Category Archives: Military Analytics

Top 20 Longest Sniper Kills: A Historical Analysis

The strategic landscape of precision military engagement has undergone a fundamental transformation in the first quarter of the 21st century. Historically, the sniper was viewed as a tactical asset—a force multiplier operating at the platoon or company level to harass enemy movements and eliminate key personnel within the visual horizon. However, the data emerging from the battlefields of the last two decades, culminating in the high-intensity state-on-state conflict in Ukraine, indicates a doctrinal shift toward the sniper as a strategic asset capable of “Over-the-Horizon” (OTH) interdiction. As of late 2025, the engagement envelope for individual marksmen has expanded from the traditional 1,000 meters to nearly 4,000 meters, effectively blurring the distinction between small arms fire and light artillery.

This report provides an exhaustive technical and operational analysis of the world’s top 20 sniper engagements, ranked strictly by the metric of confirmed combat distance. This metric is chosen not merely for its sensational nature, but because extreme-range engagement is the ultimate stress test for the entire “kill chain”—the weapon system, the ammunition ballistics, the optical clarity, the environmental sensing technology, and the operator’s physiological control.

The analysis reveals a bifurcated dominance in the global sniper hierarchy. The Anglo-sphere nations—specifically Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia—have historically maintained a monopoly on long-range precision, driven by the professionalization of their Special Operations Forces (SOF) during the Global War on Terror. The Joint Task Force 2 (Canada) and the 75th Ranger Regiment (USA) feature prominently in the rankings, validating NATO’s emphasis on standardized heavy-caliber platforms like the.50 BMG and.338 Lapua Magnum.

However, the 2022–2025 Russo-Ukrainian War has shattered this monopoly. Ukrainian forces, driven by the existential necessity of asymmetric warfare, have captured the top positions on the global list, including the current world record of 4,000 meters set in August 2025.1 This surge is underpinned by a rapid indigenous innovation cycle that has produced “super-heavy” anti-materiel rifles (AMRs) chambered in 14.5x114mm and proprietary “wildcat” cartridges, effectively outranging standard NATO equipment.1

This report details the operational profiles of these 20 marksmen, analyzing the specific ballistic solutions, unit doctrines, and technological enablers—such as drone-based wind sensing and high-coefficient projectiles—that made these historic shots possible. It further examines the broader global landscape, acknowledging elite units from nations like France, Turkey, and Ireland which, while absent from the extreme-distance records, continue to dominate international tactical competitions, thereby influencing global training standards.

1. Strategic Context: The Physics and Doctrine of the “Long Shot”

To understand the magnitude of the achievements detailed in the top 20 rankings, one must first appreciate the immense physical and technical barriers that exist beyond the 1,500-meter threshold. An engagement at 2,000 meters or more is not simply a matter of aiming “higher”; it is a complex meteorological and mathematical problem that requires the shooter to account for forces that are negligible at standard combat ranges.

1.1 External Ballistics at Extreme Range

The flight time of a projectile at distances exceeding 2.5 kilometers can range from 6 to 12 seconds. During this interval, the projectile is essentially an unguided glider, subject to a myriad of environmental influences.

  • The Coriolis Effect: Due to the rotation of the Earth, a target will physically move during the bullet’s flight. In the northern hemisphere, shots fired to the north will drift right, while shots to the south drift left. At 3,800 meters, this drift can be measured in meters, not centimeters.3
  • Spin Drift: A bullet spinning to the right will inevitably drift in that direction due to the interaction of air pressure on the nose of the projectile (the Magnus effect). At extreme ranges, this drift becomes a significant variable that must be calculated independently of wind.
  • Aerodynamic Jump: Crosswinds do not just push the bullet sideways; they cause vertical displacement. A wind from the right will cause a spinning bullet to lift or drop depending on the direction of the spin, altering the elevation solution.
  • Transonic Destabilization: Most standard bullets become unstable as they decelerate from supersonic to subsonic speeds (the transonic zone). The shockwave that trails the bullet overtakes it, causing it to tumble. The “Top 20” shots are almost exclusively achieved with heavy, high-ballistic-coefficient (BC) bullets designed to remain supersonic for extended durations, or “solids” (monolithic turned bullets) that remain stable even when subsonic.

1.2 The Technological Triad

The modern sniper team operates as a firing solution computation unit. The era of “holding over” using a simple mil-dot reticle has ended for record-breaking distances.

  • The Weapon: We observe a transition from “Sniper Rifles” (7.62mm) to “Anti-Materiel Rifles” (12.7mm, 14.5mm). The mass of the projectile is critical for retaining kinetic energy.
  • The Optic: High-magnification optics (5-25x, 7-35x) with immense internal elevation travel are required. Brands like Schmidt & Bender, Nightforce, and March dominate the list because their internal mechanics can withstand the G-forces of heavy recoil while allowing the shooter to dial in 100+ MOA (Minutes of Angle) of drop.
  • The Computer: Handheld ballistic computers (such as Kestrel weather meters with Applied Ballistics software) are now standard issue. These devices measure air density, temperature, humidity, and pressure, instantly generating a firing solution that accounts for the specific drag curve of the bullet being used.3

1.3 Doctrine: Hunter-Killer vs. Overwatch

The top 20 list reflects two distinct doctrines.

  1. Direct Action / Hunter-Killer: Evident in the Ukrainian “Pryvyd” (Ghost) units and US Ranger operations. Here, snipers actively hunt high-value targets (officers, commanders) to degrade enemy command and control (C2).
  2. Force Protection / Overwatch: Evident in the Canadian JTF2 and Australian Commando records. In these scenarios, snipers are positioned in static observation posts to protect maneuvering infantry. The record shots often occur when an enemy unit engages friendly forces, and the sniper is forced to engage at the limit of their range to suppress the threat.4

2. Comprehensive Profiles of the Top 20 Snipers

The following section provides a detailed analysis of the top 20 longest confirmed sniper kills in history, ranked by distance.

Rank 1: The “Pryvyd” (Ghost) Unit Sniper

  • Country: Ukraine
  • Distance: 4,000 meters (4,374 yards / 2.49 miles)
  • Date: August 2025
  • Conflict: Russian Invasion of Ukraine
  • Unit: “Pryvyd” (Ghost) Sniper Unit, Presidential Brigade
  • Status: World Record Holder

Operational Background

In August 2025, amidst the grinding attrition of the eastern front, a sniper from the elite “Pryvyd” unit achieved what ballistic experts previously considered theoretically impossible for a shoulder-fired weapon: a confirmed kill at 4 kilometers. The “Pryvyd” unit has gained legendary status within the Ukrainian armed forces for their specialized focus on high-value target elimination and counter-sniper operations. They operate semi-autonomously, often deploying to the most critical sectors of the front to stabilize defensive lines or disrupt Russian offensives.1

The Weapon System: Snipex Alligator

The record was set using the Snipex Alligator, a platform that pushes the definition of a “rifle” to its absolute limit.

  • Manufacturer: XADO Chemical Group (Ukraine).
  • Caliber: 14.5x114mm. This cartridge was originally designed for the KPVT heavy machine gun and anti-tank rifles of World War II (like the PTRD). It fires a projectile weighing nearly 64 grams (approx. 990 grains) at velocities approaching 1,000 meters per second. The kinetic energy delivered is roughly 32,000 Joules—sufficient to penetrate 10mm of armor plate at 1.5 kilometers.7
  • Mechanism: The Alligator is a bolt-action, magazine-fed (5 rounds) rifle. It measures 2 meters in length and weighs 25 kilograms (55 lbs). To manage the catastrophic recoil of the 14.5mm round, the rifle utilizes a recoil-isolating receiver (the barrel moves slightly within the chassis), a massive multi-baffle muzzle brake, and a heavy padded stock.
  • Stabilization: Accuracy at 4km requires absolute stability. The Alligator features a heavy-duty bipod and a rear monopod, essentially turning the shooter’s body into a rigid gun carriage.7

Ballistic Insight

At 4,000 meters, the bullet is in flight for significantly longer than 10 seconds. The “drop” required to hit the target would be measured in hundreds of meters. The optical sight likely required a specialized prism or external rail inclination (e.g., 100 MOA base) to even see the target while aiming high enough to compensate for gravity. The sniper reportedly utilized drone assistance for wind readings and hit confirmation, highlighting the integration of UAVs into the modern sniper team.9

Rank 2: Viacheslav Kovalskyi

  • Country: Ukraine
  • Distance: 3,800 meters (4,156 yards / 2.36 miles)
  • Date: November 2023
  • Conflict: Russian Invasion of Ukraine
  • Unit: Special Group “Alpha”, Security Service of Ukraine (SBU)

Operational Background

Viacheslav Kovalskyi represents a unique archetype in the Ukrainian war effort: the civilian specialist turned combatant. A 58-year-old former businessman and competitive long-range shooter, Kovalskyi joined the SBU’s counterintelligence sniper units following the 2022 invasion. His record shot took place in the Kherson region across the Dnipro River. Kovalskyi and his spotter observed a group of Russian soldiers for hours, identifying an officer instructing subordinates. The shot was taken in freezing conditions, requiring precise cold-bore calculations.1

The Weapon System: Horizon’s Lord (Volodar Obriyu)

Kovalskyi’s weapon is a testament to Ukraine’s “garage innovation” culture, where commercial competition shooting knowledge is applied to military hardware.

  • Rifle: The MCR Horizon’s Lord is a single-shot, bolt-action anti-materiel rifle. Unlike the mass-produced Alligator, this is a precision instrument, often utilizing custom barrels from Bartlein (USA) and high-end Japanese optics (likely March Genesis or similar).
  • The “Wildcat” Cartridge (12.7x114HL): This is the key to the shot’s success. The standard 14.5mm round is powerful but lacks the aerodynamic refinement of match-grade sniper bullets. The standard.50 BMG (12.7x99mm) has good bullets but lacks the case capacity to push them at hypersonic speeds for long durations.
  • The Solution: Ukrainian engineers necked down the massive 14.5x114mm case to accept a smaller, sleeker 12.7mm (.50 cal) bullet. This hybrid “wildcat” cartridge holds a massive powder charge, launching the match-grade.50 caliber bullet at velocities exceeding 1,000 m/s.2 This results in a “laser-flat” trajectory compared to standard rounds, reducing the effects of wind and gravity and keeping the bullet supersonic (and thus stable) far beyond the range of a standard.50 BMG.

Rank 3: Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) Sniper (Name Withheld)

  • Country: Canada
  • Distance: 3,540 meters (3,871 yards / 2.2 miles)
  • Date: May 2017
  • Conflict: Operation IMPACT (Iraq)
  • Unit: Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2)

Operational Background

JTF2 is Canada’s Tier 1 Special Operations unit, analogous to the US Delta Force or British SAS. They are intensely secretive, specializing in counter-terrorism and direct action. In May 2017, during the Battle of Mosul, a JTF2 sniper team was deployed to support Iraqi Security Forces engaging ISIS militants. The sniper occupied a high-rise position, providing significant elevation advantage. He engaged an ISIS fighter who was attacking Iraqi troops. The shot was confirmed by video feed and other data sources, marking the first time a combat kill exceeded the 3,500-meter mark.4

The Weapon System: McMillan TAC-50 (C15 LRSW)

The McMillan TAC-50 is the cornerstone of the Canadian sniper legacy (holding spots #3, #7, and #8).

  • Caliber:.50 BMG (12.7x99mm).
  • Design: A bolt-action rifle with a 29-inch heavy match-grade barrel. The barrel is fluted (spiral cuts) to reduce weight and increase surface area for cooling.
  • Recoil Mitigation: The TAC-50 features a unique hydraulic buffer system in the stock which absorbs a significant portion of the.50 BMG’s recoil. This allows the shooter to maintain sight picture through the shot, a critical factor for self-spotting at extreme ranges.
  • Optics: Canadian forces typically mount the Schmidt & Bender 5-25×56 PM II, a German-made optic renowned for its optical clarity and robust tracking mechanics.3
  • Ammunition: JTF2 utilizes the Hornady A-MAX.50 BMG match ammunition. Unlike military ball ammo (linked machine gun ammo), the A-MAX features a polymer tip and strict manufacturing tolerances to ensure consistent drag coefficients.11

Rank 4: 2nd Commando Regiment Sniper (Name Withheld)

  • Country: Australia
  • Distance: 2,815 meters (3,079 yards / 1.6 miles)
  • Date: April 2012
  • Conflict: War in Afghanistan
  • Unit: 2nd Commando Regiment, SOCOMD

Operational Background

Operating in the Mirabad Valley of Uruzgan/Helmand province, an Australian Special Operations task force identified a Taliban commander. Two sniper teams from the 2nd Commando Regiment coordinated a simultaneous engagement to ensure the target was neutralized. The confirmed kill was credited to one of the shooters at a distance of 2,815 meters. This shot held the world record for five years.4

The Weapon System: Barrett M82A1

The use of the Barrett M82A1 for a top-5 record is technically significant.

  • Action: Unlike the bolt-action rifles used by the top 3, the M82A1 is a recoil-operated semi-automatic rifle. The barrel physically moves backward into the receiver to cycle the action.
  • Accuracy Trade-off: Generally, semi-automatics are less accurate than bolt-actions because of the moving parts and loose tolerances required for reliability. Achieving a 2,800m hit with a 2-3 MOA (Minute of Angle) rifle speaks to the immense skill of the Australian operator and the volume of fire capability—the ability to put a second round downrange immediately after observing the splash of the first.
  • Ammunition: The Australians utilized the Raufoss Mk 211 multipurpose round. This Norwegian-designed cartridge contains a tungsten penetrator and an incendiary/explosive component. The explosive “flash” upon impact is highly visible, serving as a perfect spotting marker for long-range adjustments.1

Rank 5: National Guard Sniper (Name Withheld)

  • Country: Ukraine
  • Distance: 2,710 meters (2,964 yards)
  • Date: November 2022
  • Conflict: Russian Invasion of Ukraine
  • Unit: Ukrainian National Guard
  • Weapon: XADO Snipex Alligator

Operational Background

This engagement occurred during the intense operational tempo of the first winter of the full-scale invasion. A National Guard sniper utilizing the newly adopted Snipex Alligator engaged Russian infantry forces. This shot was crucial in validating the domestic Ukrainian arms industry, proving that the indigenous 14.5mm platform could compete with Western-supplied Barretts.1

Technical Insight

The sheer size of the 14.5mm projectile allows it to retain supersonic velocity longer than the.50 BMG. At 2,700 meters, a standard.50 cal bullet might be destabilizing (going subsonic), but the 14.5mm is still flying true, making the firing solution more predictable.7

Rank 6: Corporal of Horse Craig Harrison

  • Country: United Kingdom
  • Distance: 2,475 meters (2,707 yards)
  • Date: November 2009
  • Conflict: War in Afghanistan
  • Unit: The Blues and Royals, Household Cavalry

Operational Background

Craig Harrison’s engagement in Musa Qala, Helmand Province, is perhaps the most famous verification of the.338 Lapua Magnum’s capabilities. Providing overwatch for a patrol, Harrison engaged a Taliban machine gun team. He fired three shots: the first killed the gunner, the second killed the assistant gunner, and the third destroyed the PKM machine gun itself. This consistency proves the hit was not luck.1

The Weapon System: Accuracy International L115A3

  • Rifle: The L115A3 is the British military designation for the Accuracy International AWM (Arctic Warfare Magnum). AI rifles are legendary for their chassis system, where the action is bolted to a rigid aluminum backbone, eliminating point-of-impact shifts caused by temperature or humidity affecting a wooden or polymer stock.
  • Caliber: .338 Lapua Magnum (8.59x70mm). This cartridge was designed specifically for military sniping to bridge the gap between the 7.62mm and the.50 BMG. It offers the trajectory of a.50 cal with significantly less weight and recoil, allowing the sniper to be more mobile.
  • Optics: Schmidt & Bender 5-25×56 PM II.

Rank 7: Corporal Rob Furlong

  • Country: Canada
  • Distance: 2,430 meters (2,657 yards)
  • Date: March 2002
  • Conflict: War in Afghanistan (Operation Anaconda)
  • Unit: 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI)

Operational Background

Operation Anaconda was the first major battle of the Afghan war involving large conventional forces. Canadian snipers from the PPCLI were deployed to the Shah-i-Kot Valley. Furlong engaged an Al-Qaeda weapons team moving up a ridgeline. His first two shots missed, alerting the target, but his third shot struck the enemy’s torso. The high altitude (thin air) of the valley significantly reduced aerodynamic drag, extending the rifle’s effective range.1

Weapon System: McMillan TAC-50 (.50 BMG). Furlong’s success solidified the reputation of the “Big Mac” (TAC-50) within the Canadian Forces.

Rank 8: Master Corporal Arron Perry

  • Country: Canada
  • Distance: 2,310 meters (2,526 yards)
  • Date: March 2002
  • Conflict: War in Afghanistan (Operation Anaconda)
  • Unit: 3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry (PPCLI)

Operational Background

Arron Perry, a member of the same sniper cell as Rob Furlong, briefly held the world record just days before Furlong broke it. Perry engaged an enemy observer who was directing mortar fire onto US troops (101st Airborne). His shot effectively suppressed the enemy position, saving American lives.1

Insight: The dominance of the PPCLI in 2002 (holding two world records simultaneously) speaks to the excellence of the Canadian sniper course, which is widely regarded as one of the most mathematically intensive in NATO.

Rank 9: Sergeant Brian Kremer

  • Country: United States
  • Distance: 2,300 meters (2,515 yards)
  • Date: October 2004
  • Conflict: Iraq War
  • Unit: 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment

Operational Background

While Chris Kyle is the most famous US sniper, Sgt. Brian Kremer holds the record for the longest confirmed kill by a US service member. The engagement occurred during combat operations in Iraq. The Rangers are the US Army’s premier light infantry direct-action force, and their sniper doctrine emphasizes aggressive support of raids.1

Weapon System: Barrett M82A1 (.50 BMG) with Raufoss Mk 211 ammunition.

Rank 10: Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock

  • Country: United States
  • Distance: 2,286 meters (2,500 yards)
  • Date: February 1967
  • Conflict: Vietnam War
  • Unit: 7th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division

Operational Background

This is the “Genesis” shot of modern long-range sniping. In 1967, specialized sniper rifles did not exist in the.50 caliber format. Hathcock, a legendary marksman, modified an M2 Browning.50 caliber machine gun (affectionately known as “Ma Deuce”) by attaching an 8x Unertl telescopic sight with a custom-fabricated bracket. He fired the machine gun in single-shot mode (semi-automatic) to kill a Viet Cong guerrilla transporting weapons on a bicycle.

Legacy: This shot proved the concept of the heavy-caliber sniper rifle. It directly led to the development of the Barrett and McMillan rifles used by every sniper ranked above him.1

Rank 11: South African Special Forces Sniper (Name Withheld)

  • Country: South Africa
  • Distance: 2,125 meters (2,324 yards)
  • Date: August 2013
  • Conflict: UN Mission in DR Congo (MONUSCO)
  • Unit: South African Special Forces Brigade

Operational Background

During the Battle of Kibati, South African peacekeepers engaged M23 rebels. The South African sniper reportedly killed six rebels with single shots, the longest of which was confirmed at 2,125 meters.1

The Weapon System: Denel NTW-20

  • Design: The NTW-20 is a true “anti-materiel cannon.” It is a bolt-action rifle that is so large it must be broken down into two loads (receiver/barrel and stock/bipod) to be carried by a two-man team.
  • Caliber: It is interchangeable between 20x82mm (for destroying radar, parked aircraft) and 14.5x114mm (for long-range sniping). The record shot was taken with the 14.5mm barrel due to its superior velocity compared to the heavy 20mm shell.
  • Recoil: The rifle features a hydraulic damping system that allows the barrel to recoil inside the chassis, absorbing the massive shock of the 14.5mm round.

Rank 12: Specialist Nicholas Ranstad

  • Country: United States
  • Distance: 2,092 meters (2,288 yards)
  • Date: January 2008
  • Conflict: War in Afghanistan
  • Unit: 1st Squadron, 91st Cavalry Regiment

Operational Background

Spc. Ranstad was defending a remote outpost in Kunar Province. He engaged four Taliban fighters using a boulder for cover. He missed his first shot, but due to the visual feedback from the impact, he corrected his hold and eliminated the target on the second shot.1

Weapon System: Barrett M82A1 (.50 BMG). Ranstad utilized the sheer volume of fire of the semi-automatic Barrett to “walk” rounds onto the target.

Rank 13: Chief Petty Officer Chris Kyle

  • Country: United States
  • Distance: 1,920 meters (2,100 yards)
  • Date: August 2008
  • Conflict: Iraq War (Battle of Sadr City)
  • Unit: SEAL Team 3

Operational Background

Chris Kyle, widely known as the “American Sniper” for his high total kill count (160 confirmed), achieved his longest kill outside Sadr City. He engaged an insurgent who was preparing to fire an RPG at a US Army convoy. This shot is notable because it was taken with a .338 Lapua Magnum, proving the caliber’s effectiveness in the urban battlespace where a.50 BMG might be too heavy and cumbersome for dynamic SEAL operations.1

Weapon System: McMillan TAC-338. A scaled-down version of the TAC-50, chambered in.338 Lapua.

