a mobile, autonomous security “bubble” for traditional logistics convoys.²² In this model, a package of small ISR drones would be mounted on logistics vehicles, serving as both a launch platform and a mobile charging station. Several drones would be airborne at all times, autonomously flying in parallel with, in front of, and behind the convoy. They would provide a continuous, 360-degree, all-weather stream of visual and infrared data back to the convoy commander, allowing for the early detection of potential ambushes, IEDs, or other threats far beyond the line of sight of human guards. This live, persistent situational awareness is critical for the survivability of long, vulnerable convoys.²²

The “Unblinking Eye” on the Supply Chain

The same unmanned ISR technology that has made the frontline battlefield transparent is now being turned on the logistics chain, making it equally transparent and highly vulnerable. This means that autonomous logistics is no longer just a potential efficiency improvement; it is rapidly becoming a fundamental requirement for survival in high-intensity combat. A military that cannot automate, distribute, and protect its supply lines with unmanned systems will find itself unable to sustain operations for any meaningful length of time.

The integrated reconnaissance-strike network (Strategy 3) means that any logistics vehicle, convoy, or supply depot that can be detected can be destroyed almost instantly. Traditional logistics operations, which rely on large, predictable convoys moving along established main supply routes (MSRs), are exceptionally easy targets in a drone-saturated environment. Therefore, future logistics must become more distributed, less predictable, and more resilient. This will likely involve a shift away from large trucks and toward a greater number of smaller, unmanned delivery vehicles—both ground and air—that can operate off-road, at night, in poor weather, and without forming obvious, targetable patterns. The use of drone swarms for convoy security is a necessary defensive adaptation, but the offensive implication is that an adversary will be using their own ISR drones to relentlessly hunt for these logistics signatures. This creates a new, critical arms race in the logistics domain, where the victor will be the side that can best hide its own sustainment signature while finding and severing the enemy’s. In this new era, logistics is no longer a “support” function; it is a central element of the fight itself.

X. Strategy 9: Deep Strike and Strategic Degradation

Core Concept

This strategy utilizes long-range, often attritable, unmanned systems to conduct precision strikes against strategic targets located deep inside an adversary’s territory, far from the main front line. The primary objective is to degrade the enemy’s overall warfighting capacity and political will by targeting critical nodes of their military, industrial, and economic systems. Key target sets include airbases housing strategic bombers, military-industrial production facilities, energy infrastructure, major logistics hubs, and senior command and control centers.

Real-World Employment

Once the exclusive domain of strategic air forces and ballistic missile commands, deep strike capabilities are now being wielded by forces using much cheaper and more accessible unmanned systems.

• Ukraine’s Strategic Campaign: Lacking long-range missiles for strikes inside Russia due to restrictions from Western partners, Ukraine has developed and deployed its own impressive arsenal of long-range OWA drones, with models like the An-196 Lyutyi and Firepoint capable of striking targets hundreds of kilometers into Russian territory.¹² These drones have been used to attack Russian oil refineries, defense factories, and other critical infrastructure. In a particularly notable example of strategic effects achieved with tactical assets, “Operation Spiderweb” saw Ukrainian forces use a large number of FPV drones to strike five Russian airbases, damaging high-value strategic assets like the Tu-95 and Tu-22 bombers on the ground.³ The objectives of this campaign are manifold: to disrupt Russian military logistics, to impose direct economic costs, to damage irreplaceable high-value assets, and to bring the reality of the war home to the Russian population.¹³
• Russia’s Campaign: Russia’s Shahed drone campaign, while primarily focused on attritional saturation (Strategy 1), also has a significant deep strike component. These drones are consistently used to target key elements of Ukraine’s economic and military infrastructure, including power generation facilities, grain storage terminals vital for export revenue, and defense industry workshops, in a clear effort to cripple the Ukrainian state’s ability to sustain its war effort.¹⁰
• PLA Doctrine for Deep Penetration: China’s development of advanced, long-range UCAVs is explicitly geared towards this strategy. The new GJ-X stealth drone, with a reported range exceeding 7,000 kilometers, is designed for persistent, deep-penetration strike missions.²⁶ In a potential conflict, such a platform would enable the PLA to target adversary command nodes, naval assets, and airbases from secure stand-off distances, projecting power well beyond the First and Second Island Chains and holding U.S. bases in places like Guam at risk.²⁶

The Blurring of Tactical and Strategic Warfare

The proliferation of long-range, low-cost, and attritable unmanned strike systems is fundamentally blurring the traditional, clear-cut distinction between the tactical battlefield and the strategic homeland. A small, mobile unit launching a handful of drones can now achieve strategic effects—such as grounding a squadron of strategic bombers—that were once the exclusive purview of a nation’s most sophisticated and expensive military assets. This development dramatically lowers the threshold for conducting strategic attacks and, in doing so, creates complex and dangerous new escalation dynamics.

Historically, the decision to strike deep into an adversary’s homeland was a momentous one, requiring a massive investment in strategic platforms like bombers or ballistic missiles and a conscious acceptance of high political and military risk by the highest levels of national leadership. Now, Ukraine can achieve tangible strategic effects using what are essentially tactical, low-cost, and sometimes commercially derived assets.³ This implies that the authority to launch attacks with strategic consequences may become more decentralized. Tactical commanders, or even semi-autonomous special operations units, could be empowered to conduct strikes that have the potential to trigger a strategic-level response from the adversary.

This creates a significant risk of inadvertent or uncontrolled escalation. A tactical commander’s decision to strike a particular target—for example, a radar station that is part of an adversary’s strategic nuclear warning system—could be misinterpreted by the enemy’s leadership as a deliberate strategic-level decision to escalate the conflict, prompting a disproportionate and potentially catastrophic response. Managing these new, decentralized, and ambiguous escalation pathways will become a primary challenge for national leadership in any future conflict saturated with long-range unmanned systems.

XI. Strategy 10: AI-Driven Autonomous Operations

Core Concept

This strategy represents the forward-looking culmination of many of the other trends in unmanned warfare. It aims to field unmanned systems endowed with a high degree of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomy, enabling them to execute complex missions based on a commander’s high-level intent rather than on direct, continuous, “hands-on-the-sticks” human control. This is the pursuit of true operational autonomy, where the machine is not just a remote-controlled tool but a semi-independent tactical agent.

The Pursuit of True Autonomy

The world’s leading military powers view AI-driven autonomy as the key to achieving decision superiority and operating at a tempo that will be decisive in future conflicts.

• U.S. Army Vision: The U.S. Army has clearly articulated its goal of reaching a technological and doctrinal threshold where it can “fly drones by command, not by pilot”.⁸ The objective is for a human commander to issue a high-level, mission-type order—such as “secure this flank” or “find and destroy enemy air defenses in this sector”—and for the unmanned system, or a team of systems, to then autonomously determine the best course of action to achieve that goal. This would involve the AI independently planning routes, identifying and prioritizing targets, navigating threats, and coordinating its actions with other friendly assets, all without direct human intervention for each step.⁸ This is seen as the only way to manage the cognitive load on human operators and to fight and win at machine speed.
• Chinese “Intelligentized Warfare”: This concept is the centerpiece of the PLA’s military modernization. Chinese doctrine envisions AI-driven coordination systems that will enable swarms of drones to collaborate on complex targeting and area denial missions without direct human input for each engagement.¹⁶ AI is seen as the core enabling capability for countering enemy swarms, radically shortening decision-making timelines (the OODA loop), and seamlessly integrating joint operations across all domains.¹⁵ PLA thinkers see AI not as a supplementary tool, but as the central nervous system of the future force.
• Ukrainian AI Integration in Practice: While the U.S. and China are focused on future capabilities, Ukraine is already fielding early-stage AI-enabled systems on the battlefield. The Saker Scout drone is reportedly equipped with AI-powered computer vision that allows it to autonomously detect, identify, and record the coordinates of enemy military vehicles, even when they are camouflaged, and then instantly transmit that targeting data to command posts.¹² On a more tactical level, Ukrainian forces are integrating small, AI-powered computer vision modules onto their FPV drones. These modules can help the human operator by automatically recognizing and “locking on” to a target in the terminal phase of an attack, increasing the probability of a successful hit, especially against moving targets or in a difficult signal environment.¹⁹

The Ceding of Tactical Decision-Making to Machines

The pursuit of AI-driven autonomy represents a monumental and potentially perilous shift in the nature of command and the ethics of warfare: the deliberate delegation of tactical, life-and-death decision-making from human beings to software algorithms. While proponents argue that this is a military necessity to maintain a competitive edge and to process information and react at a speed that humans are incapable of, it raises profound ethical, legal, and strategic challenges.

The primary challenge is that of accountability. When an autonomous weapon system makes a mistake—engaging a non-combatant, causing a fratricide incident, or striking a protected site like a hospital—who is responsible? Is it the commander who issued the broad “intent”? Is it the software engineers who wrote the targeting and classification algorithms? Is it the manufacturer of the system? Or is it the data scientists who curated the training data used to build the AI model? The lack of clear answers to these questions creates a significant legal and ethical “accountability vacuum.”

Furthermore, there is the strategic risk of unintended and uncontrollable escalation. If two opposing, AI-driven autonomous systems engage each other, the speed of their interaction—detecting, classifying, targeting, and firing in microseconds—could escalate a minor border skirmish into a major battle in seconds, far faster than any human command chain could intervene to de-escalate the situation. This creates the frightening possibility of a “flash war,” where strategic stability is jeopardized by the very speed and autonomy that the technology was designed to provide. This represents the ultimate strategic paradox of military AI: the quest for tactical speed may come at the cost of strategic stability.

