1. Executive Summary

The operational period of July 4 through July 11, 2026, represents a critical inflection point in the global institutionalization and tactical deployment of autonomous warfare systems. Across the air, land, sea, and subsea domains, military apparatuses are aggressively transitioning from the experimental fielding of bespoke unmanned platforms to the industrialized mass procurement, algorithmic integration, and doctrinal normalization of autonomous systems. This period is characterized by decisive administrative reorganizations within the United States Department of War, most notably the establishment of a Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager (DRPM-UxS) for unmanned and autonomous systems. This structural realignment, reporting directly to Deputy War Secretary Stephen Feinberg, is designed to synchronize historically fragmented drone initiatives into a unified, high-velocity acquisition pipeline capable of fielding hundreds of thousands of attritable units. This shift signals a systemic acknowledgment that sheer manufacturing mass, commercial marketplace integration, and decentralized production capacity are now primary metrics of strategic deterrence against peer competitors. The transition of the Replicator initiative’s offensive output to the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG) under Special Operations Command, and its defensive counterpart to Joint Interagency Task Force (JIATF) 401, underscores the operational maturation of these systems from theoretical concepts to fielded combat architecture.

Concurrently, the European theater has forced rapid, lethal technological adaptation, rendering entire generations of traditional electronic warfare (EW) and localized air defense obsolete. The Russian deployment of a new fiber-optic strike drone—designed as an analog to the “Molniya” and complementing the “VT-40″—represents a brutal but highly effective engineering circumvention of radio frequency (RF) jamming.¹ By tethering the platform via an unspooling physical data link, Russian forces have achieved zero-emission lethality, bypassing billion-dollar Western air defense paradigms that rely on EW interception. In direct response to this hyper-contested electromagnetic spectrum, the United Kingdom has enacted a historic doctrinal shift. Allocating £5 billion toward autonomous drone swarms, the UK Ministry of Defence has fundamentally eased “human-in-the-loop” targeting constraints, explicitly authorizing algorithms to make independent kill decisions in jammed environments where continuous human data links are impossible to maintain. Furthermore, Ukraine is leveraging its vast battlefield experience to establish itself as a major exporter of defense technology, signing “drone deals” with six nations—including Latvia, Lithuania, and Middle Eastern states—with a goal of securing agreements with seven NATO countries by the end of the year.

In the maritime and littoral domains, the asymmetric threat posed by Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) continues to outpace the defensive evolution of conventional naval architectures. Following a brief operational pause, Houthi forces have resumed intense maritime operations in the Bab el-Mandeb strait and Red Sea, severely damaging multiple commercial vessels using low-observable, explosive-laden drone boats.⁵ This sustained sea denial operation highlights the extreme engineering difficulty of intercepting wave-skimming, low-radar-cross-section (RCS) targets in cluttered littoral waters using legacy kinetic effectors. In response to these evolving threats, the US Navy is accelerating its Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV) program, pivoting toward a commercial marketplace model that shifts research and development risks entirely to commercial shipbuilders. The demand for rapid, at-sea demonstrations of 25-ton containerized payload capacities, augmented by the Defense Innovation Unit’s (DIU) Spectacular MIST Challenge, indicates a naval doctrine shifting toward modular, software-defined electronic attack and distributed lethality.

Ultimately, these combined developments solidify a profound geopolitical and doctrinal paradigm shift. The integration of advanced software architectures—such as Anduril’s Lattice system currently being field-tested by the British Army—demonstrates that hardware is increasingly becoming a commoditized, expendable delivery mechanism for advanced battle-management software. The introduction of Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) in the Indo-Pacific, pairing USAF F-15EX battle managers with Australian MQ-28 Ghost Bat Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), further illustrates this trend toward interoperable, allied kill webs. The strategic advantage in modern conflict no longer belongs solely to the force fielding the most exquisite, survivable, and expensive platforms. Instead, victory relies on the force that can iteratively update software at the tactical edge, securely network disparate autonomous nodes across multi-domain environments, and replace attrited assets at a scale and speed that economically exhausts the adversary.

2. Global Situation Log

North American Theater: DoD Policy, Procurement, and Maritime Modernization

Event & Development: Establishment of the DRPM-UxS and Evolution of Replicator War Secretary Pete Hegseth executed a comprehensive, structural consolidation of almost all Unmanned and Autonomous Systems (UxS) under a newly established Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager (DRPM-UxS) position, answering directly to Deputy War Secretary Stephen Feinberg. Colloquially referred to as the “drone czar,” this position will oversee UAS groups 1–3, autonomous ground vehicles, and most unmanned surface vessels, while acting in coordination with the submarine DRPM for underwater vessels. This structural reorganization implements the “Unleashing U.S. Military Drone Dominance” initiative, which established the Drone Dominance Program (DDP) to procure 200,000 domestically manufactured drones by 2027, with 30,000 slated for delivery by July 2026. Concurrently, detailed operational transitions for the “Replicator” initiative were revealed. Replicator 1, following a 24-month effort originally spearheaded by the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), has transitioned its operational execution to a new division under Special Operations Command known as the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG). Simultaneously, Replicator 2 resources, which focus heavily on counter-drone defense, have been consolidated into Joint Interagency Task Force (JIATF) 401.

Tactical & Operational Lessons: The fragmentation of military drone programs across the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps has historically resulted in siloed data architectures, highly incompatible command and control (C2) interfaces, and massively duplicative supply chains. The establishment of the DRPM-UxS serves to forcibly enforce joint data standards, open-system architectures, and API interoperability across all tactical UxS platforms being procured by the services. The transition of the Replicator initiative highlights the operational hurdles of integrating artificial intelligence into the battlespace. While Replicator 1 was intended to field “multiple thousands” of systems by August 2025, Congressional Research Service reporting indicated that only “hundreds” had materialized by the target date due to persistent technical issues, software glitches, and problems integrating these novel autonomous systems into existing, rigid command structures.⁶ By transitioning the offensive Replicator 1 portfolio to DAWG under SOCOM, the DoD is tactically acknowledging that the deployment, localized C2, and logistics management of attritable drone swarms currently require highly specialized, agile warfighters. Defensive Counter-UAS (C-UAS) operations, which require integration with theater-wide air defense radars, have been siloed into JIATF 401 to prevent defensive fratricide. Furthermore, to refine C-UAS tactics against Group 1 and 2 drones, the Air Force’s Point Defense Battle Lab at Grand Forks is running live exercises pitting “Red Air” drone operators against new defensive systems to validate actual combat effectiveness.³

Strategic Lessons: Strategically, the explicit directive to procure 200,000 domestically manufactured drones via the DDP represents a systemic, geopolitical acknowledgment that the United States is currently out-produced and economically outmatched in the UxS hardware domain by peer adversaries. The success of the DRPM-UxS will hinge entirely on its ability to bypass traditional, decades-long Defense Acquisition System (DAS) protocols. However, the centralization of procurement introduces severe bureaucratic and structural friction with the individual military branches, which retain the statutory responsibility for organizing, training, manning, and maintaining these systems. Attempting to manage logistics and dictate tactical employment from an external oversight office is deeply problematic. If the DRPM-UxS can successfully navigate Pentagon politics to force standardized protocols without alienating service chiefs, it will enable a unified, cross-domain mesh network.

Event & Development: US Navy MUSV Marketplace and Spectacular MIST Challenge The US Navy formally announced the launch of the next phase of its Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV) marketplace, effective August 1. Following the selection of seven companies (Sea Machines, Leidos, Saronic Technologies, Galliano Marine Services, PacMar Technologies, Birdon, and Huntington Ingalls Industries) for at-sea testing, the Navy established strict engineering parameters. Prototypes must demonstrate autonomous navigation over a range of 2,500 nautical miles at a sustained speed of 25 knots in Sea State 4 conditions. Crucially, the vessels must accommodate a 25-metric-ton containerized payload. Simultaneously, the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), the Navy’s Rapid Capabilities Office, and Naval Information Warfare Center Pacific launched the “Spectacular MIST Challenge”. This competition seeks to expedite the development of specific containerized payloads for these USVs, focusing precisely on threat radar simulators, active electronic attack, and passive electronic surveillance.

Tactical & Operational Lessons: The tactical shift toward MUSVs heavily mitigates the operational strain on the manned surface fleet. From a naval engineering standpoint, the 25-metric-ton payload requirement establishes a rigid, standardized form factor for rapid mission modularity. The critical engineering bottleneck for these payloads, however, is the stipulated internal reservation of 250 kW of deck power, combined with 30 kW of cooling. This specific power envelope heavily dictates tactical loadouts. While 250 kW comfortably supports the active electronic attack arrays and threat radar simulators sought by the MIST Challenge, accommodating high-energy directed energy weapons (DEWs) or massive mine countermeasures would necessitate dedicated, containerized diesel generator sets. Operationally, if equipped with MIST payloads, a fleet of these MUSVs can act as an advanced electronic warfare screen, blinding the enemy’s kill chain before they can target manned capital ships.

Strategic Lessons: The MUSV program’s acquisition strategy is arguably as radical as its technology. By forcing a “marketplace approach,” the Navy has upended traditional defense procurement, shifting the entirety of the research and development (R&D) financial risk onto the commercial shipbuilders. The government will only pay a $15 million incentive to companies whose prototypes successfully complete the at-sea testing phase, making them eligible for follow-on production. Furthermore, by deliberately exempting the MUSV program from the direct control of the new Pentagon DRPM-UxS, the Navy ensures its critical maritime recapitalization is not delayed by Pentagon-wide bureaucratic friction. Strategically, this aligns with Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Daryl Caudle’s “containerized capability campaign”, allowing the Navy to scale its surface presence exponentially and impose severe operational dilemmas on adversaries.

Event & Development: SSP Next Generation Undersea Security Initiative (NG-USI) The US Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) office, responsible for developing and sustaining sea-based nuclear forces, launched the Next Generation Undersea Security Initiative (NG-USI). Issuing a sources-sought notice that spans 22 highly specific focus areas, the initiative prioritizes the development of technologies to detect, track, identify, deny, and defeat unmanned systems across aerial, surface, underwater, and ground domains. Specifically, the SSP is seeking capabilities to counter adversarial AI and machine learning platforms that threaten strategic facilities and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) operating in port, harbor, littoral, and open ocean environments, with a deadline for responses set for July 1, 2031.⁷

Tactical & Operational Lessons: The SSP’s intense focus on protecting strategic submarine bases and assets during transit addresses a highly critical vulnerability in the nuclear triad. As SSBNs operate on the surface or at periscope depth during transit through chokepoints and littorals, they are uniquely susceptible to cheap, asymmetric drone swarms or loitering munitions. Tactically, the NG-USI seeks both kinetic and non-kinetic effectors to sanitize these transit corridors. Implementing this requires advanced, multi-modal sensor fusion—driven by edge-compute AI—to rapidly distinguish between normal civilian maritime traffic and hostile, low-signature autonomous platforms in highly cluttered harbor environments.

Strategic Lessons: The launch of NG-USI represents a strategic admission at the highest levels of the Navy that the proliferation of cheap, autonomous sensors—specifically Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) and Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs)—has severely eroded the traditional stealth advantage of the ocean depths. Adversaries utilizing AI to ingest and process massive, continuous datasets of oceanographic anomalies could theoretically track SSBNs persistently. By actively investing in technologies to “disrupt hostile autonomous systems” and protect against “AI-enabled intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance activities,” the US Navy is shifting its subsea doctrine from a posture of purely passive stealth to one of active sea-denial, ensuring second-strike survivability in an increasingly transparent ocean.

European Theater: Doctrinal Reversals, Asymmetric Attrition, and AI Targeting

Event & Development: UK £5 Billion Autonomous Investment, Doctrinal Shifts, and Ukrainian Drone Diplomacy The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence announced a sweeping Defence Investment Plan, allocating more than £5 billion entirely toward drones and autonomy. Most critically, the plan outlines a fundamental shift in targeting doctrine: the UK explicitly authorized that future autonomous weapons will be designed to make targeting decisions without requiring a human to authorize each individual strike. The plan heavily funds Project NYX, an initiative to field up to 24 armed autonomous drones designed to fly alongside and team with Army Apache helicopters by 2030, and the “Storm Shroud,” an uncrewed electronic-warfare drone. Simultaneously, the British Army has actively field-tested Anduril’s Lattice software, integrating Ghost X drones and ARX Gereon UGVs in terrain mirroring Finland to drastically shorten the kill chain. Regionally, Ukraine has launched a highly active “drone diplomacy” initiative, signing defense deals with six countries—including Latvia, Lithuania, Azerbaijan, and three Middle Eastern states—with a goal of securing agreements with seven NATO countries by the end of the year.

Tactical & Operational Lessons: The tactical integration of Anduril’s Lattice software into a repurposed infantry unit represents the physical realization of software-defined warfare at the squad level. By natively integrating aerial ISR telemetry from Ghost X drones and ground reconnaissance data from Gereon UGVs into a single, AI-driven battle management dashboard, the British Army has condensed the kill chain from hours to a matter of minutes. The introduction of the Storm Shroud drone provides a highly tactical Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) capability. Rather than utilizing expensive kinetic anti-radiation missiles, Storm Shroud is built specifically to jam and blind enemy radar arrays. Furthermore, Project NYX introduces true Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) to the tactical rotary-wing environment, offloading the extreme risks of forward scouting to the autonomous Project NYX drone swarm.

Strategic Lessons: The UK’s decision to officially edge away from strict “human-in-the-loop” targeting is one of the most consequential doctrinal shifts in modern Western military history. The strategic calculus driving this shift is rooted in the harsh reality of the modern electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. If an autonomous drone must rely on a continuous, uninterrupted radio data link to a human operator in a ground station to pull the trigger, that drone is functionally useless in a highly contested environment. By authorizing algorithms to manage flight, sensor inputs, and terminal weapon deployment independently, the UK is prioritizing operational tempo and platform survivability over traditional, centralized C2 structures. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s transition from a pure recipient of military aid to a critical supplier of counter-UAS knowledge demonstrates the immense geopolitical capital generated by real-world battlefield innovation, driven heavily by global demand following the spring US-Israeli war with Iran.

Event & Development: Russian Deployment of Fiber-Optic Strike Drones Russian forces operating in Ukraine are actively testing and beginning mass production of a new fiber-optic, fixed-wing strike drone.¹ This new platform, designed as a direct analog to the “Molniya” system, boasts an operational range of up to 50 kilometers and carries a heavy 10-kilogram warhead.² The deployment of this new fixed-wing asset complements the existing use of the shorter-range “VT-40” fiber-optic FPV quadcopters. These systems represent a radical departure from standard drone architecture: they lack radio antennas entirely, relying on a spool of physical fiber-optic cable to maintain a secure, high-bandwidth connection to the operator.¹

Tactical & Operational Lessons: The integration of a fiber-optic tether represents an asymmetric and highly effective engineering solution to the dense EW environment over Ukraine. Traditional FPV drones rely heavily on radio frequencies (RF) for both control inputs and video transmission, which degrade rapidly near localized jamming domes. Because these fiber-optic drones lack control antennas entirely, they are completely immune to RF interference, GPS spoofing, or electromagnetic pulse (EMP) effects.¹ Tactically, the massive bandwidth of the physical cable allows for uncompressed, zero-latency, high-definition video feeds to be transmitted back to the operator, enabling the operator to fly at extreme low altitudes—Nap-of-the-Earth (NOE)—utilizing terrain masking to maneuver around obstacles and remain undetected by conventional air defense radars.¹ Defending forces are forced to rely exclusively on visual spotting and kinetic interception to defeat the incoming threat.

Strategic Lessons: The rapid development of this 50-kilometer range, fiber-optic fixed-wing drone underscores the relentless, iterative adaptation loop occurring on the Ukrainian battlefield. As Western nations invest billions of dollars into highly sophisticated EW suites, Russian engineers have effectively subverted these capabilities by reverting to wire-guided concepts, updated with cheap commercial fiber optics. Strategically, this proves that highly capitalized, exquisite air defense doctrines can be circumvented by localized, low-cost engineering workarounds.

Event & Development: Ukrainian Long-Range Asymmetric Strikes and Sea Denial Ukrainian forces maintained a high operational tempo in their deep-strike campaign, utilizing long-range UAVs to target critical Russian energy infrastructure, including the major oil-exporting ports of Ust-Luga and Vysotsk in the Leningrad region. More significantly, Ukraine successfully targeted highly sensitive Russian Space Communications Centers in Beloomut and Dubna (Moscow Oblast), which manage the telemetry for the Russian Missile Attack Warning System. Simultaneously, in the maritime domain, Ukrainian USVs initiated a new operational phase aimed at isolating occupied Crimea by systematically targeting Russian seaborne gasoline tankers in the Sea of Azov.

Tactical & Operational Lessons: By shifting maritime strike focus toward seaborne gasoline tankers in the Sea of Azov, Ukraine is systematically dismantling the logistical lifeblood of the Crimean peninsula. The tactical success of these USV strikes is forcing Russian commercial fleets to deploy isolated, poorly armed mobile fire teams directly onto civilian decks to intercept incoming drone boats. NASA Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS) data confirmed heat anomalies in the Sea of Azov north of the Kerch Strait following these strikes, highlighting the effectiveness of the drone boats in interdicting fuel logistics.⁸ Concurrently, the precision strikes against the Space Communications Centers demonstrate the extreme tactical accuracy of Ukrainian long-range UAVs. By targeting the main technical buildings and parabolic antennas, Ukraine actively disrupted the KROKUS communication channels, which are designed to alert Russian leadership of incoming ballistic missile strikes.