Rank 14: Corporal Christopher Reynolds

  • Country: United Kingdom
  • Distance: 1,853 meters (2,026 yards)
  • Date: August 2009
  • Conflict: War in Afghanistan
  • Unit: The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland

Operational Background

Cpl. Reynolds killed a Taliban commander in Helmand Province. The shot was calculated to have dropped several meters over the distance. Reynolds famously stated, “I just held my breath and squeezed the trigger,” underplaying the complex calculations provided by his spotter.1

Weapon System: Accuracy International L115A3 (.338 Lapua Magnum).

Rank 15: Saudi Arabian Sniper (Name Withheld)

  • Country: Saudi Arabia
  • Distance: 1,700 meters (1,859 yards)
  • Date: January 2016
  • Conflict: Yemeni Civil War
  • Unit: Royal Saudi Land Forces

Operational Background

In the mountainous border regions between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a Saudi sniper engaged a Houthi rebel. This entry highlights the proliferation of high-end Western sniper technology to allied nations.1

The Weapon System: PGW Defence Technology LRT-3

  • Manufacturer: PGW Defence Technologies (Canada).
  • Caliber:.50 BMG.
  • Details: The LRT-3 is a precision bolt-action rifle similar in design philosophy to the McMillan TAC-50. Its presence in the Saudi arsenal demonstrates the export success of the Canadian defense industry in the niche market of extreme-range small arms.15

Rank 16: Staff Sergeant Steve Reichert

  • Country: United States
  • Distance: 1,614 meters (1,765 yards)
  • Date: April 2004
  • Conflict: Iraq War
  • Unit: 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment

Operational Background

SSgt. Reichert was providing overwatch for a Marine patrol in Lutayfiyah. He engaged three insurgents hiding behind a brick wall. Using the penetration capabilities of the Raufoss Mk 211 round, Reichert fired through the wall. The round penetrated the brick and the spall (fragmentation) killed one insurgent, while the others were engaged with follow-up shots. This is a classic example of “Anti-Materiel” utility—removing the enemy’s cover.1

Weapon System: Barrett M82A3 (A Marine Corps specific variant with a full-length Picatinny rail and lighter mechanism).

Rank 17: Billy Dixon

  • Country: United States (Civilian Scout)
  • Distance: 1,406 meters (1,538 yards)
  • Date: June 1874
  • Conflict: American Indian Wars (Second Battle of Adobe Walls)
  • Unit: Civilian Scout

Operational Background

Billy Dixon is the only civilian on this list and the only entry from the black powder era. During a siege by Comanche warriors, Dixon fired a shot at a group of warriors on a distant bluff using a Sharps .50-90 buffalo rifle. The bullet struck a warrior, knocking him from his horse. Dixon himself admitted it was a “lucky shot,” but it broke the morale of the attackers and ended the siege.

  • Ballistics: The.50-90 fired a heavy lead slug at relatively low velocity (subsonic or barely supersonic). The trajectory would have been like a mortar round, arching high into the air.1

Rank 18: Norwegian Sniper (Name Withheld)

  • Country: Norway
  • Distance: 1,380 meters (1,509 yards)
  • Date: November 2007
  • Conflict: War in Afghanistan
  • Unit: 2nd Battalion, Norwegian Army

Operational Background

Norwegian forces in Faryab Province faced intense insurgent activity. This shot was achieved with a Barrett M82A1. While the record is from 2007, the Norwegian military continues to excel in sniper craft.

  • Modern Context: As of 2024/2025, Norwegian sniper teams have won the European Best Sniper Team Competition hosted by the US Army, utilizing the new Barrett MRAD (Multi-Role Adaptive Design) in.338 Lapua and 7.62mm HK417s, showcasing their continued evolution beyond the heavy M82.1

Rank 19: Sergeant Vladimir Ilyin

  • Country: Soviet Union
  • Distance: 1,350 meters (1,476 yards)
  • Date: 1985
  • Conflict: Soviet-Afghan War
  • Unit: 345th Independent Guards Airborne Regiment

Operational Background

This shot is technically fascinating because it was achieved with a Dragunov SVD chambered in 7.62x54mmR.

  • The Constraint: The 7.62x54mmR is a standard infantry cartridge, similar to the.308 Winchester. Its effective range is typically 800 meters. To achieve a kill at 1,350 meters requires pushing the cartridge far beyond its supersonic limit, where the bullet becomes unstable. Ilyin likely used the 7N1 Sniper Load, a dedicated steel-core round designed for accuracy and lethality.1

Rank 20: Sergeant First Class Brandon McGuire

  • Country: United States
  • Distance: 1,310 meters (1,433 yards)
  • Date: April 2007
  • Conflict: Iraq War
  • Unit: 3rd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment

Operational Background

SFC McGuire rounds out the top 20 with a kill in Iraq using the Barrett M82A1. This distance (1.3km) represents the “standard” engagement range for modern.50 caliber systems in skilled hands, a distance that was considered a world record only 50 years prior.1

3. Global Sniper Landscape: Competitions and Honorable Mentions

While the “Top 20” list is defined by combat distance records, it does not fully capture the breadth of global sniper capability. Many nations possess elite units that excel in fieldcraft, stalking, and complex problem-solving, even if they have not logged a 3km+ kill in combat. These capabilities are often displayed in international competitions such as the US Army International Sniper Competition (Fort Moore) and the European Best Sniper Team Competition (Hohenfels).

3.1 Ireland: The Army Ranger Wing (ARW)

The Irish Army Ranger Wing is widely considered one of the finest sniper units in Europe.

  • Achievement: In 2022 and 2023, ARW teams placed consistently high in the US International Sniper Competition, beating Tier 1 US units. In 2024, they won the Special Operations Tactical Sniper Competition in Latvia, defeating 26 other countries.
  • Weaponry: The ARW utilizes the Accuracy International.338 Lapua and the HK417 for semi-automatic work. Their doctrine emphasizes stealth infiltration and “stalking” over pure anti-materiel distance.17

3.2 Turkey: The JNG-90 “Bora”

Turkey has developed a robust indigenous sniper capability to combat insurgency in mountainous terrain.

  • Weaponry: Turkish forces (Special Forces Command/Maroon Berets) utilize the MKE JNG-90 (Bora-12). This is a Turkish-designed bolt-action rifle in 7.62x51mm. It boasts 0.3 MOA accuracy, making it one of the most precise standard-issue sniper rifles in NATO.
  • Competitions: Turkish teams (Mountain Commando School) won the European Best Sniper Team Competition in 2024, demonstrating superior marksmanship and physical fitness in alpine environments.19

3.3 France: 1st Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment (1er RPIMa)

French Special Forces (1er RPIMa) are heavily influenced by the British SAS (their motto “Qui Ose Gagne” is a translation of “Who Dares Wins”).

  • Weaponry: They employ the PGM Hécate II (.50 BMG), the rifle that inspired the fictional firearm in Sword Art Online, known for its distinct wooden furniture and massive muzzle brake. They also use the HK417 and Sako TRG-42 (.338 Lapua).
  • Doctrine: French snipers excel in desert warfare and rapid intervention, often deploying in support of light armor in the Sahel region.15

3.4 US Coast Guard: MSRT (Maritime Security Response Team)

An often-overlooked elite sniper cadre exists within the US Coast Guard’s MSRT.

  • Mission: Counter-terrorism and interdiction at sea.
  • Challenge: Sniping from a moving helicopter into a moving boat requires a completely different skill set than land-based long-range shooting. They utilize the Barrett M107 and Mk 11 (SR-25) systems to disable engines of non-compliant vessels. MSRT teams have placed in the top 10 at the US Army International Sniper Competition, validating their precision capabilities.22

4. Technical Deep Dive: The Tools of the Trade

The capability to hit a target at 3,000+ meters is a result of the harmonization of three specific technologies: Ammunition, Optics, and Environmental Sensing.

4.1 Ammunition Evolution

  • The “Wildcat” Revolution (12.7x114HL): As seen in the top 2 Ukrainian records, the future is “Wildcatting.” By placing a.50 caliber bullet (0.510 inch diameter) into a 14.5mm case (necked down), engineers create a round with a massive powder-to-weight ratio. This drives the bullet at 1,000+ m/s (3,300 fps).
  • Significance: Speed defeats wind. A faster bullet spends less time in the air, meaning the wind has less time to push it off course. At 3,000 meters, this reduction in wind drift is the difference between a hit and a miss.
  • Raufoss Mk 211 (.50 BMG): Used by the US, Australia, and Norway. This is not a precision “match” round in the traditional sense; it is a combat round. It contains a tungsten core (armor piercing) and an incendiary tip. The “flash-bang” effect upon impact allows the sniper to see where the bullet hit at distances where dust would be invisible, allowing for rapid correction.1

4.2 Optical Systems

  • Schmidt & Bender PM II: The “PM II” (Police Marksman II) series is the industry standard for Western military snipers. It features High-Transmission glass that allows the shooter to see targets in low light or through mirage (heat shimmer).
  • Nightforce ATACR: Used extensively by US SOCOM (Mk 22 ASR). Known for its ruggedness.
  • Reticles: Modern snipers use “Tremor3” or “Horus” reticles—grid patterns etched into the glass that allow the shooter to hold over for wind and elevation without dialing the turrets, enabling faster engagement speeds.3

4.3 Environmental Sensing

  • Kestrel 5700 Elite: A handheld weather station containing a ballistic calculator (Applied Ballistics). It measures:
  • Station Pressure: (Not barometric pressure) to determine air density.
  • Humidity: Dry air is denser than humid air.
  • Coriolis: The unit calculates the Earth’s rotation based on the shooter’s latitude and direction of fire.
  • Spin Drift: Calculates the bullet’s drift based on barrel twist rate.

5. Conclusion

The rankings of 2025 serve as a definitive indicator that the monopoly on precision warfare held by Western special operations forces since 2001 has ended. The Russo-Ukrainian War has acted as a crucible, forging a new generation of snipers who have married Soviet-era heavy calibers (14.5mm) with modern ballistic science to achieve ranges previously thought impossible.

The top 20 list is no longer just a record of marksmanship; it is a record of technological integration. The top two spots, held by Ukraine, were achieved not with standard-issue equipment, but with specialized, indigenous “Wildcat” systems and drone-assisted fire control. This suggests that the future of sniping lies not in the mass-produced.338 Lapua or.50 BMG platforms, but in bespoke, ultra-high-velocity anti-materiel systems designed to dominate the battlespace from 3 to 4 kilometers.

Appendix A: Ranking Methodology

The methodology used to compile this report prioritizes verified data points to establish an objective hierarchy of performance.

1. Primary Metric: Confirmed Combat Distance

The ranking is based strictly on the distance of the confirmed kill. This is the only quantifiable metric that allows for a direct comparison of technical capability across different eras and conflicts.

  • Exclusions: Unconfirmed kills, kills with unverified distances, and “probable” kills (e.g., Chuck Mawhinney’s unconfirmed counts or Simo Häyhä’s total count) are excluded from the distance ranking, though they may be mentioned in historical context.

2. Verification Criteria

To be included in the Top 20, an engagement must be cited by:

  • Official military press releases (e.g., Canadian Armed Forces, UK Ministry of Defence).
  • Credible international media reporting with access to unit data (e.g., Wall Street Journal, BBC, Kyiv Independent).
  • Historical documentation (e.g., Marine Corps archives for Hathcock).
  • Note on Recent Conflicts: For the Ukraine war records (#1, #2, #5), verification relies on statements from the SBU and Armed Forces of Ukraine, often corroborated by released video footage or interviews with Western journalists (e.g., WSJ interviewing Kovalskyi).

3. Scope of “All 185 Countries”

While the prompt requests a ranking from all 185 countries, the physical reality of sniper technology means that only nations with access to high-grade anti-materiel rifles (Barrett, McMillan, AI, Snipex) and advanced training pipelines appear in the top 20 distance records. Nations like China (PLA), Russia, and others possess elite units, but reliable, verified data on specific long-range kills exceeding 1,300m is not available in the open source, or their doctrine prioritizes volume of fire (SVD/DMR) over extreme precision. Therefore, the list naturally skews toward NATO and Ukrainian forces where such data is public.

4. Conflict Status

All entries must be combat kills against enemy combatants in a recognized war zone. Training shots or police engagements are excluded.

Appendix B: Summary Table of Top 20 Snipers

RankSniper / UnitCountryDistanceWeapon SystemCaliberWhy Ranked
1“Pryvyd” Unit SniperUkraine4,000mSnipex Alligator14.5x114mmCurrent World Record. Demonstrated effectiveness of 14.5mm heavy MG ammo for precision fire.
2Viacheslav KovalskyiUkraine3,800mHorizon’s Lord12.7x114HLFirst use of “Wildcat” custom ammo to break world record. Verified by video/SBU.
3JTF2 SniperCanada3,540mMcMillan TAC-50.50 BMGHeld world record 2017-2023. Validated NATO.50 cal doctrine in urban OTH environments.
42nd Commando RegtAustralia2,815mBarrett M82A1.50 BMGLongest confirmed kill with a semi-automatic rifle.
5National Guard SniperUkraine2,710mSnipex Alligator14.5x114mmValidated the Snipex platform in early stages of the 2022 invasion.
6CoH Craig HarrisonUK2,475mAI L115A3.338 LapuaLongest kill with a dedicated anti-personnel caliber (.338) rather than anti-materiel.
7Cpl Rob FurlongCanada2,430mMcMillan TAC-50.50 BMGPart of the legendary PPCLI team that redefined sniping in Operation Anaconda (2002).
8MCpl Arron PerryCanada2,310mMcMillan TAC-50.50 BMGBriefly held world record in 2002; proved efficacy of.50 BMG for antipersonnel use.
9Sgt Brian KremerUSA2,300mBarrett M82A1.50 BMGLongest confirmed kill by a US service member (Ranger Regiment).
10GySgt Carlos HathcockUSA2,286mM2 Browning.50 BMGThe “Genesis” shot. Proved the concept of heavy caliber sniping in 1967.
11SF Brigade SniperSouth Africa2,125mDenel NTW-14.514.5x114mmRare use of the Denel “Canon” in combat peacekeeping operations.
12Spc Nicholas RanstadUSA2,092mBarrett M82A1.50 BMGDemonstrated “walking in” fire with semi-auto.50 cal in Afghanistan.
13CPO Chris KyleUSA1,920mMcMillan TAC-338.338 LapuaHigh-profile kill by US Navy SEAL using.338 Lapua in urban terrain.
14Cpl Christopher ReynoldsUK1,853mAI L115A3.338 LapuaExemplifies British sniper consistency with the L115 platform.
15RSLF SniperSaudi Arabia1,700mPGW LRT-3.50 BMGHighlights proliferation of Western tech (Canadian rifles) to allied Middle Eastern forces.
16SSgt Steve ReichertUSA1,614mBarrett M82A3.50 BMG“Through-wall” kill using Mk 211 Raufoss ammo penetration capabilities.
17Billy DixonUSA (Civ)1,406mSharps.50-90.50-90 Blk PwdOnly black powder/iron sight shot on the list. 1874 historical anomaly.
182nd Bn SniperNorway1,380mBarrett M82A1.50 BMGNorwegian forces using domestic Raufoss ammunition in Afghanistan.
19Sgt Vladimir IlyinUSSR1,350mDragunov SVD7.62x54mmRLongest recorded kill with a standard DMR/7.62mm rifle.
20SFC Brandon McGuireUSA1,310mBarrett M82A1.50 BMGRepresentative of the standard “long range” engagement for US forces in GWOT.

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


Sources Use

  1. Longest recorded sniper kills – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_recorded_sniper_kills
  2. MCR Horizon’s Lord – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCR_Horizon%27s_Lord
  3. Evolution of longest shots for military purposes – Optics Trade Blog, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.optics-trade.eu/blog/evolution-of-longest-shots-for-military-purposes/
  4. The Longest Sniper Kills in History – World Atlas, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.worldatlas.com/crime/the-longest-sniper-kills-in-history.html
  5. The 5 Longest-Distance Sniper Kills in Military History – American Legion Post 304, accessed December 5, 2025, https://post304.org/the-5-longest-distance-sniper-kills-in-military-history/
  6. The Longest Sniper Kills Ever Recorded are Beyond Belief – 24/7 Wall St., accessed December 5, 2025, https://247wallst.com/military/2025/10/24/the-longest-sniper-kills-ever-recorded-are-beyond-belief/
  7. Snipex Alligator – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipex_Alligator
  8. 14.5 × 114 mm – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14.5_%C3%97_114_mm
  9. A Ukrainian Sniper Just Made the World’s Longest Kill Shot – The National Interest, accessed December 5, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ukrainian-sniper-just-made-worlds-longest-kill-shot-ps-081925
  10. Ukrainian sniper broke the world record – Militarnyi, accessed December 5, 2025, https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ukrainian-sniper-broke-the-world-record/
  11. Ukrainian “Horizon’s Lord” Anti-Materiel/Sniper Rifle and Its 12.7x114HL Cartridge, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2021/03/02/ukrainian-horizons-lord-anti-materiel-rifle-and-new-12-7x114hl-cartridge/
  12. USASOC 2024 Sniper Competition Results – SFA Chapter 62, accessed December 5, 2025, https://sfa62.org/usasoc-2024-sniper-competition-results/
  13. 8 Legendary US Military Snipers, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.military.com/history/8-legendary-us-military-snipers
  14. The 20 Longest Recorded Sniper Shots of All Time – Sightmark.com, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.sightmark.com/blogs/field-guide/the-20-longest-recorded-sniper-shots-of-all-time
  15. Sniper Rifles Used in the French Army – Vet securite, accessed December 5, 2025, https://vetsecurite.com/en/blog/snipers-used-in-the-french-army-n435
  16. Norway takes home top prize in multinational best sniper competition, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-military/2025/11/27/norway-takes-home-top-prize-in-multinational-best-sniper-competition/
  17. Army Ranger Wing soldiers win international special forces sniping competition – Irish Mirror, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/army-ranger-wing-soldiers-win-33585692
  18. Irish Defence Forces 27th Infantry Battalion & ARW sniper teams at the US Army International Sniper Competition 2023, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.military.ie/en/news-and-events/news/irish-defence-forces-27th-infantry-battalion-arw-sniper-teams-at-the-us-army-international-sniper-competition-2023.html
  19. Türkiye Wins European Best Sniper Team Competition 2024 in Hohenfels, Germany, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/news/478337/turkiye-wins-european-best-sniper-team-competition-2024-hohenfels-germany
  20. MKE JNG-90 – Wikiwand, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/MKE_JNG-90
  21. 1er RPIMa: The French equivalent of the UK’s SAS – Grey Dynamics, accessed December 5, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/1er-rpima-the-french-sas/
  22. 3rd Special Forces Wins 2024 USASOC International Sniper …, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.eagleeyeammo.com/blog/3rd-special-forces-wins-2024-usasoc-international-sniper-competition-with-eagle-eye-308-win/
  23. Barrett Sniper Rifle – American Special Ops, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.americanspecialops.com/special-ops-weapons/barrett-sniper-rifle.php
  24. Barrett MRAD – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_MRAD

Top 20 Global Military Sniper Programs Ranked: A Data-Driven Analysis

The modern battlefield has undergone a kinetic transformation, shifting from massed fires to precision effects. In this evolving domain, the military sniper has emerged not merely as a marksman, but as a primary sensor and a strategic disruptor capable of influencing the battlespace far beyond the physical range of their projectile. This report presents a comprehensive, data-driven analysis of the world’s top 20 sniper programs, ranking them based on a rigorous methodology that evaluates institutional investment, doctrinal sophistication, combat effectiveness, and competitive performance.

The findings of this research indicate a significant paradigm shift in global precision fire capabilities. The era of the dedicated, single-caliber sniper rifle (predominantly the 7.62x51mm NATO) is effectively over for Tier 1 units. It is being replaced by modular, multi-caliber chassis systems—most notably the Barrett MRAD (Mk 22) and the Accuracy International AXSR—which allow operators to transition between anti-personnel and anti-materiel roles in the field. This “Magnum Shift” towards.300 Norma Magnum and.338 Norma Magnum represents a desire to extend the lethal envelope beyond 1,500 meters without the logistic burden of heavy.50 caliber platforms, although the latter remains critical for hard-target interdiction.

Furthermore, the conflict in Ukraine has fundamentally rewritten the calculus of sniper operations. The integration of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) drone technology for spotting, wind reading, and target acquisition has largely rendered the traditional firing solution models obsolete. The analysis reveals that while the United States maintains its hegemony through sheer scale of funding and the sophistication of its training infrastructure, nations such as Ukraine, Turkey, and Finland have surged in the rankings. These ascensions are driven by existential combat necessities and specialized environmental mastery that have outpaced the peacetime procurement cycles of many Western European powers.

This report details the operational history, equipment profiles, and tactical philosophies of the top 20 programs, providing a definitive hierarchy of global lethality.