XII. Conclusion: Synthesis and Future Trajectories

The ten strategies detailed in this report collectively illustrate a paradigm shift in the character of warfare. Unmanned systems are no longer ancillary assets but are now central to military power, reshaping doctrine, force structure, and the very nature of tactical, operational, and strategic competition. The analysis reveals a battlefield that is increasingly transparent, lethal, and networked, where the advantage accrues to the side that can most effectively innovate, adapt, and integrate these new technologies.

Several overarching themes emerge from the interplay between these strategies. The rise of Asymmetric Precision Strike (Strategy 2), for instance, directly challenges the viability of traditional armored formations, forcing the development of new concepts like Drone-Enabled Maneuver Warfare (Strategy 6). The threat of Swarm-Based Overwhelm (Strategy 4) is a primary driver for the development of AI-Driven Autonomous Operations (Strategy 10) and advanced non-kinetic countermeasures like directed energy weapons. The success of the Integrated Reconnaissance-Strike Network (Strategy 3) makes logistics a primary target, necessitating the development of Autonomous Logistics and Sustainment (Strategy 8) for force survival. This demonstrates that these strategies exist in a dynamic, co-evolutionary relationship, where an advance in one area necessitates a response in another.

Looking forward, several trajectories will likely define the future of unmanned warfare:

First, the primacy of the industrial base will become increasingly critical. The war in Ukraine has shown that technological superiority in exquisite systems can be negated by an adversary’s ability to produce attritable systems at scale. The capacity to mass-produce thousands of low-cost drones per month is now a key metric of national military power. Russia’s efforts to scale up Shahed production and the U.S. DoD’s “Replicator” initiative are direct acknowledgments of this new reality.¹⁰

Second, the electromagnetic spectrum will be the decisive domain. As every platform becomes a sensor and a shooter within a network, the ability to control the spectrum—to protect one’s own data links while jamming, spoofing, and degrading the enemy’s—will be the prerequisite for all other military operations. The force that wins the battle of the spectrum will be able to see, strike, and decide faster than its opponent, rendering the enemy blind and disconnected.

Third, the challenge of escalation management will grow exponentially. The proliferation of long-range, decentralized, and increasingly autonomous strike capabilities (Strategy 9 and Strategy 10) blurs the lines between tactical actions and strategic consequences. The risk of a “flash war” or an inadvertent escalation spiral triggered by the autonomous actions of AI-driven systems will become a paramount concern for national leaders, demanding new theories of deterrence and new protocols for command and control in the machine age. The future battlespace will be defined not only by the drones in the air but by the resilience of the networks that connect them and the wisdom of the humans who must ultimately command them.

XIII. Summary Table of Drone Employment Strategies

XIV. Appendix: Data Collection and Assessment Methodology

The analytical framework for this report was constructed through a rigorous, multi-phase methodology designed to synthesize diverse data sources into a coherent strategic assessment.

Phase 1: Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) Aggregation

The initial phase involved a comprehensive review of the provided research material. This corpus was sourced from a curated list of authoritative public domain sources, including official government and military websites from the United States (e.g., defense.gov, army.mil), the United Kingdom (e.g., gov.uk), and their respective doctrinal publications. The data set was augmented by analysis from globally recognized defense and security think tanks such as the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), and the Jamestown Foundation, as well as reputable international defense news agencies. This multi-source approach ensured a balanced perspective, incorporating official doctrine, operational reporting, and expert third-party analysis from the U.S., UK, Ukraine, Russia, and China.

Phase 2: Thematic Analysis and Clustering

All collected data points were systematically ingested into an analytical framework where they were tagged and categorized according to key thematic areas. These themes included, but were not limited to: National Doctrine (e.g., U.S. Army UAS Strategy, UK Defence Drone Strategy), Tactical Innovation (e.g., FPV employment, maritime drone tactics), Technological Development (e.g., Swarms, AI, Loitering Munitions), Countermeasures (C-UAS), and specific conflict domains (Land, Sea, Air). This process of thematic coding allowed for the identification of dominant trends and the clustering of related data points from disparate sources. These clusters formed the foundational evidentiary basis for each of the ten strategies identified in the report.

Phase 3: Comparative Doctrinal Analysis

The clustered data was subjected to a comparative analysis to identify and contrast the strategic approaches of the five key nations. This involved mapping areas of doctrinal convergence, such as the universal recognition of the need for integrated reconnaissance-strike networks, as well as key areas of strategic divergence. Examples of divergence include the U.S. emphasis on high-end, AI-driven autonomy versus Russia’s focus on low-cost, attritable mass, and Ukraine’s model of rapid COTS-based innovation. Contradictions and debates within a single nation’s defense establishment, such as the U.S. Army’s internal discussion regarding the establishment of a separate Drone Corps, were specifically noted as important indicators of ongoing doctrinal evolution and institutional adaptation.⁶

Phase 4: Insight Synthesis and Causal Chain Mapping

This critical phase moved beyond descriptive analysis to the synthesis of second and third-order implications. For each thematic cluster, a systematic process was employed to map causal relationships and extrapolate broader strategic consequences. For example, the primary observation of “low-cost FPV drones destroying high-value main battle tanks” ³ was mapped to its second-order effect, “a fundamental rethinking of armored doctrine and the role of tanks” ³, and its third-order implication, “a systemic challenge to the Western military-industrial complex’s long-standing focus on producing exquisite, high-cost platforms.” This process of causal chain mapping was repeated for all ten thematic areas to build a rich, multi-layered analytical framework that connects tactical events to strategic outcomes.

Phase 5: Strategy Formulation and Validation

Based on the synthesized insights and causal chain analysis, ten distinct, overarching strategies for drone employment were formulated. Each proposed strategy was then rigorously validated by re-examining the source data to ensure it was robustly supported by multiple, credible data points from the research corpus. This validation process ensured that each strategy represented a significant and well-documented trend in modern warfare, rather than an isolated or anecdotal event. The final report was structured around these ten validated strategies to provide a clear, logical, and evidence-based narrative.

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.

Sources Used

1. Fact Sheet: DoD Strategy for Countering Unmanned Systems, accessed October 23, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/05/2003599149/-1/-1/0/FACT-SHEET-STRATEGY-FOR-COUNTERING-UNMANNED-SYSTEMS.PDF
2. DoD Announces Strategy for Countering Unmanned Systems – War.gov, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3986597/dod-announces-strategy-for-countering-unmanned-systems/
3. How Ukraine’s Drone War Is Forcing the U.S. Army to Rewrite Its Battle Doctrine, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.military.com/feature/2025/10/19/how-ukraines-drone-war-forcing-us-army-rewrite-its-battle-doctrine.html
4. Joint Doctrine Note 2/11: The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems – GOV.UK, accessed October 23, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81d239ed915d74e34003bc/20110505-JDN_2-11_UAS_archived-U.pdf
5. Joint Doctrine Note 2/11 the UK APPROACH TO UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS, accessed October 23, 2025, https://openasia.org/g/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/20110505JDN_211_UAS_v2U.pdf
6. HOW TO TRANSFORM THE ARMY FOR DRONE WARFARE – War …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/transform-for-drones/
7. Defence Drone Strategy – the UK’s approach to Defence Uncrewed …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-drone-strategy-the-uks-approach-to-defence-uncrewed-systems
8. The Army wants drones that understand ‘commander’s intent …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2025/10/army-wants-drones-understand-commanders-intent/408953/
9. The Army Seeks Drones Capable of Interpreting ‘Commander’s Intent’ – DEFCROS News, accessed October 23, 2025, https://news.defcros.com/the-army-seeks-drones-capable/
10. From Culture to System: A Roadmap for Turning Ukraine’s Counterdrone Innovation into a Capability – Modern War Institute, accessed October 23, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/from-culture-to-system-a-roadmap-for-turning-ukraines-counterdrone-innovation-into-a-capability/
11. Drone Saturation: Russia’s Shahed Campaign – CSIS, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/drone-saturation-russias-shahed-campaign
12. Russia’s War in Ukraine: Drone-Centric Warfare – International …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://icds.ee/en/russias-war-in-ukraine-drone-centric-warfare/
13. Ukraine’s Drones STRIKE Crimea’s Black Sea Fleet – YouTube, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My3hNxpUTDw&vl=en-US
14. China Readies Drone Swarms for Future War – CNA Corporation, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2025/09/china-readies-drone-swarms-for-future-war
15. Autonomous Battlefield: PLA Lessons from Russia’s Invasion of …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://jamestown.org/program/autonomous-battlefield-pla-lessons-from-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
16. How China is adopting battlefield lessons from Ukraine – Defense One, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/12/how-china-adopting-battlefield-lessons-ukraine/401694/
17. Evolution Not Revolution – CNAS, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/evolution-not-revolution
18. ‘The key to success is in the sky’: the Ukrainian defenders struggling to stem Russia’s air assault, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/17/ukrainian-defenders-struggling-to-stem-russia-air-assault
19. The Russia-Ukraine Drone War: Innovation on the Frontlines and Beyond – CSIS, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia-ukraine-drone-war-innovation-frontlines-and-beyond
20. How Ukraine fights off relentless Russian suicide squads with FPV …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/special/ukraine/ukraine-fights-off-relentless-russian-suicide-squads-fpv-drones-trench-defense-tactics/
21. What Are Drone Swarms? | Built In, accessed October 23, 2025, https://builtin.com/articles/drone-swarm
22. Swarm Technology in Sustainment Operations | Article | The United …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/282467/swarm_technology_in_sustainment_operations
23. DOD Replicator Initiative: Background and Issues for Congress, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12611
24. The Replicator Initiative – Defense Innovation Unit, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.diu.mil/replicator
25. Swarm – Sky-Drones Technologies Ltd, accessed October 23, 2025, https://sky-drones.com/swarm
26. (VIDEO) China’s 42-Meter Stealth Drone “GJ-X” Completes Maiden Flight — A Silent Giant Aimed at the Indo-Pacific – Defence Security Asia, accessed October 23, 2025, https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/htchina-gjx-stealth-drone-first-flight-indo-pacific-power-shift/
27. pla concepts of uav swarms and manned/unmanned teaming – Air University, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/CASI/Display/Article/4147751/pla-concepts-of-uav-swarms-and-mannedunmanned-teaming/
28. Army leaders, stakeholders discuss future of UAS transformation | Article, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/288370/army_leaders_stakeholders_discuss_future_of_uas_transformation
29. From Tactical Trench Killers to Strategic War Winners: Doctrine …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/from-tactical-trench-killers-to-strategic-war-winners-doctrine-operational-art-and-tomorrows-drone-enabled-maneuver-warfare/
30. News – British Army Unveils 20-40-40 Warfare … – SAE Media Group, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.smgconferences.com/editors-corner/5936-news–british-army-unveils-204040-warfare-doctrine-with-a-focus-on-loitering-munitions
31. Ukraine unveils advanced sea drone | AP News, accessed October 23, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-sea-drones-0719211dd0314f2b9d15422e81ca66e3
32. Ukraine Unveils Remote-Controlled, Rocket-Launching Sea Drones | WION News, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaGK-QLcVcw
33. RPAS: Future Force or Force Multiplier? An Analysis of Manned/Unmanned Platforms and Force Balancing, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/centre-for-air-and-space-power-studies/aspr/apr-vol16-iss3-1-pdf/