Strategic Lessons: Ukraine’s asymmetric drone strategy achieves two distinct strategic objectives: economic attrition and strategic blinding. Hitting oil infrastructure deep in the Leningrad region inflicts economic friction on the state mechanisms funding the invasion. However, the strikes on the nuclear early-warning infrastructure carry immense geopolitical risk. By intentionally degrading the specific radar and communication networks that comprise the Russian nuclear deterrent apparatus, Ukraine is utilizing cheap, attritable systems to inflict systemic damage on assets that cost billions of rubles to construct.

Event & Development: Royal Navy Airdrop of Kraken K3 Scout USV and European Defense Integration The United Kingdom’s Royal Navy successfully executed the first-ever airdrop of the Kraken K3 Scout Unmanned Surface Vessel from an Airbus A400M Atlas military transport aircraft into the North Sea, operating under the auspices of Project Beehive. The K3 Scout is a high-performance USV measuring 8.4 meters in length, possessing a substantial 600 kg payload capacity, a top speed of 55 knots, and an impressive operational range of 650 nautical miles. Concurrently, the European Commission proposed five new large-scale projects known as the European Defence Projects of Common Interest (EDPCIs), injecting €325 million under the European Defence Industry Programme specifically to develop drones, counter-drone systems, and seabed defense across EU member states and Ukraine.

Tactical & Operational Lessons: The successful integration of heavy strategic airlift (the A400M Atlas) with autonomous maritime strike assets (the K3 Scout) revolutionizes the speed and unpredictability of expeditionary naval warfare. Tactically, this integration allows a military force to rapidly inject high-speed, autonomous surveillance, force protection, or precision strike capabilities into a maritime theater thousands of miles away within hours. The 600 kg payload capacity of the K3 Scout is highly significant; it is substantial enough to carry advanced dipping sonar for anti-submarine warfare (ASW), heavy loitering munitions for anti-surface strikes, or significant EW suites to act as a forward decoy.

Strategic Lessons: Air-deployable USVs fundamentally alter the geographic and temporal constraints of naval power projection. A single, unassuming cargo aircraft can now covertly deploy a swarm of lethal, autonomous boats directly into contested littorals or critical chokepoints. This allows a force to instantly create an immediate Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) zone, disrupt critical shipping lanes, or screen an amphibious landing without a single manned warship physically present in the theater. Coupled with the EU’s EDPCI funding, which aims to standardize drone and seabed defense production across 18 member states, Europe is rapidly moving to close the capability gap, leveraging mass production to secure its Eastern Flank and maritime borders.

Middle East and Red Sea Theater: The Enduring USV Threat

Event & Development: Resurgence of Houthi Lethal USV Attacks Following a brief operational pause, Iranian-backed Houthi forces resumed intense maritime operations in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb strait.⁵ During a highly active recent period, Houthi forces successfully attacked multiple commercial vessels. The Liberian-flagged merchant vessel Magic Seas was struck by at least two bomb-carrying Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs), forcing the crew to abandon the burning, flooding ship.⁵ Similarly, the Chios Lion, an oil tanker carrying a full cargo of crude oil, was targeted by a Houthi maritime drone and UAV strike.⁴ This renewed campaign adds to a historical toll that has seen the Houthis sink at least two vessels and kill four sailors since late 2023.⁵ US Central Command (CENTCOM) confirmed the escalation, reporting the interception of additional Houthi USVs and complex attacks involving one-way attack UAVs in the region.

Tactical & Operational Lessons: The tactical transition by Houthi forces toward deploying explosive-laden USVs masterfully exploits the physical and engineering limitations of conventional naval defense arrays. The USVs utilized by the Houthis are typically low-profile, fiberglass or composite-hulled boats that skim the surface of the water, producing minimal thermal signatures and virtually zero radar cross-section (RCS). In the highly cluttered, high-wave environments of the Bab el-Mandeb strait, traditional shipboard targeting radars struggle immensely to differentiate these small drone boats from standard wave clutter until they are within visual range. The attack on the Magic Seas was a complex engagement; the vessel was initially distracted by small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades before being struck at the waterline by at least two USVs.⁵ Defending against these assets is incredibly difficult for merchant shipping, requiring high-definition electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors combined with rapid-fire kinetic weapons which commercial vessels do not possess.

Strategic Lessons: The successful targeting and severe damaging of commercial vessels, forcing crew abandonments, demonstrates a severe and systemic failure of the allied coalition’s deterrence posture in the Red Sea. Despite continuous, highly expensive airstrikes targeting Houthi launch sites, radar installations, and command nodes, the highly distributed, low-tech nature of USV assembly allows the Houthis to maintain a persistent, lethal sea denial operation over one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. The strategic lesson is absolute: traditional air supremacy and precision kinetic strikes on land-based infrastructure are entirely insufficient to neutralize a highly motivated, asymmetric non-state actor armed with cheap, easily concealed autonomous systems. Furthermore, the targeting of the Chios Lion highlights the immense environmental leverage the Houthis wield; by threatening a crude oil spill that would devastate regional coastlines, they are effectively weaponizing the environment against the international community.⁴

Indo-Pacific Theater: MUM-T and Autonomous Logistics

Event & Development: USAF F-15EX and RAAF MQ-28 Ghost Bat Teaming During Exercise Valiant Shield 2026, a massive joint drill spanning the Pacific, the US Pacific Air Forces released a highly significant photograph: an American F-15EX Eagle II fighter from the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron flying in close operational formation with a Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) over the Philippine Sea. Notably, the unmanned drone acting as the loyal wingman was the Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat, the first military aircraft designed and built entirely in Australia in over 50 years. The MQ-28 has already demonstrated mature kinetic capabilities, successfully shooting down targets with missiles on US Navy ranges.

Tactical & Operational Lessons: The F-15EX, heavily upgraded with advanced computing architecture, highly classified electronic warfare suites, and crucially, an additional crew station for a Weapon Systems Officer, serves as the ideal command node and quarterback for Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T). Tactically, the MQ-28 Ghost Bat acts as a massive force multiplier and a forward-deployed risk sponge. Operating semi-autonomously under the direct oversight of the F-15EX crew, the Ghost Bat can push far ahead into deeply contested airspace. It utilizes its internal sensors to paint targets, jam adversary radars, and use its internal weapons bays to launch munitions. This allows the highly valuable, manned F-15EX to remain safely outside the lethal threat ring of adversary surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) while still projecting immense combat power.

Strategic Lessons: The fact that the US Air Force deliberately chose an Australian-built aircraft to pioneer its first public display of crewed-uncrewed teaming is strategically profound. It signals a deep, structural integration of Allied defense industrial bases and a unified doctrinal approach to the Pacific theater. As the US Air Force continues its own domestic CCA competitions, the operational maturity of the MQ-28 proves that allied nations are no longer just passive consumers of US military technology. Nations like Australia are actively co-developing the foundational, lethal platforms of next-generation air dominance. This deep interoperability ensures that in a hypothetical Pacific conflict, US fighters could seamlessly command Australian, Japanese, or British autonomous assets, creating a deeply resilient, coalition-wide kill web.

Event & Development: RAAF C-130J Launch of “Aladdin” Logistics Drone In a separate but equally critical development in Australia, the Royal Australian Air Force successfully launched the “Aladdin” air delivery drone from the cargo ramp of a C-130J Hercules transport aircraft during Exercise Jericho Dawn in South Australia. This compact, uncrewed aerial system—described as being no larger than a standard wheelie bin—is capable of carrying a 35 kg payload of communication equipment or tactical relief supplies. The system is designed to autonomously navigate and execute pinpoint landings on both austere land environments and moving ships at sea.

Tactical & Operational Lessons: Logistics in the Indo-Pacific theater—characterized by vast, unforgiving ocean expanses and highly dispersed, austere island chains—is arguably the greatest operational vulnerability for allied forces. The Aladdin system provides a highly tactical, autonomous solution to the “last tactical mile” resupply challenge. By dropping a small, autonomous drone directly from the ramp of a C-130J, the massive, highly vulnerable transport aircraft can remain at high altitudes and safe standoff distances, entirely avoiding localized short-range air defenses (SHORAD) or man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS). Once deployed, the drone stabilizes mid-air, autonomously navigates to the target coordinates, and drops critical payloads with pinpoint accuracy. Furthermore, its capability to autonomously calculate the trajectory and land on moving naval vessels at sea provides a rapid resupply vector for distributed naval surface action groups.

Strategic Lessons: Exercise Jericho Dawn was established with a specific mandate: to rapidly move prototype capabilities out of the laboratory and into realistic, military field conditions to accelerate transition to operational use. Strategically, low-cost autonomous systems like Aladdin are the critical enablers for the Marine Corps’ concept of Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO) and the Army’s Multi-Domain Task Forces. In these doctrines, small, highly dispersed units operate radar and missile batteries across remote archipelagos. Sustaining these forward units with food, batteries, and repair parts without risking major strategic airlift assets is critical to maintaining a persistent, distributed, and lethal force posture in a heavily contested environment.

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. Russia tests new fiber-optic drone – RBC-Ukraine, accessed July 11, 2026, https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/russia-tests-new-fiber-optic-drone-1783534931.html
2. Russia Secretly Tests Fiber-Optic Drone Capable of Striking Deep Frontline Targets, accessed July 11, 2026, https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/russia-secretly-tests-fiber-optic-drone-capable-of-striking-deep-frontline-targets-20593
3. The Air Force Goes Shopping for New Ways to Kill Drones, accessed July 11, 2026, https://migflug.com/jetflights/air-force-battle-lab-counter-drone-options-2026/
4. Houthi Maritime Drone and UAV Strike Hits US-linked Oil Tanker in Red Sea, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.garoweonline.com/en/news/world/houthi-maritime-drone-and-uav-strike-hits-us-linked-oil-tanker-in-red-sea
5. Houthis resume use of explosive drones in Red Sea attacks – cuashub.com, accessed July 11, 2026, https://cuashub.com/en/content/houthis-resume-use-of-explosive-drones-in-red-sea-attacks/
6. DoD promised a ‘swarm’ of attack drones. We’re still waiting. – Responsible Statecraft, accessed July 11, 2026, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/replicator/
7. US Navy Seeks Industry Input for Next Generation Undersea Security Initiative, accessed July 11, 2026, https://www.executivegov.com/articles/navy-strategic-systems-programs-next-gen-undersea-security-ssn
8. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 10, 2026 | ISW, accessed July 11, 2026, https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-july-10-2026/

Executive Summary

The character of modern warfare is undergoing a profound and irreversible tectonic shift, driven primarily by the rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous systems. Recent conflicts spanning from the steppes of Eastern Europe to the highly contested littorals of the Middle East have demonstrated a strategic reality: mass, attritable unmanned architecture, coordinated by sophisticated orchestration software, is rapidly eclipsing the battlefield dominance of exquisite, heavily manned legacy platforms. Recognizing this strategic inflection point, the United States Department of War—recently rebranded by executive order to reflect a philosophical pivot toward proactive lethality—has initiated the most profound reorganization of military acquisition, force design, and command structure in modern history.

In the summer of 2026, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth mandated the creation of the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems (DRPM-UxS), a centralized and highly empowered “drone czar” reporting directly to Deputy Secretary of War Stephen Feinberg. This office consolidates the development, procurement, fielding, and sustainment of nearly all Department-wide autonomous systems. The DRPM-UxS portfolio spans unmanned aerial systems (UAS) groups 1 through 3, unmanned surface vessels (USVs), unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), and the underlying AI and swarming software that dictates their operational capability. Simultaneously, the Trump administration has requested a staggering $54.6 billion for the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG) for Fiscal Year 2027, signaling an intent to establish a permanent sub-unified command for autonomous warfare that will institutionalize these capabilities across the joint force.

This research report provides an exhaustive, strategic-level analysis of these structural realignments. It evaluates the operational impact of centralizing drone and AI programs, analyzing the critical symbiotic relationship between hardware procurement under the DRPM-UxS and the software-defined kill chain managed by the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO) and the Undersecretary of War for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)). Furthermore, the analysis assesses the profound geopolitical implications for United States power projection, weighing the operational advantages of rapid technological scaling against the immense bureaucratic resistance anticipated from the traditional military branches. Ultimately, the success of this sweeping, enterprise-wide initiative will depend not merely on historic budgetary allocations, but on relentless executive backing, the resolution of deep-seated doctrinal friction, and the rigorous alignment of commercial AI development with military necessity.

1. The Strategic Imperative for Autonomous Overmatch

For several decades following the end of the Cold War, the United States maintained global military overmatch through a paradigm of technological exclusivity. This approach favored the procurement of highly advanced, heavily manned, and prohibitively expensive platforms, such as fifth-generation stealth fighters, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, and exquisite mechanized armor. However, the battlefield realities of the mid-2020s have ruthlessly exposed the vulnerabilities of this traditional model. The democratization of precision guidance, the hyper-commercialization of drone technology, and the advent of generative and predictive artificial intelligence have fundamentally compressed the kill chain and redefined the concept of operational mass. In a peer-to-peer conflict, relying solely on multi-million-dollar platforms against an adversary capable of deploying tens of thousands of cheap, lethal, and autonomous effectors is a mathematically untenable strategy.

The strategic urgency to master this new domain has permeated the highest echelons of the United States government, resulting in both organizational and profound semantic shifts. In September 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order restoring the “Department of War” designation as a secondary, public-facing title for the Department of Defense.¹ This semantic alteration was explicitly designed to shift the bureaucratic culture away from passive administration and toward proactive lethality and offensive capability.¹ The President stated that the historical transition to the Department of Defense coincided with a “woke” culture that degraded military effectiveness, noting that the United States had not decisively won a major conflict since the original name was retired after World War II.¹ Secretary of War Pete Hegseth concurred with this assessment, officially adopting the title and asserting that the rebranding is fundamentally about “restoring” a warfighting ethos where “words matter”.¹ This psychological and semantic shift—evidenced by the rapid transformation of digital infrastructure to the war.gov domain—serves as the foundational backdrop for the administration’s aggressive restructuring of autonomous capabilities.¹

The physical manifestation of this aggressive new strategic posture is the realization that the drone itself—whether aerial, ground-based, or maritime—is no longer the true locus of military capability. Instead, the software that orchestrates these systems constitutes the weapon.⁶ Historically, unmanned platforms have been rigidly tethered to human operators via continuous radio-frequency communication links.⁶ In the highly contested electronic warfare (EW) environments anticipated in the Indo-Pacific or Eastern Europe, these links are easily severed, rendering remote-controlled platforms completely inert.⁶ Genuine military autonomy, therefore, requires sophisticated software capable of localized navigation, target identification, and terminal engagement without a human-in-the-loop, allowing the system to operate autonomously beneath the threshold of active EW disruption.⁶ The Department of War recognizes that future power projection relies on rapidly fielding these algorithmic capabilities at a scale that overwhelms adversary defensive architectures.

2. The Genesis of the DRPM-UxS: Centralizing the Autonomous Arsenal

To overcome the historically fragmented, service-centric approach to developing unmanned systems, Secretary Hegseth issued a comprehensive memorandum on June 29, 2026, establishing the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems (DRPM-UxS).⁷ This powerful new office is designed to serve as the “single joint integrator” for the Department’s autonomous assets, effectively tearing acquisition authority away from the individual military branches—the Army, Navy, and Air Force—to ensure cross-domain synchronization and rapid fielding.⁷

The directive authority granted to the DRPM-UxS is virtually unprecedented in its breadth and scope. The office, whose director is yet to be named, reports directly to Deputy Secretary of War Stephen Feinberg, placing it at the absolute apex of the Pentagon’s civilian leadership structure.⁷ The drone czar assumes directive control over the development, procurement, fielding, logistical support, and sustainment for nearly all major categories of autonomous warfare.¹⁰ This centralization is designed to eliminate redundant research and development efforts across the services, enforce joint technical standards, and mandate open architecture requirements so that distinct systems can communicate seamlessly on the battlefield.¹⁰

The DRPM-UxS is explicitly granted directive precedence in all acquisition matters regarding the execution of unmanned systems (UxS) programs, positioning the office second only to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of War in this specific technological domain.¹⁰ Furthermore, the drone czar possesses the unique authority to task personnel and place organizations from other Department components under its direct operational control when necessary to achieve overall system synchronization.¹⁰

To effectively map the scope of this new command structure, it is necessary to delineate precisely what falls under the drone czar’s purview versus what remains under traditional service control.

As detailed in the structural mapping above, the portfolio’s boundaries are drawn with calculated strategic intent. The DRPM-UxS authority purposefully stops short of Major Defense Acquisition Programs (MDAPs)—the heavily capitalized, exquisite platforms that already follow a separate, rigidly codified approval process set in federal law.⁷ By leaving the exquisite, multi-million-dollar platforms with the services, the Department minimizes existential threats to traditional branch identities and avoids disrupting programs that are decades in the making. Concurrently, by centralizing the “attritable” tier—the low-cost, high-volume drones that actually dictate modern maneuver warfare—the DRPM-UxS is insulated from the risk-averse, slow-moving procurement cultures that have historically stifled rapid innovation.