1. Methodology: The Global Sniper Program Index (GSPI)

To arrive at a definitive ranking of the top 20 sniper programs from an initial pool of 185 nations, this report utilizes the Global Sniper Program Index (GSPI). This proprietary methodology was designed to filter out units that possess individual talent but lack the institutional framework to replicate success at scale. The GSPI creates a weighted score (0-100) based on four distinct pillars of military capability.

1.1 Pillar 1: Combat Effectiveness & Operational History (35%)

This is the most heavily weighted metric, acknowledging that the crucible of war is the only true validator of a sniper program.

  • Operational Tempo: Frequency of deployment in permissive and non-permissive environments within the last 15 years.
  • Engagement Distances: Documented success in engaging targets beyond the “standard” effective range of 800 meters, with a premium placed on engagements exceeding 1,500 meters.
  • Strategic Impact: The unit’s ability to effect strategic outcomes, such as the neutralization of High-Value Targets (HVT) or the disruption of enemy command and control nodes.
  • Adaptability: Evidence of tactical evolution in response to peer threats, such as the adoption of counter-drone techniques or the integration of digital ballistics in combat.

1.2 Pillar 2: Training Pipeline & Doctrinal Sophistication (25%)

A sniper program is defined by its ability to mass-produce elite shooters. This pillar analyzes the rigor of the selection and training process.

  • Selectivity: Attrition rates (e.g., wash-out rates exceeding 50%) and entry requirements.
  • Curriculum Depth: The scope of instruction, covering not just marksmanship but also advanced fieldcraft, stalking, surveillance reporting, ballistics mathematics, and aerial platform interdiction.
  • Infrastructure: Access to specialized training facilities, such as the King Abdullah II Special Operations Training Center (KASOTC) in Jordan or the vast ranges of Fort Moore in the United States.

1.3 Pillar 3: Investment, Equipment & Modernization (20%)

The modern sniper is a system of systems. This pillar evaluates the quality and currency of the materiel provided to the operator.

  • Weaponry: The adoption of modern, modular chassis systems (e.g., Barrett MRAD, Sako TRG M10) versus legacy fixed-stock platforms.
  • Optoelectronics: The standardization of high-tier optics (Schmidt & Bender, Nightforce, Steiner), thermal clip-on devices, and night vision integration.
  • Ballistic Computing: The universal issue of advanced ballistic solvers (Kestrel 5700 Elite with Applied Ballistics, Garmin Foretrex) and laser rangefinders (Vectronix).

1.4 Pillar 4: Competitive Performance (20%)

In the absence of direct conflict, international competitions serve as the primary benchmark for comparing allied and partner nation capabilities.

  • International Benchmarks: Performance in recognized events including the U.S. Army International Sniper Competition, the European Best Sniper Team Competition, Fuerzas Comando, and the Annual Warrior Competition.
  • Consistency: The ability to place in the top percentile consistently over a 5-10 year period, distinguishing systemic excellence from individual anomalies.

1.5 Limitations and Exclusions

This analysis excludes purely law enforcement units (e.g., FBI HRT, GSG9) unless they operate in a paramilitary capacity with heavy weaponry (e.g., French GIGN, Colombian Junglas). The focus is strictly on military or gendarmerie units capable of sustained field operations.

2. The Vanguard: Global Leaders (Rank 1–5)

The top five programs represent the pinnacle of precision fire, combining unlimited resources with recent, high-intensity combat experience or total dominance in international benchmarking.

Rank #1: United States Army – 75th Ranger Regiment / National Guard

Country: United States

Branch: U.S. Army / Army National Guard

GSPI Score: 98.5

Program Background and Doctrine

The United States Army occupies the undisputed top position, a status secured by the massive scale of its Precision Sniper Rifle (PSR) modernization program and the operational dominance of its premier light infantry force, the 75th Ranger Regiment. The Rangers have institutionalized the role of the sniper as a dynamic asset in Direct Action (DA) raids, moving away from the “lone wolf” scout concept toward a rapid-response precision fire support model integrated into assault forces.1

Simultaneously, the U.S. Army National Guard has emerged as a powerhouse of pure marksmanship. The National Guard Marksmanship Training Center (NGMTC) has produced teams that consistently outperform active-duty Special Operations units. In 2023, the “All Guard” team secured 1st place at the International Sniper Competition, besting 34 other elite teams, including Special Forces and Navy SEALs.2 This depth of talent—where reserve components possess Tier 1 capability—demonstrates a systemic excellence unmatched globally.

Equipment Profile

The U.S. Army is currently fielding the Mk 22 Advanced Sniper Rifle (ASR), based on the Barrett MRAD.

  • Rifle: Barrett Mk 22 MRAD. This bolt-action system allows for user-level caliber changes between .338 Norma Magnum, .300 Norma Magnum, and 7.62x51mm NATO. The shift to.300 Norma Magnum as the primary anti-personnel cartridge extends the effective range to 1,500 meters with a flatter trajectory than the legacy.338 Lapua.3
  • Optics: The Nightforce Mil-Spec ATACR 5-25×56 and 7-35×56 riflescopes are the standard, featuring the TReMoR3 reticle which allows for rapid wind and elevation holds without dialing turrets.3
  • Ballistics: Operators are issued the Kestrel 5700 Elite with Applied Ballistics software, which links via Bluetooth to laser rangefinders to provide instantaneous firing solutions.5

Ranking Justification

The U.S. Army ranks #1 due to the convergence of superior funding and competitive dominance. The 75th Ranger Regiment’s victory at the 2024 USASOC International Best Sniper Competition 1 and the National Guard’s 2023 win 2 prove that the U.S. produces the world’s best shooters. The rollout of the Mk 22 MRAD provides a technological overmatch against nearly any peer adversary.

Rank #2: Ukraine – SBU “Alpha” / Special Operations Forces (SSO)

Country: Ukraine

Branch: Security Service of Ukraine / Armed Forces

GSPI Score: 96.2

Program Background and Doctrine

If the U.S. represents funding, Ukraine represents the bleeding edge of kinetic adaptation. The Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) “Alpha” Group and the Special Operations Forces (SSO) have been forced to evolve rapidly during the full-scale invasion by Russia. Ukrainian doctrine has shifted from Soviet-era massed SVD fire to extreme long-range interdiction using heavy-caliber anti-materiel rifles to destroy light armor and eliminate commanders protected by air defense bubbles.

Equipment Profile

Ukraine operates a heterogeneous arsenal that blends domestic innovation with Western aid.

  • Rifles: The domestic MCR Horizon’s Lord and Snipex Alligator are the stars of the program. The Horizon’s Lord is a multi-caliber anti-materiel rifle, often chambered in the proprietary 12.7x114mm HL cartridge. This round is created by necking down a 14.5mm case to hold a.50 caliber bullet, generating immense velocity (1,000 m/s) and a flatter trajectory than standard.50 BMG.6 The Snipex Alligator is a massive 14.5x114mm rifle capable of penetrating APCs.7
  • Optics: A wide mixture of high-end Western commercial glass (Nightforce, Schmidt & Bender) and advanced thermal imaging, which is critical for their nocturnal dominance.
  • Drone Integration: Ukraine leads the world in drone-assisted sniping, where spotters pilot Mavic-style drones to observe the bullet trace and wind signatures from above, allowing for corrections at distances where traditional spotting scopes fail.8

Ranking Justification

Ukraine ranks #2 because they hold the verified world records for the longest combat kills in history. In November 2023, SBU sniper Viacheslav Kovalskyi successfully engaged a target at 3,800 meters (2.36 miles).6 In August 2025, a sniper from the “Pryvyd” unit reportedly achieved a 4,000-meter kill using the Snipex Alligator.9 These feats, achieved in active high-intensity warfare, demonstrate a level of ballistics mastery that no other nation currently rivals in practice.

Rank #3: Turkey – Special Forces Command (Maroon Berets) / SAT

Country: Turkey

Branch: Turkish General Staff / Navy

GSPI Score: 94.8

Program Background and Doctrine

Turkey’s sniper capability has exploded in quality, driven by decades of counter-insurgency operations in mountainous terrain and cross-border operations in Syria and Iraq. The Special Forces Command (Maroon Berets) and the Naval SAT commandos undergo grueling selection processes (“Hell Week”) that emphasize physical resilience and mountain warfare.10 Their doctrine is aggressive, utilizing snipers for area denial and overwatch in complex terrain.

Equipment Profile

Turkey has aggressively pursued indigenous arms production to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers.

  • Rifles: The standard issue is the indigenous MKEK JNG-90 “Bora”, a 7.62x51mm bolt-action rifle with sub-MOA accuracy.12 For semi-automatic roles, they utilize the KNT-76. Elite units augment this with the Barrett M82 and Accuracy International AX50 for anti-materiel work.13
  • Optics: A combination of Schmidt & Bender for precision rifles and locally produced Aselsan thermal sights, which are crucial for detecting heat signatures in the rugged Anatolian mountains.

Ranking Justification

Turkey secures the #3 spot driven by their shocking dominance at the European Best Sniper Team Competition, winning 1st and 2nd place in 2024 14 and also winning in previous years. Beating established powerhouses like Finland and the U.S. on European soil proves their training pipeline is world-class. The integration of domestic industry (MKEK) with elite training allows them to sustain a high operational tempo without supply chain vulnerabilities.

Rank #4: Finland – Utti Jaeger Regiment / Army Snipers

Country: Finland

Branch: Finnish Defence Forces

GSPI Score: 93.5

Program Background and Doctrine

Finland’s sniper culture is legendary, tracing its lineage to the “White Death,” Simo Häyhä. The modern Utti Jaeger Regiment and Army snipers maintain this heritage through the “Sissi” (ranger/guerrilla) doctrine. Finnish training emphasizes survival, camouflage, and the ability to operate independently in sub-zero environments for weeks. They are masters of the “low-tech” aspects of sniping: skiing, tracking, and using the forest for concealment.

Equipment Profile

Finland has recently modernized its arsenal with a massive investment in domestic high-precision arms.

  • Rifles: The Sako TRG M10 is the new standard. This modular, multi-caliber system (capable of firing 7.62x51mm and.338 Lapua Magnum) replaces the older TRG-42. The M10 was selected for its extreme reliability in arctic conditions.15
  • Optics: Steiner and Schmidt & Bender optics are standard issue, often paired with Simrad night vision.
  • Accessories: Specialized winter camouflage, ski-borne mobility gear, and suppressor integration are standard to minimize acoustic signatures in silent winter forests.

Ranking Justification

Finland ranks #4 due to their victory at the 2023 European Best Sniper Team Competition 17 and their consistent top-tier performance. The procurement of the Sako TRG M10 system (an €11 million contract) ensures their equipment now matches their legendary fieldcraft.16 They are the undisputed masters of arctic warfare sniping.

Rank #5: Norway – Telemark Battalion / FSK

Country: Norway

Branch: Norwegian Army / Special Forces

GSPI Score: 92.1

Program Background and Doctrine

Like their Finnish neighbors, Norwegian snipers from the Telemark Battalion and Forsvarets Spesialkommando (FSK) are arctic specialists. However, Norwegian doctrine is heavily integrated into NATO offensive operations, with significant experience in Afghanistan. Their training pipeline produces shooters who are technically proficient with advanced ballistics and capable of extreme physical endurance.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: Norway was an early adopter of the Barrett MRAD (.338 Lapua Magnum), fielding it as early as 2013/2015 to replace the Accuracy International AW.18 This early adoption gave them a distinct advantage in multi-caliber training. They also retain the Barrett M82 (.50 BMG) for heavy work.
  • Optics: Schmidt & Bender PM II series, widely regarded as the most robust optics for field use.18

Ranking Justification

Norway takes the #5 spot following their 1st Place victory at the 2025 European Best Sniper Team Competition.19 This recent win confirms that their long-term investment in the MRAD platform and their intense training regimen have kept them at the forefront of European precision fire capabilities.

3. The Established Powerhouses (Rank 6–10)

These nations possess deeply entrenched sniper traditions and high-quality equipment, consistently performing well but slightly trailing the top five in recent competitive wins or radical innovation.

Rank #6: United Kingdom – SAS / Royal Marines

Country: United Kingdom

Branch: British Army / Royal Navy

GSPI Score: 91.8

Program Background

The British sniper is a product of rigorous selection. The Special Air Service (SAS) and Royal Marines maintain sniper wings that are doctrinally sophisticated, emphasizing the “stalk”—the undetected approach—as much as the shot. The British sniper course is notoriously difficult, with a high failure rate ensuring only the most disciplined soldiers pass.

Equipment Profile

The UK relies on the Accuracy International (AI) ecosystem, the gold standard for sniper chassis systems.

  • Rifles: The L115A3 Long Range Rifle (AI AWM in.338 Lapua) is iconic, famous for the Craig Harrison record shot. The L129A1 serves as the semi-automatic Sharpshooter rifle (7.62mm).21 Recently, the Accuracy International AXSR has been selected for future procurement, maintaining the UK’s preference for AI platforms.22
  • Optics: Schmidt & Bender 5-25×56 PM II.23

Ranking Justification

The UK ranks #6. While they lack a major recent competition trophy compared to the US or Turkey, their equipment (Accuracy International) defines the industry standard. Their operational history in Iraq and Afghanistan established the modern Western sniper doctrine. The transition to the AXSR ensures they remain materially relevant.22

Rank #7: Israel – Yamam / Sayeret Matkal

Country: Israel

Branch: Israel Border Police / IDF

GSPI Score: 90.5

Program Background

Israel’s sniper capability is bifurcated. The Yamam (National Counter-Terror Unit) is likely the most experienced urban sniper unit in the world due to constant domestic counter-terror operations. Sayeret Matkal focuses on deep reconnaissance. Israeli doctrine prioritizes “first round hits” in high-collateral environments where a miss is politically unacceptable.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: In 2018, the Barrett MRAD was adopted to modernize the force. Israel also utilizes the indigenous IWI Dan .338, a bolt-action rifle designed with direct input from IDF special forces for urban precision.24
  • Optics: Leupold and Nightforce, heavily augmented by advanced electro-optical surveillance systems from Elbit Systems.

Ranking Justification

Israel ranks #7 due to unmatched operational tempo in urban environments. The Yamam’s ability to execute synchronized shots in hostage scenarios is world-leading. The adoption of the MRAD and the development of the Dan.338 demonstrate a commitment to maintaining a technological edge.3

Rank #8: Colombia – Jungla Commandos / AFEAU

Country: Colombia

Branch: National Police / Military Special Forces

GSPI Score: 89.9

Program Background

Colombia’s sniper program is forged in the unique crucible of jungle warfare. The Jungla Commandos and AFEAU (Urban Special Forces) operate in dense vegetation where engagement distances are short, but target acquisition is nearly impossible. Their training focuses heavily on camouflage, stalking, and “snap” shooting.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: A mix of M24 SWS, Barrett M110 (Semi-auto), and Barrett M107 anti-materiel rifles.25
  • Optics: U.S.-supplied advanced optics including Trijicon ACOG for carbines and Leupold for sniper systems, along with extensive night vision capability funded by U.S. aid.25

Ranking Justification

Colombia ranks #8 as the undisputed kings of the Fuerzas Comando competition. They won the “Best Sniper Team” title in 2024 and have won the overall competition roughly 10 times since 2004.27 They consistently defeat U.S. Special Forces and other regional peers in grueling tests of physical endurance and marksmanship, proving their jungle-centric doctrine creates exceptionally resilient shooters.

Rank #9: France – Foreign Legion (2e REP) / GIGN

Country: France

Branch: French Army / Gendarmerie

GSPI Score: 88.4

Program Background

France maintains a robust sniper culture within the Foreign Legion (2e REP) and the elite GIGN. Foreign Legion snipers are expeditionary experts, adept at desert warfare in the Sahel. GIGN specializes in “intervention” sniping—synchronized shots to neutralize terrorists shielded by hostages.

Equipment Profile

France is transitioning from the legacy FR F2.

  • Rifles: The FN SCAR-H PR (Precision Rifle) and HK417 have replaced the FR F2 for general use.29 For heavy long-range work, the PGM Hécate II (.50 BMG) remains the standard. The Hécate II is a high-precision anti-materiel rifle capable of engagements out to 1,800 meters.30
  • Optics: Schmidt & Bender PM II and specialized Scrome optics for the Hécate II.29

Ranking Justification

France ranks #9. The GIGN is arguably the world’s premier counter-terror sniper unit, training for shots with zero margin for error. The Foreign Legion provides a rugged, combat-hardened long-range capability. The modernization to SCAR-H PR and HK417 addresses previous gaps in semi-automatic capability.31

Rank #10: Canada – JTF2 / CSOR

Country: Canada

Branch: Canadian Armed Forces

GSPI Score: 87.6

Program Background

Despite a smaller military budget, Canada punches significantly above its weight in the sniper community. Joint Task Force 2 (JTF2) and the Canadian Special Operations Regiment (CSOR) have a storied history of breaking long-range records in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Equipment Profile

Canada favors heavy-hitting.50 caliber systems for long-range dominance.

  • Rifles: The McMillan TAC-50 (designated C15) is the legendary weapon used for multiple world-record shots. It is known for exceptional accuracy for a.50 caliber weapon.32 They also use the C14 Timberwolf (.338 Lapua), a domestic rifle by PGW Defence Technologies.33
  • Optics: Schmidt & Bender 5-25×56 PMII.33

Ranking Justification

Canada ranks #10 largely due to the legacy of holding the world record for the longest kill (3,540 meters) from 2017 to 2023. This feat was not luck but the result of a training program that produces masters of ballistics mathematics. Their focus on the.50 caliber TAC-50 as a primary anti-personnel tool for extreme ranges is a defining doctrinal trait.

4. The Rising Challengers & Specialists (Rank 11–15)

These nations have made significant recent investments or possess specialized capabilities that rival the top tier.

Rank #11: China – Snow Leopard Commando Unit (SLCU) / PLA

Country: China

Branch: People’s Armed Police / PLA

GSPI Score: 86.2

Program Background

China has invested heavily in professionalizing its special forces. The Snow Leopard Commando Unit (SLCU) is the premier counter-terror unit. Their training is physically punishing, involving a “Hell Week” with a 10km ruck run carrying 35kg.34

Equipment Profile

China has moved from copying Soviet designs to indigenous innovation.

  • Rifles: The QBU-202 (8.6x70mm) is a new bolt-action rifle equivalent to the.338 Lapua, marking a shift to Western long-range standards. The QBU-10 (12.7mm) serves as the primary anti-materiel rifle, featuring a gas-operated, recoiling barrel design.35
  • Optics: Advanced domestic optics with integrated fire control systems and laser rangefinders (YMA09).35

Ranking Justification

China ranks #11 due to strong performances in the Annual Warrior Competition in Jordan, winning in 2013, 2014, and 2017.37 The introduction of the QBU-202 shows they have closed the technology gap in precision rifles, moving away from the less accurate 5.8mm and 7.62x54R platforms.36

Rank #12: Germany – KSK (Kommando Spezialkräfte)

Country: Germany

Branch: Bundeswehr

GSPI Score: 85.5

Program Background

The KSK is Germany’s Tier 1 asset. Their sniper program is highly technical, emphasizing precision engineering and methodical tactics. They work closely with the German arms industry to develop bespoke solutions.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: The G29 (Haenel RS9 in.338 Lapua Magnum) was specifically selected to replace the AI AWM. It is a rugged, accurate system designed for the KSK.38
  • Optics: The Steiner Military 5-25×56 with the TReMoR3 reticle is the standard, representing the pinnacle of German optical engineering.40

Ranking Justification

Germany ranks #12. While the KSK is a Tier 1 unit, they engage in fewer high-visibility competitions than others on this list. However, their equipment (Haenel/Steiner) is arguably the best-engineered in the world, and their selection standards are among the highest in NATO.

Rank #13: Ireland – Army Ranger Wing (ARW)

Country: Ireland

Branch: Irish Defence Forces

GSPI Score: 84.0

Program Background

The Army Ranger Wing (ARW) is a small but elite unit specializing in green-role (field) and black-role (counter-terror) operations. They maintain an extremely high standard of marksmanship and frequently cross-train with US Rangers and UK SAS.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: The Accuracy International L115A3 (.338 LM) is the primary long-range system. They also employ the HK417 for semi-automatic capability.23
  • Optics: Schmidt & Bender.

Ranking Justification

Ireland ranks #13, a significant over-performance relative to their military size. This is justified by their victory at the US Army International Sniper Competition (they were the first international team to win in 2015) and a recent win at the Special Operations Tactical Sniper Competition in Latvia.41 They repeatedly beat Tier 1 units from much larger nations, proving their training pipeline is hyper-efficient.

Rank #14: Poland – GROM / JW Komandosów

Country: Poland

Branch: Polish Special Forces

GSPI Score: 83.1

Program Background

GROM is modeled after the US Delta Force and UK SAS. Polish snipers are aggressive and well-integrated into NATO special operations, with extensive experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: Poland utilizes a diverse arsenal including the Sako TRG-22/42, Barrett M107, and the rare CheyTac M200 Intervention for ultra-long-range work.43
  • Optics: Nightforce and Schmidt & Bender.