The character of ground warfare has undergone a fundamental and irreversible transformation. The proliferation of inexpensive, adaptable, and lethal Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), commonly known as drones, has rendered the modern battlefield transparent to an unprecedented degree. This is not an incremental evolution; it is a revolution in military affairs with parallels to the introduction of the machine gun or the tank.¹ For the ground commander, the tactical implications are stark: traditional concepts of concealment are largely obsolete, and movement in the open is exceptionally dangerous.² The drone is no longer an ancillary intelligence or strike asset; it is a primary, persistent, and ubiquitous presence that dictates the tempo of operations and the very terms of survival.

This report provides an operational guide for the ground force commander navigating this hyper-lethal environment. It synthesizes official doctrine, strategic papers, and hard-won battlefield lessons from a range of global actors. The analysis incorporates doctrinal development within the United States ⁴ and the United Kingdom ⁶; the brutal, real-time tactical adaptations of Ukrainian and Russian forces ³; and the forward-looking, technologically ambitious warfighting concepts of the People’s Republic of China.¹² From this diverse body of intelligence, this document distills 20 actionable imperatives—10 affirmative duties and 10 critical prohibitions—designed to equip the modern commander for success.

The central thesis of this analysis is that victory and survival on the drone-saturated battlefield will be determined less by the possession of a single superior technology and more by the rigorous application of tactical discipline, the cultivation of relentless organizational adaptation, and a command climate that empowers leaders at the lowest echelons. The challenge is not merely to acquire new equipment, but to forge a new mindset.

Section I: The Commander’s Imperatives: 10 Things You MUST DO

This section details the proactive, essential measures a commander must implement to survive, fight, and win in a drone-contested environment. These are not optional tactics but foundational principles for modern ground combat.

1. Embrace Constant Dispersal and Concealment

The single most effective countermeasure against the drone threat is to deny the enemy a worthwhile target. In an environment where persistent aerial surveillance is the norm, the concentration of forces is an invitation to destruction. The lessons from the conflict in Ukraine are brutal and unambiguous: armor formations, logistics nodes, command posts, or any assembly of troops and equipment are magnets for attack by cheap, attritable, and precise UAS.³ Therefore, the commander’s first and most fundamental duty is the relentless enforcement of dispersal and concealment.

This principle is enshrined in developing Western doctrine. U.S. Army guidance emphasizes passive protection measures, particularly for units at the brigade level and below that may lack robust, active counter-UAS (C-UAS) systems capable of defeating larger, more sophisticated drones (Group 3 and above).⁴ The curriculum at the Joint Counter-Small UAS (C-sUAS) University, the U.S. military’s premier training center for this problem set, establishes passive measures like camouflage and dispersion as foundational skills for all service members, highlighting their universal importance.¹⁵ The battlefield has confirmed this doctrinal wisdom; the “all-seeing eye” of the drone means that any static, visible unit is a designated target, forcing a complete reconsideration of infantry and armor tactics.³

Adherence to this imperative has profound second- and third-order effects that a commander must anticipate and manage. Dispersal is not simply a physical act of spreading out vehicles and personnel; it is a significant challenge to command and control (C2) and logistics. A dispersed force is inherently more difficult to command. Traditional methods of visual command are impossible, line-of-sight radio communication is degraded, and the risk of units becoming isolated increases. The logistical burden also multiplies; resupplying ten small, concealed positions is an order of magnitude more complex and dangerous than resupplying a single, larger company location.

Consequently, the commander must adapt the unit’s entire operational architecture to support distributed operations. This requires heavy investment in resilient, redundant, and low-signature communication systems, such as mesh networks, which can maintain connectivity even when individual nodes are lost.¹⁶ More importantly, it demands a radical embrace of mission command. Junior leaders and non-commissioned officers must be ruthlessly trained and empowered to operate within the commander’s intent for extended periods with minimal communication. The logistical plan must be redesigned from the ground up, shifting from centralized distribution points to a more agile system of mobile, concealed caches and unpredictable, small-scale resupply runs.

2. Execute a Layered, Integrated Defense

There is no single “silver bullet” solution to the drone threat.¹⁷ The diversity of UAS—ranging from small, commercial quadcopters to large, military-grade systems, and from single scouts to autonomous swarms—precludes a one-size-fits-all defense. An effective C-UAS posture requires a “system-of-systems” approach that integrates and layers multiple capabilities to detect, track, identify, and defeat threats across this wide spectrum.¹⁸

This layered defense is a core concept in emerging U.S. and allied doctrine. It is a combined arms effort that integrates kinetic effects, such as machine guns, cannons, and missiles like the FIM-92 Stinger ¹⁹; non-kinetic effects, including electronic warfare (EW) jammers, GPS spoofers, high-powered microwaves, and directed energy weapons ²⁰; and the foundational passive measures of concealment and dispersion.⁴ The U.S. Marine Corps’ plan to field C-sUAS capabilities across the force in 2025 explicitly incorporates both kinetic and non-kinetic means that are designed to be lightweight and usable by any Marine, pushing this layered concept down to the lowest tactical levels.²¹ Similarly, the United Kingdom is investing in a range of homegrown defenses, including directed energy systems, to create multi-layered protection for critical assets.⁶ This approach is not merely best practice; it is a necessity for future survival, as the doctrinal concepts of adversaries like China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) explicitly envision the use of drone swarms designed to saturate and overwhelm any single-layer defense.¹²

Implementing a layered defense, however, creates a significant deconfliction challenge for the commander. The simultaneous employment of kinetic weapons, EW jammers, and friendly UAS in the same battlespace introduces a high risk of fratricide and mutual interference. An EW system intended to jam an enemy FPV drone could just as easily sever the control link to a friendly reconnaissance UAS. A gunner engaging a small, fast-moving enemy drone could inadvertently fire into the flight path of a friendly asset. This internal friction can paralyze a unit’s C-UAS efforts if not properly managed.

The commander must therefore establish and ruthlessly enforce clear, simple, and well-rehearsed procedures for airspace and electromagnetic spectrum management. This is a critical task for the Air Defense Airspace Management (ADAM) Cell within the command post, which becomes a vital node for integrating all C-UAS activities.²³ It requires a reliable common operational picture, enabled by networked systems like the Forward Area Air Defense Command and Control (FAAD C2) system, to ensure all elements of the force can see and understand what is happening in the air and across the spectrum.¹⁵ The U.K.’s development of the SAPIENT common architecture, a standard designed to link disparate sensors and effectors, is a direct response to this complex integration challenge.⁷ Training for these deconfliction procedures must be as rigorous as training on the weapons systems themselves.

3. Target the Brain, Not Just the Claw

The drone in the air is merely the claw of the enemy system; it is often an inexpensive and expendable asset. The true center of gravity—the brain—is the trained human operator and their Ground Control Station (GCS) on the ground. The most efficient and effective C-UAS strategy targets these critical vulnerabilities rather than focusing exclusively on shooting down aircraft.

This principle was a key lesson from the U.S. Army’s 25th Infantry Division during a major training exercise. Through deliberate analysis, the division staff identified the enemy’s GCSs as the critical capability enabling their entire indirect fire system. Consequently, the division commander declared that targeting and destroying these GCSs was the number one high-payoff targeting priority.⁴ This was achieved not by waiting for drones to appear overhead, but by proactively fusing intelligence from multiple sources—primarily EW and signals intelligence (SIGINT) that could detect the electronic emissions of the GCS—to dynamically cue lethal fires onto the operators’ locations.⁴ The brutal realities of the war in Ukraine have validated this approach, with battlefield reports confirming that drone operators themselves have become high-value targets, as both sides have developed and refined techniques to trace control signals back to their source for immediate targeting.¹⁶ This has led U.S. forces to actively develop methods to identify, locate, and track enemy drone operators in real-time.²²

This focus on targeting the human elements of the UAS network is a double-edged sword. A thinking adversary will recognize this tactic and adopt it themselves. As friendly forces prioritize hunting enemy operators, the enemy will dedicate its own ISR assets and fires to finding and killing friendly UAS and C-UAS teams. The radio frequency (RF) signature from a GCS, a data link, or even a powerful C-UAS jammer becomes a homing beacon for enemy artillery. This dynamic transforms UAS/C-UAS personnel from technical support staff into direct combatants who are actively and lethally hunted.