To operationalize this expansive mandate, several existing interagency and defense entities are being repositioned directly underneath the DRPM-UxS umbrella. The Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG)—an entity established after the Pentagon dissolved the struggling Biden-era Replicator initiative in 2025 due to technical and procurement roadblocks—becomes a subordinate deputy office. DAWG continues to serve as the Department’s primary institutional engine for mass-producing cheap unmanned systems. Additionally, to address counter-drone measures, Hegseth directed the disestablishment of the Army-led Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office (JCO) in favor of establishing a new Joint Interagency Task Force 401 (JIATF-401) directly under the drone czar’s purview.¹³ General James Mingus, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, had previously advocated for this type of task force to have a “colorless pot of money” and rapid acquisition authorities to bypass standard 20-year procurement cycles.¹⁰ Under the DRPM-UxS, JIATF-401’s mandate broadens from countering small aerial drones to countering unmanned threats across every operational domain—air, land, and sea.⁷ The inclusion of JIATF-401 indicates that the Department views offensive swarming and defensive counter-swarming as two sides of the exact same technological coin, requiring unified oversight.¹³

For engagement with the private sector, the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) has been officially designated as the primary industry engagement interface between the DRPM-UxS and commercial partners.¹⁰ This structural choice is highly revealing. It acknowledges that the cutting edge of drone and AI technology no longer resides within traditional prime defense contractors (the so-called “primes”), but rather within nimble commercial tech startups in Silicon Valley and beyond. By funneling industry engagement through the DIU—an entity explicitly designed to adapt commercial technology for military use—the DRPM-UxS can bypass sluggish, conventional contracting mechanisms. This ensures that the military can rapidly ingest commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) innovations, providing a centralized buying signal for manufacturers and integrating them into the autonomous arsenal before the technology becomes obsolete.

3. The Institutionalization of Autonomous Warfare: The Sub-Unified Command

While the creation of the DRPM-UxS centralizes acquisition, the integration of these systems into actual combat operations requires an entirely new command architecture. The structural and technological shifts enacted by Hegseth and Feinberg are intrinsically tied to an unprecedented influx of capital, signaling that autonomous warfare is no longer an experimental side project, but the central pillar of future military strategy.

In late April 2026, Secretary Hegseth testified before the House Armed Services Committee regarding the Department of War’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request. The proposed budget includes approximately $54.6 billion specifically earmarked for the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG)—a monumental and historic increase from the roughly $226 million the DAWG had received previously. This represents a roughly 24,000 percent year-over-year increase, eclipsing even the entire Marine Corps budget request of $52.8 billion. When aggregating all drone and counter-drone related budget lines across the FY 2027 request, the total approaches $74 billion.¹⁴ Pentagon officials have described this as the largest single investment in such technologies in United States history, representing a fundamental reallocation of national defense resources.¹⁴ This massive budget is intended to fund procurement, operations and maintenance, training, sustainment, and enabling capabilities for unmanned efforts across the entire joint force.¹⁵

Beyond the staggering headline numbers, Hegseth used this testimony to announce the impending establishment of a dedicated “sub-unified command of autonomous warfare”.¹⁴ In United States military doctrine, the global force is divided among eleven unified combatant commands, some geographic (like INDOPACOM) and some functional (like Transportation Command).¹⁴ Subject to the approval of the Secretary of War, combatant commanders can stand up sub-unified commands to execute specific, highly complex missions.¹⁴ Crucially, a sub-unified command is a joint, enduring organization; the designation signals that the mission is a high priority, permanent feature of the military’s force structure, not a temporary experimental initiative.¹⁴ This elevates autonomous warfare to the same institutional and structural status as the defense of the Korean Peninsula (under United States Forces Korea) or global counter-terrorism (under Joint Special Operations Command).¹⁴

The creation of this dedicated structural home provides a durable organizational apparatus for defining military requirements, developing operational doctrine, and maintaining sustained demand for autonomous systems.¹⁴ Rather than managing the rapidly evolving demands of drone warfare in an ad-hoc manner from the Pentagon, this command structure will provide a dedicated, operational focus to deploy these technologies into active theaters.¹⁴

However, a sub-unified command does not operate independently; it must derive its authority from a parent combatant command.¹⁴ The ultimate structural placement of this new entity remains strategically ambiguous, with two primary parent commands emerging as the most likely candidates:

1. U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM): This is widely considered the strongest possibility for the enterprise-level command. The DAWG is currently housed within SOCOM to leverage the command’s highly flexible acquisition authorities and its culture of rapid technological integration.¹⁴ If the new sub-unified command is established permanently under SOCOM, it will likely act as the operational counterpart that deploys the swarms that the DAWG develops, allowing special operators to serve as the vanguard for integrating edge AI before scaling those tactics to the conventional Army and Marine Corps.¹⁴
2. U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM): SOUTHCOM provides an alternative model. It recently established its own theater-specific entity, the SOUTHCOM Autonomous Warfare Command (SAWC), which utilizes drones for regional security, counter-narcotics, and maritime domain awareness.¹⁴ While SAWC is currently viewed as a regional implementation rather than the global enterprise-level command envisioned by Hegseth, it serves as a critical early test case for how a future autonomous joint force will interface with geographic combatant commands worldwide.¹⁴

Regardless of its final placement, the establishment of this command allows the U.S. military to execute a highly sought-after “clean-sheet” approach. As analysts from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) have noted, a cross-service body like DAWG, empowered by a sub-unified command structure, is uniquely positioned to divest from cumbersome legacy systems and build vendor-agnostic software solutions from scratch.⁶ Individual military services frequently struggle to integrate disruptive technologies due to rigid budget lines and entrenched service-specific preferences.⁶ The sub-unified command bypasses these hurdles, providing the institutional foundation necessary to secure absolute U.S. leadership in autonomous warfare before a major conflict forces the issue.⁶

Furthermore, the congressional appetite for this institutionalization appears to exceed even Hegseth’s vision. In June 2026, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) advanced its fiscal 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which encourages the Pentagon to go beyond a sub-unified command and establish a full, separate “Robotic and Autonomous Systems Combatant Command.” This proposed structure would possess special test, evaluation, and limited acquisition authorities, highlighting a bipartisan legislative consensus that autonomous warfare requires top-tier, permanent organizational independence to bypass traditional force generation roadblocks.

4. The Software-Defined Kill Chain and CJADC2 Integration

The consolidation of hardware procurement under the DRPM-UxS and the operationalization of drones under a sub-unified command represent only the physical half of the Department of War’s strategy. The second, arguably more critical vector is the rapid scaling of artificial intelligence to manage these platforms. Hardware without robust, unconstrained software is merely target practice for the adversary. The true delivery of autonomous force is not the physical machine that flies or floats, but the AI-enabled “kill chain” itself.⁶

The Department of War’s doctrine now recognizes two distinct levels of AI-enabled autonomy.⁶ Platform-level (edge) autonomy consists of software running directly on the vehicle, allowing it to perform localized tasks such as automatic target recognition and GPS-denied navigation without a human-in-the-loop.⁶ Orchestration-level autonomy is the strategic software layer that binds thousands of individual edge platforms together.⁶ It functions as a neutral infrastructure layer that fuses intelligence feeds, constructs a real-time common operational picture, deconflicts airspace, and dynamically assigns tasks across both kinetic and non-kinetic effectors.⁶ Truly autonomous, networked warfare only exists when both edge and orchestration software layers operate in tandem.⁶

To achieve this, Deputy Secretary Feinberg has aggressively pushed to integrate AI into the Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) concept. CJADC2 is the overarching architecture designed to connect all of the U.S. military’s sensors, weapons, and decision-makers seamlessly across air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace, enabling data sharing with coalition partners.²⁰ In a pivotal memorandum dated March 9, 2026, Feinberg directed that the Department must “invest now and with focus to deepen the integration of [AI] across the Joint Force and establish AI-enabled decision-making as the cornerstone of our strategy for.”²⁰

The centerpiece of this AI orchestration strategy is the evolution of Project Maven. Originally an experimental intelligence tool designed to parse video feeds, Maven has evolved into the Maven Smart System (MSS), a comprehensive graphical user interface and AI targeting platform.²¹ Over the past decades, the Pentagon has been plagued by inadequate analytic capacity relative to the massive amounts of data collected by its sensors, severely slowing its ability to strike targets quickly enough to matter in modern combat.²¹ MSS’s AI capabilities directly address this bottleneck by triaging data and recommending targets at machine speed.²¹

Under Feinberg’s March 2026 directive, oversight of MSS was fully relocated to the CDAO, and a plan was initiated to transition Project Maven into an official program of record by September 2026.²² By designating Maven AI as a program of record, the Pentagon secures stable, long-term funding for the system, transitions procurement responsibilities to the U.S. Army, and ensures its formal adoption for enduring use across the entire Department of Defense.²² Furthermore, the U.S. Army Combined Arms Command announced it would integrate Maven directly into its training architectures, ensuring that tactical units develop doctrine alongside the evolving software.²² This transition emphasizes the central role of commercial partners, particularly Palantir, in transforming experimental AI into a mature, scalable capability that can effectively serve as the brain of the CJADC2 network.²³

5. The Restructuring of AI Governance: Elevating or Demoting the CDAO?

To execute this software-defined strategy, the Department of War has undertaken a controversial restructuring of its digital ecosystem. In August 2025, Deputy Secretary Feinberg issued a directive transferring authority over the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO) away from the deputy secretary’s direct purview, placing it instead under the Undersecretary of War for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)), Emil Michael.²⁴ Feinberg simultaneously ordered Michael to conduct a 120-day review to present a recommended path forward for the Department’s two flagship AI platforms: Advana and the Maven Smart System.²⁴

This administrative realignment triggered significant debate within the defense community regarding the Department’s true commitment to AI adoption. Several former defense leaders, including retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Jack Shanahan (who previously led Project Maven and the Joint AI Center), argued that the move risked signaling a deprioritization of AI just as adversaries were accelerating their battlefield use of autonomy.²⁴ Shanahan bluntly warned, “When you pull an organization that was a direct report to the deputy secretary or secretary and move it somewhere else in the Pentagon, no matter what the intent might be, the message to the force is loud and clear: This isn’t a priority”.²⁴ Michael Horowitz, a former DoD policy official, echoed this sentiment, arguing that folding CDAO under a research and development umbrella seemed like a step backward from the goal of deploying AI at scale across the armed services, stating that “demoting AI within the Pentagon seems pretty risky at this point in history”.²⁶ The restructuring also coincided with reports of significant job cuts within the CDAO, with estimates suggesting a 60% reduction in the office’s workforce.²⁵

However, Undersecretary Emil Michael has vigorously rebutted these concerns, framing the reorganization not as a demotion, but as a necessary maturation of the Department’s AI strategy. Michael argues that positioning CDAO under R&E provides it with the institutional “muscle” and wherewithal of an established research body, akin to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) or the Missile Defense Agency.²⁴ A defense official supporting the move noted that aligning CDAO under USD(R&E) creates a “powerful innovation engine that can deliver AI superiority from laboratory to battlefield”.²⁴

Michael’s vision for the newly empowered CDAO is highly ambitious. Beyond guiding lethal targeting through Maven, he intends to rapidly proliferate generative AI for logistical and administrative dominance. In a public address, Michael stated, “We want to have an AI capability on every desktop — 3 million desktops — in six or nine months… for corporate use cases like efficiency… for intelligence and for warfighting”.²⁵ To facilitate this, Secretary Hegseth personally authorized the rollout of “GenAI.mil,” a secure generative AI platform based on Google’s Gemini for Government, directly to the desktops of all military personnel, civilians, and contractors.²⁸ Hegseth explicitly noted that there is “no prize for second place in the global race for AI dominance,” emphasizing that mass AI adoption across both back-office operations and the tactical edge is critical to the Department’s acceleration strategy.²⁸ To streamline this focus, Michael also announced plans to trim the Department’s bloated list of “critical technology” areas, forcing the bureaucracy to focus its resources on a narrower, more lethal set of priorities, primarily centered on autonomous systems.²⁷

6. The Ideological Battlefield: Eliminating Constraints on Military AI

Perhaps the most defining, and highly contentious, aspect of the new Department of War doctrine is the aggressive push by civilian leadership to remove ethical and commercial safeguards that they believe hamper military lethality. As the military relies increasingly on commercial technology companies to build its orchestration layers, a severe cultural clash has emerged between Silicon Valley’s safety-conscious engineering culture and the Pentagon’s demand for unconstrained warfighting tools.

Secretary Hegseth has engaged in high-profile friction with commercial AI developers over the ethical boundaries of military AI, culminating in a highly publicized meeting with the CEO of Anthropic.³⁰ Anthropic’s CEO, Dario Amodei, had previously published essays warning about the dangers of AI in national security, expressing concerns that powerful AI could be used for invasive government surveillance to “gauge public sentiment, detect pockets of disloyalty forming, and stamp them out before they grow,” as well as concerns over the deployment of lethal force.³²

Hegseth has explicitly rejected these commercial concerns, insisting that the Pentagon must be allowed to utilize AI technology in any legal way it sees fit to achieve dominance.³¹ Speaking to an audience of SpaceX employees, Hegseth declared that he would unequivocally reject any AI models “that won’t allow you to fight wars”.²⁹ He articulated a vision for systems that operate “without ideological constraints that limit lawful military applications,” arguing that responsible AI simply means objectively truthful capabilities employed within the laws governing the Department.²⁹

This posture reflects a profound ideological shift and a deliberate repudiation of previous administrations’ tech policies. Hegseth has characterized previous DoD approaches to AI safety as being beholden to a “woke culture,” insisting that the Department is in the business of building “war ready weapons and systems, not chatbots for an Ivy League faculty lounge”.²⁹

To formalize this aggressive acceleration, President Trump signed National Security Presidential Memorandum 11 (NSPM-11), titled “Artificial Intelligence in the National Security Enterprise,” on June 5, 2026.³⁴ This directive explicitly mandates the U.S. military and intelligence community to accelerate AI adoption by reversing multiple Biden-era oversight requirements.³⁴ Most notably, NSPM-11 requires the Pentagon to update “Directive 3000.09″—the core policy document guiding the development of autonomous weapon systems—within 90 days to account for rapidly evolving AI capabilities.³⁴

However, this relentless pursuit of algorithmic lethality is generating significant internal and legislative anxiety. The push to reduce rigorous pre-deployment testing and ethical reviews has alarmed combat commanders. Adm. Frank Bradley, head of U.S. Special Operations Command—the very units tasked with executing the most dangerous missions—cautioned attendees at a Tampa special forces conference that the military must be “very careful” about how AI is employed.³¹ While Bradley acknowledged a future where AI determines target selection, he stressed that “we, as humans, have to have the confidence that… it’s going to deliver violence only where we intend it to be delivered”.³¹

Legislators have echoed these operational concerns. Senator Ruben Gallego, a Marine Corps combat veteran, sent a letter to Secretary Hegseth warning against the rapid update to Directive 3000.09 mandated by NSPM-11.³⁴ Gallego argued that the previous iteration of the directive served as the core safeguard ensuring that autonomous weapons function as intended, allow for termination, and resist adversarial manipulation.³⁴ He explicitly warned that significantly reducing these safeguards risks catastrophic friendly fire incidents, civilian harm, and the potential revocation of U.S. basing and overflight rights by host nations if hastily fielded systems cause unintended collateral damage.³⁴ Gallego specifically requested information on whether the newly funded DAWG utilizes dedicated personnel for civilian harm mitigation during the development of these weapons.³⁴ The tension between Hegseth’s mandate for unrestrained speed and the operational necessity for safety and reliability will fundamentally define the success or failure of the U.S. autonomous strategy.

7. Strategic Implications for U.S. Power Projection

The consolidation of the DRPM-UxS, the establishment of the sub-unified command, and the unconstrained integration of the CJADC2 AI orchestration layer collectively represent a paradigm shift in how the United States projects global power.

Primarily, these capabilities alter the calculus of deterrence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific theater. The ability to rapidly generate thousands of autonomous, attritable platforms complicates adversary targeting. A potential adversary can easily track and target a multi-billion-dollar aircraft carrier group; it is vastly more difficult to neutralize a distributed, software-orchestrated swarm of unmanned surface vessels and loitering munitions operating without centralized communication nodes. By prioritizing volume and AI-driven coordination over exquisite platform survivability, the U.S. forces adversaries into a highly unfavorable defensive posture.

Furthermore, this strategy actively attacks the economic realities of modern defense. Currently, the U.S. military is trapped in an unsustainable cost-curve battle, frequently forced to expend million-dollar Patriot or Standard Missile interceptors to neutralize cheap, commercially derived adversary drones.¹⁰ By elevating JIATF-401 to counter unmanned threats across all domains, and backing it with the DRPM-UxS’s rapid acquisition authorities, the military intends to field a layered defense architecture.¹⁰ This includes deploying directed energy weapons (lasers and high-powered microwaves)—bolstered by recent $86 million Joint Laser Weapon System Agreements³⁵—alongside lower-cost kinetic interceptors, fundamentally inverting the cost-curve in America’s favor.¹³

The integration of commercial technology via the DIU also heavily bolsters the defense industrial base. The FY2027 budget request includes over $100 billion in broader Defense Industrial Base (DIB) investments, with nearly $49 billion targeted at addressing critical mineral shortfalls and securing domestic supply chains necessary for mass drone production.¹⁷ By ensuring that the strategic orchestration layer is owned and controlled by the U.S. government while fostering a vibrant commercial marketplace for the hardware effectors, the Department of War is attempting to build an infinitely scalable, resilient force structure.⁶

8. Overcoming Organizational Inertia and Doctrinal Friction

While the theoretical and strategic advantages of centralized autonomous warfare are profound, executing this vision in reality requires overcoming the deepest and most entrenched organizational inertia within the United States military. The military branches—Army, Navy, and Air Force—have centuries of ingrained culture built around human operators, pilot-centric hierarchies, and fierce protection of service-specific budgetary control. The Hegseth/Feinberg mandate is a direct assault on this traditional Title 10 authority.