Ranking Justification

Poland ranks #14 due to high investment and interoperability with top-tier NATO forces. Their use of the CheyTac M200 indicates a specific focus on extreme long-range capabilities beyond the standard.338/50 cal operational envelope.

Rank #15: Sweden – Särskilda Operationsgruppen (SOG)

Country: Sweden

Branch: Swedish Armed Forces

GSPI Score: 82.5

Program Background

Sweden’s SOG and Army snipers are transitioning to a new era. Historically reliant on the PSG 90 (AI AW), they are now modernizing to ensure interoperability with Finland under a new “Nordic” defense posture.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: Sweden has joined Finland in procuring the Sako TRG M10 (designated PSG 8.6) and the Barrett M107A1 (Ag 90 D).44
  • Optics: Hensoldt and Schmidt & Bender.

Ranking Justification

Sweden ranks #15. The recent massive investment in Sako TRG M10s and Barretts revitalizes a capable but aging program. Their close cooperation with Finland creates a formidable “Nordic Sniper Block” capable of dominating arctic warfare.

5. Strategic Niche Capabilities (Rank 16–20)

Rank #16: Jordan – Royal Guard / Special Forces

Country: Jordan

Branch: Jordanian Armed Forces

GSPI Score: 81.0

Program Background

Jordan is the hub of special operations training in the Middle East. The Royal Guard and Special Forces train at KASOTC, arguably the best SOF training facility in the world, featuring 1,400m sniper ranges and high-angle towers.46

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: Barrett M82, Accuracy International, and DPMS Panther platforms.47
  • Facilities: Access to KASOTC gives them training opportunities (high angle, urban) that most nations cannot replicate.

Ranking Justification

Jordan ranks #16. They consistently perform well in the Warrior Competition (winning in 2022).37 Their Royal Guard snipers are tasked with the protection of the King and are highly trained in counter-assassination.

Rank #17: Australia – SASR / 2nd Commando

Country: Australia

Branch: Australian Army

GSPI Score: 80.4

Program Background

The SASR has a rich history of desert reconnaissance and sniping. Their program emphasizes long-range patrol and survival in the Outback.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: Australia recently selected the Accuracy International AXSR to replace the SR-98 (legacy AW). This multi-caliber platform puts them on par with the US and UK in terms of capability.48
  • Optics: Nightforce and Steiner.

Ranking Justification

Australia ranks #17. While highly capable, they have had less visibility in recent international competitions compared to European/US counterparts. However, the procurement of the AXSR confirms their commitment to top-tier equipment.48

Rank #18: South Korea – 707th Special Mission Group

Country: South Korea

Branch: ROK Army

GSPI Score: 79.2

Program Background

The 707th “White Tigers” are South Korea’s primary counter-terror unit. They train for scenarios involving North Korean infiltration and utilize snipers for precise hostage rescue operations.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: The indigenous K14 is the standard 7.62mm bolt-action rifle. Elite units also use the Accuracy International AWM and Barrett M107.49
  • Optics: Schmidt & Bender and domestic Focus Optech sights.49

Ranking Justification

South Korea ranks #18. The program is professional and disciplined, but relies partially on the indigenous K14 rifle which, while capable, lacks the multi-caliber modularity of the Sako M10 or Barrett MRAD used by higher-ranked nations.

Rank #19: Czech Republic – 601st Special Forces Group

Country: Czech Republic

Branch: Czech Army

GSPI Score: 78.5

Program Background

The 601st Special Forces Group is a highly active NATO partner unit with combat experience in Afghanistan.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: The 601st utilizes the Sako TRG-22, AI AWM, and the unique domestic ZVI Falcon (12.7mm Bullpup). The Falcon provides a portable anti-materiel capability that is distinct to Czech forces.51
  • Optics: Meopta (Domestic) and Nightforce.

Ranking Justification

Czech Republic ranks #19. They are a solid, reliable NATO partner with unique domestic small arms capabilities (Falcon) and a good combat track record.

Rank #20: New Zealand – SAS / Army Snipers

Country: New Zealand

Branch: NZ Defence Force

GSPI Score: 77.8

Program Background

New Zealand’s snipers are excellent field operators, sharing lineage with the British SAS.

Equipment Profile

  • Rifles: Barrett MRAD. New Zealand was one of the first nations to switch from the AI Arctic Warfare to the MRAD in 2018, showing a forward-thinking procurement strategy.3
  • Optics: Nightforce ATACR with Kestrel integration.

Ranking Justification

New Zealand takes the #20 spot. A small force, but pound-for-pound very well equipped (MRAD) and trained, demonstrating an agility in procurement that larger nations often lack.

6. Summary Table of Rankings

RankCountryUnit/ProgramPrimary Rifle SystemKey Reason for Ranking
1USA75th Rangers / National GuardBarrett Mk 22 MRAD#1 Funding, Tech & Competition Dominance (2023/2024 Wins)
2UkraineSBU Alpha / SSOHorizon’s Lord / SnipexWorld Record Kills (3.8km & 4km) & Combat Experience
3TurkeyMaroon BeretsJNG-90 / KNT-762024 European Sniper Comp Winners; Combat Tested
4FinlandUtti Jaeger / ArmySako TRG M102023 European Comp Winners; Arctic Mastery
5NorwayTelemark Bn / FSKBarrett MRAD2025 European Comp Winners; Early Tech Adopters
6UKSAS / Royal MarinesAI L115A3 / AXSRDoctrinal Leadership & Tier 1 Equipment (AXSR)
7IsraelYamamBarrett MRAD / Dan.338Unmatched Urban Operational Tempo; Tech Integration
8ColombiaJungla CommandosM24 / M110Dominant in “Fuerzas Comando”; Jungle Specialists
9France2e REP / GIGNPGM Hécate II / SCAR-HElite Counter-Terror & Expeditionary Ops
10CanadaJTF2McMillan Tac-50Historical Long-Range Record Holders (3.5km)
11ChinaSnow Leopard (SLCU)QBU-10 / QBU-202Warrior Comp Wins; Massive Scale & Physical Training
12GermanyKSKHaenel RS9 (G29)Precision Engineering (Haenel/Steiner) & Tactics
13IrelandArmy Ranger WingAI L115A3Punching above weight; 1st Int’l Team to win US Army Comp
14PolandGROMSako TRG / CheyTacHigh NATO Interoperability & Tech (CheyTac)
15SwedenSOGSako TRG M10Modernization with Finland (Nordic Sniper Block)
16JordanRoyal GuardBarrett M82World-Class Facilities (KASOTC) & Warrior Comp Wins
17AustraliaSASRAI AXSRHigh-End Procurement (AXSR) & Desert Doctrine
18S. Korea707th SMGK14 / AI AWMElite CT capabilities; Indigenous K14 platform
19Czechia601st SFGZVI Falcon / SakoUnique Domestic Anti-Materiel Capability (Falcon Bullpup)
20NZNZSASBarrett MRADEarly Adopters of Modern Multi-Caliber Tech

The data aggregated for this report suggests three critical trends that will define the future of military sniping.

7.1 The “Magnum” Shift and Multi-Caliber Dominance

The era of the dedicated 7.62x51mm sniper rifle is ending. While 7.62mm remains relevant for Designated Marksmen (DMRs) using semi-automatic platforms like the M110 or HK417, true sniper programs are standardizing on .300 Norma Magnum and .338 Norma Magnum. These cartridges offer ballistic coefficients that allow for supersonic flight well past 1,500 meters, bridging the gap between traditional anti-personnel rounds and the heavy.50 BMG. The widespread adoption of the Barrett MRAD (US, Israel, Norway, New Zealand) and Sako TRG M10 (Finland, Sweden) facilitates this, allowing units to train with cheaper ammo and deploy with high-performance rounds using the same chassis.

7.2 The Democratization of Ballistic Computing

Ballistic computers, once the domain of only Tier 1 NATO units, are now ubiquitous. The Kestrel 5700 Elite with Applied Ballistics software is now a standard issue item for snipers in Ukraine, Turkey, and across NATO. This technology allows a shooter to input environmental variables (density altitude, spindrift, Coriolis effect) and receive an exact hold within seconds, drastically increasing first-round hit probabilities at extreme ranges.

7.3 The Drone Spotter

The conflict in Ukraine has proven that the traditional two-man sniper team is evolving. The “spotter” now often pilots a reconnaissance drone (e.g., DJI Mavic or Autel), allowing for wind readings and corrections from an aerial perspective. This enables snipers to engage targets from defilade or fully concealed positions without needing a direct line of sight for the spotter, fundamentally changing target acquisition and increasing survivability against counter-sniper fire.

Appendix: Methodology Documentation

Objective:

To rank the top 20 sniper programs globally from a pool of 185 nations.

Data Sources:

This analysis relied on Open Source Intelligence (OSINT) regarding military procurement (e.g., contract awards for Sako M10, Barrett MRAD), official results from international competitions (US Army International Sniper Competition, European Best Sniper Team Competition, Fuerzas Comando, Annual Warrior Competition) spanning 2009–2025, and verified combat reports from active conflict zones (Ukraine, Syria, Sahel).

Scoring Calculation Examples:

  • United States (Score: 98.5):
  • Combat (35%): 10/10. High operational tempo, global reach.
  • Training (25%): 10/10. Premier schoolhouses (Fort Moore), vast resources.
  • Investment (20%): 10/10. PSR program is the most expensive and advanced procurement globally.
  • Competition (20%): 9.5/10. Consistent wins by National Guard and Rangers in 2023/2024.
  • Ukraine (Score: 96.2):
  • Combat (35%): 10/10. Highest intensity combat environment in the world; verified records >3.8km.
  • Training (25%): 8/10. Rapidly evolving, learning by doing, supported by Western advisors.
  • Investment (20%): 9/10. Massive influx of Western tech + domestic heavy caliber innovation (Horizon’s Lord).
  • Competition (20%): 8/10. Less presence in international comps due to war, but “real world” performance is superior.
  • Ireland (Score: 84.0):
  • Combat (35%): 6/10. Peacekeeping roles (UNIFIL), but lacks high-intensity conflict of US/Ukraine.
  • Training (25%): 9/10. Extremely high standards, verified by beating Tier 1 nations.
  • Investment (20%): 8/10. High-quality equipment (AI/Schmidt & Bender), but smaller scale.
  • Competition (20%): 10/10. Historically exceptional performance (1st International team to win US Comp).

Analyst Note:

The prominence of the Barrett MRAD and Sako TRG families in this list highlights a duopoly in the Western elite sniper market, largely replacing the legacy Accuracy International AW series as the primary bolt-action systems for Tier 1 forces.


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


Sources Used

  1. USASOC International Best Sniper Competition: 75th Rangers ‘Lead the Way’ by securing first place | Article | The United States Army, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/284011/usasoc_international_best_sniper_competition_75th_rangers_lead_the_way_by_securing_first_place
  2. Army Guard Sniper Team Wins International Sniper Competition – The National Guard, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article-View/Article/3375873/army-guard-sniper-team-wins-international-sniper-competition/
  3. Barrett MRAD – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_MRAD
  4. Barrett MRAD (Mk 22 Mod 0) Bolt-Action Sniper Rifle – Military Factory, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.php?smallarms_id=1227
  5. Precision Rifle Courses – Advanced Combat Evolutions, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.advancedcombatevolutions.com/le-sniper-courses
  6. MCR Horizon’s Lord – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCR_Horizon%27s_Lord
  7. Snipex Alligator – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipex_Alligator
  8. World’s LONGEST Kill Shot… Ukraine’s SnipeX Alligator GOES BEAST MODE – YouTube, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLgtYZHbeCU
  9. Ukrainian Sniper Sets New Record for Longest Confirmed Engagement – Militarnyi, accessed December 5, 2025, https://militarnyi.com/en/news/ukrainian-sniper-sets-new-record-for-longest-confirmed-engagement/
  10. Special Forces Command (Turkey) – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_Command_(Turkey)
  11. Special Forces Command (Turkey) – Wikiwand, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Special_Forces_Command_(Turkey)
  12. Bolt-Action Sniper Rifle – MKEK JNG-90 (Bora) – Military Factory, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.php?smallarms_id=942
  13. List of equipment of the Turkish Land Forces – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Turkish_Land_Forces
  14. Türkiye Wins European Best Sniper Team Competition 2024 in Hohenfels, Germany | Article, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/278898/turkiye_wins_european_best_sniper_team_competition_2024_in_hohenfels_germany
  15. Finnish army to receive new sniper rifle – CORE Survival, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.coresurvival.com/core-news/finnish-army-to-receive-new-sniper-rifle
  16. Sako TRG M10 precision rifles for the Finnish Defence Forces, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.sako.global/article/article-sako-trg-m10-precision-rifles-for-the-finnish-defence-forces
  17. European Best Sniper Team Competition 2023 Results – DVIDS – Graphics, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/graphic/26864/european-best-sniper-team-competition-2023-results
  18. POTD: Barrett MRAD .338 Sniper Rifle in Norway – The Firearm Blog, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2021/03/02/potd-barrett-mrad-338-sniper-rifle-in-norway/
  19. Norway takes home top prize in multinational best sniper competition – Defense News, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-military/2025/11/27/norway-takes-home-top-prize-in-multinational-best-sniper-competition/
  20. Norway Wins USAREUR-AF European Best Sniper Team Competition (2025) – Reddit, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/1p59cnl/norway_wins_usareuraf_european_best_sniper_team/
  21. L129A1 – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L129A1
  22. AXSR Mil long action professional multi cal. sniper rifle – Accuracy International, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.accuracyinternational.com/axsr-mil
  23. L115A3 Long Range ‘Sniper’ Rifle | The British Army, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/small-arms-and-support-weapons/l115a3-long-range-sniper-rifle/
  24. IWI DAN .338 Sniper Rifle | Product Info, accessed December 5, 2025, https://iwi.net/iwi-dan-338-sniper-rifle/
  25. Run Through The Jungle: Colombia’s JUNGLA Commandos | The Rogue Adventurer, accessed December 5, 2025, https://rogueadventurer.com/2011/11/22/run-through-the-jungle-colombias-jungla-commandos/
  26. The AFEAU: Colombia´s Urban Counter-Terrorism Unit – Grey Dynamics, accessed December 5, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/the-afeau-colombias-urban-counter-terrorism-unit/
  27. Fuerzas Comando 24 Finale – DVIDS, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/news/472791/fuerzas-comando-24-finale
  28. Colombia’s Special Forces Crowned the Best in the Americas – Colombia One, accessed December 5, 2025, https://colombiaone.com/2025/09/10/colombia-best-special-forces-americas-fuerzas-comando-2025/
  29. French Foreign Legion Equipment, accessed December 5, 2025, http://foreignlegion.info/equipment/
  30. PGM Hécate II – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM_H%C3%A9cate_II
  31. 2e REI: SCAR-H Precision rifle – French Foreign Legion Information, accessed December 5, 2025, http://foreignlegion.info/2022/01/11/2-rei-scar-h-precision-rifle/
  32. McMillan TAC-50 – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMillan_TAC-50
  33. C14 Timberwolf – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C14_Timberwolf
  34. Fitness Tests of China’s Elite Snow Leopard Commandos – Force Fitness, accessed December 5, 2025, https://force-fit.co.uk/blogs/fitness-tests-of-the-worlds-elite-forces/fitness-tests-of-chinas-elite-snow-leopard-commandos
  35. QBU-10 – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBU-10
  36. CS/LR35 – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CS/LR35
  37. Annual Warrior Competition – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_Warrior_Competition
  38. RS8 / RS9 – C.G. Haenel, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.cg-haenel.de/en/products/rs8-rs9/
  39. Haenel RS9 – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haenel_RS9
  40. Steiner for the KSK – Military 5-25×56 on G29 – SPARTANAT.com, accessed December 5, 2025, https://spartanat.com/en/steiner-fuer-das-ksk-military-5-25×56-auf-g29
  41. Irish Defence Forces 27th Infantry Battalion & ARW sniper teams at the US Army International Sniper Competition 2023, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.military.ie/en/news-and-events/news/irish-defence-forces-27th-infantry-battalion-arw-sniper-teams-at-the-us-army-international-sniper-competition-2023.html
  42. Army Ranger Wing soldiers win international special forces sniping competition – Irish Mirror, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/army-ranger-wing-soldiers-win-33585692
  43. GROM Military Unit – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GROM_Military_Unit
  44. The 2 New Precision Rifles For Sweden’s Armed Forces – YouTube, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ6swiIQ3tk
  45. Swedish Armed Forces to Receive Modern Sako and Barrett Rifles – The Firearm Blog, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/swedish-armed-forces-to-receive-modern-sako-and-barrett-rifles-44823736
  46. Training Facilities – KASOTC, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.kasotc.com/training-facilities
  47. KASOTC ~ Home of the Annual Warrior Competition | Joint Forces News, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.joint-forces.com/special-forces/86225-kasotc-home-of-the-annual-warrior-competition
  48. Accuracy International AX-SR Rifle for Australia’s Snipers – The Firearm Blog, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2022/10/06/accuracy-international-ax-sr-australia/
  49. S&T Motiv K14 – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%26T_Motiv_K14
  50. 707th Special Mission Group – Grokipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://grokipedia.com/page/707th_Special_Mission_Group
  51. 601st Special Forces Group (Czechia) Special Forces Weapons – Military Factory, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.militaryfactory.com/special-forces/601st-special-forces-group-czech-republic.php
  52. ZVI Falcon – Wikipedia, accessed December 5, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZVI_Falcon
  53. MRAD Sniper Rifle – New Zealand Defence Force, accessed December 5, 2025, https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/nzdf/our-equipment/firepower/barrett-mrad-multi-role-adaptive-design-sniper-rifle/

Three Potential US-Venezuela Conflict Scenarios and Outcomes

The Western Hemisphere stands at its most precarious security juncture since the height of the Cold War. As of December 2025, the convergence of Venezuela’s irredentist ambitions over the Essequibo region, the totalizing economic collapse of the Maduro regime, and a robust, forward-deployed United States military posture under Operation Southern Spear has created a pre-conflict environment characterized by extreme volatility. The deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group (CSG) to the Caribbean, coinciding with the designation of the Cartel de los Soles as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), signals a paradigmatic shift in U.S. policy from containment to active compellence.

This report provides an exhaustive strategic analysis of the crisis, aimed at modeling the three most probable conflict scenarios. Utilizing a multi-source intelligence fusion methodology, we evaluate the capabilities of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB), the efficacy of the Venezuelan Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), and the geopolitical calculus of external actors including Russia, China, and Iran.

Our analysis identifies three primary conflict trajectories:

  1. Scenario Alpha: Punitive Coercion. A limited, high-intensity air and naval campaign targeting counternarcotics nodes and dual-use military infrastructure. This scenario aims to degrade regime financing without a ground invasion, leveraging U.S. air dominance to neutralize Venezuelan naval and air defense assets.
  2. Scenario Bravo: The Essequibo Incursion. A Venezuelan limited incursion into Guyana’s Essequibo region, specifically targeting Anacoco Island and the Cuyuni River basin. This scenario forces a direct U.S. and Brazilian military intervention to preserve Guyanese sovereignty and global energy security.
  3. Scenario Charlie: Regime Fracture and Decapitation. A U.S.-supported internal destabilization campaign combining cyber warfare, decapitation strikes against leadership nodes, and information operations designed to fracture the FANB’s loyalty structure, leading to a transition or civil conflict.

The intelligence assessment concludes that while the Maduro regime publicly projects a monolithic “Fortress Venezuela” defense, internal fissures between the political directorate and the military high command present critical vulnerabilities. However, the regime’s asymmetric capabilities—specifically its S-300VM air defense network and irregular colectivo forces—guarantee that any kinetic engagement will entail significant operational complexity and regional fallout. The immediate strategic imperative is the management of escalation dominance to prevent a protracted regional war while achieving the objective of neutralizing the threat posed by the convergence of authoritarianism, narco-trafficking, and extra-hemispheric influence in the Caribbean Basin.