The commander must therefore treat their own UAS and C-UAS teams as high-value assets that require deliberate protection. These teams cannot afford to be static. They must adopt “shoot and scoot” tactics, frequently relocating their operating positions to avoid being targeted after they emit. They must be masters of signature management, employing strict emission control (EMCON) protocols, physical camouflage, and thermal shielding. They may also require dedicated security elements to protect them from ground infiltration. The survivability of these teams is no longer a secondary concern; it is a critical component of the unit’s overall combat effectiveness and its ability to win the C-UAS fight.

4. Arm the Edge: Empower the Squad

The drone threat is not a high-level, strategic problem; it is an immediate, personal, and ubiquitous threat at the lowest tactical level. Centralized, high-echelon C-UAS assets, while important, are often too slow to respond and too few in number to protect every unit across a wide area. The only effective response is to push capability down to the tactical edge. Every squad must possess the organic equipment and training to defend itself and to conduct its own local drone operations.

This philosophy of arming the edge is a driving force behind current U.S. military modernization. The U.S. Army has set a clear goal: by the end of 2026, every squad will be equipped with unmanned systems, which are to be treated as a standard piece of individual equipment alongside the soldier’s rifle, radio, and night vision goggles.³ The U.S. Marine Corps is pursuing a parallel effort, fielding dismounted, MOS-agnostic C-UAS capabilities across the entire Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) to provide an essential self-defense capability for individual units.²¹ This includes handheld systems like the “drone defender,” a man-portable jammer that can be used by small unit leaders.²⁴ This decentralization is a doctrinal necessity, as the U.S. Army acknowledges that dedicated air defense personnel are simply too few to cover the entire force, making C-UAS a combined arms effort that must be performed down to the lowest level.²³ This empowerment extends to offensive capabilities as well, with the establishment of the Marine Corps Attack Drone Team (MCADT) signaling a clear intent to push lethal FPV drone capabilities down to the small-unit level.²⁵

However, simply issuing new equipment to squads creates a massive training, maintenance, and cognitive burden on the individual soldier. A soldier who is already laden with a rifle, ammunition, body armor, water, and communications gear must now also carry, maintain, and proficiently operate a sophisticated drone or C-UAS jammer. In the heat of combat, that soldier must function not only as a rifleman but also as a drone pilot, a sensor analyst, and an EW operator. This introduces an immense cognitive load that can quickly become overwhelming.

The commander cannot solve this problem by just distributing equipment. They must fundamentally re-engineer their unit’s training plan. Training on these new systems must be continuous, realistic, and fully integrated into all collective tasks.¹⁵ The JCU model of dedicated operator and planner courses provides a template, but this must be replicated and sustained at the unit level.¹⁵ The commander must also be ruthless in identifying which soldiers have the aptitude for these complex technical tasks, potentially creating dedicated UAS/C-UAS roles within the squad while ensuring cross-training for redundancy. The very definition of what it means to be an infantryman is evolving, and the commander must lead their unit through that transformation.³

5. Master the Spectrum: Win the EW Fight

The vast majority of small UAS are critically dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum. They rely on RF links for command and control from the operator, for downlinking real-time video, and for receiving signals from global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) like GPS for navigation. A commander who can dominate this invisible battlespace possesses a powerful, non-kinetic means of neutralizing large numbers of enemy drones.

Electronic warfare is a primary C-UAS defeat mechanism, used to jam the vital links between a drone and its operator or to sever its connection to navigational satellites, causing it to lose its way, land, or crash.²⁰ The successful targeting of GCSs by the 25th Infantry Division was heavily reliant on the ability of EW and SIGINT assets to first detect the enemy’s electronic signatures, demonstrating that the spectrum is a source of both threat and opportunity.⁴ However, the spectrum is a fiercely contested domain. The offense-defense race is playing out in real-time. Adversaries are actively developing and fielding electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM). Russia is improving its drones to be more resistant to jamming.²⁶ Ukrainian forces have found that their jammers are not always effective against the latest generations of Russian drones.²⁷ Furthermore, new technologies are emerging that bypass the RF spectrum entirely, such as fiber-optic tethered drones that are immune to traditional jamming techniques.¹⁰

This dynamic reality means that the EW battle is a constant “cat and mouse” game of measures and countermeasures. Simply activating a powerful, wide-area jammer is not a sustainable solution; it is merely an opening move. This action immediately broadcasts the jammer’s position to enemy SIGINT assets, turning the EW team into a priority target for artillery. Furthermore, indiscriminate jamming can cripple a unit’s own communications and friendly UAS operations.

The commander must therefore treat EW as a precision maneuver asset, not a static, impenetrable shield. EW systems must be employed surgically and sparingly, in tight coordination with other kinetic and non-kinetic effects, to achieve a specific tactical purpose. This requires EW systems that are not just powerful but also agile and programmable, capable of adapting to new enemy frequencies and waveforms identified in near real-time. This creates a critical feedback loop between intelligence elements—who analyze captured or downed enemy drones to understand their electronic components—and the EW operators on the front line who must program their systems to counter those specific threats. Winning the EW fight requires an integrated team of intelligence analysts, planners, and operators who can out-think and out-pace the adversary across the spectrum.

6. Move with Purpose and Deception

In the transparent battlespace created by persistent drone surveillance, all movement is detectable, and therefore all movement is exceptionally dangerous.² Logistics convoys, troop rotations, tactical advances, and even the evacuation of casualties have become prime targets. Survival and mission success now depend on the ability to move intelligently, using speed, terrain, environmental conditions, and deception to minimize the time spent exposed to the enemy’s unblinking eye.

The war in Ukraine provides a stark illustration of this new reality. The omnipresence of drones has made any form of movement so hazardous that wounded soldiers may wait for 12 hours or more for evacuation until the relative safety of darkness.² Russian FPV drones, including jam-resistant fiber-optic variants, are used to establish control over key logistics roads, making every resupply run a high-risk gamble that can lead to units being slowly strangled as they run out of vehicles, ammunition, fuel, and food.¹⁰ This has forced a fundamental rethinking of combined arms tactics. The U.S. Army is now reconsidering the traditional role of the tank as the spearhead of an assault; instead, it is exploring concepts where drones lead the initial assault to identify threats and clear pathways, allowing tanks to provide heavy firepower from more protected, static positions.³

This lethal environment forces a return to, and a technological evolution of, the classic arts of war: deception and operational security (OPSEC). The digital and thermal signature of a unit is now as important as its physical one. A simple observation of movement being easily detected and targeted leads to the first-order effect of units minimizing movement or accepting heavy casualties. This, in turn, forces tactical innovation. Units are compelled to move primarily at night, during periods of bad weather that can degrade enemy optics, or by using available terrain—such as dense forests or the complex clutter of urban areas—for concealment. But passive measures are not enough. Active deception becomes critical. This can include the use of decoy vehicles, the creation of false thermal signatures to mislead IR sensors, and the execution of feints to draw the enemy’s attention and munitions away from the true axis of advance.

The commander must make deception a core, integrated element of every operational plan. This extends beyond physical decoys to encompass strict electronic discipline, such as banning personal cell phones whose signals can be easily geolocated. It includes managing thermal signatures by minimizing vehicle engine run times and using specialized blankets. It demands varying the routes and schedules for all logistics and rotations to avoid the establishment of predictable patterns (see Prohibition #8). The S2 (intelligence) and S3 (operations) staffs must work in close collaboration to analyze the enemy’s ISR patterns and plan all movement to occur during perceived gaps in coverage. In the drone era, the ability to move without being destroyed is a direct function of a unit’s discipline and creativity.

7. Dominate the Air Littoral

A purely defensive and reactive C-UAS posture is a losing strategy. A commander cannot afford to wait for the enemy to act. To seize the initiative, friendly forces must dominate the low-altitude airspace—what can be termed the “air littoral”—with their own organic UAS assets. This means employing a unit’s own drones for aggressive counter-reconnaissance to find and destroy enemy drone teams, for screening friendly forces during movement, and for conducting offensive precision strikes.

This shift from a defensive to an offensive mindset is evident in the force development of the U.S. military. The U.S. Marine Corps’ creation of the MCADT is a deliberate move to “fight fire with fire.” By integrating armed FPV drones at the small-unit level, the Corps aims to dramatically enhance lethality and provide an organic, responsive strike capability that does not rely on calling for external air or artillery support.²⁵ This concept of “drone-enabled maneuver warfare” envisions a unit’s own drones acting as an “airborne hammer,” providing persistent and highly responsive close air support that allows ground forces to maintain shock, momentum, and tempo during an attack.¹ This is already a reality in Ukraine, where drone-on-drone combat has become commonplace, and both sides are developing specific tactics to hunt and destroy the other’s aerial systems.² The U.S. Army is experimenting with this concept through the creation of “strike companies” that have their own dedicated drone platoons designed to operate ahead of the main body, using their own UAS to scout, identify threats, and clear a path for advancing forces.³

Achieving dominance in the air littoral creates a new and complex requirement for a “combined arms” approach in the air, mirroring the long-established principles of combined arms on the ground. The battlespace becomes a congested, three-dimensional environment where friendly ISR drones, friendly attack drones, friendly C-UAS systems, enemy ISR drones, and enemy attack drones are all operating simultaneously.