The debate over the likelihood of the drone czar’s success reveals deep schisms within the defense establishment.

The bureaucratic advantages of the DRPM-UxS are clear: velocity and interoperability. Centralization forces open architectures, ensuring that an Army ground robot, a Navy surface vessel, and an Air Force drone swarm can all communicate within the same CJADC2 AI orchestration layer.¹⁰

However, Frank Kendall’s critique highlights the fundamental contradiction of the centralization plan: while the civilian Office of the Secretary of War dictates the acquisition and design of these systems, the individual military branches remain wholly responsible for manning, operating, training, and logistically sustaining them in austere combat environments.¹¹ As Kendall articulated, attempting to dictate the nuances of domain-specific optimization (land, air, sea, space) from a centralized office operating entirely outside the services is historically fraught with failure.¹¹ If the DRPM-UxS alienates the service chiefs, the branches may passively resist integration, refusing to allocate the necessary personnel or training pipeline resources to effectively utilize the swarms the DRPM procures.

Furthermore, the new office will immediately inherit highly complex doctrinal disputes that have plagued the joint force for decades. Because the DRPM-UxS oversees programs across all three military departments, it must mediate classic “division-of-labor” battles. For example, the czar and the new sub-unified command must definitively determine at what altitude an Army drone’s airspace responsibility ends and the Air Force’s begins, or how to deconflict autonomous swarming behaviors in littoral zones where Navy surface vessels and Marine Corps expeditionary assets overlap.¹¹ Resolving these unprecedented multi-service doctrinal issues requires an exceptional level of inter-service diplomacy and rigid enforcement by civilian leadership.¹¹

9. Strategic Prerequisites for the President and Secretary of War

To ensure the DRPM-UxS achieves the ambitious goals set forth by the administration, and to prevent the autonomous initiative from collapsing under the weight of Pentagon politics, several critical prerequisites must be met by both Secretary Hegseth and the broader executive branch.

1. Relentless Executive Top-Cover and the Cultivation of “Wasta” The newly appointed drone czar will inherently lack the institutional history and tribal loyalty enjoyed by four-star service chiefs. Therefore, the manager appointed to the DRPM-UxS must possess “wasta”—an Arabic colloquialism used in defense circles to describe informal, personal influence communicating to the vast Pentagon bureaucracy that ignoring the czar’s authority brings the direct wrath of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of War.¹¹ Hegseth and Feinberg must provide “unmistakable and continuous backing,” immediately intervening in early bureaucratic turf wars.¹¹ As David Berteau noted, the czar can only elevate a limited number of initial disputes to the Deputy Secretary: “If you win the first ones, the rest fall in line. If you lose more than one or two, you’ve lost them all”.¹¹

2. Aggressive Congressional Synchronization The DRPM-UxS is being established in the midst of a chaotic, overlapping budget cycle.¹¹ The office must reconcile FY25 funds that expire rapidly, manage FY26 outlays in full flow, and desperately defend the historic $74 billion FY27 request currently before Capitol Hill, all while brainstorming multi-year plans for FY28-32.¹¹ Success requires the President and the Secretary of War to expend significant political capital lobbying Congress. They must protect the DAWG’s funding from being cannibalized by lawmakers who may seek to redirect funds back toward legacy defense contractors that employ thousands of voters in their home districts, rather than the non-traditional software startups utilized by the DIU.

3. Maintaining a Lean, Mission-Focused Architecture To avoid the fate of the heavily criticized F-35 Joint Program Office, the DRPM-UxS must fiercely resist the gravitational pull of bureaucratic bloat.¹¹ It must remain a lean oversight and integration body. Rather than building massive internal engineering directorates, the czar must heavily leverage the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and the DAWG to push development risk onto commercial industry, serving as an aggressive integrator of COTS technology rather than a traditional, slow-moving prime contractor.¹⁰

4. Ethical and Operational Clarity in AI Deployment While Hegseth’s ideological push to remove constraints is designed to maximize lethality in a peer conflict, the Department must concurrently develop robust, AI-specific validation tools.⁶ Moving fast cannot mean fielding brittle algorithms subject to adversarial spoofing or catastrophic failure. To maintain the confidence of combatant commanders like Adm. Bradley, the Department must invest heavily in systematic post-mission analysis and explainability tooling.⁶ Ensuring that commanders trust the AI models driving the orchestration software is just as critical as the lethality of the software itself.

10. Conclusions

The Department of War’s decision to consolidate autonomous systems under the DRPM-UxS, backed by a historic $54.6 billion capitalization of the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group and a mandate for unrestricted AI integration via CJADC2, represents a seminal moment in United States military history. It signifies the formal strategic transition from a platform-centric military reliant on exquisite hardware to a software-defined, networked force reliant on algorithmic mass.

By centralizing the acquisition of attritable hardware, unifying the AI orchestration layer through programs like the Maven Smart System, and establishing a permanent sub-unified command (or potentially a full Combatant Command), the United States is positioning itself to project overwhelming, distributed mass in future conflicts. This architecture is designed to fundamentally disrupt adversary targeting and invert the economic cost-curve of modern defense.

However, the strategy is fraught with systemic operational and bureaucratic risk. The deliberate circumvention of service-level Title 10 authority will inevitably trigger massive organizational inertia, threatening to fracture the initiative along service lines. The ultimate success of this endeavor does not rely on the physical technology—which commercial industry is already rapidly maturing—but on the bureaucratic ruthlessness and strategic vision of civilian leadership. Secretary Hegseth and Deputy Secretary Feinberg must ruthlessly enforce joint standards, mediate complex airspace and domain deconfliction doctrine, protect the nascent drone czar from institutional sabotage, and successfully defend the massive budgetary reallocation on Capitol Hill. If leadership falters in any of these areas, the United States risks fielding a disjointed, expensive, and ultimately vulnerable autonomous architecture in an era where software speed dictates geopolitical survival.

Appendix: Glossary of Acronyms

• CCA: Collaborative Combat Aircraft
• CDAO: Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office
• CJADC2: Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control
• COTS: Commercial Off-The-Shelf
• CSIS: Center for Strategic and International Studies
• C-UAS: Counter-Unmanned Aerial Systems
• DARPA: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
• DAWG: Defense Autonomous Warfare Group
• DIB: Defense Industrial Base
• DIU: Defense Innovation Unit
• DoW: Department of War
• DRPM-UxS: Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems
• EW: Electronic Warfare
• JIATF-401: Joint Interagency Task Force 401
• JPO: Joint Program Office
• JSOC: Joint Special Operations Command
• MDAP: Major Defense Acquisition Program
• MSS: Maven Smart System
• MUSV: Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel
• NDAA: National Defense Authorization Act
• NSPM-11: National Security Presidential Memorandum 11
• SASC: Senate Armed Services Committee
• SAWC: SOUTHCOM Autonomous Warfare Command
• SOCOM: U.S. Special Operations Command
• SOUTHCOM: U.S. Southern Command
• UAS: Unmanned Aerial Systems
• UGV: Unmanned Ground Vehicles
• USD(R&E): Undersecretary of War for Research and Engineering
• USFK: United States Forces Korea
• USMC: United States Marine Corps
• USV: Unmanned Surface Vessels
• UUV: Unmanned Underwater Vehicles
• UxS: Unmanned Systems

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. President Renames DoD to Department of War – National Guard Association, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.ngaus.org/newsroom/president-renames-dod-department-war
2. Restoring the United States Department of War – The White House, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/restoring-the-united-states-department-of-war/
3. Trump Renames DOD to Department of War, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4295826/trump-renames-dod-to-department-of-war/
4. Publications | U.S. Department of War, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.war.gov/news/publications/
5. Secretary of War HON Pete Hegseth – Department of War, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.war.gov/About/Secretary-of-war/
6. Defining Autonomy: Why Software, Not Drones, Will Decide the Next …, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/defining-autonomy-why-software-not-drones-will-decide-next-war
7. Hegseth creates powerful new drone office, pulling authority from …, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.defensenews.com/news/pentagon-congress/2026/07/02/hegseth-creates-powerful-new-drone-office-pulling-authority-from-the-military-services/
8. Hegseth Creates New Pentagon Role to Oversee Military Drone Programs – MeriTalk, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.meritalk.com/articles/hegseth-creates-new-pentagon-role-to-oversee-military-drone-programs/
9. Releases | U.S. Department of War, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/releases/
10. Hegseth realigning DOD’s scattered unmanned and autonomy work …, accessed July 10, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2026/07/01/hegseth-realigning-unmanned-systems-programs-under-new-drone-boss/
11. New drone czar’s success hinges on personalities, Pentagon politics …, accessed July 10, 2026, https://breakingdefense.com/2026/07/new-drone-czars-success-hinges-on-personalities-pentagon-politics-experts/
12. EXCLUSIVE: Hegseth creates autonomy czar to manage almost all drone efforts, accessed July 10, 2026, https://breakingdefense.com/2026/07/hehegseth-memo-drone-czar-autonomy-exclusive/
13. Hegseth orders Army secretary to create new joint interagency counter-drone task force, accessed July 10, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2025/08/28/hegseth-army-new-counter-drone-task-force-jiatf-401/
14. The Pentagon’s New Sub-Unified Command for Autonomous …, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.insidegovernmentcontracts.com/2026/05/the-pentagons-new-sub-unified-command-for-autonomous-warfare-what-it-means-and-where-it-might-land/
15. Pentagon’s drone strategy calls for putting $54 billion DAWG in the fight – Task & Purpose, accessed July 10, 2026, https://taskandpurpose.com/news/pentagon-drones-dawg/
16. The Pentagon’s $54 billion bet on autonomous warfare – Defense One, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2026/05/pentagons-54-billion-bet-autonomous-warfare/413735/
17. Understanding the President’s FY 2027 Budget Request for the Department of War | Insights, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2026/5/understanding-the-presidents-fy-2027-budget-request-for-the-department-of-war
18. Aerospace, Defense and National Security | Covington & Burling LLP, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.cov.com/en/practices-and-industries/industries/aerospace-defense-and-national-security
19. Hegseth: Autonomous warfare sub-unified command coming soon | DefenseScoop, accessed July 10, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2026/04/29/hegseth-autonomous-warfare-sub-unified-command/
20. Feinberg’s new Maven directive sets AI-enabled decision-making as ‘the cornerstone’ for CJADC2 | DefenseScoop, accessed July 10, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2026/04/03/palantir-maven-feinberg-directive/
21. What Is Maven Smart System, and What Does It Do? – CSIS, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-maven-smart-system-and-what-does-it-do
22. Project Maven – Wikipedia, accessed July 10, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven
23. Project Maven – Grokipedia, accessed July 10, 2026, https://grokipedia.com/page/project_maven
24. Pentagon’s AI Transition Puts Emil Michael on 120-Day Clock for Advana, Maven Path Forward – Potomac Officers Club, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.potomacofficersclub.com/articles/dod-cdao-transition-ai-emil-michael/
25. Pentagon CTO wants AI on every desktop in 6 to 9 months – Defense One, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2025/09/pentagon-research-official-wants-have-ai-every-desktop-6-9-months/408155/
26. Pentagon moves AI office under R&D, raising fears it’s ‘demoting AI’ – Breaking Defense, accessed July 10, 2026, https://breakingdefense.com/2025/08/pentagon-moves-ai-office-under-rd-raising-fears-its-demoting-ai/
27. DoD R&E chief says Pentagon will trim ‘critical technology’ list – Breaking Defense, accessed July 10, 2026, https://breakingdefense.com/2025/08/dod-re-chief-says-pentagon-will-trim-critical-technology-list/
28. Hegseth Introduces Department to New AI Tool, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4355797/hegseth-introduces-department-to-new-ai-tool/
29. How to Think About the Anthropic-Pentagon Dispute | TechPolicy.Press, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.techpolicy.press/how-to-think-about-the-anthropic-pentagon-dispute/
30. Hegseth to meet with Anthropic CEO as rift grows over military use of AI – YouTube, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWu58ynr5ho
31. As the Pentagon pushes for battlefield AI, some military leaders urge caution – AP News, accessed July 10, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-military-hegseth-anthropic-d5fbaee17ee0bdb9738dbb808ea2d047
32. Hegseth warns Anthropic to let the military use the company’s AI tech as it sees fit, AP sources say, accessed July 10, 2026, https://apnews.com/article/anthropic-hegseth-ai-pentagon-military-3d86c9296fe953ec0591fcde6a613aba
33. Hegseth warns Anthropic to let the military use the company’s AI tech as it sees fit, AP sources say – MySA, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/hegseth-and-anthropic-ceo-set-to-meet-as-debate-21937813.php
34. Senator questions Pentagon’s plan to revise autonomous weapons policy – DefenseScoop, accessed July 10, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2026/06/15/lawmaker-questions-pentagons-plan-to-revise-autonomous-weapons-policy/
35. Home | U.S. Department of War, accessed July 10, 2026, https://www.war.gov/

1. Executive Summary

The character of naval warfare is undergoing a foundational and irreversible transformation, driven by the rapid proliferation of uncrewed systems, artificial intelligence, autonomous navigation, and mesh-networked communications. Traditional naval strategy, which has been dominated for over a century by the deployment of exquisite, high-signature capital ships, is increasingly challenged by the democratization of sea denial capabilities. Small, attritable, and highly lethal uncrewed aerial systems (UAS), uncrewed surface vessels (USVs), and extra-large uncrewed undersea vehicles (XLUUVs) are fundamentally altering the calculus of maritime power projection, forcing a paradigm shift away from platform-centric operations toward payload-centric, distributed maritime architectures.

This research report examines the strategic, operational, and tactical implications of military drones on contemporary naval warfare. It analyzes the collapse of traditional cost-exchange ratios, as evidenced by recent high-intensity engagements in the Red Sea and the Black Sea. In these theaters, non-state actors and states operating without traditional blue-water navies have successfully challenged advanced carrier strike groups, disrupted vital sea lines of communication, and sunk high-value, heavily armed warships. The analysis further explores the resurgence of the historical Jeune École naval theory, updated for the twenty-first century, wherein swarms of inexpensive, autonomous systems neutralize the advantages of centralized, multi-billion-dollar maritime platforms.

Furthermore, this document evaluates emerging operational concepts designed to counter peer adversaries, most notably the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command’s (INDOPACOM) “Hellscape” strategy. This doctrine is designed to leverage massive, multi-domain drone swarms to deter amphibious invasions and complicate adversary decision-making. The report critically assesses the resulting crisis in fleet magazine depth, the severe logistical vulnerabilities of the current fleet architecture regarding at-sea reloading, and the urgent, existential necessity for advanced Counter-UAS (C-UAS) technologies, including Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) and High-Power Microwave (HPM) systems. Strategists must immediately discard outdated assumptions regarding uncontested logistics, the presumed invulnerability of carrier strike groups, and the economic sustainability of kinetic interception. The future of naval warfare requires pivoting urgently toward dispersed, economically viable, and highly attritable force structures capable of operating in saturated, unmanned environments.

2. The Theoretical Underpinnings of Modern Naval Warfare

To understand the magnitude of the disruption caused by uncrewed maritime systems, it is necessary to contextualize the current strategic environment within the historical frameworks of naval theory. The tension between concentrated fleet power and distributed asymmetric threat is not new; however, modern technology has radically altered the balance between the two.

2.1 The Legacy of Mahanian Doctrine and the Capital Ship

For more than a century, global naval strategy has been heavily influenced by the theories of Alfred Thayer Mahan, whose concept of the concentrated battlefleet shaped the naval arms races of the twentieth century. In the Mahanian paradigm, command of the sea is achieved through the decisive engagement and destruction of the enemy’s main fleet by a concentrated force of capital ships.¹ This doctrine relies on the assumption that platforms requiring massive capital investment, highly trained crews, and sophisticated, overlapping defensive layers can survive in contested environments long enough to project power ashore or secure vital global chokepoints.