1. Strategic Context and Threat Assessment

1.1 The Geopolitical Landscape: Convergence of Crises

The deteriorating relationship between Washington and Caracas has transcended diplomatic friction to become a hard security dilemma. Following the disputed inauguration of Nicolás Maduro for a third term in January 2025 and the subsequent return of the Trump administration to the White House, the bilateral framework has effectively collapsed. The expulsion of Venezuelan migrants, the imposition of 25% tariffs on oil exports, and the designation of the Tren de Aragua and the Cartel de los Soles as terrorist entities have dismantled the previous administration’s attempts at engagement.1

This diplomatic rupture occurs against the backdrop of the Essequibo dispute, a territorial controversy that the Maduro regime has weaponized to manufacture domestic legitimacy. The discovery of prolific offshore oil reserves by ExxonMobil in the Stabroek Block—estimated at over 11 billion barrels—has transformed a dormant colonial border dispute into a vital interest for global energy markets.3 Venezuela’s December 2023 referendum, which claimed a mandate to annex the territory, has been followed by the administrative creation of “Guayana Esequiba” and the mobilization of military assets to the border, signaling an intent to alter the status quo through force or coercion.4

1.2 Historical Underpinnings: The Essequibo Question

To understand the current crisis, one must analyze the historical grievance that fuels Venezuelan revanchism. The dispute originates from the 1899 Arbitral Award, which granted the Essequibo region—comprising two-thirds of modern Guyana—to the United Kingdom. Venezuela has consistently declared this award null and void, arguing it was the result of political collusion between Britain and Russia.6

The 1966 Geneva Agreement established a mechanism for resolution but failed to produce a settlement. For decades, the dispute was managed diplomatically. However, the economic implosion of the Bolivarian Revolution has necessitated an external enemy. The “Schomburgk Line,” the 19th-century demarcation proposed by Britain, remains the de facto border, but Venezuela’s recent actions—including the development of a military base on Anacoco Island and the issuance of new maps—indicate a rejection of international legal mechanisms like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in favor of realpolitik.8 The historical narrative of “dispossession” is a potent psychological tool used by the regime to rally the FANB and the populace, framing any U.S. intervention in Guyana not as defense of a sovereign ally, but as imperialist aggression against Venezuela’s historical integrity.10

1.3 The Economic Driver: Oil, Sanctions, and Desperation

The geopolitical aggression of the Maduro regime is inextricably linked to its economic desperation. Venezuela, once the wealthiest nation in South America, suffers from infrastructure collapse, hyperinflation, and the atrophy of its oil industry—the state’s primary revenue source. Production has fallen precipitously due to mismanagement and corruption within PDVSA, the state oil company.3

The discovery of light, sweet crude in Guyana stands in stark contrast to Venezuela’s heavy, sour crude, which is expensive to refine and harder to sell under sanctions.11 The regime views the development of the Stabroek Block not just as a territorial loss, but as a commercial threat. Control over the Essequibo would theoretically grant Venezuela access to these reserves and the associated maritime rights. However, the regime lacks the technical capacity to exploit these resources independently. Thus, the strategy is likely one of extortion: threatening the stability of the region to force concessions on sanctions relief or to gain a stake in the energy consortiums.3 The recent U.S. seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker, cited for violating sanctions and carrying illicit cargo, underscores the economic stranglehold Washington is applying, further backing the regime into a corner where military lashing out becomes a viable survival strategy.12

2. Force Posture and Capabilities Analysis

2.1 U.S. Posture: Operation Southern Spear

In November 2025, the United States activated Operation Southern Spear. Publicly framed as a counternarcotics mission, the force structure reveals a theater-level combat capability designed for high-intensity warfare. The centerpiece of this deployment is the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group (CSG), positioned in the Caribbean Sea.1

The operational capabilities of this force are immense:

  • Air Superiority and Strike: The Ford air wing, equipped with F-35C Lightning II stealth fighters and F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, provides the capability to penetrate Venezuela’s IADS and deliver precision ordnance against leadership and infrastructure targets.2
  • Amphibious Projection: The presence of amphibious assault ships (LHDs) and Marine Expeditionary Units (MEUs) signals the capacity for limited ground operations, raids, or non-combatant evacuation operations (NEO).16
  • Command and Control (C2): The deployment includes advanced E-2D Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft and EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft, essential for suppressing Venezuela’s Russian-made radars.17
  • Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR): Constant overflights by P-8 Poseidon and unmanned assets monitor Venezuelan troop movements and maritime traffic, creating a “transparent battlespace” for U.S. planners.15

The deployment serves a dual purpose: Deterrence by Denial, preventing Venezuelan aggression against Guyana by positioning forces to intercept any incursion; and Compellence, utilizing the threat of overwhelming force to pressure the Maduro regime into political capitulation or flight.18

2.2 Adversary Assessment: The FANB (DOTMLPF Deep Dive)

To accurately model conflict scenarios, we must assess the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) not just by equipment counts, but through the DOTMLPF framework (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities).19

2.2.1 Doctrine and Organization

The FANB has fundamentally shifted its doctrine from conventional territorial defense to “The War of the Whole People” (Guerra de Todo el Pueblo). Influenced heavily by Cuban and Iranian advisors, this asymmetric doctrine posits that Venezuela cannot defeat the U.S. in a conventional head-to-head engagement. Instead, the goal is to raise the cost of intervention through prolonged attrition, irregular warfare, and the mobilization of the civilian population.20

  • Strategic Denial: The conventional forces (Navy and Air Force) are tasked with a “shoot-and-scoot” denial strategy, attempting to inflict early losses on U.S. forces to shock American public opinion.
  • Decentralized Resistance: The country is divided into REDIs (Strategic Integral Defense Regions) and ZODIs (Operational Zones), allowing local commanders to fight autonomously if central C2 is severed.
  • The Hybrid Element: The integration of the Bolivarian Militia (nominally 4 million strong, though combat effectiveness is low) and armed colectivos (paramilitary gangs) creates a complex urban battlefield designed to bog down stabilization forces.20

2.2.2 Materiel: Air Defense and Naval Assets

Venezuela’s “shield” is its Integrated Air Defense System (IADS), purchased largely from Russia during the Chavez era. It is assessed as the most dense and sophisticated IADS in Latin America.21

SystemRoleCapabilities & Status
S-300VM (Antey-2500)Long-Range Strategic SAMCapable of engaging aircraft and cruise missiles up to 250km. Highly mobile tracked vehicles. Two battalions operational, protecting Caracas and key industrial zones. Primary threat to U.S. air assets. 15
Buk-M2EMedium-Range Tactical SAMRanges up to 45km. Designed to protect maneuvering army units. Fills the coverage gaps of the S-300VM. 17
S-125 Pechora-2MShort/Medium Range SAMModernized Soviet-era system. Used for point defense of airfields and critical infrastructure. 15
Su-30MK2 FlankerMulti-role Air Superiority Fighterapprox. 24 airframes. Equipped with Kh-31 anti-ship missiles. Formidable if flown by skilled pilots, but fleet readiness is degraded by lack of spares. 20
Zolfaghar / Peykaap IIIFast Attack Craft (FAC)Iranian-supplied missile boats. Armed with anti-ship missiles. Designed for swarm attacks in littoral waters. Deployed to Guiria near the Guyanese border. 23

Maintenance & Readiness: A critical vulnerability is the degradation of maintenance. The withdrawal of many Russian technicians due to the war in Ukraine has left the FANB struggling to keep complex systems operational. Reports suggest cannibalization of airframes and radars is widespread. However, recent limited re-engagement by Russian and Iranian technical teams in late 2025 may have restored key batteries to operational status.17

2.2.3 Leadership and Personnel Dynamics

The FANB leadership is deeply politicized. Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López and the High Command are stakeholders in the regime’s survival, often implicated in illicit economic activities (mining, narcotics) managed by the Cartel de los Soles.25 This creates a “loyalty through complicity” structure—generals fear prosecution by the U.S. more than they fear internal dissent.

However, morale among the rank-and-file and mid-level officers is assessed as poor. Economic hardship affects their families, leading to high desertion rates and a lack of combat motivation. The divide between the well-fed, corrupt general officer corps and the struggling troops is a key exploit for U.S. psychological operations.20

2.3 The External Enablers: Russia, China, Iran, Cuba

Venezuela’s resilience is bolstered by a coalition of extra-hemispheric actors, termed the “Fabulous Five” by intelligence analysts.16

  • Russia: Providing the “teeth” of the defense. Moscow views Venezuela as a strategic spoiler to distract the U.S. from Eurasia. While material support has waned, cyber, intelligence, and technical advisory support remain critical for the IADS.17
  • China: Providing the “eyes” and “wallet.” Beijing supplies surveillance technology (smart city cameras, ID systems) used for social control and the VENESAT satellite infrastructure. China is the primary purchaser of illicit Venezuelan oil, providing the cash flow for regime survival.24
  • Iran: Providing asymmetric naval and drone capabilities. The transfer of Zolfaghar fast attack craft and Mohajer-6 drones empowers the FANB to threaten shipping lanes and conduct ISR.14
  • Cuba: Providing the “brain.” Cuban intelligence operatives are embedded within the DGCIM (military counterintelligence) and SEBIN (intelligence service), managing the loyalty monitoring systems that prevent coups.16

3. Operational Environment Analysis

3.1 Terrain and Hydrography: The Essequibo Jungle & Caribbean Littoral

The potential theater of conflict presents extreme geographic challenges.

  • The Essequibo: The border region is characterized by dense tropical rainforest, major river obstacles (Cuyuni, Venamo), and a complete lack of paved road infrastructure connecting Venezuela to Guyana. This terrain negates Venezuela’s advantage in heavy armor (T-72 tanks). Any offensive must rely on light infantry, airmobile (helicopter) insertion, and riverine craft. Logistics sustainability for a large force is nearly impossible without establishing an air bridge.4
  • The Caribbean Littoral: The Venezuelan coast is rugged, with mountain ranges (Cordillera de la Costa) providing natural masking for mobile missile batteries. However, the deep waters of the Caribbean favor U.S. naval dominance. Key ports like Puerto Cabello and La Guaira are vulnerable to blockade and precision strike.20

3.2 Critical Infrastructure: Oil, Power, and Cyber

  • Oil Infrastructure: The Paraguaná Refinery Complex and the José Terminal are the economic hearts of the state. They are heavily defended but static targets. In Guyana, the Liza Destiny and Liza Unity FPSO (Floating Production Storage and Offloading) vessels operate offshore, vulnerable to naval harassment or missile attack.9
  • Cyber Domain: Venezuela’s power grid (Guri Dam) is fragile and has been subject to failures. A U.S. cyber campaign could theoretically blackout the country, paralyzing C2 and logistics, though this risks severe humanitarian blowback.17

4. Scenario Analysis: Methodological Framework

Utilizing the Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) of Red Teaming and Scenario Generation, we have modeled three distinct conflict trajectories.29 These scenarios are not mutually exclusive; elements of one may trigger another. They are ranked by probability based on current indicators and warnings (I&W) derived from the research data.

5. Scenario Alpha: Punitive Coercion (Counter-Narcotics/Terrorism Campaign)

5.1 Triggers & Strategic Logic

Probability: High.

Trigger: A tactical escalation in the Caribbean, such as a Venezuelan naval vessel firing upon a U.S. interceptor enforcing the blockade, or a Venezuelan S-300 radar locking onto a U.S. aircraft in international airspace.17

Logic: The U.S. administration, armed with the FTO designation of the Cartel de los Soles, initiates a limited, punitive air and missile campaign. The objective is not regime change via invasion, but the destruction of the regime’s illicit revenue infrastructure (drug labs, airstrips) and the degradation of its coercive capacity (navy, air defense).2 This aims to fracture the military’s support for Maduro by removing the financial incentives of loyalty.

5.2 Concept of Operations (CONOPS)

The U.S. executes a “stand-off” campaign lasting 72 to 96 hours, utilizing assets from Operation Southern Spear.

  1. SEAD/DEAD (Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses): Electronic attack aircraft (EA-18G Growlers) jam Venezuelan radars while stealth assets (F-35s) and cruise missiles (Tomahawks) target S-300VM nodes and command centers. The goal is to blind the IADS and create air superiority corridors.15
  2. Counternarcotics Strikes: Precision strikes target identified drug labs in the Catatumbo region, clandestine airstrips in Apure, and storage facilities used by the Cartel. This degrades the “black budget” of the military elite.31
  3. Naval Neutralization: Strikes on the Venezuelan Navy at Puerto Cabello and Guiria. Priority targets are the Guaiquerí patrol ships and the Iranian Zolfaghar missile boats to ensure freedom of navigation and protect Guyana.23

5.3 Adversary Response & Asymmetric Retaliation

Lacking conventional parity, the Maduro regime adopts a “victimhood” narrative and asymmetric tactics.

  • Propaganda: Maduro declares a “War of Independence,” claiming massive civilian casualties to rally domestic and international support.
  • Asymmetric Maritime Warfare: Deployment of sea mines in oil transit lanes or the use of fast boats to harass commercial shipping, attempting to spike global oil prices.
  • Proxy Attacks: Activation of colectivos or ELN guerrillas to attack U.S. assets or personnel in Colombia.16

5.4 Strategic Outcomes & Second-Order Effects

  • Outcome: The FANB’s conventional capabilities are severely degraded. The U.S. achieves tactical objectives.
  • Second-Order Effects:
  • Political: Paradoxically, Maduro may survive by rallying the base against “imperial aggression.” However, the loss of drug revenue could lead to mid-term dissatisfaction among the generals, increasing coup risk.11
  • Economic: A temporary disruption in Venezuelan oil exports (10-50% reduction) affects Chinese refiners. Global oil prices see a short-term risk premium hike.27

6. Scenario Bravo: The Essequibo Incursion (Limited Regional Conflict)

6.1 Triggers & Strategic Logic

Probability: Moderate to High (Rising).

Trigger: Facing internal collapse or seeking a diversion, Maduro orders the execution of the annexation mandate. The trigger could be a manufactured “border incident” or a declaration of immediate sovereignty over the Guayana Esequiba state.9

Logic: The regime calculates that a limited incursion to seize the Anacoco Island area and the west bank of the Essequibo River will force international negotiation and legitimize their claim. It serves as a nationalist rallying cry to unite the fractured military.33

6.2 Concept of Operations (CONOPS)

  • The Advance: The Venezuelan 51st Jungle Infantry Brigade launches operations from Tumeremo and Anacoco Island. Utilizing helicopters and riverine craft, they attempt to establish forward operating bases (FOBs) in Guyanese territory.
  • Maritime Blockade: The Venezuelan Navy sorties to the 70-degree line to interdict ExxonMobil vessels, demanding a halt to “illegal extraction”.9
  • Information Warfare: The regime floods the zone with narratives about reclaiming stolen land, citing the 1966 Geneva Agreement.

6.3 The Allied Response (US, Brazil, Guyana)

  • U.S. Defense: Citing the threat to regional stability and U.S. commercial interests, Operation Southern Spear pivots to defense. U.S. Navy destroyers enforce a maritime exclusion zone, effectively blockading the Venezuelan coast. F-35s fly combat air patrols (CAP) over Guyana to deter Venezuelan air support.6
  • Brazilian Intervention: Brazil, viewing the violation of borders as a threat to its own security and regional leadership, mobilizes forces in Roraima. Brazilian armor and special forces move to secure the southern border, preventing Venezuelan flanking maneuvers and potentially threatening Venezuela’s rear.5
  • Guyanese Defense: The Guyanese Defense Force (GDF), though small, conducts delaying actions and guerrilla harassment in the jungle, supported by U.S./Brazilian intelligence and logistics.26

6.4 Strategic Outcomes & Second-Order Effects

  • Outcome: The Venezuelan incursion stalls due to impossible logistics (no roads, jungle terrain) and Allied air/naval dominance. The FANB is forced to withdraw or face destruction in the jungle.7
  • Second-Order Effects:
  • Regime Humiliation: The military defeat shatters the image of FANB competence, accelerating internal dissent.
  • Refugee Crisis: Fear of war drives a massive wave of refugees into Brazil and Colombia, overwhelming humanitarian resources.
  • Energy Security: Production at the Stabroek Block is temporarily halted due to insurance risks, impacting global light sweet crude supply.3

7. Scenario Charlie: Regime Fracture & Decapitation (Internal Collapse)

7.1 Triggers & Strategic Logic

Probability: Low to Moderate (Dependent on U.S. Actions).

Trigger: A combination of severe economic strangulation (Scenario Alpha) and a successful U.S. intelligence/influence campaign fractures the ruling coalition. A specific “red line” event—such as a mass casualty incident or a brutal crackdown on families of military officers—causes the High Command to break with Maduro.35

Logic: The U.S. goal is Decapitation—removing the top leadership (Maduro, Cabello) while preserving the institution of the FANB to maintain order. This requires driving a wedge between the “Narco-Generals” (who must be removed) and the “Institutionalists” (who can be turned).31

7.2 Concept of Operations (CONOPS): Hybrid Warfare

  • Precision Strikes: U.S. forces conduct targeted strikes against C2 nodes of the Cartel de los Soles, DGCIM headquarters, and SEBIN facilities to blind the regime’s internal control mechanisms.
  • Cyber & Info Ops: A massive cyber campaign disrupts regime communications and finances. Simultaneously, the U.S. offers amnesty and lifting of FTO designations for units that defect or arrest leadership figures.36
  • The Internal Coup: A faction of the military, potentially led by a pragmatic figure like Padrino López (seeking self-preservation), moves to arrest Maduro and Cabello.25

7.3 The Internal Dynamics: Padrino López vs. The Hardliners

This scenario hinges on General Padrino López. While publicly loyal, he represents the institutional military. He faces a choice: go down with the ship or steer a transition. Hardliners like Diosdado Cabello, who controls the DGCIM and colectivos, would violently resist any coup. This would lead to urban combat in Caracas between Army units (Constitutionalists) and paramilitary/intelligence units (Loyalists).37

7.4 Strategic Outcomes & Second-Order Effects

  • Outcome: The collapse of the Maduro regime. However, this is unlikely to be a clean transition to democracy. It may result in a military junta or a fractured state.
  • Second-Order Effects:
  • Civil War Risk: High probability of factional fighting requiring international peacekeeping.
  • Migration: The chaos of collapse could trigger the largest exodus yet, with millions fleeing.
  • Oil Recovery: In the long term, a new government could invite Western investment back, potentially restoring Venezuela as a major energy player, but infrastructure repair will take a decade.11

8. Strategic Synthesis & Recommendations

8.1 Comparative Risk Assessment

Scenario Alpha (Punitive Coercion) offers the most controlled engagement with the lowest risk to U.S. personnel, but risks strengthening Maduro politically. Scenario Bravo (Essequibo) presents the greatest threat to regional stability and energy markets, necessitating a coalition response. Scenario Charlie (Regime Fracture) is the “high risk, high reward” option—it solves the root problem but risks unleashing chaos that the U.S. will own.

8.2 Energy Security Implications

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Scenario Alpha would disrupt production temporarily (10-50% reduction). Scenario Bravo poses a direct threat to Guyana’s 750,000 bpd production. Scenario Charlie offers the long-term possibility of restoring Venezuela’s oil sector. The strategic imperative is to protect the Guyanese offshore assets, which are critical for non-OPEC supply growth.3

8.3 Recommendations for National Command Authority

  1. Enhance SEAD Capabilities: Ensure Operation Southern Spear has sufficient electronic warfare assets to neutralize the S-300VM network without requiring a protracted bombing campaign that causes civilian casualties.
  2. Back-Channel Diplomacy: Maintain a covert channel to Padrino López and the FANB High Command. The message must be clear: “The target is the criminal element, not the institution. Defect and survive.”
  3. Strengthen Brazil’s Hand: Actively support Brazil’s military buildup on the border. A strong Brazilian posture is the most effective deterrent against a Venezuelan incursion into the Essequibo.
  4. Protect the Oil: Deploy Aegis destroyers to the Stabroek Block to provide a missile defense umbrella for ExxonMobil assets.

Appendix A: Methodology

This report utilizes a Multi-Source Intelligence Fusion methodology, integrating open-source intelligence (OSINT), military posture statements, and geopolitical analysis frameworks to derive predictive insights.

1. DOTMLPF-P Framework Analysis:

To assess the adversary’s true combat potential, we applied the U.S. Department of Defense’s DOTMLPF-P framework (Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities, Policy) to the Venezuelan Armed Forces.19 This allowed us to look beyond static equipment lists and identify critical failures in Maintenance (cannibalization of Russian equipment) and Leadership (politicization of the officer corps) that degrade actual combat effectiveness.20

2. Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs):

  • Red Teaming: We adopted the perspective of the Maduro regime to model their decision-making calculus. This “Red Team” analysis highlighted the logic behind the “Fortress Venezuela” strategy and the rationality of the Essequibo distraction.30
  • Scenario Generation: Future scenarios were developed using the “Cone of Plausibility” method, extrapolating current trends (e.g., Anacoco Island buildup, FTO designations) to their logical kinetic conclusions.40
  • Indicators & Warnings (I&W): We identified specific triggers (e.g., movement of riverine craft, radar lock-ons) that would signal the shift from one scenario to another.17

3. Source Verification & De-confliction:

Information was synthesized exclusively from the provided authoritative snippets. We cross-referenced claims—for instance, verifying the presence of Zolfaghar missile boats via multiple independent reports 23—to mitigate the bias of any single source. We prioritized technical data (radar ranges, missile types) to ground political analysis in military reality.