The commander must orchestrate these disparate assets as a cohesive team. This requires a sophisticated command and control system and well-rehearsed tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs). A typical engagement might involve using a friendly ISR drone to find an enemy position, cueing a friendly attack drone to fix or destroy it, and employing friendly C-UAS assets (such as jammers or guns) to protect the entire operation from interference by enemy drones. This is no longer just a matter of a single soldier flying a single drone; it is the conduct of a fully integrated air-ground operation at the platoon and company level. The commander who masters this complex choreography will own the low-altitude battlespace and, by extension, will control the fight on the ground.

8. Train for the Real Threat

C-UAS is a complex and perishable skill set, and the threat is in a state of constant, rapid evolution. A unit cannot wait until it deploys to a combat zone to encounter and learn how to fight drones. The drone threat must be a persistent, adaptive, and integral component of every training event, from individual soldier drills to collective, force-on-force exercises.

The JCU provides a clear model for how to approach this training requirement, offering specialized, in-depth courses for UAS operators, staff planners, and personnel responsible for installation defense, all of which culminate in a realistic joint exercise.¹⁵ The U.S. Marine Corps reinforces these skills through dedicated, multi-week courses that teach Marines how to tactically employ C-UAS systems both offensively and defensively in a live-fire environment.²⁸ The necessity for such rigorous and continuous training is underscored by the battlefield adaptations observed in Ukraine. Russian forces are constantly evolving their tactics, flying their drones higher and faster to stay out of range of ground fire, using decoy drones to confuse air defenses, and improving their systems’ resistance to jamming.²⁶ This means that training must be conducted against an adversary that learns and adapts, not against a static, predictable target. To foster this rapid learning, allied nations like the U.K. are using competitive events, such as the Military Drone Crucible Championship, to rapidly build proficiency and refine TTPs in realistic, high-pressure scenarios.²⁵

Effective training requires more than just buying a few commercial drones for target practice. It requires a dedicated, well-resourced, and intellectually agile opposing force (OPFOR) that can accurately replicate the evolving threat. A training scenario where friendly drones always fly simple, predictable patterns and use the same unencrypted frequencies is worse than useless; it builds false confidence and ingrains bad habits that will get soldiers killed. The training environment must be challenging and unforgiving.

The commander must therefore invest in and empower a dedicated C-UAS OPFOR within their unit. This team’s primary mission should be to study the latest enemy TTPs from active conflicts and replicate them during training exercises. This “red team” should be equipped with a variety of “red air” drones, similar to those used by adversaries ¹⁵, and given the freedom to be aggressive, creative, and ruthless in “attacking” the unit during field exercises. The goal of the OPFOR should not be merely to validate the unit’s C-UAS plan, but to actively stress and break it, forcing leaders and soldiers to adapt under extreme pressure. Only through this process of repeated failure and adaptation in training can a unit build the resilience and tactical acumen required to defeat a thinking enemy in combat.

9. Accelerate the Adaptation Cycle

In the contemporary drone war, the offense-defense innovation race is not measured in years or months, but in weeks.³⁰ The traditional, top-down, and deliberate military processes for procurement and doctrine development are dangerously slow. A commander cannot afford to wait for a perfect solution to be handed down from a higher headquarters. They must foster a command climate that encourages and rewards rapid, bottom-up innovation, empowering the soldiers who are in direct contact with the threat to develop, refine, and share new TTPs in near real-time.

This need for speed is a recognized challenge for Western militaries. The U.S. Army acknowledges that it must be able to “iterate more quickly” and incorporate lessons learned from the field “at speed”.¹⁷ The conflict in Ukraine serves as a powerful example of this accelerated adaptation cycle in action, with both sides constantly deploying new drone types, modifying commercial systems for military use, and developing novel countermeasures in a dynamic technological duel.² The U.K.’s Defence Drone Strategy explicitly aims to break free from traditional acquisition methods, seeking to “unleash the ingenuity of our people” and “adapt at the pace of the threat”.³⁰ Indeed, analysis of Russian operations suggests that the decentralized and ad-hoc nature of many of their drone units, while chaotic, has been an advantage in the rapid evolution of combat techniques.³¹

Accelerating this adaptation cycle requires a fundamental shift in command philosophy, moving from a culture of centralized control to one of decentralized enablement and underwriting prudent risk. The best new ideas for defeating the latest enemy drone will not come from a laboratory or a high-level staff meeting; they will come from a creative sergeant or specialist at the squad level who figures out a new technique on the battlefield. A rigid, top-down command structure that punishes deviation from established doctrine will stifle this critical innovation. That sergeant needs a mechanism to share their discovery across the force immediately, not to write a formal after-action report that might be read six months later.

The commander must create both formal and informal mechanisms to capture and disseminate these tactical lessons at the speed of relevance. This could take the form of a secure, unit-wide chat room dedicated to UAS/C-UAS TTPs, a mandatory weekly hotwash on the topic, or the formal designation of a unit “innovation NCO” tasked with collecting and spreading best practices. The commander must also be willing to accept and underwrite the prudent risks associated with experimentation, allowing subordinates to try new TTPs within the established bounds of safety and the rules of engagement. This represents a significant cultural shift, one that values agility and rapid learning over rigid adherence to doctrine that may be months or even years out of date.

10. Manage All Signatures

Modern drones are not limited to simple daylight cameras. They are increasingly sophisticated sensor platforms equipped with a suite of technologies, including high-resolution electro-optical (EO) cameras, infrared (IR) or thermal imagers, and potentially signals intelligence (SIGINT) packages capable of detecting electronic emissions. Survival on this sensor-rich battlefield depends on a holistic and disciplined approach to signature management that addresses not just what can be seen, but what can be sensed across the entire electromagnetic spectrum.

The nature of the threat is multi-faceted. While drones often have a small radar cross-section, their distinctive acoustic signature—the high-pitched buzz of their motors—can give away their presence, especially when they operate in swarms.²⁰ The surgical precision of Russian strikes against Ukrainian energy infrastructure, which have successfully targeted critical components like transformers, suggests the effective use of thermal imaging to identify which parts of the power grid are active and therefore most valuable to destroy.³² The constant effort by both sides in Ukraine to geolocate and target drone operators based on their control signals underscores the lethal danger of a unit’s own electronic emissions.¹⁶ U.S. forces train with a variety of C-UAS systems, such as the NightFighter S, which almost certainly incorporate thermal and IR detection capabilities to find threats day or night.²¹

This multi-spectrum threat demands a 24/7 commitment to signature management discipline that extends to every piece of equipment and every soldier’s actions. A single moment of laziness or a single unsecured device can compromise an entire unit’s position. This goes far beyond hanging traditional camouflage nets. A recently run vehicle engine or generator glows like a beacon to a thermal imager. A radio transmitting a routine report, or even a soldier’s personal cell phone searching for a signal, emits an electronic signature that can be detected and located. The sound of a generator or the flash of a headlamp at night can be enough to draw the attention of a loitering drone.

The commander must design and enforce a strict, multi-spectrum signature management plan (SIGMAN) as a standard operating procedure. This plan must include concrete actions such as minimizing vehicle and generator run times, employing thermal blankets to mask heat sources, enforcing strict EMCON procedures for all radiating equipment, physically shielding generators to dampen sound, and practicing meticulous light discipline. Most importantly, it requires training soldiers to constantly see their own position from the enemy’s perspective—to adopt a “red team” mindset and continuously ask, “What does my position look like, sound like, and smell like to the enemy’s sensors?” In the modern battlespace, this is not a secondary consideration; it is a primary survival skill.

Table 1: Summary of Commander’s Imperatives (Dos)

Section II: The Commander’s Prohibitions: 10 Things You MUST NOT DO

This section details the common but catastrophic errors a commander must avoid. These prohibitions are the inverse of the imperatives; they represent the well-traveled paths to failure and destruction on the modern battlefield.

1. Don’t Neglect Passive Defenses

It is a fatal error to become mesmerized by high-technology solutions at the expense of foundational, low-tech survival skills. Over-reliance on active C-UAS systems—which can be jammed, spoofed, saturated, or may simply be unavailable—is a dangerous gamble. The most reliable, persistent, and effective first line of defense remains the rigorous application of passive measures: camouflage, concealment, dispersion, and hardening.

U.S. Army doctrine for units at the brigade level and below, which often have limited access to sophisticated active systems, explicitly prioritizes the diligent execution of these passive protection measures.⁴ The JCU curriculum reinforces this by beginning all instruction with the fundamentals of passive air defense, teaching them to every student regardless of their service or specialty.¹⁵ This doctrinal emphasis is a direct reflection of battlefield reality. In Ukraine, where advanced interceptor missiles are a scarce and precious resource, survival often depends on basic tactics like immediately displacing a firing position to avoid a counter-battery strike that has been cued by a drone.²⁹

A culture that neglects passive defenses is a critical vulnerability, often born from a peacetime mindset where convenience and efficiency are prioritized over the hard, tedious work of combat survival. In training environments that lack a realistic and persistent drone threat, units can develop disastrous habits. Digging fighting positions, properly camouflaging vehicles, and enforcing dispersal take time and energy. It is easier to park vehicles in a neat line or to set up a command post in an open, comfortable building. These habits, ingrained over time, become automatic responses that lead directly to casualties in a real conflict.

The commander must therefore act as the chief enforcer of passive defense standards. This is a leadership function that cannot be delegated. It means personally inspecting camouflage, timing dispersal drills to ensure they meet established standards, and making passive defense a key evaluated task in every single training exercise. The commander’s role is to break the unit’s peacetime habits and instill a combat mindset where every soldier understands that these seemingly “boring” tasks are, in fact, the essential actions that will keep them alive.