Historically, the strategic value of these capital ship forces has constantly been weighed against the vulnerability of the positions they are ordered to occupy.² In modern contested environments, specifically those shaped by advanced Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) networks, the multi-domain threat landscape has expanded exponentially. Precision-guided weapons, hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missiles, and now, autonomous drone swarms, have made the operating environments of the littorals and constrained seas exceptionally hazardous for high-signature vessels.³ The U.S. Navy and other advanced maritime forces are currently plagued by problems inherent to this model, including the high cost of procuring sufficient numbers of capital ships, the slow reform of legacy fleet structures, and the immense logistical pressures of maintaining complex platforms in forward-deployed postures.³

2.2 The Resurgence and Validation of the Jeune École

In the late nineteenth century, a competing strategic framework emerged in France, known as the Jeune École (Young School), championed by theorists such as Admiral Théophile Aube. This doctrine posited that a weaker naval power could defeat a fleet of superior, heavily armored capital ships by utilizing large numbers of small, fast, and heavily armed vessels—specifically, the newly invented torpedo boats.⁴ The Jeune École sought to deny control of maritime expanses through dispersed, asymmetric attacks, rather than seeking decisive fleet-on-fleet engagements.⁶ It enabled the mobilization of widely dispersed small shipyards along the coasts, appealing to budget decision-makers as a highly cost-effective solution for generating outsized strategic effects.⁴

While the original Jeune École was ultimately limited by the technological constraints of the era—primarily the poor sea-keeping, limited operational range, and lack of over-the-horizon targeting capabilities of early torpedo boats—the core philosophy has been violently validated by the advent of modern drone warfare.⁴ Today’s autonomous systems effectively eliminate the geographical and endurance limitations of their historical predecessors. Uncrewed vessels can now loiter for months at sea, coordinate complex maneuvers via resilient mesh networks, and deliver catastrophic explosive payloads with pinpoint accuracy.⁸

The contemporary iteration of the Jeune École asserts that massed, inexpensive, and autonomous kinetic effectors can overwhelm the sophisticated radar and kinetic defensive systems of legacy platforms.⁵ Wargames and classified defense analyses increasingly describe capital ships, including advanced aircraft carriers, as highly vulnerable to multi-domain attacks that combine cyber operations, electronic warfare, and saturated drone swarms.¹¹ Consequently, strategists must recognize that a strategy reliant solely on exquisite, concentrated assets is fundamentally brittle against an adversary capable of producing and deploying attritable uncrewed systems at a massive industrial scale. The legacy of the Jeune École also deeply influenced Soviet naval thought, which envisioned a three-dimensional, composite war utilizing aircraft, surface ships, and submarines in synergy to negate the advantages of Western capital ships.¹² Today, the drone serves as the ultimate realization of this asymmetric, multi-dimensional threat.

3. The Democratization of Sea Denial and Asymmetric Economics

The proliferation of uncrewed systems has effectively democratized sea denial. Historically, denying an adversary access to the sea required the maintenance of a sophisticated submarine force, extensive naval aviation, and complex mine-laying operations. Today, non-state actors and smaller nations can exert strategic influence over critical maritime chokepoints using commercial off-the-shelf technology adapted for lethal purposes.

3.1 The Collapse of the Cost-Exchange Ratio

The most urgent crisis facing modern naval strategists is the inversion of the cost-exchange ratio in maritime air and surface defense. Historically, the economic burden of an attack rested heavily on the aggressor, who had to risk expensive aircraft, submarines, or surface combatants to threaten a defending fleet. Today, the proliferation of low-cost manufacturing and accessible guidance technologies has shifted this economic burden entirely to the defender.

Events in the Red Sea and the Bab al-Mandeb strait provide a stark, ongoing operational laboratory for this dynamic. Since October 2023, Houthi forces have launched hundreds of aerial threats, anti-ship ballistic missiles, and uncrewed surface vessels at commercial shipping and U.S. Navy coalition warships.¹³ Between October 2023 and March 2025 alone, the Houthis targeted U.S. warships more than 170 times and commercial vessels 145 times.¹⁵ While the coalition has achieved remarkable tactical success in thwarting these attacks, protecting both commercial shipping and supporting allied air defense networks, the strategic economics of the engagement are deeply unfavorable.¹³

The Department of Defense revealed that the U.S. military has expended upwards of $1 billion as part of its efforts to protect vessels in the Red Sea.¹⁵ The Navy utilizes advanced kinetic weapons—primarily sophisticated surface-to-air missiles like the Standard Missile 2 (SM-2), the SM-6, and PAC-3 interceptors—to defeat incoming threats.¹³ The procurement costs for these defensive interceptors are immense. Current U.S. weapons systems are designed to be launched from expensive, fragile platforms, with Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASMs) costing approximately $3.4 million each, JASSM-ERs costing $3.3 million, and PAC-3 interceptors costing $3.4 million.¹⁵ The Navy’s broader air defense missiles range from several hundred thousand dollars to a few million dollars per unit.¹³

In stark contrast, the highly capable, mass-produced drones utilized by adversaries operate as consumable munitions with near-zero operating costs. Iranian-made drones deployed by the Houthis can cost as little as $50,000, with some variants estimated at just a few thousand dollars.¹³ This highly asymmetric “cost exchange ratio” lays bare the vulnerability of modern militaries to asymmetric warfare.¹⁵ While defense analysts correctly point out that cost exchange ratios are an insufficient measure of the real cost of operational considerations—given that defensive missiles must provide exceptional maneuverability and precision guidance to protect multi-billion dollar assets and human lives—the current paradigm is mathematically unsustainable.¹³ Firing million-dollar interceptors at mass-produced, expendable drones heavily strains the U.S. defense industrial base, which struggles to replenish the complex interceptor inventory at the pace it is being consumed.

3.2 The Eradication of Maritime Sanctuary

A direct corollary to the democratization of sea denial is the total eradication of maritime sanctuary. Long-range autonomous systems have extended the threat envelope far beyond the traditional contested littorals, transforming formerly secure rear areas and transit lanes into active combat zones. Both Ukraine and Russia have pivoted toward massive reliance on drones for surveillance, electronic warfare, and long-range precision strikes, effectively creating an unmanned “kill zone” extending 15 to 40 kilometers deep where no traditional troops or vehicles can move without facing immediate attack.¹⁵

Furthermore, the range of these autonomous systems continues to expand. Nations are planning to produce millions of drones annually, ranging from small quadcopters to fixed-wing assets boasting operational ranges of up to 3,000 kilometers.¹⁵ China is currently mass-producing long-range drones, such as the Sunflower—an improved, highly capable iteration of the Iranian Shahed-136—which features a 2,000-kilometer range and vertical launch capabilities.¹⁵

Most alarmingly for naval strategists, adversaries have demonstrated the ability to launch long-range drones and cruise missiles directly from standard commercial shipping containers.¹⁵ This containerized strike capability renders traditional threat identification algorithms and visual identification methods obsolete. The systems are virtually indistinguishable from normal maritime cargo until the moment of launch. A hostile state or well-funded non-state actor can thereby transport strategic strike assets globally without the need for specialized, easily tracked naval platforms, effectively turning any commercial cargo vessel into a potential node for strategic sea denial or land attack.¹⁵

4. The Proliferation and Specialization of Uncrewed Maritime Systems (UMS)

The rapid, wartime iteration of uncrewed systems has led to the development of highly distinct classes of maritime drones tailored for specific operational domains. Strategists must possess a nuanced understanding of the technical capabilities, operational histories, and developmental trajectories of these systems to effectively design future fleet architectures.

4.1 Uncrewed Surface Vessels (USVs): The Vanguard of Asymmetric Strike

The most profound and historically significant impact of Uncrewed Surface Vessels has been demonstrated in the Black Sea theater. Ukraine, a nation operating without a traditional capital-ship navy, has effectively neutralized significant portions of the Russian Black Sea Fleet using domestically produced, highly innovative USVs.⁸ This operational success has driven a rapid, iterative development cycle in USV technology globally.

4.1.1 The Ukrainian USV Ecosystem

Ukraine’s Defense Intelligence (GUR) and the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) have fielded a vast, rapidly evolving array of USVs, transitioning quickly from improvised explosive boats to purpose-built, multi-role platforms capable of carrying air defense missiles and deploying smaller tactical drones.⁸

The evolution of these systems—from the basic Magura V1, which was essentially a cut-down 6-meter fishing boat, to the Katran X1, which functions as a multi-domain drone-carrier—demonstrates a crucial operational shift from single-use kamikaze tactics to reusable, multi-role platforms.⁸ The integration of air-defense missiles into these small surface craft is a particularly disruptive development. Systems equipped with the “Sea Dragon” improvised air-defense setup, carrying R-73 or AIM-9L Sidewinder missiles (such as the Magura W6, V6, V7, and Sea Wolf variants), create a self-defending surface threat that significantly complicates adversary interdiction efforts by rotary-wing aircraft and coastal patrol planes.⁸ Furthermore, Ukraine has pioneered the development of weaponized autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) such as the Toloka family (TLK-150 and TLK-1000) and the Marichka. The Marichka, a 6-meter, metal-hulled AUV with an X-form rudder, boasts a range of 1,000 kilometers and costs roughly $433,000, bringing strategic undersea strike capabilities to non-traditional maritime actors.⁸

4.1.2 Heavy and Medium USVs: The United States and Chinese Approaches

While Ukraine focuses on small, highly attritable systems tailored for the constrained geography of the Black Sea, major naval powers are developing Medium and Large Uncrewed Surface Vessels (MDUSV/LUSV) designed for persistent autonomous presence, anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and distributed lethality across vast oceanic expanses.

The U.S. Navy’s Sea Hunter and Seahawk: Developed originally as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel (ACTUV) program, the Sea Hunter is a 132-foot (40-meter) trimaran displacing 145 tons at full load.¹⁰ The vessel represents a massive leap in autonomous endurance, capable of operating for 30 to 90 days at sea without human maintenance, resupply, or intervention.¹⁰ Powered by twin diesel engines, it possesses a transoceanic cruising range of 10,000 nautical miles at 12 knots, allowing deployments from San Diego to Guam on a single fueling.¹⁰ Designed primarily for ASW—specifically the persistent, long-duration tracking of quiet diesel-electric submarines—these platforms act as highly capable, distributed sensor nodes for manned ships. By projecting an operational view far beyond the horizon, they support maritime domain awareness while entirely removing human personnel from high-risk environments.²⁰

China’s JARI USV: In contrast to the U.S. focus on sensor-heavy, unarmed prototypes, the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has prioritized multi-mission lethality in a compact uncrewed hull. The JARI USV, developed by the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation (CSIC), is a 58-meter (190.3 ft), 420-500 ton uncrewed warship capable of reaching sprint speeds of 42 knots via waterjet propulsion, with a formidable endurance range of 4,000 nautical miles.²⁴ Unlike the purely sensor-focused baseline Sea Hunter, the JARI is heavily and diversely armed. It features a 4-to-12 cell Vertical Launching System (VLS), lightweight torpedo tubes, a remote weapon station, and air defense missiles such as the HQ-10 point defense system.²⁵ Its sensor suite is equally robust, incorporating an active phased array radar, electro-optic systems, and sonar.²⁵ Crucially, the JARI’s architecture supports autonomous navigation, swarm operations, cooperative target tracking, and coordinated fire missions.²⁴ The integration of comprehensive air defense, ASW, and anti-surface capabilities into a relatively small, autonomous platform signifies China’s strategic intent to mass-produce heavily armed sensor-shooters capable of saturating contested waters and complicating allied targeting algorithms.²⁶

4.2 Extra-Large Uncrewed Undersea Vehicles (XLUUVs)

The undersea domain, historically the exclusive preserve of highly trained crews operating multi-billion-dollar nuclear-powered submarines, is being fundamentally disrupted by the introduction of XLUUVs. These platforms offer extreme endurance, exceptional stealth, and substantial payload capacity without the complex life-support constraints and safety margins required for crewed submarines.

The Boeing Orca XLUUV (U.S. Navy): The Orca is an 85-foot (26-meter), 85-ton autonomous submarine featuring a hybrid diesel-electric power plant.²⁷ Its defining strategic characteristic is its unprecedented undersea autonomy, delivering extreme endurance that enables month-long, long-range missions covering up to 6,500 nautical miles without resupply.⁹ Crucially, the Orca requires minimal human intervention and can be launched, operated, and recovered pier-side without the logistical burden of a dedicated manned mother ship.²⁷

The Orca features a transformative, modular 33-foot (10-meter) payload bay capable of carrying up to 8 tons of mission equipment, allowing for rapid role changes across the undersea battlespace.⁹ The strategic applications for such a vessel are vast:

• Offensive Mining and Mine Countermeasures (MCM): XLUUVs can clandestinely lay complex, smart minefields deep within adversary A2/AD zones, or autonomously locate and neutralize underwater mines, keeping manned vessels far from harm’s way.²⁷
• Seabed Warfare: The endurance and stealth of the Orca make it an ideal, cost-effective platform for manipulating, monitoring, or protecting critical subsea infrastructure, such as vital fiber-optic data cables that transmit global financial and strategic communications.²⁷
• Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW): Functioning as a persistent, mobile listening post or a forward-deployed launch platform for ASW weapons, the Orca can track adversary submarines over vast distances without risking human crews.²⁸

4.3 Aerial Maritime Drones (UAVs)

Aerial drones have transitioned from being purely overland Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets to becoming integral, networked components of naval strategy, providing persistent overwatch, communications relays, and precision targeting data across the vast maritime domain.

High-Altitude, Long-Endurance (HALE) Systems: The MQ-4C Triton, managed by the Persistent Maritime Unmanned Aircraft Systems Program Office, provides Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) for the U.S. and allied forces.³⁰ Operating at high altitudes with an endurance of over 30 hours and a ferry range exceeding 15,000 kilometers, a single Triton is capable of monitoring 40,000 square kilometers of ocean surface a day.³² It serves as a critical node in tracking surface contacts, seamless surveillance, and providing long-range targeting data for distributed fleets, operating as a ‘family of systems’ alongside crewed aircraft like the P-8A Poseidon.³¹ Similarly, the MQ-9B SeaGuardian offers global reach via satellite communications, carrying advanced maritime sensors and payloads exceeding 2,150 kg to provide real-time search and surveillance of activity both on and below the sea surface.³⁰

Tactical Maritime Rotary UAVs: For localized shipboard deployment, systems like the Schiebel Camcopter S-100 provide immediate, highly flexible tactical ISR. The S-100 is a rotary-wing UAV powered by a 50 HP aviation engine, operating with a 50 kg payload capacity and cruising at 55 knots for over 6 hours (extendable to over 10 hours with external tanks) at ranges up to 130 km.³⁴ These tactical systems integrate directly into a ship’s Combat Management System (CMS), providing real-time data feeds, precise delivery of guided munitions, and target coordinates without the operational footprint or risk associated with manned helicopters.³⁶

5. The “Hellscape” Concept: Swarm Dynamics and Conventional Deterrence

The unprecedented proliferation and maturation of these uncrewed systems have directly informed highly aggressive new operational concepts aimed at deterring peer adversaries in contested theaters. The most prominent and widely discussed among these is the “Hellscape” strategy, articulated extensively by Admiral Samuel Paparo, Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), and his predecessor, Admiral John Aquilino.³⁸

5.1 Orchestrating the Unmanned Hellscape in the Indo-Pacific

The primary strategic objective of the Hellscape concept is to decisively deny the People’s Republic of China (PRC) the operational ability to execute a short, sharp amphibious invasion of Taiwan, preventing a geopolitical fait accompli before the international community can formulate a coordinated military response.⁴⁰ To achieve this formidable goal, INDOPACOM envisions transforming the Taiwan Strait into a saturated, lethally impassable environment using a massive, coordinated deployment of classified, uncrewed capabilities across the air, surface, and subsurface domains.³⁸

Initially, the U.S. Department of Defense’s Replicator Initiative, announced in 2023, served as the primary acquisition engine for this strategy. However, after struggling with persistent technical issues, integration challenges with existing command-and-control structures, and fielding only hundreds of systems rather than the projected thousands, Replicator was dissolved in late 2025. To rectify these systemic procurement failures, the Pentagon absorbed the initiative into the newly established Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG). Functioning as the central authority for the Hellscape strategy, DAWG represents a monumental shift in institutional priority, receiving an unprecedented $54.6 billion budget request for Fiscal Year 2027. Former CIA Director David Petraeus characterized this 24,000 percent single-year funding surge as the “largest single commitment to autonomous warfare in history”.