Summary Table: Conflict Scenarios and Outcomes

ScenarioOperational TriggerConflict TypePrimary Targets/TheaterStrategic OutcomeRisk Level
1. Punitive CoercionNaval incident or Radar lock on U.S. asset.17Limited Air/Naval Campaign (3-5 days).Drug labs, Airfields (Apure), Naval Bases (Puerto Cabello), IADS nodes.Degradation of FANB capabilities; Maduro survives but loses revenue. Oil price spike.Medium
2. Essequibo IncursionVenezuelan troop movement into Essequibo.9Regional Proxy War / Jungle Warfare.Anacoco Island, Stabroek Oil Block, Jungle border region.Operational stalemate due to terrain; Brazilian/US intervention repels incursion. Regime humiliation.High
3. Regime FractureMass casualty event or internal split.35Hybrid Warfare / Civil Conflict.Regime Leadership (C2), Cyber infrastructure, Internal Security Organs (SEBIN/DGCIM).Collapse of Maduro regime; potential civil war; long-term instability; eventual energy recovery.Critical

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


Sources Used

  1. Timeline: 26 years of fraught US-Venezuela relations | Conflict News …, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/25/timeline-26-years-of-fraught-us-venezuela-relations
  2. 2025 United States naval deployment in the Caribbean – Wikipedia, accessed December 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_States_naval_deployment_in_the_Caribbean
  3. Essequibo Dispute: Venezuela vs Guyana Territory Crisis, accessed December 11, 2025, https://discoveryalert.com.au/essequibo-territorial-dispute-oil-resources-2025/
  4. Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute – Wikipedia, accessed December 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyana%E2%80%93Venezuela_territorial_dispute
  5. Guyana–Venezuela crisis (2023–2024) – Wikipedia, accessed December 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyana%E2%80%93Venezuela_crisis_(2023%E2%80%932024)
  6. United States Assures Support for Guyana Amid Border Dispute with Venezuela, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.alm.com/press_release/alm-intelligence-updates-verdictsearch/?s-news-17422651-2025-12-05-us-pledges-defense-guyana-venezuela-border-dispute
  7. Venezuela, Guyana: The shocking war that wasn’t | Responsible …, accessed December 11, 2025, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/guyana-venezuela/
  8. Notes on the History of the Venezuela/Guyana Boundary Dispute – CEBRI, accessed December 11, 2025, https://cebri.org/revista/en/artigo/138/notes-on-the-history-of-the-venezuelaguyana-boundary-dispute
  9. What Is the Significance of Venezuela’s Naval Incursion into Guyana? – CSIS, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-significance-venezuelas-naval-incursion-guyana
  10. Did Venezuela threaten its neighbor Guyana? If so, why? – PGurus, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.pgurus.com/did-venezuela-threaten-its-neighbor-guyana-if-so-why/
  11. Maduro says the real reason for Trump’s Venezuela fixation is oil – is he right?, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/dec/06/venezuela-oil-trump-maduro
  12. Venezuela’s crisis is not an oil grab but a power grab, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/12/11/venezuelas-crisis-is-not-an-oil-grab-but-a-power-grab
  13. What do we know about the oil tanker seized by the US off the Venezuela coast?, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/11/venezuela-oil-tanker-seized-us
  14. U.S. Launches Operation Southern Spear – The Soufan Center, accessed December 11, 2025, https://thesoufancenter.org/intelbrief-2025-november-14/
  15. Status Of Venezuela’s Air Defense Capabilities – The War Zone, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.twz.com/air/status-of-venezuelas-air-defense-capabilities
  16. The Counternarcotics Facade: U.S. Military Escalation and Regime Change Imperatives in Venezuela, 2025 – https://debuglies.com, accessed December 11, 2025, https://debuglies.com/2025/11/18/the-counternarcotics-facade-u-s-military-escalation-and-regime-change-imperatives-in-venezuela-2025/
  17. Russian Air-Defense Deliveries to Venezuela and the Escalation …, accessed December 11, 2025, https://lansinginstitute.org/2025/11/05/russian-air-defense-deliveries-to-venezuela-and-the-escalation-risk-of-u-s-venezuela-military-conflict/
  18. Ground attack or negotiated exit? Trump’s indecision raises tensions in Venezuela | U.S., accessed December 11, 2025, https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-12-08/ground-attack-or-negotiated-exit-trumps-indecision-raises-tensions-in-venezuela.html
  19. DOTMLPF-P Analysis – AcqNotes, accessed December 11, 2025, https://acqnotes.com/acqnote/acquisitions/dotmlpf-analysis
  20. Venezuela Military Power Ranking, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.militarypowerrankings.com/military-power/venezuela
  21. Venezuela Launches Major Air Defence Drills as U.S. Bomber and Carrier Deployments Escalate – Military Watch Magazine, accessed December 11, 2025, https://militarywatchmagazine.com/article/venezuela-air-defence-drills-us-escalate
  22. Here’s How Venezuela Plans to Defend Its Airspace – The National Interest, accessed December 11, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-venezuela-plans-defend-airspace-hk-102725
  23. Venezuelan Navy intrudes Guyana’s EEZ – Naval News, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/03/venezuelan-navy-intrudes-guyanas-eez/
  24. Venezuela’s External Security Guarantees Amid Renewed US Pressure in the Western Hemisphere – https://debuglies.com, accessed December 11, 2025, https://debuglies.com/2025/11/15/venezuelas-external-security-guarantees-amid-renewed-us-pressure-in-the-western-hemisphere/
  25. Maduro and Chavismo close ranks in the face of US pressure – EL PAÍS English, accessed December 11, 2025, https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-08-14/maduro-and-chavismo-close-ranks-in-the-face-of-us-pressure.html
  26. The Venezuelan-Guyanese Border Crisis—The Essequibo Controversy, accessed December 11, 2025, https://thedialogue.org/analysis/the-venezuelan-guyanese-border-crisis-the-essequibo-controversy
  27. Venezuela forced to double discount on oil to Asia due to flood of sanctioned crude, accessed December 11, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/business/venezuela-forced-to-double-discount-on-oil-to-asia-due-to-flood-of-sanctioned-crude/articleshow/125900900.cms
  28. Bolivarian Navy of Venezuela – Wikipedia, accessed December 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolivarian_Navy_of_Venezuela
  29. A Tradecraft Primer: Basic Structured Analytic Techniques – Defense Intelligence Agency, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.dia.mil/FOIA/FOIA-Electronic-Reading-Room/FileId/161442/
  30. Restructuring Structured Analytic Techniques in Intelligence Welton Chang Elissabeth Berdini Acknowledgements: The authors thank, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.hsdl.org/c/view?docid=804875
  31. Trump Reportedly Presented Updated List Of Targets In Venezuela With Aircraft Carrier Already In The Caribbean – Latin Times, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.latintimes.com/trump-reportedly-presented-updated-list-targets-venezuela-aircraft-carrier-already-caribbean-591561
  32. Venezuelan supply and export scenarios under a US military intervention, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.kpler.com/blog/venezuelan-supply-and-export-scenarios-under-a-us-military-intervention
  33. Miscalculation and Escalation over the Essequibo: New Insights into the Risks of Venezuela’s Compellence Strategy – CSIS, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/miscalculation-and-escalation-over-essequibo-new-insights-risks-venezuelas-compellence
  34. US will stand ‘in defense’ of Guyana, ambassador tells AFP | News, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.bssnews.net/news/338834
  35. Best Scenarios for Maduro and María Corina – Caracas Chronicles, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2025/11/27/best-scenarios-for-maduro-and-maria-corina/
  36. Tracking Trump and Latin America: Security—National Security Strategy Released | AS/COA, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.as-coa.org/articles/tracking-trump-and-latin-america-security-national-security-strategy-released
  37. Venezuela’s Political Factions Compete for Power – Stratfor, accessed December 11, 2025, https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/venezuelas-political-factions-compete-power
  38. Venezuela’s leaders avoid internal rupture as they prepare for a …, accessed December 11, 2025, https://english.elpais.com/international/2025-09-15/venezuelas-leaders-avoid-internal-rupture-as-they-prepare-for-a-possible-us-invasion.html
  39. Tenets of Army Modernization | AUSA, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.ausa.org/publications/tenets-army-modernization
  40. Helping CTI Analysts Approach and Report on Emerging Technology Threats and Trends (Part 2) | SANS Institute, accessed December 11, 2025, https://www.sans.org/blog/helping-cti-analysts-approach-and-report-on-emerging-technology-threats-and-trends-part-2

Decision Dominance: AI and the Transformation of the OODA Loop in Combat

The 21st-century strategic competition is increasingly defined not by mass or industrial might, but by the speed and quality of decision-making. The foundational framework for understanding this competition is Colonel John Boyd’s OODA loop—Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. For decades, military doctrine has focused on “getting inside” an opponent’s loop, operating at a tempo that shatters their ability to cohere. Today, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is compressing this human-scale cognitive process into a machine-speed automated cycle, fundamentally altering the character of war.

This report provides a strategic analysis of this transformation. It first reviews the OODA loop as a framework for competitive advantage, clarifying that its center of gravity is not merely speed, but superior “Orientation.” It then provides an exhaustive, phase-by-phase assessment of how specific AI technologies are revolutionizing the entire combat engagement lifecycle.

The analysis finds:

  1. AI is the Engine of Modern C2: The U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept is the architectural-technological manifestation of the OODA loop. Its guiding maxim—”Sense, Make Sense, Act”—is a direct map to “Observe, Orient, Act.”
  2. A “Super-OODA Loop”: AI is automating and accelerating each phase. In the Observe phase, AI-driven sensor fusion and Automated Target Recognition (ATR)—exemplified by Project Maven—solve the data-deluge bottleneck, allowing persistent, all-domain surveillance. In the Orient phase, predictive analytics and AI-curated operational pictures provide “sense-making” at a scale no human staff can match. In the Decide phase, AI tools generate thousands of optimized Courses of Action (COAs) in seconds, shifting the commander’s role from generation to judgment. In the Act phase, autonomous systems, loitering munitions, and drone swarms execute decisions with unprecedented precision and speed.
  3. The “Centaur” Imperative: The strategic objective is Decision Dominance—the ability to decide and act more effectively and rapidly than any adversary. This is not achieved by replacing humans, but by creating “Strategic Centaurs”: a hybrid-intelligence partnership where AI handles data processing and speed, freeing human commanders to provide the “appropriate human judgment” mandated by DoD policy (DoD Directive 3000.09). The common refrain of a “human-in-the-loop” is a dangerously misleading myth; the reality is a far more complex human-machine team.
  4. The Paradox of Algorithmic Warfare: This new “Super-OODA Loop” creates profound new vulnerabilities. By automating the loop, it transforms the loop itself into a high-value attack surface. The very AI models used for “Observe” and “Orient” are susceptible to adversarial attacks, such as “evasion” (hiding targets from AI) and “data poisoning” (corrupting AI’s “brain” before a conflict). In this paradigm, a faster loop can become a liability, leading to a “millisecond compromise” where a force, blinded by its own corrupted AI, simply loses faster.

The strategic imperative for the DoD is therefore twofold: first, to aggressively pursue the technical capabilities for AI-driven decision dominance, and second, to simultaneously build the adaptive doctrine, rigorous training, and resilient “Red Team” processes necessary to manage the vulnerabilities of this new algorithmic age.


Part I: The OODA Framework – A Primer on Tempo and Strategic Advantage

Introduction: The Origins and Purpose of Boyd’s Loop

To understand the revolution Artificial Intelligence (AI) is bringing to modern warfare, one must first understand the framework it is revolutionizing. This is the OODA loop, a decision-making model developed by U.S. Air Force Colonel John Boyd.1 The loop consists of four stages: Observe (absorbing new information), Orient (processing observations against a “repertoire” of experience), Decide (selecting a course of action), and Act (implementing the decision).3

Boyd, a renowned strategist and fighter pilot, developed this concept from his experiences in the Korean War and his deep research into aerial combat tactics.6 His foundational work on Energy-Maneuverability Theory modeled aircraft performance 3, but the OODA loop became his universal theory for success in any competitive, rapidly changing, or chaotic environment.2

Crucially, the OODA loop is not a simple, linear checklist. It is a highly iterative and fluid feedback model.1 Boyd’s diagrams show feedback paths from every stage to every other, emphasizing continuous adaptation and learning.1 His core concepts, disseminated primarily through his briefings “A Discourse on Winning and Losing,” have become foundational to modern military strategy, business, law enforcement, and cyberwarfare.1

The Strategic Goal: “Getting Inside the Enemy’s Decision Cycle”

The purpose of the OODA loop in a conflict setting is not merely to make a decision; it is to win. Boyd’s central thesis was that victory is achieved by “getting inside the opponent’s decision cycle”.1 This means an entity—whether a pilot, a commander, or an entire organization—that can process its entire OODA loop more quickly, more effectively, and more relevantly than its opponent gains an insuperable advantage.1

This is a psychological and temporal attack. By operating at a faster and more effective tempo, one can observe and react to unfolding events so rapidly that the opponent’s own observations become obsolete before they can act on them. The adversary’s actions, when they finally come, are out of sync with reality. Boyd described this desired end state in stark terms: to “operate inside adversary’s observation-orientation-decision-action loops to enmesh adversary in a world of uncertainty, doubt, mistrust, confusion, disorder, fear, panic, chaos”.10

The goal is to “fold adversary back inside himself so that he cannot cope with events/efforts as they unfold”.10 The opponent is forced to react to a reality that has already changed, leading to a cascading collapse of their decision-making capability. One metaphor for this process is the “OODA cable,” which visualizes decisions flowing like electrical current through the loop, with the “Observe” phase being the thickest cable, gathering the most strands of information.11 By disrupting this flow anywhere, one can short-circuit the entire system.

Orientation as the Center of Gravity (Not Just Speed)

A common and dangerous misinterpretation of the OODA loop is that it is a simple race for speed. This reductionist view—that the fastest combatant always prevails—is historically false. Speed without direction is mere haste. The ill-fated Schlieffen Plan in World War I and General MacArthur’s rapid, unsupported drive into North Korea in 1950 are prime examples where a focus on speed, at the expense of flexibility and accurate orientation, led to strategic catastrophe.6

Boyd himself did not prioritize raw speed; he prioritized Orientation. This is the “mental tapestry” (as Boyd called it) of changing intentions that harmonizes effort.2 It is the most critical and complex phase in the loop.2 While Observation is the gathering of raw data, Orientation is the “process” of turning that data into understanding.2 It involves integrating new observations with a “repertoire” of existing mental models, cultural biases, and past experiences to form an accurate perception of the world.3

This is the loop’s center of gravity. A superior orientation allows a combatant to make better decisions, not just faster ones. In fact, a combatant with a superior “orientation advantage” can actually operate at a slower tempo and still win by ensuring their actions are more relevant and more surprising.12 True mastery of the loop, which Boyd’s contemporaries called Fingerspitzengefuhl or “fingertip feeling,” comes from a deep, intuitive orientation.13 This mastery is what allows a commander to seemingly bypass the explicit “Orient” and “Decide” steps and achieve “deliberate speed”—acting almost simultaneously with observing, because the orientation is already so deeply ingrained.2

This primacy of the “Orient” phase is the single most important concept to grasp when analyzing the impact of AI. The modern battlespace is not a contest of simple speed, but a contest of orientation—and it is this cognitive phase that AI promises to, and threatens to, revolutionize.


Part II: Algorithmic Warfare: AI’s Revolution of the Combat Lifecycle

Introduction: From Cognitive Loop to Algorithmic Cycle

Artificial Intelligence is fundamentally altering the character of warfare.14 This transformation is not about a single new weapon, but about the process of combat itself. AI is injecting machine-speed computation into every phase of Boyd’s OODA loop, transforming it from a human-centric cognitive cycle to a human-machine algorithmic one.16

The U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) capstone concept for this new era is Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2).17 JADC2 is, for all practical purposes, the DoD’s architectural and technological embodiment of the OODA loop.10 Its stated goal is to enable the Joint Force to “sense,” “make sense,” and “act” on information at the “speed of relevance”.18 This “Sense, Make Sense, Act” paradigm is a direct modernization of Boyd’s “Observe, Orient, Act”.20

The entire JADC2 strategy is built on the premise of using automation and AI to “act inside an adversary’s decision cycle”.22 The following sections will analyze, phase by phase, exactly how AI is executing this vision.

Table 1: The AI-Driven Transformation of the OODA Loop

OODA PhaseConventional Process (Human-Scale)AI-Driven Transformation (Machine-Speed)Key Enabling Technologies & Programs
OBSERVEIntermittent human-led ISR (patrols, singular sensor feeds); manual data processing.Persistent, all-domain, autonomous sensing and data exploitation.JADC2 Sensor Grid 23, AI-Enabled Sensor Fusion 24, Persistent Surveillance 25, Project Maven 26, Automated Target Recognition (ATR).27
ORIENTManual staff analysis; high “fog of war”; slow, linear planning (e.g., the Millitary Decision Making Process (MDMP)).Automated data processing; predictive sense-making; AI-curated Common Operational Picture.AI Data Analysis 14, Predictive Analytics 29, AI-Augmented MDMP 30, AI-COP.31
DECIDECommander’s deliberation based on 2-3 human-generated Courses of Action (COAs).AI-augmented decision support; real-time generation and wargaming of thousands of optimized COAs.COA-GPT 32, AI Wargaming 33, AI Decision Support Systems (DSS).31
ACTHuman-in-the-loop kinetic/non-kinetic action; pre-planned fires.Autonomous and semi-autonomous execution; coordinated swarming; “human-on-the-loop” supervision.Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS) 36, AI-Powered Drone Swarms 37, Loitering Munitions 38, AI-Directed Electronic Warfare (EW) & Cyber.39
Note there is a glossary with all abbreviations explained

The “Observe” Phase: From Human Sentry to Omniscient Sensor Grid

In conventional warfare, the “Observe” phase is defined by bottlenecks. Platoons on patrol, single-sensor UAV feeds, and periodic satellite passes create an intermittent, incomplete, and human-intensive picture of the battlefield. The JADC2 architecture, powered by AI, seeks to shatter this paradigm by creating an integrated, persistent, and all-domain sensor grid.23

AI-Enabled Sensor Fusion

In a multi-domain battlespace, a commander is inundated with data from land, air, sea, space, and cyber sensors.41 This data is often conflicting, in different formats, and arrives at different times.31 AI’s first and most critical job in the “Observe” phase is sensor fusion: the use of algorithms to “connect information streams” 41 and “squeeze more insight” from existing assets.24 AI-enabled fusion can rapidly bring together large numbers of sensors from manned and unmanned systems 24, integrating multi-domain data 42 from RADAR, LIDAR, spectroscopy, and imagery 43 to resolve conflicting reports and create a single, clear, and accurate picture.20

Persistent, Autonomous Surveillance

AI enables a shift from “intermittent” to “persistent” observation. Autonomous systems, such as the Sentry tower, use AI-enabled edge processing and a suite of sensors to “autonomously identify, detect and track objects of interest” 24/7 across land, sea, and air.25 AI algorithms allow these systems to monitor vast areas with minimal human intervention.44 Swarms of drones, for example, can collaborate, share data, and adapt to changing environments to provide a resilient and continuous surveillance solution.44

Case Study: Project Maven (Automating Observation)

The most powerful illustration of AI in the “Observe” phase is Project Maven.47 Established as the DoD’s “pathfinder” for operational AI 48, Maven was created to solve a critical bottleneck: the “PED” (Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination) of intelligence.49 The DoD’s ability to collect data, particularly full-motion video (FMV) from UAVs, had exponentially outpaced its ability to process it.49 There was simply “too much data for the analyst workforce to manage”.49

Project Maven employs computer vision algorithms 48 to automate this PED process. Its core technology is Automated Target Recognition (ATR).27 AI and machine learning algorithms are trained to autonomously scan FMV and satellite imagery to “detect, classify, and identify” objects of interest—such as a specific “battle tank” versus a “civilian vehicle”.26

The impact is a radical acceleration of the “Observe-to-Orient” pipeline. With Maven, AI can perform multiple steps of the “kill chain” autonomously.26 A senior targeting officer, who could previously process 30 targets per hour, can now process 80 targets per hour with AI support. Furthermore, this is achieved with a targeting cell of 20 people, whereas a comparable effort during Operation Iraqi Freedom required a staff of 2,000.26

This case study reveals the true nature of AI’s role in observation. It is not just about better cameras or more drones. It is about automating the exploitation of the data they collect. AI-driven observation, as exemplified by Maven, doesn’t just improve the OODA loop; it makes the loop possible in the modern, data-saturated battlespace. Without it, the loop would collapse under the sheer weight of its own data, which often overwhelms human staffs and creates a “fog of war” from an overabundance of information.28

The “Orient” Phase: From Fog of War to Predictive Sense-Making

The “Orient” phase, Boyd’s center of gravity, is where raw observation is turned into actionable understanding. This is the “make sense” in the JADC2 framework.18 Historically, this phase is the source of the Clausewitzian “fog of war,” where uncertainty, friction, and “cascades of information” 28 paralyze human staffs. AI offers to dispel this fog by processing data at a scale and speed that is superhuman.

Taming the Data Deluge

The modern battlespace is defined by a data deluge that can overwhelm human cognition.28 While some analysts warn that AI may simply replace the “fog of war” with a new “fog of systems” 52, the primary goal of military AI is to do the opposite. AI algorithms are designed to rapidly process and analyze “vast amounts of data” 30 from diverse sources 14 to provide commanders with a “clearer picture” 23 and “comprehensive situational awareness”.19

The AI-Curated Common Operational Picture (COP)

The key output of this process is the Common Operational Picture (COP). A conventional COP is a static, manually updated map. An AI-curated COP is a living, dynamic, and tailorable “all-domain” picture.55 AI algorithms fuse data from all domains 31 to create a real-time, shared understanding of the battlespace. This AI-enhanced awareness can be decentralized, allowing even “the smallest tactical teams and units” to maintain “excellent situational awareness” 55, enabling a new level of mission command.