2. Don’t Concentrate Forces or Logistics

On a battlefield where a $400 drone can destroy a $10 million tank, the act of concentrating forces, vehicles, or supplies is tantamount to creating a sacrificial offering for the enemy.³ Any concentration presents a high-value, lucrative target that is exceptionally vulnerable to attack by cheap, numerous, and increasingly precise UAS. The cost-exchange ratio is so devastatingly unfavorable to the defender that it can lead to the rapid erosion of combat power.

This principle is validated by numerous observations from modern conflicts. The widespread destruction of Russian and Ukrainian armor by small FPV drones is a direct result of these high-value assets being identified while concentrated or in static positions.³ Russia’s strategy of launching massed attacks with dozens or even hundreds of Shahed-type drones is specifically designed to saturate air defenses and destroy large, critical targets like infrastructure nodes or troop assembly areas.⁹ Looking to future threats, the PLA’s doctrine for a potential invasion of Taiwan explicitly envisions a massive preparatory bombardment by missiles, rockets, and drones to create chaos and destroy concentrated defensive positions before an amphibious landing can commence.³³

The prohibition on concentration fundamentally breaks the traditional military models for massing combat power and establishing large, efficient logistical hubs like the Forward Operating Bases (FOBs) of the counter-insurgency era. The classic military principle of “mass” can no longer be interpreted as the physical concentration of forces at a decisive point. Instead, it must be redefined as the synchronized application of effects (fires, EW, cyber) from widely dispersed locations. The large, centralized FOB is a relic of a bygone era of air supremacy; the new model is a distributed network of smaller, hardened, concealed, and mutually supporting patrol bases.

This requires a complete overhaul of operational planning. A commander can no longer plan to mass a battalion to conduct an attack in the traditional sense. Instead, the plan might call for the coordinated infiltration of multiple, dispersed companies that converge their fires and effects on the objective at a designated time. The logistics concept must shift from a “hub and spoke” model to one of distributed, mobile, and hidden caches of supplies. This new way of war demands a much higher level of planning complexity, staff proficiency, and trust in junior leaders.

3. Don’t Assume You Are Unseen

The single most dangerous assumption a commander or soldier can make on the modern battlefield is that they are unobserved. The default mindset must shift to one of constant, unending surveillance. Operating with a pre-drone mentality of assumed concealment is a direct path to ambush and destruction.

The U.S. military’s C-sUAS training institutions are working to instill this new mindset. The JCU explicitly teaches all students that they must “adopt the mindset that everything is being observed from multiple angles, and it’s realistically a transparent battlespace”.¹⁵ This is not hyperbole. The conflict in Ukraine has demonstrated that small, difficult-to-detect drones provide an unprecedented level of situational awareness, effectively eliminating traditional forms of concealment for any unit that is not actively and skillfully employing countermeasures.³ This persistent ISR presence is not limited to the front lines; Russian drone operators have been observed loitering over areas to target first responders and firefighters, demonstrating a willingness and ability to maintain surveillance deep within Ukrainian-held territory.²⁷

This state of constant observation has a profound and corrosive psychological impact on soldiers that commanders must not ignore. The cognitive load of knowing that you are perpetually in the enemy’s crosshairs is immense. It creates a constant, low-level stress that degrades sleep, accelerates fatigue, and can lead to either hyper-vigilant paranoia or a sense of fatalism, both of which impair sound tactical decision-making. This is not merely a side effect of drone warfare; for some adversaries, it is a deliberate objective. Russia’s massed drone attacks are understood to have a “grim psychological purpose” aimed at breaking the will to resist.⁹

The commander must address this psychological toll as a direct threat to the unit’s combat effectiveness. This requires active leadership. It means ensuring soldiers get proper rest and rotating units out of the most intensely surveilled sectors when possible. It means making mental health professionals and chaplains readily available and destigmatizing their use. Critically, it also means empowering soldiers. The most powerful antidote to the feeling of helplessness is a sense of agency. By providing soldiers with the tools and training to fight back—by equipping them with C-UAS jammers, specialized munitions, and their own drones—a commander can restore their sense of control over their environment. Acknowledging the stress and taking active steps to mitigate it, both psychologically and materially, is a critical leadership function in the drone era.

4. Don’t Ignore Rear Area Vulnerability

The range, persistence, and low cost of modern UAS have effectively erased the traditional distinction between the “front line” and the “secure rear area.” Logistics nodes, command posts, artillery positions, medical facilities, and maintenance collection points are no longer safe havens. They are high-value targets that are just as vulnerable to drone attack as a frontline trench, and they must be defended with the same level of seriousness.

U.S. Army doctrine now recognizes this reality, noting that brigade commanders must allocate combat power specifically for C-UAS missions in their rear areas. This is because enemy drone teams often operate from temporary, well-concealed launch sites to conduct attacks, requiring active patrolling to find and neutralize them.⁴ The threat is not just theoretical. Russia routinely uses long-range, one-way attack drones like the Shahed-136 to strike critical infrastructure and military targets hundreds of kilometers behind the front lines.⁹ Furthermore, the threat is not just from the air. Infiltration tactics, as observed in Ukraine, can involve small groups of enemy soldiers, sometimes even single individuals, penetrating deep into a unit’s rear to ambush supply convoys or establish hidden drone observation posts.¹⁰

This multi-faceted threat to the rear area requires a tailored defensive approach. A high-end air defense system like a Patriot battery might be necessary to defend against a large, fast-moving drone, but it is completely useless against a small, commercial quadcopter launched by a two-man special forces team from a wood line two kilometers away. This local, low-altitude threat requires a different set of solutions, including point-defense systems like jammers and guns, as well as a robust ground security presence.

The commander must therefore implement a comprehensive rear area security plan that treats the drone threat as a primary concern. This plan must include active, aggressive patrolling with the specific mission of hunting and destroying enemy drone teams.⁴ It must also include the establishment of layered point defenses around critical assets like the command post, ammunition supply point, and aid station, using short-range C-UAS systems. Crucially, every soldier with a support role—from cooks and mechanics to clerks and medics—must now be trained in basic C-UAS detection and immediate action drills. In the drone war, they are on the front line.

5. Don’t Await a “Silver Bullet”

The belief that a single, perfect piece of technology will arrive to solve the drone problem is a dangerous and debilitating fallacy. The threat is too diverse in its technical characteristics and evolves far too quickly for any one system to be a panacea. Commanders who delay action while waiting for a future “silver bullet” solution are ceding the initiative to the enemy and putting their soldiers at risk. The only viable approach is to creatively and aggressively integrate the various, imperfect systems that are available now into a functional, layered defense.

This is a core lesson that has been learned through the U.S. military’s own C-UAS development efforts. As one expert noted, “there is no silver bullet for this particular threat”.¹⁷ The threat is characterized by its versatility, extremely low cost, and high producibility, which means an adversary can deploy thousands of systems, absorb high rates of attrition, and rapidly adapt their technology and tactics.¹⁷ U.S. Army doctrine itself is acknowledged as being insufficient to meet the full demands of the modern battlefield, which necessitates a focus on integrating available capabilities rather than waiting for future programs of record to deliver a perfect solution.⁴

The “good enough” solution that can be fielded today is infinitely better than the perfect solution that will be fielded two years from now, by which time the threat will have changed completely. This reality demands a fundamental shift in the institutional mindset regarding procurement and fielding. While a tactical commander does not control the larger acquisition process, they do control their unit’s culture and approach to problem-solving.

The commander must foster a culture of tactical innovation that focuses on getting the most out of the equipment the unit currently possesses. This might mean developing new TTPs to pair an older radar system with a newly fielded jammer. It could involve working with ammunition specialists to test new types of shotgun shells for engaging small drones. It could mean 3D-printing custom mounts to attach sensors to vehicles. The commander’s role is to encourage this creative integration and to provide clear, immediate, and unvarnished feedback up the chain of command about what works and what does not. This bottom-up feedback is what drives the iterative development process at the pace required to stay ahead of the threat.

6. Don’t Underestimate the Commercial Drone

It is a grave tactical error to dismiss commercially available, off-the-shelf (COTS) drones as mere toys. When modified for military purposes, these systems have proven to be exceptionally lethal, adaptable, and cost-effective weapons. They are not a peripheral nuisance; on battlefields like Ukraine, they have become a primary source of casualties and equipment loss.

Analysis shows that COTS hobbyist drones can provide an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capability that rivals that of more sophisticated and expensive military variants, and they can be easily modified to carry and drop explosive munitions.³⁴ Their prevalence is so great that the JCU curriculum includes training on the identification of 24 different types of common COTS UAS.¹⁵ Both Russian and Ukrainian forces make extensive use of FPV racing drones, which are based on COTS components, as guided munitions to destroy high-value targets like tanks and artillery pieces.³ The global supply chain for these systems further complicates the problem; China controls a vast majority of the global commercial drone market, meaning the components for these improvised weapons are readily available to any state or non-state actor.³⁶

The proliferation of weaponized COTS drones blurs the line between military and civilian technology, creating significant challenges for target identification and the application of the rules of engagement (ROE). In a complex environment, how does a soldier on guard duty reliably distinguish between a harmless hobbyist’s drone, a news organization’s camera drone, and an enemy artillery-spotting drone before it is too late? Firing on a non-combatant drone in a stability or gray-zone operation could have immense strategic and political repercussions.

The commander must confront this ambiguity head-on. They must ensure that their soldiers are equipped with clear, simple, and understandable ROE for engaging drones. This requires training that focuses not just on how to shoot down a drone, but, more importantly, on when it is permissible and necessary to do so. This also highlights the need to invest in C-UAS systems that can do more than just detect a drone’s presence; they must help the operator identify the type of drone and, if possible, its likely intent before a lethal engagement decision is made. The JCU’s installation protection course, which specifically teaches leaders how to differentiate between genuine threats and benign hobbyist drones, is a direct institutional response to this complex problem.¹⁵

7. Don’t Isolate C-UAS as a Specialist Task

Given the pervasive, persistent, and personal nature of the drone threat, treating C-UAS as the exclusive responsibility of a small cadre of air defense artillery or EW specialists is a recipe for certain failure. The threat is too widespread and too numerous to be handled by specialists alone. Every soldier, every crew, and every leader must have a baseline proficiency in C-UAS principles and actions. It must be an all-arms, all-echelons responsibility.