This massive screen of autonomous drone swarms is explicitly designed to fulfill multiple overlapping tactical and strategic functions:

1. Persistent Targeting and Intelligence: Networked drones fill the critical operational gap between high-altitude satellite imagery and vulnerable crewed overflights, providing persistent, real-time targeting data and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) functions to allied long-range missile batteries.³⁹
2. Saturation and Exhaustion of Adversary Defenses: By deploying tens of thousands of platforms simultaneously, the autonomous swarm intentionally exhausts Chinese air defenses and rapidly depletes their limited, expensive interceptor missile stocks, effectively flipping the asymmetric cost curve against the PRC.⁴¹
3. Direct Kinetic Interdiction: Armed autonomous drones act as short-range interceptors and direct-strike platforms, physically interdicting surface warships, troop transports, and amphibious landing craft as they attempt to transit the strait.³⁹

The anticipated scale of this strategy is unprecedented in modern military planning. Previous INDOPACOM leadership established a staggering metric of prosecuting “1,000 targets for 24 hours” to successfully blunt an invasion force of this magnitude.³⁹

5.2 Wargaming the Swarm: Validation Across Theaters

The theoretical efficacy of autonomous swarm defense has been repeatedly validated in advanced, classified, and unclassified wargames. A seminal report by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), authored by defense experts Stacie Pettyjohn and Molly Campbell, analyzed the defense of Taiwan by layering drone defenses across the entirety of the maritime battlespace.⁴² The simulation utilized a specialized reconnaissance swarm, networked via mesh communications, for wide-area ISR, passing high-fidelity coordinates to deep-strike Joint force capabilities.⁴⁴ In the final 5-kilometer run to the contested landing beaches, dense layers of short-range drones directly attacked amphibious ships within visual range, creating a practically impassable kinetic barrier that inflicted severe attrition on the invasion force.⁴²

This paradigm is not limited to the maritime confines of the Indo-Pacific; it is equally applicable to land-based and littoral deterrence in Europe. In the European theater, the German defense software company Helsing conducted wargames focused on the defense of the Baltics. In a baseline scenario lacking allied rapid engagement, simulated Russian forces overran the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius within five days. However, when the defending forces deployed a coordinated swarm of roughly 12,000 HX-2 autonomous attack drones, the dynamic was entirely reversed. The swarm halted the offensive, inflicted massive armor and personnel losses, and delayed the advance by one to two weeks—providing sufficient operational time for NATO’s main forces to mobilize and arrive.¹¹

These rigorous simulations confirm a fundamental shift: massed, AI-enabled drones, operating via resilient mesh networks and decentralized control algorithms, are no longer mere auxiliary assets for reconnaissance or targeted strikes; they represent the primary mechanism for conventional deterrence and area denial in the twenty-first century.⁴¹

6. The Crisis of Magazine Depth and Logistical Contestation

While the Hellscape strategy relies enthusiastically on offensive drone swarms to deter adversaries, the U.S. Navy and its allies face a severe, reciprocal threat. If adversaries adopt similar swarm tactics—which China, possessing the world’s largest industrial manufacturing base and fielding advanced systems like the JARI USV, is uniquely positioned to do—defending fleets will confront an immediate and critical crisis in “magazine depth”.¹³

6.1 The VLS Limitation and the Economics of Exhaustion

Modern naval combatants, particularly cruisers and destroyers, rely almost exclusively on Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) for both offensive strike and layered air defense. A standard U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer carries 90 to 96 VLS cells, representing a finite, hard-capped inventory of interceptors.⁴⁵ In a high-intensity conflict involving massed, coordinated drone swarms and anti-ship cruise missiles, a destroyer could feasibly empty its entire defensive magazine in a matter of hours or even minutes.¹³

The strategic implications of this are dire. Once perfected, a saturation attack need not physically strike or sink a multi-billion-dollar aircraft carrier to achieve strategic victory; it merely needs to force the group’s escort vessels to deplete their VLS cells in self-defense. A modern warship without interceptors is effectively a mission kill—a defenseless liability that must immediately withdraw from the theater of operations to rearm, thereby ceding sea control to the adversary.¹³ This vulnerability is especially troubling given the so-called “Davidson Window,” the deadline by which PRC leadership has charged the People’s Liberation Army to be prepared for military action against Taiwan.⁴⁶

6.2 The Tyranny of At-Sea Reloading

Historically, reloading depleted VLS cells required a warship to abandon its station and return to a secure, deep-water port equipped with specialized crane facilities.¹³ Given the vast, tyrannical distances of the Pacific theater, this process effectively removes the vessel from the fight for weeks at a time.¹³ The Navy has correctly recognized this logistical vulnerability as a critical, single point of failure in its Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) concept.⁴⁶

To mitigate this existential shortfall, the U.S. Navy has drastically accelerated efforts to develop and deploy at-sea reloading capabilities. In October 2024, the Navy achieved a significant milestone by demonstrating the Transferrable Reload At-sea Method (TRAM) aboard the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Chosin.⁴⁸ Using a hydraulically-powered, articulating device, sailors successfully loaded an empty missile canister into the ship’s MK 41 VLS while underway alongside the dry cargo ship USNS Washington Chambers in the open ocean off the coast of San Diego.⁴⁸

Despite this highly publicized breakthrough, at-sea reloading remains a deeply cumbersome, slow, and hazardous process heavily restricted by sea state, adverse weather, and operational risk.⁴⁶ Handling multi-ton, highly explosive ordnance via cranes or hydraulic transfer systems between two moving ships requires relatively calm waters, often forcing vessels to retreat far away from contested zones to rearm safely.⁴⁶ Therefore, while TRAM is a vital logistical capability, it cannot entirely solve the magazine depth crisis generated by cheap, attritable drone swarms in a protracted conflict. The mathematics of kinetic interception remain fundamentally misaligned with the economics of drone mass.

7. Next-Generation Counter-UAS (C-UAS) and Directed Energy Integration

To permanently resolve both the magazine depth limitation and the economically unsustainable cost-exchange ratio, naval strategists must look beyond traditional kinetic interceptors. The rapid integration and operational fielding of Directed Energy Weapons (DEW)—specifically High-Energy Lasers (HEL) and High-Power Microwave (HPM) systems—constitutes the absolute strategic imperative for future fleet survival in a drone-saturated environment.⁴⁵

7.1 High-Energy Lasers (HEL): The Infinite Magazine

Laser weapons offer a profoundly disruptive advantage: a virtually infinite magazine depth, limited only by the electrical power generation capacity of the host vessel.⁵¹ Crucially, the cost per engagement is reduced from millions of dollars (the cost of an SM-2 or PAC-3) to the marginal cost of the diesel fuel required to generate the electricity for the laser burst—often calculated in single or double digits per shot.¹⁴

The U.S. Navy has actively tested and deployed these systems, most notably installing the HELIOS (High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance) system aboard the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS Preble.⁵² Known formally as the Counter-Unmanned Air Systems High Energy Laser Weapon System (C-UAS HELWS), it provides highly precise point defense against small aerial drones and fast-attack surface craft.⁵⁵ While successful in intercepting targets during testing, these systems are largely classified by the Navy as “Non-Program of Record (POR) Research & Development (R&D) assets” rather than being slated for immediate, widespread fleet integration.⁵² Expanding their deployment is critical, as DEWs represent the only economically viable method for systematically destroying low-end, attritable drones in a protracted, high-intensity conflict, preserving expensive kinetic interceptors for high-end threats like hypersonic glide vehicles.¹⁴

7.2 High-Power Microwave (HPM) Defenses: Defeating the Swarm

While High-Energy Lasers burn through targets individually, requiring precise tracking and “dwell time” on a single target, they can still be overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Therefore, High-Power Microwave (HPM) weapons are vital for defeating dense, synchronized swarms. HPM systems project a wide cone of intense electromagnetic energy that disrupts, scrambles, or permanently destroys the unshielded electronics, guidance systems, and flight controllers of multiple drones simultaneously, regardless of their evasive maneuvers.⁴⁷

Programs such as the Tactical High Power Microwave Operational Responder (Mjölnir), THOR, and the Expeditionary Directed Energy Counter-Swarm (ExDECS) system recently received by the U.S. Marine Corps are currently under rapid development and dynamic testing.⁵³ HPM provides a wide-area, non-kinetic defense capability that both traditional missiles and single-target lasers fundamentally lack, serving as the ultimate, indispensable fail-safe against the mass saturation tactics envisioned in Hellscape-style offensive scenarios.⁵³

7.3 The Strategic Warning: Vulnerability in the First Island Chain

The urgency for integrating these systems is highlighted in a recent CNAS report, which starkly concludes that the United States is fundamentally unprepared to defend against present and future drone threats, having decisively lost its decades-long monopoly on precision strike.⁵⁷

In a simulated wargame focusing on a U.S.-China conflict, Chinese drone swarms were deployed to systematically suppress and destroy U.S. forces operating inside the highly contested First Island Chain.⁵⁸ The report warned that without deep magazines of substantially enhanced C-UAS capabilities, distributed warfighting strategies would be easily overwhelmed by massed Chinese drone attacks, potentially resulting in the catastrophic loss of a war over Taiwan.⁵⁷ Consequently, counter-drone capabilities can no longer be siloed solely to dedicated, specialized air defense units; every vessel, logistical transport, and distributed unit must possess autonomous, deep-magazine self-protection capabilities to survive.⁶⁰

8. Strategic Imperatives for the Future Fleet

The integration of military drones into naval warfare requires a total recalibration of strategic thinking at the highest levels of command. What was true in the twentieth century is often highly dangerous and operationally fatal in the twenty-first.

8.1 Outdated and Dangerous Paradigms

1. The Invulnerability of the Concentrated Fleet: The deeply entrenched belief that a Carrier Strike Group can operate with impunity inside an adversary’s A2/AD bubble is outdated. The proliferation of stealthy XLUUVs, armed LUSVs like the JARI, and long-range containerized UAVs means that highly concentrated, expensive platforms are lucrative, easily locatable targets that can be continuously tracked and relentlessly harassed by autonomous swarms.³
2. The Sufficiency of Kinetic Defense: Relying solely on sophisticated, multi-million-dollar interceptors to defend against massed, attritable threats is economic suicide. The fundamental math dictates that an adversary can bankrupt a defending fleet’s budget and exhaust its industrial base long before it successfully destroys the fleet kinetically.¹⁴
3. Assuming Uncontested Logistics: Naval planners can no longer assume that deep-water ports, logistical supply ships, and at-sea reloading facilities will remain secure sanctuaries. The massive expansion of drone ranges and the inherent physical vulnerabilities of at-sea reloading methods (like TRAM) mean that logistics chains will be continuously and violently contested.¹⁵ The traditional dichotomy between the front line and the safe rear echelon has been erased.

8.2 What Strategists Must Think About Now

To survive and project power, naval strategists must pivot decisively toward a framework of distributed lethality, payload-centric design, and massed autonomy.

• Embracing the Economics of Attrition: The fleet must deliberately integrate systems designed specifically to be lost in combat. If a $50,000 uncrewed vessel forces an adversary to reveal a hidden radar position, or expend a $3 million interceptor missile to destroy it, the loss of the drone represents a massive strategic and economic victory for the attacker. The DoD’s Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG) is a vital entity driving this mindset, moving away from exquisite, irreplaceable platforms toward massed, consumable combat power. The potential elevation of DAWG to a “sub-unified command”—placing autonomous warfare in the same institutional category as the defense of the Korean Peninsula or the conduct of special operations—indicates that the Pentagon is no longer treating attritable mass as a pilot project, but as a durable, permanent branch of military doctrine with a sustained demand signal.
• Mesh Networks and Autonomous Sensor Webs: Uncrewed systems like the Sea Hunter and MQ-4C Triton must be utilized continuously to create an impenetrable, autonomous sensor web across vast oceanic expanses. This allows manned, high-value vessels to operate in strict “emission control” (EMCON) silence, relying entirely on forward-deployed, expendable drones for targeting data while remaining virtually undetected by adversary sensors.²⁰
• Accelerating DEW Integration: The notorious “Valley of Death” in defense procurement—the bureaucratic gap between successful research and development and widespread operational fielding—must be bridged immediately for Directed Energy Weapons.¹⁴ Without high-energy lasers and high-power microwaves integrated across every surface combatant in the fleet, the magazine depth crisis cannot be mathematically resolved.
• Asymmetric Mining and Chokepoint Control: XLUUVs like the Orca completely change the calculus of sea denial. Strategists must plan for scenarios where critical maritime chokepoints (e.g., the Strait of Malacca, the Taiwan Strait, the Bab al-Mandeb) are contested not by visible surface fleets, but by autonomous, silent submarines laying smart, self-activating minefields. This severely restricts freedom of navigation without crossing the political escalation threshold of sinking ships with crewed vessels.²⁹

9. Conclusion

Military drones across the aerial, surface, and subsurface domains have irrevocably altered the fundamental character of naval warfare. They have decisively shifted the balance of maritime power away from the concentration of exquisite, highly vulnerable capital ships and toward the massed dispersion of attritable, autonomous systems. The modern realization of the Jeune École is no longer a theoretical wargaming exercise; it is a brutal operational reality currently being demonstrated in the constrained waters of the Black and Red Seas. The collapse of the traditional cost-exchange ratio mathematically dictates that traditional, kinetic-heavy defensive postures are economically and logistically unsustainable against massed swarms.

To maintain maritime superiority in this new era, naval strategists must urgently and permanently discard outdated assumptions regarding uncontested logistical sanctuary and the supremacy of kinetic dominance. The future of naval warfare belongs exclusively to forces that can effectively integrate uncrewed systems into resilient distributed mesh networks, project overwhelming power via autonomous swarm strike, and defend against reciprocal adversary swarms using deep-magazine directed energy weapons. A failure to rapidly adapt to this drone-centric reality risks overwhelming strategic defeat at the hands of adversaries who have already mastered the brutal economics of asymmetric mass.

Appendix: Research Approach and Data Sources

This report was compiled through a rigorous qualitative synthesis and strategic analysis of defense intelligence, open-source military reporting, and peer-reviewed think-tank policy papers. The analytical framework involved categorizing raw intelligence data into core vectors of change: platform technical evolution (USV, UAV, XLUUV capabilities), macroeconomic cost-exchange ratios, logistical constraints (magazine depth and at-sea reloading), and broad doctrinal shifts (the Hellscape strategy and the modern Jeune École). Data points regarding specific system specifications, unit costs, and operational combat histories were extracted, verified, and cross-referenced to identify broader causal relationships and strategic vulnerabilities. The analysis systematically projected these contemporary findings against traditional Mahanian naval theory to isolate outdated paradigms and formulate actionable future strategic imperatives.

Primary Data Sources:

• Operational Capability and Technical Data: Detailed specifications for advanced Uncrewed Surface Vessels (Magura V5, Sea Baby, Sea Hunter, JARI USV), Extra-Large Uncrewed Undersea Vehicles (Boeing Orca, Marichka), and Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (MQ-4C Triton, Camcopter S-100) were drawn directly from defense technology trackers, manufacturer data sheets (Boeing, Schiebel, CSIC), and specialized maritime intelligence reports.⁸
• Strategic & Policy Reports: In-depth analyses of swarm warfare dynamics, cost-exchange ratios, and defense readiness were synthesized from leading policy institutes, including the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), the Stimson Center, the U.S. Naval Institute (USNI), and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).¹³
• Doctrinal Statements and Wargaming: Critical information regarding INDOPACOM’s “Hellscape” strategy, the transition from the Replicator Initiative to the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG), and specific European and Pacific wargame outcomes (CNAS and Helsing) was sourced from official Department of Defense statements and defense journalism.
• Counter-UAS & Logistics: Technical and operational data on Directed Energy Weapons (HELIOS, HPM, ExDECS) and at-sea reloading methodologies (TRAM) were gathered from U.S. Navy press releases, NAVSEA documentation, and the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA).⁴⁸