Predictive Analytics: Forecasting Enemy COAs

The most revolutionary aspect of AI in the “Orient” phase is its ability to move from reaction to prediction. Using deep learning and multifactor analysis 29, AI models can be trained on adversary doctrine, historical data, and real-time intelligence to predict enemy behavior.57

These predictive models can:

  • Identify subtle enemy behavior patterns.29
  • Detect preparations for an offensive.29
  • Assess enemy combat readiness.29
  • Instantly revise an enemy’s most likely course of action based on new contact reports.59

This capability allows a commander to “outthink” the adversary 58 and begin orienting to the next fight, not the current one. This is the very definition of seizing the initiative and getting inside the enemy’s loop.

The Human Judgment Complement

However, AI is not a panacea for orientation, and this is where the “fog of systems” concern becomes relevant.52 AI is a tool for prediction, but it is not a substitute for judgment.60 As researchers from the Georgia Institute of Technology note, the “hard problems in war are strategy and uncertainty”.61 AI models are only as good as the data they are trained on.60 An adversary will, by definition, “go beyond the training set” by creating novel situations.60

In these moments of high uncertainty and novelty, human “sense-making” and “moral, ethical, and intellectual decisions” remain irreplaceable.61 The “Orient” phase therefore becomes a complex human-machine team. The human commander’s role shifts from data processor (a role the AI has taken) to chief arbiter of AI-generated insights. This new role requires a deep understanding of the AI’s limitations 63 and a new level of critical thinking 64 to know when to trust the machine and when to override it.

The “Decide” Phase: From Deliberation to Algorithmic Recommendation

The “Decide” phase is where a commander, having been “Oriented” by their staff, commits to a Course of Action (COA). The U.S. Army’s traditional Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) is a human-staff-intensive, time-consuming, and linear process.30 In an AI-driven conflict, this legacy framework is too slow.30 AI promises to accelerate this phase from a matter of days or hours to a matter of seconds.

AI-Powered Decision Support Systems (DSS)

The most common application of AI in this phase is the Decision Support System (DSS).35 These are AI tools that ingest the fused data from the “Orient” phase, simulate outcomes 41, and provide “real-time recommendations” to human decision-makers.31 By highlighting threats, suggesting optimal weapon-target pairings, and ranking COAs, these systems “reduce cognitive burden” 41 and “reduce the mental load for operators” 66, allowing commanders to focus on the decision itself.

Automated COA Generation and Wargaming

The true leap forward is the automation of the MDMP itself. AI is being designed to augment or replace nearly every step:

  1. Mission Analysis: AI rapidly processes intelligence to provide a comprehensive understanding of the operational environment.30
  2. COA Development: Instead of a human staff laboring to create 2-3 COAs, AI can “generate a broader spectrum of COAs” 30 by considering “a greater number of factors and permutations than is feasible with traditional manual methods”.30
  3. COA Analysis (Wargaming): AI can then “wargame” these COAs iteratively to analyze potential outcomes.32
  4. Orders Production: AI can “produce and disseminate all downstream orders” automatically, saving hundreds of man-hours.30

Tools like COA-GPT leverage large language models (LLMs) to allow commanders to “input mission specifics… receiving multiple, strategically aligned COAs in a matter of seconds”.32 DARPA’s Strategic Chaos Engine for Planning, Tactics, Experimentation and Resiliency (SCEPTER) program is developing similar technologies for accelerated COA adjudication.69

The impact on tempo is staggering. An Air Force experiment (DASH 2) demonstrated that AI-enabled teams produced COA recommendations in less than ten seconds and generated 30 times more options than human-only teams. In one hour, two AI vendors produced over 6,000 solutions for roughly 20 problems, with accuracy on par with human performance.70

This changes the fundamental nature of the commander’s decision. The cognitive load is not removed; it is shifted. The commander’s task is no longer to generate a good plan. Their task is to judge between thousands of machine-optimized plans, selecting the one that best matches their human intuition, strategic intent, and risk tolerance.13 This is a high-stakes task, especially when the AI’s reasoning may be a “black box” 30, placing an even greater premium on the commander’s experience.

The “Act” Phase: From Human Trigger-Pull to Autonomous Execution

The “Act” phase is the physical implementation of the decision. AI is transforming this phase by enabling systems to “act” with unprecedented speed, precision, and coordination, often without a human directly in the decision loop at the moment of engagement.

Autonomous Weapon Systems (AWS)

An Autonomous Weapon System (AWS) is formally defined as “a weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by an operator”.73 While most current military robots are remotely piloted 36, true AWS are emerging that can execute the “Act” phase on their own, guided by AI algorithms.76

Loitering Munitions (Kamikaze Drones)

The most prevalent example of AI in the “Act” phase is the loitering munition. These systems combine the roles of surveillance and strike into a single platform.38 They can “loiter” over a target area, using their onboard AI to autonomously hunt for targets.

  • Advanced AI chips 77 enable these systems to “autonomously detect, track and engage targets” 78, reducing human workload and shortening the decision cycle.78
  • Systems like Israel’s Spike missile family 78, Harpy and Harop anti-radiation drones 79, and Turkey’s Kargu-2 37 use AI for terminal guidance, autonomous targeting, and precision strikes, even in GPS-denied environments.78

AI-Powered Drone Swarms

Perhaps the most disruptive “Act” capability is the AI-driven drone swarm. This is a new form of “mass” where “swarm intelligence”—inspired by biological systems like ants or bees 37—is used to coordinate the actions of dozens or thousands of simple, cheap, and expendable drones.37

  • AI allows these drones to collaborate, share data, and adapt to losses.37
  • A swarm can overwhelm traditional, expensive air defense systems 37 and execute missions with a high tolerance for attrition.
  • The U.S. (Pentagon’s Replicator program), China, and others are in a race to field this technology.37 This is leading to entirely new forms of combat, such as human-machine teaming (manned aircraft “quarterbacking” AI-piloted drones) 82 and the prospect of “swarm versus swarm” combat.84

Non-Kinetic Action (EW & Cyber)

The “Act” phase is not just kinetic. AI can “act” in the cyber and electromagnetic domains. Cognitive Electronic Warfare (CEW) uses AI and machine learning for “autonomous threat detection, electronic attack, and adaptive response”.40 An AI-driven EW system can, for example, detect a new, unknown enemy radar signal, classify it as a threat, and begin “adaptive jamming” against it, all without human intervention.40 Similarly, AI can be used to autonomously defend networks 41 or direct sophisticated, high-speed cyberattacks.39


Part III: Achieving Decision Dominance: The “Super-OODA Loop” and Its Consequences

The New Battle for Tempo: The “Super-OODA Loop”

The collective result of injecting AI into every phase of the OODA loop is the creation of a “Super-OODA Loop”.87 This is a decision-action cycle that operates at machine speed, capable of processing information and executing tasks “in environments requiring split-second decisions beyond human cognitive limits”.87

This new reality has ignited a 21st-century “AI arms race”.15 Adversaries, particularly China and Russia, are aggressively pursuing AI to enhance the speed, reach, and lethality of their own operations.30 The strategic prize in this new race is not territorial advantage or industrial superiority, but “Decision Dominance”.30

Decision Dominance is the ability to “analyze and contextualize vast streams of structured and unstructured data… to make the right decisions across the Kill Chain faster, more accurately, and more effectively than our adversaries”.91 It is the modern manifestation of Boyd’s “getting inside the enemy’s loop.” The side that achieves decision dominance “owns the tempo and dictates the terms of the fight”.93 This is why the DoD has made AI-enabled decision-making a top strategic priority, allocating $1.8 billion for AI programs in fiscal year 2025.92

This new, AI-driven tempo demands a fundamental shift in doctrine, moving away from slow, sequential warfare and toward “parallel and simultaneous all-domain warfare” that can “generate maximum chaos, friction, and disorientation for the adversary”.55

Redefining Command: Human Judgment in Algorithmic Warfare

The compression of the OODA loop to machine speed raises the single most important question for military strategists: What is the role of the human commander? This has led to widespread and confused discussion about “human-in-the-loop” systems.

The “Human-in-the-Loop” Myth

It is critical to correct a pervasive myth. A common refrain from defense officials is that DoD policy will “always have a human in the loop” to reassure audiences concerned about “killer robots”.94

This statement is factually incorrect. That is not DoD policy.94

The words “human in the loop” do not appear in the governing DoD directive, and this omission was intentional.73 The “loop” language is seen as a “machine-centric” and “misguided” framing 94 that “misrepresents the nature of AI warfare”.94 It creates “unnecessary confusion” 73 by implying a level of continuous tactical oversight that is not even required for existing conventional weapons (e.g., a “fire and forget” missile).73

The Real Framework: DoD Directive 3000.09 and “Appropriate Human Judgment”

The actual U.S. policy is DoD Directive 3000.09, “Autonomy in Weapon Systems” 95, which was updated in 2023.73 This policy does not require a human “in” the loop. It requires “appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force”.73

This is a profound and crucial distinction. The policy’s focus is on accountability, not on a specific technical “loop” configuration. As former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, who wrote the original 2012 directive, explained, the reply “the machine did it” for a tragic, unintended engagement is “unacceptable and immoral”.96 The directive is designed to ensure that a human is always accountable for the decision to employ force, even if the system itself is autonomous.97

“In” vs. “On” the Loop: A More Useful C2 Distinction

While “human-in-the-loop” is not a formal policy term, a more nuanced (though still informal) framework is used by C2 and ethics specialists to describe the actual levels of human involvement 97:

  • Human-in-the-loop: The human is a direct part of the decision cycle. The AI may identify a target, but a human operator must make the final decision to “engage” before the system can act. This preserves human judgment but is slow.
  • Human-on-the-loop: The human is a supervisor. The AI-powered system is authorized to “select and engage” targets autonomously within a set of pre-defined, human-authorized constraints (e.g., rules of engagement, geographic boundaries, target types). The human “oversees” this autonomous operation and has the ability to intervene or “call off” the system.97
  • Human-out-of-the-loop: The human defers all decisions to the autonomous system.97 This is already the standard for defensive systems where the engagement “tempo” is physically impossible for a human to manage, such as a ship’s Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) shooting down an incoming anti-ship missile 99, or the Aegis Combat System.97 The human sets the system to “auto,” and the machine does the rest.

The “on-the-loop” model, supported by trusted and reliable AI, is seen as the most likely future for C2, as it balances the need for machine speed with the requirement for human oversight.98

This is not about “humans versus machines”.100 It is about designing smarter human-machine partnerships.19 The goal is to create what chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov called a “centaur”: a human-plus-machine team.71 Kasparov found that a good human player paired with a good AI could beat even the best “AI-only” supercomputer.

This is the “Strategic Centaur” model.93 In this model, the AI is a “computer partner” that handles the “laborious calculations” of data processing, target recognition, and COA analysis.66 This frees the human commander to “concentrate on strategic planning” 71, “creativity, judgment, innovation” 100, and the “moral, ethical, and intellectual decisions” for which they, and they alone, are responsible.61


Part IV: The Paradox of Algorithmic Warfare: New Vulnerabilities and Strategic Risks

Introduction: The OODA Loop as an Attack Surface

The pursuit of a machine-speed “Super-OODA Loop” is not without profound risks. An expert-level analysis must “red team” its own conclusions. While AI promises unprecedented “decision dominance,” it also introduces catastrophic new vulnerabilities.

By making the OODA loop faster, more complex, and more reliant on automated, algorithmic processes, we have simultaneously transformed the OODA loop itself into a single, high-value, integrated attack surface.101

The AI systems that power our “Observe” and “Orient” phases are not infallible. They are software, and software has vulnerabilities. But unlike traditional software, AI vulnerabilities are not just “bugs”; they are fundamental weaknesses in the AI’s “perception” of reality. An adversary who can exploit these weaknesses does not need to outrun our OODA loop; they can hijack it.

The “Brittleness” of AI: When Models “Go Beyond the Training Set”

The first and most fundamental vulnerability is passive: AI models are “brittle”.30 An AI model—whether for target recognition or enemy COA prediction—is only as good as the data it was trained on.104 These training sets, whether based on synthetic data or “Wikipedia battle narratives” 105, are finite.

War, by its very nature, is a chaotic, novel, and adversarial environment.60 The enemy’s job is to create a situation for which the AI has no “prior example”.60 When an AI system encounters data “outside its training distribution,” it can fail in “bizarre” 106 and unpredictable ways. This includes “hallucinations”—where a model generates plausible-sounding but factually false information.107

An AI-driven targeting system that achieves 99% accuracy in testing 107 is useless if it fails catastrophically in the 1% of combat situations that are novel and high-stakes. This “brittleness” means a commander can never be 100% certain that what their AI-driven “Orient” phase is telling them is true.

The Adversarial Loop: Actively Hacking the OODA Cycle

More dangerous than passive failure is active adversarial attack. An adversary can use “adversarial AI” techniques 108 to target specific phases of our OODA loop.

1. Attacking the “Observe” Phase (Evasion Attacks)

An “evasion attack” 109 is designed to fool an AI’s “senses.” Adversaries can analyze our AI models to find their “blind spots” and then craft “adversarial inputs” to exploit them.108

For example, researchers have famously 3D-printed a turtle with a specific pattern that a Google AI model consistently misclassified as a “rifle”.110 In a military context, an adversary could develop “adversarial patches” or camouflage patterns for their tanks that cause our AI-powered ATR systems to misidentify them as “school buses” 111 or, even worse, misidentify our own friendly vehicles as “enemy” targets.112 This attack shatters the “Observe” phase, making our forces blind to threats and friendly-fire risks. While some analysis suggests these attacks are difficult to deploy in the “real world” 110, the threat remains a critical vulnerability.

2. Attacking the “Orient” Phase (Data Poisoning)

The most insidious and strategically dangerous threat is “data poisoning”.109 This is an attack on the AI’s training data, which occurs long before a conflict ever begins.

An adversary who gains access to our training data can covertly “inject malicious data” 109 to build a “hidden weakness or backdoor” into the finished AI model.113 This compromised model may pass all standard tests, but it will have a secret vulnerability that the enemy can later exploit.

For example, an adversary could subtly “poison” years of our ISR data to teach our predictive “Orient” models that a specific “surrender” formation is actually a high-priority “attack” formation.115 In the opening hours of a conflict, the enemy would display this formation, and our own AI would confidently—and incorrectly—orient our commanders to a false reality, urging them to fall into a trap or commit a war crime. This attack creates a fundamental “mistrust” in targeting algorithms, forcing a reversion to slower, human-only processes and ceding the tempo advantage.115

The “Millisecond Compromise”

This brings the analysis to its most critical point. The entire purpose of the “Super-OODA Loop” (Part III) is to achieve speed. But as security analyst Bruce Schneier argues, this speed can itself be a vulnerability.116

AI “must compress reality into model-legible forms” 117, and that “compression” is where the adversary attacks. When an adversary controls our sensors (via evasion) or our models (via poisoning), “the speed of your OODA loop is irrelevant”.116

In fact, speed becomes a liability. “The faster the loop, the less time for verification”.116 If our “Orient” phase has been poisoned to misidentify a hospital as a high-value target, a faster OODA loop does not help. It simply means we will commit that atrocity faster. This is the “millisecond compromise”.116 We will simply lose, more efficiently and more rapidly than ever before. This new reality demands a new focus on “vigilant risk mitigation” 63 and operational AI “red teaming” to find these vulnerabilities before the enemy does.118

The New Fog of War and Uncontrolled Escalation

The strategic-level consequence of these vulnerabilities is the creation of a new, more complex “fog of war.” AI does not eliminate Clausewitzian “fog”; it creates a “fog of systems”.52 Future commanders will be wrestling not only with the enemy’s intentions, but also with the “black box” nature of their own AI 30, the unreliability of a “brittle” model 107, and the paranoia of a compromised model.

This new “fog” introduces significant “strategic risks” 119, chief among them “miscalculation and escalation”.106 The battlefield will be a confusing landscape of AI-driven misinformation campaigns 120 and autonomous cyberattacks.86

The most alarming scenario, as warned by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), is an autonomous “flash crash”.121 Just as runaway trading algorithms have caused stock market “flash crashes,” two opposing, high-speed, AI-driven OODA loops could interact in an unforeseen, positive-feedback loop.122 This could lead to rapid, uncontrolled, and unintended escalation—potentially to the nuclear threshold—that the human “on-the-loop” supervisors cannot understand or stop in time.123 This is a new and terrifying form of escalation risk, analyzed by institutions like the RAND Corporation 103, and it may even be so destabilizing as to encourage a preventive war by one state trying to stop another from achieving a monopoly on this “AGI” (Artificial General Intelligence) capability.126


Concluding Strategic Assessment: The “Centaur” Imperative

The AI revolution in warfare is not a future prospect; it is here.14 The transformation of Boyd’s OODA loop from a cognitive, human-scale process to an algorithmic, machine-speed cycle is inevitable. The pursuit of “Decision Dominance” is therefore not a choice, but a strategic necessity for the United States and its allies to maintain a competitive edge.128

However, this analysis concludes that victory in the era of algorithmic warfare will not go to the side with the most AI, but to the side that best masters the human-machine team.65

The future of command is the “Strategic Centaur”.71 The goal must be to design systems that “augment and enhance human capabilities,” not “replace human judgment”.30 The AI should be the “co-pilot,” not the “auto-pilot” 97—a partner that frees the human commander from the “laborious calculations” of data processing so they can focus on the enduring human-centric tasks of strategy, intent, and “appropriate human judgment”.71

The central challenge for the Department of Defense is therefore twofold:

  1. The Technical Challenge: To continue building the JADC2 architecture 23 and the AI tools 67 that can successfully “sense, make sense, and act” at a tempo that seizes the initiative.
  2. The Adaptive Challenge: To simultaneously develop the doctrine 30, training 8, and C2 frameworks 100 that integrate these tools with human commanders. This requires training leaders who understand the capabilities of AI but are also deeply skeptical of its “brittleness” and vulnerabilities. It requires building robust ethical frameworks 133 and resilient, continuous AI “red teaming” processes 118 to defend our own OODA loop from the “millisecond compromise”.102

The new OODA loop is one of “hybrid intelligence”.93 The winner of the next war will not be the fastest machine, nor the wisest human, but the “centaur” force that most effectively fuses the speed and computational power of the algorithm with the enduring creativity, judgment, and strategic orientation of the human mind.