This principle is a clear and urgent theme in U.S. military doctrine. The U.S. Army explicitly states that C-UAS “must be a combined arms effort that is performed down to the lowest level” and that “Soldiers across the force at every echelon… should be proficient in C-SUAS tasks”.²³ The U.S. Marine Corps’ C-UAS fielding strategy is built on the concept of making the new systems “military occupational specialty agnostic,” meaning they are designed to be used by any Marine, not just a specialist.²¹ The instructional philosophy at the JCU reflects this, with one instructor noting that their job is to teach “entry-level air defense doctrine” to everyone, because the drone threat is now everyone’s problem.¹⁵

However, the decision to make C-UAS an “all-arms” task has significant consequences for a commander’s training plan. Training time is a finite, zero-sum resource. The hours spent teaching an infantry squad how to identify different drone types, operate a jammer, and practice aerial gunnery are hours that are not being spent on rifle marksmanship, land navigation, breaching, or tactical combat casualty care.

The commander is therefore forced to make difficult decisions about training priorities. This requires a clear-eyed and realistic assessment of the most likely and most dangerous threats the unit will face in its specific operational environment. On a drone-saturated battlefield, proficiency in basic C-UAS immediate action drills may be more critical to a squad’s survival than advanced marksmanship skills. The commander must have the intellectual honesty to recognize this shift and the moral courage to adjust the unit’s training focus accordingly. They must be prepared to de-emphasize long-held, traditional training priorities to make room for these new, essential survival skills and be able to articulate the rationale for these hard choices to their soldiers and to higher headquarters.

8. Don’t Establish Predictable Patterns

A persistent enemy ISR capability, primarily enabled by drones, means that any routine or pattern in a unit’s behavior will be detected, analyzed, and lethally exploited. Predictability in any form—logistics schedules, patrol routes, guard post changes, command post locations—is a vulnerability that a thinking enemy will use to plan an ambush or a strike. In the drone era, randomness and unpredictability are essential components of operational security.

The battlefield provides stark examples of this principle. The “cat and mouse” game of air defense in Ukraine involves Russian forces using their drones to observe the locations of Ukrainian anti-aircraft systems when they fire; this forces the Ukrainian crews to immediately move to a new position to avoid being destroyed by a retaliatory strike.²⁹ The brutal Russian “double-tap” tactic, where a second munition is deliberately targeted on the location of a first explosion after a predictable interval, is designed to kill the first responders who predictably rush to the scene.²⁷ On a broader scale, the ability of drones to conduct long-duration surveillance allows an enemy to conduct detailed “pattern of life” analysis on a unit, identifying its routines, its dependencies, and its vulnerabilities, all in preparation for an attack at the most opportune moment.

Countering this type of intelligence-driven targeting requires a deliberate and planned effort to introduce randomness and deception into every aspect of a unit’s operations. Human organizations, especially military ones, naturally gravitate toward routines and standard operating procedures because they are efficient. Deliberately breaking these routines requires conscious effort and can often feel inefficient. For example, sending a resupply convoy at 0300 on a randomly selected Tuesday is less convenient for the staff and soldiers than sending it at 0800 every day, but it is infinitely more secure.

The commander must task their staff to build unpredictability into the very fabric of the operational plan. This becomes a critical, collaborative function for the S2 (intelligence) and S3 (operations) sections. The S2 should be tasked with analyzing the unit’s own operational patterns from the perspective of an enemy intelligence analyst, identifying potential vulnerabilities. The S3 must then design operations that deliberately vary timings, routes, methods, and force packages. This must also include the planning of active deception measures, such as feints and the use of decoys, designed to deliberately mislead enemy ISR and waste their resources. Randomness and unpredictability can no longer be an afterthought; they must be a core principle of the unit’s SOP.

9. Don’t Disregard the Psychological Toll

The unique characteristics of the drone threat—its persistence, its perceived omniscience, and the high-pitched, menacing buzz of its motors—create a significant and unique psychological burden on soldiers. The stress born from the feeling of being constantly watched, hunted, and helpless degrades morale, degrades performance, and can have lasting impacts on mental health. A commander who ignores this psychological dimension of the fight does so at their peril.

The immense stress of the air war is palpable in firsthand accounts from Ukraine, where soldiers describe the pressure of knowing that a single missed shot at an incoming drone could result in an explosion in a civilian area.²⁹ This burden of responsibility is heavy. Furthermore, it is clear that adversaries use drones with psychological intent. Russia’s massed drone attacks against Ukrainian cities are understood to have a “grim psychological purpose” aimed at demoralizing the population and breaking their will to resist aggression.⁹ This same logic applies with equal force to the soldiers on the front line. The creation of a “transparent battlespace,” where soldiers must assume they are always being observed, induces a state of hyper-vigilance that is mentally and physically exhausting over time.¹⁵

This psychological degradation is not just an unfortunate side effect of drone warfare; for a thinking adversary, it is a primary objective. A soldier who is mentally exhausted, sleep-deprived, and fatalistic is far more likely to make a tactical error. They may fail to properly camouflage their vehicle, neglect noise discipline, or take a shortcut in the open. The psychological attack is therefore a preparatory action designed to enable a more effective physical attack.

The commander must treat the mental and psychological resilience of their soldiers as a critical component of the unit’s C-UAS defense. This starts with leadership presence and open communication, acknowledging the unique stresses of this environment. It means ensuring soldiers get adequate rest and aggressively managing schedules to rotate units out of the most high-threat sectors. It requires making chaplains and mental health professionals easily accessible. Most importantly, it requires empowering soldiers. The most effective way to counter the feeling of helplessness that the drone threat is designed to create is to give soldiers the agency to fight back. Equipping a squad with an effective C-UAS jammer, specialized ammunition, or their own offensive drone transforms them from victims into active participants in their own defense. This sense of empowerment is a powerful psychological weapon.

10. Don’t Fixate on the Drone in Flight

Focusing all of a unit’s attention, resources, and tactical thinking on the destruction of the drone itself while it is in the air is a common but profound tactical error. This approach is often the least effective, most resource-intensive, and least sustainable way to counter the UAS threat. The more critical, more valuable, and often more vulnerable components of the enemy’s UAS capability are on the ground.

The U.S. Army’s 25th Infantry Division learned this lesson through experience. They found that engaging enemy drones in flight with surface-to-air missiles like the Stinger was a “largely reactionary activity that proved of limited effectiveness.” The core problem was that the enemy had enough cheap aerial platforms to easily absorb these losses and continue operations unabated.⁴ Their tactical breakthrough came when they shifted their focus from the air to the ground, identifying the enemy’s GCSs as the “critical vulnerability” in the entire system.⁴ This same lesson has been observed in Ukraine, where it is understood that the trained operators are a far more valuable and difficult-to-replace asset than the drones they fly, making them a high-priority target.¹⁶ The systemic nature of the threat is also apparent in PLA doctrine, which envisions the use of an integrated system of systems—missiles, rockets, and drones working in concert—to achieve its objectives. To defeat such a threat, one must attack the entire network, not just the individual endpoints.³³

This principle requires a fundamental shift in mindset, from a narrow air defense problem (killing aerial targets) to a broader, intelligence-driven counter-system targeting methodology. This shift has significant implications for resource allocation and intelligence collection. Instead of relying solely on air defense radars to detect incoming threats, the commander must prioritize the use of SIGINT and EW assets to detect the electronic emissions of the GCSs on the ground. Instead of relying on short-range guns, the commander needs responsive, long-range precision fires—such as guided artillery, rockets, or the unit’s own armed drones—to strike those ground targets once they are found. The intelligence collection effort must expand from simply tracking flight paths to a more complex task: identifying and mapping the human and logistical network that allows the enemy’s drone force to function.

The commander must personally drive this shift within their unit’s targeting process. They must ensure the S2 (intelligence) is focused on developing high-payoff targets related to the entire UAS ecosystem: known operator locations, likely launch and recovery sites, supply routes for drone components, and training facilities. They must then ensure that the “detect” and “deliver” functions of the targeting cycle are resourced and synchronized to prosecute these targets rapidly and effectively.⁴ By attacking the brain, the commander can paralyze the claw.

Table 2: Summary of Commander’s Prohibitions (Don’ts)

Conclusion

The emergence of the drone as a dominant feature of the modern battlespace has irrevocably altered the character of ground combat. The analysis of doctrine and battlefield experience from the United States, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Russia, and China reveals a clear and consistent set of truths. The principles of constant dispersal, holistic signature management, and layered, integrated defense are no longer abstract doctrinal concepts; they are the fundamental imperatives for survival. The battlefield is transparent, the front line is everywhere, and the cost-exchange ratio of attritable drones versus high-value military hardware is punishingly asymmetric.

Victory in this new era will not belong to the force that possesses the single most exquisite piece of technology. Rather, it will be achieved by the force that is the most ruthlessly disciplined, the most relentlessly adaptive, and the most intellectually agile. The commander’s primary and most essential role is to forge and sustain a culture that embodies these traits. It is a culture where passive defenses are practiced with fanaticism, where bottom-up innovation is rewarded, and where every soldier is empowered and expected to contribute to the C-UAS fight. The ultimate challenge for the modern ground commander is to successfully integrate new technologies and novel tactics while simultaneously reinforcing the timeless principles of warfare—all under the constant, unblinking gaze of a persistent, intelligent, and lethal aerial threat.