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. The Future Faces of Irregular Warfare: Great Power Competition in the 21st Century – GovInfo, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D-PURL-gpo240226/pdf/GOVPUB-D-PURL-gpo240226.pdf?ref=irregularwarfare.org
2. Spring 2023 Full Issue | Naval War College Review, accessed July 5, 2026, https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/context/nwc-review/article/8342/viewcontent/NWC_Review_Spring_2023_web.pdf
3. An Analysis of the United States’ Deterrence by Denial Strategy Against China, accessed July 5, 2026, https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2023-02/230306_China_Event_Materials.pdf?VersionId=0t.VI41g8tcPtU0X.RbOOyyualaOQzjz
4. What does the French ‘Jeune Ecole’ theory teach us to help set up a winning Hybrid Navy?, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.naval-review.com/news-views/what-does-the-french-jeune-ecole-theory-teach-us-to-help-set-up-a-winning-hybrid-navy/
5. The Drone Revolution? – Naval Gazing, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.navalgazing.net/The-Drone-Revolution
6. Sea Control and Foreign Policy – U.S. Naval War College, accessed July 5, 2026, https://usnwc.edu/_images/portals/0/News-and-Events/EMC-Workshops/Sea-Control-and-Foreign-Policy/2017_EMC_working_papers.pdf
7. UK to buy drone command warships instead of new destroyers – Reddit, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1uilfib/uk_to_buy_drone_command_warships_instead_of_new/
8. Overview Of Ukrainian Maritime Drones (USVs) Of The Russo …, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.hisutton.com/Ukrainian-USVs-Russo-Ukraine-War.html
9. XLUUV – Boeing, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-and-unmanned-systems/xluuv
10. Sea Hunter – Wikipedia, accessed July 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Hunter
11. The HX‑2 drone could prevent the fall of Vilnius, according to conclusions of a wargame organised by Helsing – Meta-Defense, accessed July 5, 2026, https://meta-defense.fr/en/2026/05/29/hx2-drones-vilnius-wargame/
12. Naval War College Review. Volume 68, Number 3, Summer 2015 – DTIC, accessed July 5, 2026, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA616727.pdf
13. Red Sea’s asymmetrical naval cost | The Australian Naval Institute, accessed July 5, 2026, https://navalinstitute.com.au/red-seas-asymmetrical-naval-cost/
14. The Coming of Age of Directed Energy Weapons and the Red Sea Crisis, accessed July 5, 2026, https://cimsec.org/the-coming-of-age-of-directed-energy-weapons-and-the-red-sea-crisis/
15. We Can’t Buy Our Way Out: It’s Time to Think Differently • Stimson …, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.stimson.org/2025/we-cant-buy-our-way-out-drones-portable-missiles/
16. Why the Drone Math Is Broken | Scaling Reliable Drone … – Vislink, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.vislink.com/blog/the-drone-math-is-broken/
17. MAGURA V5 – Wikipedia, accessed July 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAGURA_V5
18. MAGURA V5 – Grokipedia, accessed July 5, 2026, https://grokipedia.com/page/magura_v5
19. New variants of Ukraine’s SEA BABY Unmanned Surface Vessel – Future Warfare Magazine, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.fw-mag.com/shownews/777/new-variants-of-ukraine-rsquo-s-sea-baby-unmanned-surface-vessel
20. Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel (MUSV) > United States Navy > Display-FactFiles, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.navy.mil/Resources/Fact-Files/Display-FactFiles/Article/4288073/medium-unmanned-surface-vessel-musv/
21. Tales For the Silent Service – The USN Anti-Submarine Class II Unmanned Surface Vessel USV – Long Island Boating World, accessed July 5, 2026, https://liboatingworld.com/tales-for-the-silent-service-the-usn-anti-submarine-class-ii-unmanned-surface-vessel-usv/
22. Sea Hunter – Grokipedia, accessed July 5, 2026, https://grokipedia.com/page/Sea_Hunter
23. World’s Largest Naval Drone, The US Navy’s Sea Hunter sets world record, accessed July 5, 2026, http://www.worldrecordacademy.org/2025/6/worlds-largest-naval-drone-the-us-navy-s-sea-hunter-sets-world-record-425197
24. JARI USV (Orca) – Janus Marine and Defense, accessed July 5, 2026, https://janusdefense.com/product/jari-usv-orca/
25. JARI USV – Wikipedia, accessed July 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JARI_USV
26. China Builds World’s Largest Uncrewed Warship | Covert Shores, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.hisutton.com/Chinese-JARI-USV-A.html
27. Boeing Christens Second Extra-Large Orca Submarine Drone – Naval News, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2026/03/boeing-christens-second-extra-large-orca-submarine-drone/
28. Orca XLUUV, United States of America – Naval Technology, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/orca-xluuv/
29. Large unmanned undersea vehicle – Wikipedia, accessed July 5, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_unmanned_undersea_vehicle
30. Naval Projects A-Z – Latest Developments & Innovations, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.naval-technology.com/projects-a-z/
31. Running head: FUTURE UTILIZATION OF UNMANNED AERIAL – ScholarWorks, accessed July 5, 2026, https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/m039kb782
32. Attack & Multirole Drones (UAVs) | TheDefenseWatch.com, accessed July 5, 2026, https://thedefensewatch.com/product-cat/attack-multirole-drones-uavs/
33. Waves and Wings: A Deeper Look at Maritime UAVs, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.nationshield.ae/index.php/home/details/research/waveswingsadeeperlookmaritimeuavs/en
34. CAMCOPTER® S-100 UAS Brochure | Unmanned Systems Technology, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CAMCOPTER-S-100-UAS-Brochure.pdf
35. UAS Schiebel Camcopter S-100 (unregistered) No & Type of Engines – GOV.UK, accessed July 5, 2026, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/591c3891ed915d20fb000028/UAS_Schiebel_Camcopter_S-100_UAS_232_06-17.pdf
36. Camcopter S-100, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.deagel.com/Aerospace%20Forces/Camcopter/a002201
37. CAMCOPTER® S-100 – Schiebel Elektronische Geräte, accessed July 5, 2026, https://schiebel.net/camcopter-s-100/
38. Exploiting Offensive Use of Small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS): Learning from Our Adversaries > Air University (AU) > Wild Blue Yonder, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Articles/Article-Display/Article/3836715/exploiting-offensive-use-of-small-unmanned-aerial-systems-suas-learning-from-ou/
39. NATO needs a ‘hellscape’ defense at ‘Replicator’ speed – Atlantic Council, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/nato-needs-a-hellscape-defense-at-replicator-speed/
40. Swarming drone ‘hellscape’ to deter PRC use of force against Taiwan, accessed July 5, 2026, https://ipdefenseforum.com/2024/07/swarming-drone-hellscape-to-deter-prc-use-of-force-against-taiwan/
41. Rethinking Denial: The People’s Liberation Army’s Laser Systems and the Future Challenges, accessed July 5, 2026, https://innovation.army.mil/News/Article-View/Article/4029077/rethinking-denial-the-peoples-liberation-armys-laser-systems-and-the-future-cha/
42. Hellscape for Taiwan | CNAS, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/hellscape-for-taiwan
43. Countering the Drone Swarm – Oct 7, 2025 – SOF News, accessed July 5, 2026, https://sof.news/drones/20251007/
44. Achtung Swarm – Marine Corps University, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-vol-16-no-2/Achtung-Swarm/
45. Light speed weapons? Directed energy and the future of the Australian Defence Force – AWS, accessed July 5, 2026, https://aspi.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/13120842/Light-speed-weapons.pdf
46. Driving Toward Distributed Maritime Operations: Getting the Navy Out of Its VLS Hole, accessed July 5, 2026, https://cimsec.org/driving-toward-distributed-maritime-operations-getting-the-navy-out-of-its-vls-hole/
47. The Enduring Role of Fires on the Modern Battlefield – CSIS, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/chapter-6-enduring-role-fires
48. Navy Demonstrates First At-sea Reloading of Vertical Launching System, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Media/News/Article/3935575/navy-demonstrates-first-at-sea-reloading-of-vertical-launching-system/
49. Navy’s Unwanted Sea Base Ship Will Test At-Sea Rearming Of Warships – TWZ, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.twz.com/sea/navys-unwanted-sea-base-ship-will-test-at-sea-rearming-of-destroyer
50. 25.4 SBIR Release 1 – NAVSEA Catapult Challenge: At-Sea Reload Technologies – Navy, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.navysbir.com/n25_41/N254-C02.htm
51. The Tactical Defense Becomes Dominant Again – NDU Press, accessed July 5, 2026, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2807244/the-tactical-defense-becomes-dominant-again/
52. Containerized Variant Of Navy’s Drone-Swatting HELIOS Laser Being Pushed By Congress, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.twz.com/news-features/containerized-variant-of-navys-drone-swatting-helios-laser-being-pushed-by-congress
53. Navy HELIOS Laser Aboard USS Preble Zaps Drone In Latest Test – TWZ, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.twz.com/news-features/navy-helios-laser-aboard-uss-preble-zaps-drone-in-latest-test
54. Navy Shipboard Laser Development Issues | PDF | United States Navy | Missile – Scribd, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/808679778/Navy-Shipboard-Lasers-Background-and-Issues-for-Congress-12-19-2024
55. DEPS Newsletter 2021, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.deps.org/DEPSpages/DEnews21.html
56. DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPON SUPPLY CHAINS – National Defense Industrial Association, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.ndia.org/-/media/ndia-eti/reports/directed-energy-weapon-supply-chains/directedenergyweaponsreportdeeti.pdf
57. CNAS Report Finds U.S. Military Unprepared for Drone Threat, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.cnas.org/press/press-release/cnas-report-finds-u-s-military-unprepared-for-drone-threat
58. COUNTERING THE SWARM – Amazon S3, accessed July 5, 2026, https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/documents/Report_CUAS_Defense_Sep-2025_final.pdf
59. Eyes in the Sky | CNAS, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/eyes-in-the-sky
60. Countering the Swarm: Protecting the Joint Force in the Drone Age | CNAS, accessed July 5, 2026, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/01/27/countering-drone-swarm-joint-force-drone-age/
61. Countering Drone Threats in Warfare | PDF | Unmanned Aerial Vehicle | Radar – Scribd, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/918973965/Report-CUAS-Defense-Sep-2025-Final
62. War game exposed U.S. vulnerability to low-tech warfare | Hacker News, accessed July 5, 2026, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48188506
63. Aquatic Tiger: How long-range submarine drones could play a role in a Taiwan conflict, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/aquatic-tiger-how-long-range-submarine-drones-could-play-a-role-in-a-taiwan-conflict/

1. Executive Summary

Since the conclusion of the Second World War, the aircraft carrier has served as the primary instrument of American global power projection. For decades, the carrier strike group operated with relative impunity, serving as a sovereign, mobile airfield capable of delivering overwhelming kinetic force across the globe. However, the maturation of precision long-range fires, artificial intelligence, and autonomous unmanned systems has fundamentally altered the maritime strategic environment. Adversarial anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) architectures, combined with the proliferation of low-cost, attritable drone swarms, have introduced unprecedented vulnerabilities to large surface combatants. This paradigm shift has prompted vigorous debate regarding the potential obsolescence of the carrier strike group, forcing military planners to reevaluate the mechanisms of naval deterrence.

A rigorous analysis of current threat vectors, wargame simulations, and evolving defensive technologies indicates that while the traditional conception of the aircraft carrier as an invulnerable, independent striking force is outdated and strategically dangerous, the hull form itself is not obsolete. Instead, the projection of American maritime power is undergoing a necessary structural evolution. The cost-exchange crisis observed in recent littoral conflicts demonstrates the mathematical impossibility of defeating high-volume, low-cost drone swarms with finite, multi-million-dollar kinetic interceptors. Consequently, the aircraft carrier must transition from operating as a standalone offensive spearhead into a highly defended, mobile command-and-control node deeply integrated within a distributed network, often referred to as a “kill web.”

To ensure survivability and lethality, naval force design is rapidly pivoting toward hybrid architectures. This involves deepening the defensive magazine through the deployment of ship-powered directed energy weapons and reusable interceptors, while simultaneously projecting “affordable mass” through the deployment of thousands of attritable autonomous systems. This report provides an in-depth analysis of the specific threats rendering legacy carrier operations highly vulnerable, the integration of airborne and subsea drone warfare into maritime strategy, and the critical strategic recalibration required to maintain maritime dominance in the coming decades.

2. The Deteriorating Survivability of the Carrier Strike Group and A2/AD Architectures

The strategic calculus governing carrier deployment has been severely disrupted by the democratization of precision strike capabilities and the sheer scale of adversarial missile production. The foundational vulnerability of the aircraft carrier lies in its massive physical, thermal, and electromagnetic signature, making it susceptible to detection and targeting over vast geographic distances.

The Carrier Killer Missile Architecture

Peer competitors have constructed a multi-layered, overlapping anti-ship missile architecture specifically engineered to push American carrier strike groups beyond their effective operational ranges.¹ This network is defined by land-based and sea-based ballistic and hypersonic systems capable of penetrating advanced Aegis air and missile defense systems.

The DF-21D represents the world’s first land-based anti-ship ballistic missile explicitly designed to target moving naval assets.¹ Utilizing inertial navigation updated by satellite and terminal radar or electro-optical guidance, the DF-21D integrates over-the-horizon targeting cued by a multi-source network of satellites, maritime patrol aircraft, submarines, and surface vessel radar tracks.¹ Its conventional maneuvering reentry vehicle allows for terminal trajectory corrections against targets moving at speeds up to thirty knots, posing a severe threat to maneuvering aircraft carriers.¹

The DF-26 extends this sea-denial capability even further, introducing intermediate-range threats that can reach as far as Guam, the Philippine Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean.¹ Capable of carrying either conventional or nuclear payloads, the DF-26 utilizes multi-warhead capabilities to saturate shipborne point defenses.¹ Furthermore, the YJ-21 represents a particularly acute threat due to its integration directly into the surface fleet, specifically on the Type 055 cruiser.¹ Its ship-launched capability and hypersonic terminal velocity compress the defensive intercept window from minutes to mere seconds, forcing carriers to operate at extreme standoff distances that degrade the unrefueled combat radius of their embarked air wings.¹

Wargaming Outcomes and Industrial Attrition

The vulnerability of large surface combatants to these precision fires is starkly outlined in simulation data. In a series of twenty-four wargame iterations conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) simulating a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, the outcomes for legacy naval platforms were highly attritional.² The simulations consistently projected the loss of two American aircraft carriers and between nine to twenty major surface ships, alongside the loss of 200 to 500 combat aircraft, within the opening weeks of the conflict.²

The strategic shock of these projected losses is magnified by a stark asymmetry in industrial reconstitution capabilities. While the wargames anticipate severe losses for adversarial forces—including the loss of ninety percent of the opposing amphibious fleet and fifty-two other major warships—the capacity to recover differs dramatically.² The opposing force benefits from a vastly more productive commercial shipbuilding program, operating thirteen primary naval shipyards that provide a robust foundation for rapid wartime recovery.²

Conversely, the timeline to rebuild a lost American supercarrier is estimated to be “essentially never” due to severe industrial base atrophy, and the replacement of other major surface combatants would require decades.² The U.S. Navy’s current fleet model struggles to scale; as of May 2026, the fleet sits at 291 ships, with the Congressional Budget Office estimating a drop to 283 ships by 2027.³ Relying on exquisite, capital-intensive platforms that cannot be rapidly replaced constitutes a critical strategic vulnerability.

3. The Magazine Depth Dilemma and the Cost-Exchange Crisis

While hypersonic and ballistic missiles represent the high-end threat to carrier strike groups, the proliferation of cheap unmanned aerial systems introduces the secondary, highly attritional threat of swarm saturation. A mathematical reality known as “magazine depth” strictly governs modern naval defense.⁴ The defensive capability of a surface action group is ultimately finite, constrained by the physical number of launch cells available.

The Limitations of the Vertical Launch System

An Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, which serves as the primary escort vessel of the carrier strike group, typically fields 90 to 96 Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS) cells, while Ticonderoga-class cruisers field 122 cells.⁴ Because these cells must be divided among offensive land-attack cruise missiles, anti-submarine rockets, and layered air defense interceptors, a ship facing a massive, coordinated drone swarm risks running out of ammunition before it runs out of targets.⁴ Even close-in weapon systems, such as defensive cannons capable of firing thousands of rounds per minute, can run dry in a matter of seconds when engaged in sustained defensive operations.⁵

This dynamic creates a deeply unsustainable cost-exchange ratio. During the defense of commercial shipping in the Red Sea, naval forces utilized highly advanced interceptors to neutralize one-way attack drones.⁶ Aegis destroyers successfully intercepted threats, but they relied on multi-million-dollar interceptors to shoot down drones costing as little as $2,000.⁶

The Economics of the Linear Kill Chain

The operational architecture of early Red Sea defense was a ship-centric, linear defensive kill chain. Due to the uncertainty of the threat environment and the immediate need to protect human lives and capital assets, commanders often defaulted to the most capable interceptors available. The specific interceptors fired by the Navy included the Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) at approximately $2 million per unit, the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) at $3.9 million per unit, and the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), which costs between $9.7 million and $27.9 million per variant.⁶

While tactically successful in defending the fleet in the short term, this linear kill chain threatens to rapidly bankrupt finite munitions stockpiles, exposing the carrier to follow-on attacks from heavier anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles.⁶ Because high-end interceptors require years to manufacture due to complex supply chains and limited solid rocket motor production capacity, the military found itself tactically winning individual engagements but strategically losing depth.⁶

4. The Autonomous Swarm and Algorithmic Warfare

The threat to the aircraft carrier increasingly features the integration of autonomous swarming logic. The rapid commercialization of drone technology has erased the historical barrier to entry for precision strike capabilities, allowing both peer competitors and non-state actors to challenge naval supremacy.⁷

Algorithmic Swarm Coordination and AI Integration

Adversarial strategists are explicitly developing tactics designed to saturate carrier strike groups with swarms of multi-mission unmanned aerial vehicles. Recent publications from Chinese military researchers detail the development of artificial intelligence algorithms—such as the HG-STR system—designed to allow fixed-wing drone swarms to operate autonomously in highly jammed, communication-denied environments.⁸ In simulations, these advanced swarms construct dynamic battlefield graphs that treat jamming sources, terrain features, and targets as interconnected nodes, allowing the swarm to adapt its tactics and make inferences without human intervention, reportedly achieving a 100 percent kill rate in simulation environments.⁸

While simulation success does not guarantee real-world battlefield performance, the strategic implication is profound. Future operators may only need to set broad mission objectives, while AI systems execute the specific tactical maneuvers.⁸ This shifts the burden of defense onto the carrier strike group, forcing defenders to counter hundreds of independently reasoning drones.

Leader-Follower Swarm Architectures

Detailed attack profiles propose utilizing sophisticated “leader-follower” swarming modes to maximize the probability of penetrating Aegis defenses.⁹ In this architecture, a designated scout missile or high-altitude drone relays targeting data to a massive, low-flying swarm of subsonic stealth missiles and cheap decoy drones.⁹ The swarm operates collaboratively, dynamically adjusting its flight paths based on the data provided by the leader.⁹

If the leader is intercepted by the carrier’s combat air patrol or the escorting destroyers, the swarm is programmed to dynamically reassign the leader role to another surviving node, ensuring the continuous saturation of radar tracking systems.⁹ The objective is to deplete defense ammunition and overwhelm the combat system’s processing capabilities, thereby leaving the carrier exposed to subsequent salvos.⁹

5. Subsea Drone Warfare and the Loss of Sanctuary

The maritime domain is concurrently undergoing a revolution beneath the waves through the deployment of unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and unmanned surface vessels (USVs). These autonomous systems have fundamentally altered the geography of naval risk, erasing the traditional distinction between contested blue water and safe littoral harbors.

Shattering the Safe Harbor Assumption

Historically, naval doctrine assumed that ports and highly defended coastal waters offered sanctuary for major surface combatants to rearm and undergo maintenance. The development of subsea drones has shattered this assumption. In a paradigm-shifting operation on December 15, 2025, Ukrainian forces utilized a “Sub Sea Baby” underwater drone to bypass port defenses and strike an Improved Kilo-class submarine at the Russian naval base in Novorossiysk.¹⁰

The ability of a low-cost, semi-autonomous underwater vehicle to navigate harbor defenses and inflict a constructive total loss on a $400 million stealth submarine underscores a severe, persistent threat to American carriers during littoral transits.¹² Subsea drones possess a naturally low acoustic and visual signature, making them inherently difficult to detect, forcing naval forces to maintain continuous anti-submarine warfare screening even in ostensibly secure waters.¹³

The Rise of Unmanned Surface Vessels as Strike Platforms

Lessons derived from the Black Sea demonstrate that smaller surface drones can also effectively execute deep strikes.¹⁴ Unmanned surface vessels initially deployed as simple one-way kamikaze boats have rapidly evolved. For example, Ukraine has modified USVs to carry and launch aerial drones, effectively creating autonomous micro-carriers that extend the reach of aerial strikes.¹⁰

Furthermore, these platforms have been integrated with anti-aircraft missiles to counter airborne threats. Ukrainian forces utilized Magura V5 vessels to destroy Russian helicopters at sea, proving that relatively inexpensive unmanned boats can successfully threaten much more valuable manned aircraft.¹⁰ Due to constant advancements in operational range and satellite communications, USVs can launch payloads entirely out of the reach of shore-based surveillance systems, denying sea control to traditional naval fleets.¹⁰

6. Revolutionizing Carrier Defense: Deepening the Magazine

To ensure survival against swarm saturation and hypersonic threats, naval architecture is shifting away from an exclusive reliance on expensive, limited-quantity kinetic interceptors. The defensive evolution focuses on creating an “infinite magazine” through the integration of directed energy weapons and fielding lower-cost, reusable interception systems.