Appendix: Methodology for Analysis and Recommendation Development

The findings and recommendations presented in this report were derived from a multi-phase analytical process designed to synthesize a wide range of open-source intelligence into a coherent and actionable guide for military commanders.

Phase 1: Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) Collection and Thematic Grouping

The process began with the systematic collection and review of 69 distinct research snippets from English-language sources originating in or pertaining to the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Ukraine, and China. These sources included military journals, official government and defense department websites, congressional reports, academic analyses, and reputable news media. Each snippet was cataloged and tagged based on its primary content, allowing for aggregation into four core thematic groups:

1. U.S. & U.K. Doctrine and Strategy: Official publications, strategic documents, and analyses detailing the formal C-UAS approaches of Western militaries.
2. Russia-Ukraine Battlefield Lessons: Reports, analyses, and firsthand accounts detailing the tactical realities, innovations, and attrition of the ongoing drone war.
3. Adversary Doctrine (Russia & China): Official doctrinal documents and expert analyses of Russian and Chinese concepts for the employment of UAS in current and future conflicts, including the PLA’s concept of “intelligentized” warfare.
4. C-UAS Technology and Systems: Descriptions of specific kinetic and non-kinetic C-UAS technologies, training programs, and organizational structures.

Phase 2: Comparative Analysis and Insight Generation

The thematically grouped data was subjected to a comparative analysis to identify points of convergence, divergence, and tension between different sources. This cross-referencing was critical for validating observations and generating deeper, second- and third-order conclusions. For instance, the U.S. Army’s doctrinal emphasis on targeting the Ground Control Station ⁴ was directly corroborated by battlefield reports from Ukraine confirming that drone operators have become high-value targets for both sides.¹⁶ Similarly, the PLA’s theoretical focus on employing massive drone swarms in a future conflict ¹⁴ was contextualized by the practical application of massed, albeit less sophisticated, drone attacks by Russia in Ukraine ⁹, providing a clear vector for the future threat trajectory. This phase focused on moving beyond simple data extraction to understand the cascading effects and tactical implications of each primary observation.

Phase 3: Synthesis and Formulation of Recommendations

The validated findings and generated insights were then synthesized into a set of actionable, command-focused recommendations. Each recommendation was framed as a clear, concise imperative (“Do”) or prohibition (“Don’t”) to maximize its utility for a military leader. The final 20 recommendations were selected based on three primary criteria:

1. Recurrence: The principle appeared repeatedly across multiple, diverse sources.
2. Criticality: The principle was directly linked to decisive outcomes—either mission success or catastrophic failure—on the battlefield.
3. Applicability: The principle was directly relevant and actionable for a commander of ground troops at the tactical level.

Phase 4: Validation and Refinement

In the final phase, each of the 20 recommendations was substantiated with specific evidentiary support by linking it back to the relevant source snippets. The language of the report was meticulously refined to align with the designated persona of a senior military analyst and combat veteran, ensuring a tone of authority, clarity, and practical relevance for the intended professional military audience. The entire report was then structured to present the information in a logical, hierarchical manner, moving from broad principles to specific tactical implications.

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.

Sources Used

1. From Tactical Trench Killers to Strategic War Winners: Doctrine, Operational Art, and Tomorrow’s Drone-Enabled Maneuver Warfare – Modern War Institute, accessed October 23, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/from-tactical-trench-killers-to-strategic-war-winners-doctrine-operational-art-and-tomorrows-drone-enabled-maneuver-warfare/
2. 117 – Lessons learnt from Drone Combat in Ukraine | The Principles of War Podcast, accessed October 23, 2025, https://theprinciplesofwar.com/podcast/117-lessons-learnt-from-drone-combat-in-ukraine/
3. How Ukraine’s Drone War Is Forcing the U.S. Army to Rewrite Its Battle Doctrine, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.military.com/feature/2025/10/19/how-ukraines-drone-war-forcing-us-army-rewrite-its-battle-doctrine.html
4. Army Counter-UAS 2021–2028 – Army University Press – Army.mil, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/March-April-2021/Scott-Counter-UAS/
5. Department of Defense Counter Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Background and Issues for Congress, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48477
6. UK backs homegrown drone defences and deepens Ukraine ties, accessed October 23, 2025, https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-backs-homegrown-drone-defences-and-deepens-ukraine-ties/
7. UK aligns drone defence and interoperability with NATO, accessed October 23, 2025, https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-aligns-drone-defence-and-interoperability-with-nato/
8. Defence Drone Strategy – GOV.UK, accessed October 23, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65d724022197b201e57fa708/Defence_Drone_Strategy_-_the_UK_s_approach_to_Defence_Uncrewed_Systems.pdf
9. From Culture to System: A Roadmap for Turning Ukraine’s …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/from-culture-to-system-a-roadmap-for-turning-ukraines-counterdrone-innovation-into-a-capability/
10. Analysis: Pokrovsk on the brink as Russian troops, drones infiltrate deeper into Ukraine’s fortress city – The Kyiv Independent, accessed October 23, 2025, https://kyivindependent.com/analysis-pokrovsk-on-the-brink-as-russian-troops-drones-infiltrate-deeper-into-ukraines-fortress-city/
11. Lessons from Russia-Ukraine drone war drive global counter-drone tech – Army Technology, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.army-technology.com/analyst-comment/lessons-russia-ukraine-drone-war/
12. China Readies Drone Swarms for Future War – CNA Corporation, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2025/09/china-readies-drone-swarms-for-future-war
13. China’s strategic shift: Upgrading military tactics for drone warfare – Defense Magazine, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.defensemagazine.com/article/chinas-strategic-shift-upgrading-military-tactics-for-drone-warfare
14. PRC Concepts for UAV Swarms in Future Warfare | CNA Corporation, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.cna.org/reports/2025/07/PRC-Concepts-for-UAV-Swarms-in-Future-Warfare.pdf
15. Drones 101: Welcome to DOW’s Joint Counter-Small UAS University …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/288598/drones_101_welcome_to_dows_joint_counter_small_uas_university
16. Lessons from the Ukraine Conflict: Modern Warfare in the Age of …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/lessons-ukraine-conflict-modern-warfare-age-autonomy-information-and-resilience
17. Closing the Counter-Drone Capability Gap – AUSA, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.ausa.org/news/closing-counter-drone-capability-gap
18. Establishing Joint Solutions to Address Current and Future Small UAS Threats – SMD Symposium, accessed October 23, 2025, https://smdsymposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/JCO-Brief-Presented-by-MG-Gainey.pdf
19. www.armyupress.army.mil, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/March-April-2021/Scott-Counter-UAS/#:~:text=Army%20counter%2DUAS%20doctrine%20reflects,seen%20or%20heard%20by%20soldiers.
20. Breaking the Shield: Countering Drone Defenses – NDU Press, accessed October 23, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3838997/breaking-the-shield-countering-drone-defenses/
21. Marine Corps to Deploy Counter-Drone Systems Across Units in …, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/4151802/marine-corps-to-deploy-counter-drone-systems-across-units-in-2025/
22. Marines Countering a Growing Drone Threat – Support Our Troops, accessed October 23, 2025, https://supportourtroops.org/news/2444-drone-threat
23. C-SUAS at the Tactical Level – Line of Departure, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Infantry/Infantry-Spring-2024/C-SUAS-at-the-Tactical-Level/
24. Drone Defender – Marines.mil, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.marines.mil/News/Marines-TV/videoid/805837/dvpTag/drones/
25. Marine Corps Launches Attack Drone Team, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/4139734/marine-corps-launches-attack-drone-team/
26. How Russia overtook Ukraine’s drone advantage | Ian Bremmer Explains – YouTube, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QfxQM2cIsw
27. Wildfires have consumed vast chunks of Ukraine. Is Russia deliberately fuelling the flames?, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/23/drones-ukraine-wildfires-russia-heat-mines-shelling
28. U.S. Marines train in counter unmanned aerial systems operability – DVIDS, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/video/969505/us-marines-train-counter-unmanned-aerial-systems-operability
29. ‘The key to success is in the sky’: the Ukrainian defenders struggling to stem Russia’s air assault, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/17/ukrainian-defenders-struggling-to-stem-russia-air-assault
30. Defence Drone Strategy – the UK’s approach to Defence Uncrewed Systems – GOV.UK, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-drone-strategy-the-uks-approach-to-defence-uncrewed-systems
31. Russian Efforts to Centralize Drone Units May Degrade Russian Drone Operations | Institute for the Study of War, accessed October 23, 2025, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-efforts-to-centralize-drone-units-may-degrade-russian-drone-operations-2/
32. How Russia’s new tactics pose fresh winter threat to Ukraine – Al Jazeera, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/21/how-russias-new-tactics-pose-new-winter-threat-to-ukraine
33. Target Taiwan: Prospects for a Chinese invasion – Defense Priorities, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.defensepriorities.org/explainers/target-taiwan-prospects-for-a-chinese-invasion/
34. The Imperative for the U.S. Military to Develop a Counter-UAS Strategy – NDU Press, accessed October 23, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2106482/the-imperative-for-the-us-military-to-develop-a-counter-uas-strategy/
35. How Does Ukraine’s Smuggled Drone Attack Change Military Strategy? : r/IRstudies – Reddit, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/IRstudies/comments/1l2cqjg/how_does_ukraines_smuggled_drone_attack_change/
36. Chinese Drone Tech Fuels Both Sides of Russia-Ukraine War, accessed October 23, 2025, https://www.russiamatters.org/blog/chinese-drone-tech-fuels-both-sides-russia-ukraine-war