Directed Energy Weapons: The Infinite Magazine

The most significant advancement in carrier point defense is the operational fielding of high-energy laser systems. While earlier naval lasers required permanent integration into a ship’s hull, modern systems have achieved modularity.¹⁵

The AeroVironment LOCUST Laser Weapon System represents a critical breakthrough. Tested aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush in October 2025, the LOCUST is a palletized, 20 to 35-kilowatt-class High Energy Laser.¹⁶ The system’s roll-on, roll-off capability allows the Navy to quickly load the system onto a ship via forklift and initiate operations immediately, without complex ship modifications.¹⁷

Crucially, when deployed on a ship, the LOCUST system can draw directly from the nuclear carrier’s electrical grid, marrying an essentially unlimited power source with an infinite directed energy magazine.¹⁷ The cost per engagement is reduced from millions of dollars to the mere cost of the electricity required to generate the beam.¹⁸ During its deployment on the USS George H.W. Bush, the system demonstrated a 100 percent kill rate, neutralizing 17 consecutive target drones.¹⁶ By deploying systems like LOCUST and the High-Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-Dazzler and Surveillance (HELIOS), carriers and escorts can neutralize Group 1 to 3 drones efficiently.¹⁹

Next-Generation Kinetic Interceptors

To bridge the gap between directed energy and multi-million-dollar Standard Missiles, the Navy is procuring advanced, low-cost kinetic interceptors.

The Anduril Roadrunner-M is a jet-powered, loitering interceptor drone costing in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars.²⁰ If a threat is identified, the Roadrunner-M engages; if no threat materializes, it can return to its base station for reuse.²⁰ Similarly, Raytheon’s Coyote interceptors provide persistent counter-swarm capabilities. In a major milestone, the USS Bainbridge became the first U.S. Navy destroyer to operationally deploy Coyote interceptor launchers during NATO’s Neptune Strike exercise in July 2025.²¹

To handle advanced ballistic threats more efficiently, the Navy is integrating the Army’s Patriot PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) into the Mk 41 VLS.²² Valued at approximately $5.3 million per unit, the PAC-3 MSE’s highly agile hit-to-kill capability provides an optimized defense against maneuvering ballistic targets in the terminal phase.²³ The Navy has requested 405 PAC-3 MSE missiles in its fiscal year 2027 budget, signaling a major commitment to diversifying its defensive arsenal.²²

Non-Kinetic Electronic Warfare

Defensive architectures are also being hardened through advanced electronic warfare. The Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 3 equips Aegis destroyers with active electronic attack capabilities across a wide frequency range.²⁵ Utilizing an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA), SEWIP Block 3 can disrupt the guidance systems of incoming missiles, spoof targeting radars, and sever the command links of drone swarms.²⁵

7. The Offensive Evolution: Precise Mass and the Kill Web

The ultimate defense of the aircraft carrier lies in a robust, distributed offense. Legacy naval strategy relied on a linear kill chain wherein a single expensive platform was responsible for sensing, tracking, and prosecuting targets.⁶ The new paradigm relies on a highly distributed “kill web” and the doctrine of “affordable mass”—the ability to replace combat losses as fast as they are likely to occur.³

The Weaponization of Asymmetry and the LUCAS Drone

Precise mass is defined as the intersection of commercial manufacturing, advancements in artificial intelligence, and precision guidance technology, enabling actors to generate strike capabilities at lower costs and overwhelming scale.³

This adaptation culminated in the development of the Low-cost Unmanned Combat Attack System (LUCAS). Developed by SpektreWorks and reverse-engineered from the Iranian Shahed-136, the military leveraged rapid prototyping tools to field the system in months. The resulting LUCAS drone costs approximately $35,000—a fraction of the cost of traditional cruise missiles like the $2.5 million Tomahawk—while maintaining a 500-mile range and modular payload capacity.

Flipping the Cost Equation: Operation Epic Fury

The strategic value of affordable mass was validated during Operation Epic Fury, a campaign initiated on February 28, 2026, targeting Iranian military infrastructure. Central Command deployed waves of LUCAS drones launched from various platforms, fundamentally inverting the cost equation that plagued earlier Red Sea operations.

Rather than using multi-million-dollar interceptors to shoot down cheap drones, the U.S. launched swarms of $35,000 LUCAS drones to force the adversary to activate their air defense networks and expend highly expensive surface-to-air missiles. Once the adversary’s defense nodes were exposed and depleted of ammunition by the attritable drone wave, high-end U.S. stealth aircraft and cruise missiles exploited the gaps to destroy the infrastructure.⁶

Scaling Affordable Mass: The Drone Dominance Initiative

To sustain this strategy long-term, the Department of Defense is scaling up its domestic industrial ecosystem. Under the Drone Dominance Initiative, the Pentagon is issuing massive demand signals to non-traditional manufacturers, placing initial orders for 30,000 small, one-way attack drones at an expected initial cost of $5,000 per unit, with the goal of reducing the unit price to $2,000.⁶ The objective is to scale production to hundreds of thousands of units by 2027, establishing an industrial base capable of sustaining affordable mass.⁶

8. Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) and the Future Air Wing

If the aircraft carrier is to remain relevant in heavily contested environments, its embarked air wing must undergo a radical transformation. The integration of Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) is the cornerstone of this evolution.²⁶

The MQ-25 Stingray and Range Extension

The primary limitation of modern carrier strike fighters is their relatively short unrefueled combat radius, which forces the carrier to operate perilously close to A2/AD threat rings. The MQ-25 Stingray is explicitly designed to address this vulnerability. As the world’s first operational, carrier-based unmanned aircraft, its primary mission is aerial refueling.²⁶

By offloading the tanking mission from crewed Super Hornets, the MQ-25 frees up fighter inventory for dedicated strike missions and significantly extends the effective operational range of the air wing.²⁶ Operating seamlessly with state-of-the-art sensors, the Stingray serves as the critical pathfinder for integrating autonomous systems into the carrier deck, laying the foundation for the Navy’s goal of achieving a sixty percent or more uncrewed carrier air wing.²⁷

Collaborative Combat Aircraft

Building upon the MQ-25, future carrier air wings will incorporate Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs).³ These uncrewed drones are designed to operate alongside crewed fighter jets at a significantly lower cost. CCAs will launch from the carrier to act as loyal wingmen, flying ahead of crewed fighters to provide early warning sensing, conduct electronic warfare, and deliver weapons deep within contested airspace.³ By substituting expensive manned platforms with attritable CCAs for the most dangerous missions, the carrier can project power without risking irreplaceable human capital.

9. Force Structure, Shipbuilding, and Fleet Design Strategies

The transition to a fleet architecture defined by affordable mass requires a fundamental overhaul of defense procurement and maritime force structure.

The MUSV Marketplace and Distributed Lethality

To distribute lethality away from the carrier deck and overcome shipyard backlogs, the Navy is fielding Medium Unmanned Surface Vessels (MUSVs) as collaborative combat nodes.³ By eliminating human accommodations, these autonomous ships drastically reduce construction costs.³

Because autonomous ships lack human support infrastructure, their simplified hulls can be constructed using modular techniques at smaller shipyards and commercial yacht builders.³ For example, the DARPA-developed Defiant (USX-1) MUSV, measuring 180 feet and weighing 240 metric tons, costs approximately $25 million for the core hull and is designed for extended voyages without any crew.³ Expanding naval construction into the 86 active smaller shipyards bypasses the severe delays plaguing major shipyards.³

The Hedge Strategy and Unmanned Undersea Vehicles

The rigid structure of the Carrier Strike Group is yielding to a more flexible organizational doctrine. The Chief of Naval Operations’ “Hedge Strategy” recognizes that finite carrier inventories cannot meet all global demands simultaneously.²⁸

By scaling up the use of MUSVs and Unmanned Undersea Vehicles (UUVs), combatant commanders can assemble customized formations to execute specific missions without requiring the presence of a supercarrier.²⁸ In June 2026, the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group deployed alongside the Seahawk MUSV, transitioning these platforms from experimental prototypes into active, operational fleet assets.²⁸

Furthermore, the undersea domain is being bolstered by platforms like the Boeing Orca Extra Large Uncrewed Undersea Vehicle (XLUUV).²⁹ The Orca, operating with a diesel-electric hybrid propulsion system, boasts a 12,000-kilometer range and enables months-long missions, providing unprecedented undersea autonomy.²⁹

10. Strategic Conclusions

Have military drones rendered America’s aircraft carriers obsolete? The empirical evidence suggests that they have not rendered the hull form obsolete, but they have permanently invalidated the traditional doctrinal mindset that views the carrier as an independent, invulnerable fortress. Traditional thinking that relies exclusively on finite, multi-million-dollar interceptors to defend against saturation attacks, or expects carriers to operate unmolested inside established anti-access/area-denial threat rings, is now entirely outdated.

The projection of American maritime power with a carrier is not an illusion; it is undergoing a metamorphosis. To survive, the aircraft carrier must evolve from a frontline brawler into the central nervous system of a highly distributed kill web. By offloading risk to attritable autonomous systems, utilizing collaborative combat vessels to distribute missile magazines, and protecting the carrier deck with ship-powered directed energy weapons, the carrier strike group can maintain its strategic relevance. Future naval dominance will rely on “affordable mass” and the sheer volume, speed, and connectivity of the uncrewed swarm it commands.

11. Appendix: Methodology and Data Sources

The analysis provided in this report synthesizes a broad spectrum of open-source intelligence, strategic defense directives, wargame data, and procurement documents to assess the survivability and evolution of the U.S. aircraft carrier in the modern threat environment.

The evaluation of adversarial Anti-Access/Area Denial capabilities relied on technical specifications regarding the ranges, terminal velocities, and launch platforms of the DF-21D, DF-26, and YJ-21 missile systems.¹ The strategic implications of these capabilities were contextualized using the outcomes of wargame iterations conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which provided vital data on projected asset attrition and the severe industrial constraints surrounding the reconstitution of major surface combatants.²

The assessment of the “cost-exchange” crisis and the shift toward “affordable mass” was informed by operational data from recent combat deployments. This included the financial disparities observed during Red Sea defensive operations and the subsequent offensive deployment of the Low-cost Unmanned Combat Attack System (LUCAS) during Operation Epic Fury. Advancements in directed energy weapons and non-kinetic defenses were evaluated based on the live-fire testing of the AeroVironment LOCUST system aboard the USS George H.W. Bush, the outfitting of the USS Bainbridge with Coyote interceptors, and the integration parameters of the SEWIP Block 3 and PAC-3 MSE.¹⁵ The structural shift in naval procurement toward attritable, autonomous systems was analyzed through current initiatives, including the Drone Dominance Initiative and the operational deployment of the Seahawk MUSV.⁶

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

Sources Used

1. China’s Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles: DF-21D, DF-26 & YJ-21 Carrier …, accessed July 5, 2026, https://thedefensewatch.com/naval-maritime/naval-strategy-maritime-security/chinas-carrier-killer-arsenal/
2. So What? Reassessing the Military Implications of Chinese Control …, accessed July 5, 2026, https://tnsr.org/2025/06/so-what-reassessing-the-military-implications-of-chinese-control-of-taiwan/
3. The Navy Needs Precise Mass and Here Is How to Get There, accessed July 5, 2026, https://warontherocks.com/the-navy-needs-precise-mass-and-here-is-how-to-get-there/
4. How Aircraft Carriers Are Defended – Military Machine, accessed July 5, 2026, https://militarymachine.com/how-aircraft-carriers-are-defended
5. Can a single destroyer really handle thousands of drones attacking at once, or would it stand no chance against such a swarm? – Quora, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.quora.com/Can-a-single-destroyer-really-handle-thousands-of-drones-attacking-at-once-or-would-it-stand-no-chance-against-such-a-swarm
6. From Red Sea Defense to Epic Fury: How the U.S. Flipped the …, accessed July 5, 2026, https://defense.info/re-shaping-defense-security/2026/03/from-red-sea-defense-to-epic-fury-how-the-u-s-flipped-the-drone-cost-equation/
7. The Navy and Marine Corps Need to Prepare for the Swarm of the Future – War on the Rocks, accessed July 5, 2026, https://warontherocks.com/the-navy-and-marine-corps-must-plan-for-the-swarm-of-the-future/
8. Chinese Scientists Unveil Drone Swarm Algorithm Claiming 100% Kill Rate – Ground News, accessed July 5, 2026, https://ground.news/daily-briefing/chinese-scientists-unveil-drone-swarm-algorithm-claiming-100-kill-rate
9. China’s plan to swarm US carriers from 3,000km away – Asia Times, accessed July 5, 2026, https://asiatimes.com/2026/06/chinas-plan-to-swarm-us-carriers-from-3000km-away/
10. Ukraine is launching strike-drones from everything – including Black Sea robo-boats, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/07/01/ukraine-is-launching-strike-drones-from-everything-including-black-sea-robo-boats/
11. Ukraine strikes Russian submarine with ‘Sub Sea Baby’ drone – Naval News, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/12/ukraine-strikes-russian-submarine-with-sub-sea-baby-drone/
12. Ukraine’s ‘Sub Sea Baby’ Drones Burn Russia’s $400 Million Submarine: How SBU Flipped Naval Warfare? – YouTube, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq6tFpwUN-I
13. Autonomous Vehicles in Support of Naval Operations (2005) – National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.nationalacademies.org/read/11379/chapter/7
14. Maritime Domain Lessons from Russia-Ukraine | Conflict in Focus – CSIS, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/maritime-domain-lessons-russia-ukraine-conflict-focus
15. LOCUST laser weapon scores 100% kill rate in US Navy trials – New Atlas, accessed July 5, 2026, https://newatlas.com/military/aerovironment-locust-laser-weapon-us-navy-trials/
16. Why aircraft carriers are the best (and worst) place for laser weapons – Military Times, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.militarytimes.com/industry/techwatch/2026/04/28/why-aircraft-carriers-are-the-best-and-worst-place-for-laser-weapons/
17. AV Successfully Demonstrates LOCUST Laser Weapon System …, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.avinc.com/2026/04/21/av-successfully-demonstrates-locust-laser-weapon-system-aboard-uss-george-h-w-bush/
18. GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE: Directed Energy in Air Base Defense Can Save the Arsenal, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/8/11/government-perspective-directed-energy-in-air-base-defense-can-save-the-arsenal
19. US Navy Deploys Its HELIOS High-Energy Laser System In Operation Fury Against Iran | News18 – YouTube, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYuAFf0pAKY
20. Roadrunner Reusable Anti-Air Interceptor Breaks Cover – TWZ, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.twz.com/roadrunner-reusable-anti-air-interceptor-breaks-cover
21. Naval Defense Revolution: USS Bainbridge Becomes First Destroyer Armed with Advanced Counter-Drone Systems – Americans for a Stronger Navy, accessed July 5, 2026, https://strongernavy.org/naval-defense-revolution-uss-bainbridge-becomes-first-destroyer-armed-with-advanced-counter-drone-systems/
22. Patriot PAC-3 Missiles To Arm Navy Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers – TWZ, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.twz.com/land/patriot-pac-3-missiles-to-arm-navy-arleigh-burke-class-destroyers
23. ‘Cheap’ Patriot Interceptor Costing Under $1 Million Now Being Sought By Army – TWZ, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.twz.com/land/cheap-patriot-interceptor-costing-under-1-million-now-being-sought-by-army
24. U.S. Navy Orders 405 Patriot Missiles for Ships, accessed July 5, 2026, https://militarnyi.com/en/news/u-s-navy-orders-405-patriot-missiles-for-ships/
25. American Destroyer Packed New Electronic Warfare System During Black Sea Mission, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.twz.com/19012/american-destroyer-packed-new-electronic-warfare-system-during-black-sea-mission
26. Unmanned Carrier Aviation – MQ-25 – NAVAIR, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.navair.navy.mil/product/Unmanned-Carrier-Aviation
27. MQ-25 Stingray Demonstrator Goes Aboard USS Nimitz For 250th U.S. Anniversary Celebrations – TWZ, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.twz.com/air/mq-25-stingray-demonstrator-goes-aboard-uss-nimitz-for-250th-u-s-anniversary-celebrations
28. A Navy carrier is about to deploy with a robot ship. Could it change …, accessed July 5, 2026, https://breakingdefense.com/2026/06/navy-carrier-theodore-roosevelt-drone-seahawk-deployment/
29. XLUUV – Boeing, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.boeing.com/defense/autonomous-and-unmanned-systems/xluuv
30. US Navy’s 12,000km Autonomous Submarine Drone: The Orca XLUUV – YouTube, accessed July 5, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPf9VAZBADQ