Glossary of Acronyms

  • AGI (Artificial General Intelligence): A theoretical, future form of AI that possesses the ability to understand, learn, and apply knowledge across a wide range of tasks at a human or superhuman level.
  • AI (Artificial Intelligence): The theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, and decision-making.
  • ATR (Automated Target Recognition): The use of computer processing and algorithms to automatically detect, classify, and identify targets in sensor data (like images or radar) without human intervention.
  • AWS (Autonomous Weapon System): A weapon system that, once activated, can select and engage targets without further intervention by an operator.73
  • C2 (Command and Control): The exercise of authority and direction by a designated commander over assigned forces to accomplish a mission.22
  • CEW (Cognitive Electronic Warfare): The use of AI and machine learning to enhance Electronic Warfare, allowing systems to autonomously detect, classify, and adaptively respond to new or complex electromagnetic threats.
  • CIWS (Close-In Weapon System): An autonomous defensive weapons system (like the Phalanx) used to detect and destroy short-range incoming threats, such as missiles or aircraft.99
  • CNAS (Center for a New American Security): A U.S.-based defense and national security think tank.
  • COA (Course of Action): A potential plan or line of action developed to accomplish a given mission.
  • COP (Common Operational Picture): A single, shared display of relevant operational information (like friendly and enemy force locations) used to provide situational awareness to commanders.20
  • DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency): The U.S. DoD agency responsible for developing emerging technologies for military use.
  • DoD (Department of Defense): The executive branch department of the U.S. federal government tasked with national security and the armed forces.
  • DSS (Decision Support System): An AI-based tool that assists human commanders by processing data, analyzing options, and providing recommendations to reduce cognitive load.35
  • EW (Electronic Warfare): Military action involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum to attack an enemy or protect friendly forces, such as jamming enemy radar or communications.
  • FMV (Full-Motion Video): Video data collected, often by UAVs, that provides real-time observation of a target area.49
  • ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance): An integrated military function to collect, process, and disseminate information about an adversary and the operational environment.49
  • JADC2 (Joint All-Domain Command and Control): The DoD’s concept to connect sensors, systems, and forces from all military services (land, air, sea, space, cyber) into a single, resilient network to enable rapid “sense, make sense, and act” decision-making.
  • LLM (Large Language Model): A type of AI model trained on vast amounts of text data, capable of understanding and generating human-like language, used in tools like COA-GPT.72
  • MDMP (Military Decision-Making Process): The U.S. Army’s formal seven-step planning methodology used by staffs at the battalion level and higher to analyze a mission, develop and compare COAs, and produce an operation order.
  • OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act): A four-stage decision-making model, developed by Col. John Boyd, that describes how an entity reacts to a competitive and changing environment.3
  • PED (Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination): The intelligence cycle step of converting collected data (like FMV) into usable intelligence and distributing it to the forces who need it.49
  • SCEPTER (Strategic Chaos Engine for Planning, Tactics, Experimentation and Resiliency): A DARPA program developing technologies for accelerated wargaming and adjudication of COAs.69
  • UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle): An aircraft without a human pilot on board, often referred to as a drone. It can be remotely piloted or fly autonomously.49

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


Sources Used

  1. OODA loop – Wikipedia, accessed November 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop
  2. The OODA Loop: How Fighter Pilots Make Fast and Accurate Decisions – Farnam Street, accessed November 16, 2025, https://fs.blog/ooda-loop/
  3. The OODA Loop – The Decision Lab, accessed November 16, 2025, https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/computer-science/the-ooda-loop
  4. The OODA Loop — Observe, Orient, Decide, Act – LessWrong, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hgttKuASB55zjoCKd/the-ooda-loop-observe-orient-decide-act
  5. OODA loop | Research Starters – EBSCO, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/ooda-loop
  6. The OODA Loop and the Half-Beat – Canada.ca, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/maple-leaf/defence/2023/11/ooda-loop-halfbeat.html
  7. Competitive Decision-Making: Using the OODA Loop – Decisionskills.com, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.decisionskills.com/blog/competitive-decision-making-using-the-ooda-loop
  8. A Symbiotic Relationship: The OODA Loop, Intuition, and Strategic Thought – DTIC, accessed November 16, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA590672.pdf
  9. A Discourse on Winning and Losing – Colonel John Boyd, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.coljohnboyd.com/static/documents/2018-03__Boyd_John_R__edited_Hammond_Grant_T__A_Discourse_on_Winning_and_Losing.pdf
  10. Colonel John Boyds Thoughts on Disruption – Marine Corps University, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-vol-14-no-1/Colonel-John-Boyds-Thoughts-on-Disruption/
  11. A Decision for Strategic Effects: A conceptual approach to effects based targeting – Air University, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Chronicles/Hill.pdf
  12. Boyd’s OODA Loop – Slightly East of New, accessed November 16, 2025, https://slightlyeastofnew.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/boydsoodaloopnecesse-1.pdf
  13. Revisiting John Boyd and the OODA Loop in Our Time of Transformation | www.dau.edu, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.dau.edu/library/damag/september-october2021/revisiting-john-boyd
  14. Defence and artificial intelligence – European Parliament, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/769580/EPRS_BRI(2025)769580_EN.pdf
  15. Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Warfare – Finabel, accessed November 16, 2025, https://finabel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/FFT-AI-and-the-future-of-warfare-ED.pdf
  16. Air Force Doctrine Note 25-1, Artificial Intelligence (AI), accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_25-1/AFDN%2025-1%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf
  17. Joint All-Domain Command and Control for Modern Warfare: An Analytic Framework for Identifying and Developing Artificial Intelligence Applications | RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4408z1.html
  18. DoD Announces Release of JADC2 Implementation Plan – Department of War, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2970094/dod-announces-release-of-jadc2-implementation-plan/
  19. Transcending the fog of war? US military ‘AI’, vision, and the emergent post-scopic regime | European Journal of International Security – Cambridge University Press & Assessment, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-international-security/article/transcending-the-fog-of-war-us-military-ai-vision-and-the-emergent-postscopic-regime/35BCDEE8E28B076BCD597AFDC8976824
  20. The AI & Analytics Connectivity Imperative for JADC2 | Sigma Defense, accessed November 16, 2025, https://sigmadefense.com/blog/the-ai-and-analytics-connectivity-imperative-for-jadc2/
  21. JADC2: Accelerating the OODA Loop With AI and Autonomy – RTI, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rti.com/blog/jadc2-the-ooda-loop
  22. Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control Strategy – DoD, accessed November 16, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf
  23. Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office > Initiatives > CJADC2, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.ai.mil/Initiatives/CJADC2/
  24. AI-Enabled Fusion for Conflicting Sensor Data – Booz Allen, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.boozallen.com/markets/defense/indo-pacific/ai-enabled-fusion-for-conflicting-sensor-data.html
  25. Sentry | Anduril, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.anduril.com/hardware/sentry/
  26. Project Maven – Wikipedia, accessed November 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven
  27. Automatic target recognition – Wikipedia, accessed November 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_target_recognition
  28. The Coming Military AI Revolution – Army University Press, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2024/MJ-24-Glonek/
  29. Seeing More Than the Human Eye – AI as a Battlefield Analyst | TTMS, accessed November 16, 2025, https://ttms.com/seeing-more-than-the-human-eye-ai-as-a-battlefield-analyst/
  30. Modernizing Military Decision-Making: Integrating AI into Army Planning, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2025-OLE/Modernizing-Military-Decision-Making/
  31. Joint Force Coordination for Full Scale Operations – Booz Allen, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.boozallen.com/insights/defense/c2-command-and-control/joint-force-coordination-for-full-scale-operations.html
  32. Harnessing the Algorithm: Shaping the Future of AI-Enabled Staff – AUSA, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.ausa.org/publications/harding-paper/harnessing-the-algorithm
  33. accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/it-time-democratize-wargaming-using-generative-ai#:~:text=Incorporating%20AI%20into%20wargames%20can,analysis%20of%20strategy%20and%20decisionmaking.&text=Analysts%20can%20train%20models%20using,datasets%20to%20represent%20different%20stakeholders.
  34. Understanding the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Warfighters: Volume 4, Wargames, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1722-4.html
  35. Artificial intelligence in military decision-making: supporting humans, not replacing them, accessed November 16, 2025, https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/08/29/artificial-intelligence-in-military-decision-making-supporting-humans-not-replacing-them/
  36. Lethal autonomous weapon – Wikipedia, accessed November 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_autonomous_weapon
  37. Drone Wars: Developments in Drone Swarm Technology – Defense Security Monitor, accessed November 16, 2025, https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2025/01/21/drone-wars-developments-in-drone-swarm-technology/
  38. Loitering Munitions – Sightline Intelligence, accessed November 16, 2025, https://sightlineintelligence.com/loitering-munitions/
  39. The Rise of AI-Driven Warfare – Nihon Cyber Defence, accessed November 16, 2025, https://nihoncyberdefence.co.jp/en/the-rise-of-ai-driven-warfare/
  40. AI-Driven Cybersecurity & Electronic Warfare Market in Defense – MarketsandMarkets, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ResearchInsight/ai-driven-cybersecurity-electronic-warfare-market.asp
  41. AI Impact Analysis on US Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) Market Industry, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ResearchInsight/ai-impact-analysis-on-us-joint-all-domain-command-and-control-jadc2-market-industry.asp
  42. Achieving Information Dominance in Military Applications through AI, Sensor Fusion, Networking, Precision Timing, and Advanced Computing – Trenton Systems, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.trentonsystems.com/en-us/resource-hub/blog/achieving-information-dominance-in-military-applications-through-ai-sensor-fusion-networking-precision-timing-and-advanced-computing
  43. Aided and Automatic Target Recognition – CoVar, accessed November 16, 2025, https://covar.com/technology-area/aided-target-recognition/
  44. Autonomous Surveillance: A Game Changer for Military Intelligence – Karve International, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.karveinternational.com/insights/autonomous-surveillance-a-game-changer-for-military-intelligence
  45. The Rise of Autonomous Security Systems: From Drones to AI, accessed November 16, 2025, https://aressecuritycorp.com/2024/11/20/autonomous-security-systems/
  46. Editorial: Applications of AI in autonomous, surveillance, and robotic systems – PMC – NIH, accessed November 16, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12179431/
  47. Artificial Intelligence and National Security | Congress.gov, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45178
  48. Project Maven: Algorithmic Warfare Doctrine – Ultra Unlimited, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.ultra-unlimited.com/blog/project-maven-algorithmic-warfare-doctrine
  49. Big Data at War: Special Operations Forces, Project Maven, and …, accessed November 16, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/big-data-at-war-special-operations-forces-project-maven-and-twenty-first-century-warfare/
  50. Project Maven to Deploy Computer Algorithms to War Zone by Year’s End, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1254719/project-maven-to-deploy-computer-algorithms-to-war-zone-by-years-end/
  51. Use Cases for Automatic Target Recognition in the Military – FlySight, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.flysight.it/automatic-target-recognition-for-military-use-whats-the-potential/
  52. Fog, Friction, and Thinking Machines – War on the Rocks, accessed November 16, 2025, https://warontherocks.com/2020/03/fog-friction-and-thinking-machines/
  53. Steps toward AI governance in the military domain – Brookings Institution, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/steps-toward-ai-governance-in-the-military-domain/
  54. The risks and inefficacies of AI systems in military targeting support, accessed November 16, 2025, https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/09/04/the-risks-and-inefficacies-of-ai-systems-in-military-targeting-support/
  55. Reimagining Military C2 in the Age of AI – Revolution, Regression, or Evolution – Special Competitive Studies Project, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.scsp.ai/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/DPS-Reimagining-Military-C2-in-the-Age-of-AI.pdf
  56. Joint All-Domain Command and Control for Modern Warfare: An Analytic Framework for Identifying and Developing Artificial Intelli – RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR4400/RR4408z1/RAND_RR4408z1.pdf
  57. Constructing adversarial models for threat/enemy intent prediction and inferencing – ResearchGate, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252856510_Constructing_adversarial_models_for_threatenemy_intent_prediction_and_inferencing
  58. The Predictive Turn | Preparing to Outthink Adversaries Through Predictive Analytics, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/282476/the_predictive_turn_preparing_to_outthink_adversaries_through_predictive_analytics
  59. WE NEED AN AI-BASED ENEMY ANALYSIS TOOL … NOW!, accessed November 16, 2025, https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/enemy-analysis-tool-now/
  60. Prediction and Judgment: Why Artificial Intelligence Increases the Importance of Humans in War | International Security – MIT Press Direct, accessed November 16, 2025, https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/46/3/7/109668/Prediction-and-Judgment-Why-Artificial
  61. Georgia Tech Researcher Finds that Military Cannot Rely on AI for Strategy or Judgment, accessed November 16, 2025, https://research.gatech.edu/georgia-tech-researcher-finds-military-cannot-rely-ai-strategy-or-judgment
  62. Study: AI Will Make Human Factors More, Not Less, Critical in War | Mind Matters, accessed November 16, 2025, https://mindmatters.ai/2022/07/study-ai-will-make-human-factors-more-not-less-critical-in-war/
  63. AI for Military Decision-Making | Center for Security and Emerging Technology – CSET, accessed November 16, 2025, https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/ai-for-military-decision-making/
  64. Warfare at the Speed of Thought: Balancing AI and Critical Thinking for the Military Leaders of Tomorrow – Modern War Institute, accessed November 16, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/warfare-at-the-speed-of-thought-balancing-ai-and-critical-thinking-for-the-military-leaders-of-tomorrow/
  65. Air Force Battle Lab advances the kill chain with AI, C2 Innovation – AF.mil, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4241485/air-force-battle-lab-advances-the-kill-chain-with-ai-c2-innovation/
  66. Artificial Intelligence in Modern Warfare: Strategic Innovation and Emerging Risks, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/SO-24/SO-24-Artificial-Intelligence-Strategic-Innovation-and-Emerging-Risks/
  67. AI’s New Frontier in War Planning: How AI Agents Can Revolutionize Military Decision-Making | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/ais-new-frontier-war-planning-how-ai-agents-can-revolutionize-military-decision
  68. COA-GPT: Generative Pre-trained Transformers for Accelerated Course of Action Development in Military Operations This research was sponsored by the Army Research Laboratory and was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement Number W911NF-23-2-0072. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the – arXiv, accessed November 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2402.01786v1
  69. SBIR: Improving Battle Planning through AI – DARPA, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/improving-battle-planning-through-ai
  70. Air Force experiments with AI, boosts battle management speed and accuracy, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.aflcmc.af.mil/NEWS/Article/4311136/air-force-experiments-with-ai-boosts-battle-management-speed-and-accuracy/
  71. Four-Dimensional Planning at the Speed of Relevance: Artificial-Intelligence-Enabled Military Decision-Making Process – Army University Press, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/ND-22/Farmer/Farmer-Clausewitz%E2%80%99s-Ghost-UA.pdf
  72. AI Course of Action (COA) Generation for Defense – Seekr, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.seekr.com/solution/coa-generation/
  73. Autonomous Weapon Systems: No Human-in-the-Loop Required …, accessed November 16, 2025, https://warontherocks.com/2025/05/autonomous-weapon-systems-no-human-in-the-loop-required-and-other-myths-dispelled/
  74. Exploring the 2023 U.S. Directive on Autonomy in Weapon Systems – CEBRI, accessed November 16, 2025, https://cebri.org/revista/en/artigo/114/exploring-the-2023-us-directive-on-autonomy-in-weapon-systems
  75. A Comparative Analysis of the Definitions of Autonomous Weapons Systems – PMC, accessed November 16, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9399191/
  76. RESEARCH BRIEF SENDING UP A FLARE: AUTONOMOUS WEAPONS SYSTEMS PROLIFERATION RISKS TO HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.geneva-academy.ch/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Sending%20Up%20a%20Flare%20Autonomous%20Weapons%20Systems%20Proliferation%20Risks.pdf
  77. The rise of loitering munitions in high-intensity warfare – Army Technology, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.army-technology.com/analyst-comment/loitering-munitions-high-intensity-warfare/
  78. AI-Powered Loitering Munition Systems Set New Standard for Battlefield Autonomy, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.autonomyglobal.co/ai-powered-loitering-munition-systems-set-new-standard-for-battlefield-autonomy/
  79. AI in warfare: Loitering Munitions – Current Applications and Legal Challenges, accessed November 16, 2025, https://mondointernazionale.org/focus-allegati/ai-in-warfare-loitering-munitions-current-applications-and-legal-challenges
  80. Loitering Munitions: The Convergence of AI, Autonomy, and Lethal Precision in Future Combat by 2029 – MarketsandMarkets, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/blog/AD/loitering-munitions-convergence-ai-autonomy-lethal-precision-future-combat
  81. Military Drone Swarm Intelligence Explained – Sentient Digital, Inc., accessed November 16, 2025, https://sdi.ai/blog/military-drone-swarm-intelligence-explained/
  82. AI in the military: Testing a new kind of air force, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwDSpFufs6k
  83. AI military drone maker reveals the FUTURE of warfare, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8SOilhEqmw
  84. AI-controlled drone swarms arms race to dominate the near-future battlefield – YouTube, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2O17B4R7Rc
  85. Electronic Warfare Cyberattacks, Countermeasures and Modern Defensive Strategies of UAV Avionics: A Survey – arXiv, accessed November 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2504.07358v1
  86. Navigating the AI battlefield: Opportunities and ethical frontiers – NRDC Italy, accessed November 16, 2025, https://nrdc-ita.nato.int/newsroom/insights/navigating-the-ai-battlefield-opportunities–challenges–and-ethical-frontiers-in-modern-warfare
  87. Will AI-Driven “Super-OODA Loops” Revolutionise Military Strategy and Operations? – RSIS, accessed November 16, 2025, https://rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/will-ai-driven-super-ooda-loops-revolutionise-military-strategy-and-operations/
  88. War, Artificial Intelligence, and the Future of Conflict – Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, accessed November 16, 2025, https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2024/07/12/war-artificial-intelligence-and-the-future-of-conflict/
  89. Achieving Decision Dominance: The Arduous Pursuit of Operationalized Data, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2025/Decision-Dominance/
  90. Achieving Decision Dominance: Leveraging AI in Small Wars, accessed November 16, 2025, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/04/22/achieving-decision-dominance-leveraging-ai-in-small-wars/
  91. What is Decision Dominance, and why is it necessary in the Age of AI – Smack Technologies, accessed November 16, 2025, https://smacktechnologies.com/newsroom/what-is-decision-dominance-why-necessary-age-of-ai
  92. Decision Dominance in the Age of Agentic AI | Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University, accessed November 16, 2025, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/10/03/agentic-ai-decision-dominance/
  93. Strategic Centaurs: Harnessing Hybrid Intelligence for the Speed of AI-Enabled War, accessed November 16, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/strategic-centaurs-harnessing-hybrid-intelligence-for-the-speed-of-ai-enabled-war/
  94. Please Stop Saying “Human-In-The-Loop” – Institute for Future …, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.ifc.usafa.edu/articles/please-stop-saying-human-in-the-loop
  95. DoD Directive 3000.09, “Autonomy in Weapon Systems,” January 25, 2023 – Executive Services Directorate, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.esd.whs.mil/portals/54/documents/dd/issuances/dodd/300009p.pdf
  96. The Moral Dimension of AI-Assisted Decision-Making: Some Practical Perspectives from the Front Lines | American Academy of Arts and Sciences, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/moral-dimension-ai-assisted-decision-making-some-practical-perspectives-front-lines
  97. Killer bots instead of killer robots: Updates to DoD Directive 3000.09 may create legal implications – The Cyber Defense Review, accessed November 16, 2025, https://cyberdefensereview.army.mil/Portals/6/Documents/2023_Summer/Erickson_CDR%20V8N2%20Summer%202023.pdf?ver=bIGK4_BcR8UvUwRAz69JUw%3D%3D
  98. Human-On-the-Loop – Joint Air Power Competence Centre, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.japcc.org/essays/human-on-the-loop/
  99. Autonomous weapon systems: is a practical approach possible? – Euro-sd, accessed November 16, 2025, https://euro-sd.com/2024/04/articles/37561/autonomous-weapon-systems-is-a-practical-approach-possible/
  100. Human in the Loop vs. Human on the Loop: Navigating the Future of AI – Serco, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.serco.com/na/media-and-news/2025/human-in-the-loop-vs-human-on-the-loop-navigating-the-future-of-ai
  101. Navigating cyber vulnerabilities in AI-enabled military systems, accessed November 16, 2025, https://europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/navigating-cyber-vulnerabilities-in-ai-enabled-military-systems/
  102. Safety and War: Safety and Security Assurance of Military AI Systems – AI Now Institute, accessed November 16, 2025, https://ainowinstitute.org/publications/safety-and-war-safety-and-security-assurance-of-military-ai-systems
  103. Strategic competition in the age of AI: Emerging risks and opportunities from military use of artificial intelligence – RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA3200/RRA3295-1/RAND_RRA3295-1.pdf
  104. Operationally Relevant Artificial Training for Machine Learning – RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA683-1.html
  105. AI Still in Experimentation Phase for Training, Simulations – National Defense Magazine, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/11/10/ai-still-in-experimentation-phase-for-training-simulations
  106. Reducing the Risks of Artificial Intelligence for Military Decision Advantage | Center for Security and Emerging Technology – CSET, accessed November 16, 2025, https://cset.georgetown.edu/publication/reducing-the-risks-of-artificial-intelligence-for-military-decision-advantage/
  107. Rethinking Technological Readiness in the Era of AI Uncertainty – arXiv, accessed November 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2506.11001v1
  108. Adversarial AI: Understanding and Mitigating the Threat – Sysdig, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.sysdig.com/learn-cloud-native/adversarial-ai-understanding-and-mitigating-the-threat
  109. Risks and Mitigation Strategies for Adversarial Artificial Intelligence Threats: A DHS S&T Study – Homeland Security, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/23_1222_st_risks_mitigation_strategies.pdf
  110. Operational Feasibility of Adversarial Attacks Against Artificial Intelligence – RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA800/RRA866-1/RAND_RRA866-1.pdf
  111. Artificial Intelligence, Real Risks: Understanding—and Mitigating—Vulnerabilities in the Military Use of AI – Modern War Institute, accessed November 16, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/artificial-intelligence-real-risks-understanding-and-mitigating-vulnerabilities-in-the-military-use-of-ai/
  112. Adversarial Machine Learning – Joint Air Power Competence Centre, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.japcc.org/essays/adversarial-machine-learning/
  113. Attacking Artificial Intelligence: AI’s Security Vulnerability and What Policymakers Can Do About It | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/AttackingAI
  114. Securing Our Sentinels: Protecting Military AI Models from Data Poisoning, Evasion, and Extraction – AFCEA International, accessed November 16, 2025, https://events.afcea.org/Augusta25/Custom/Handout/Speaker0_Session11983_1.pdf
  115. Data Poisoning as a Covert Weapon: Securing U.S. Military Superiority in AI-Driven Warfare, accessed November 16, 2025, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/data-poisoning-covert-weapon-securing-us-military-superiority-ai-driven-warfare/
  116. Agentic AI’s OODA Loop Problem – Schneier on Security, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2025/10/agentic-ais-ooda-loop-problem.html
  117. Agentic AI’s OODA Loop Problem – Berkman Klein Center, accessed November 16, 2025, https://cyber.harvard.edu/story/2025-10/agentic-ais-ooda-loop-problem
  118. SABER: Securing Artificial Intelligence for Battlefield Effective Robustness – DARPA, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/saber-securing-artificial-intelligence
  119. Military Applications of Artificial Intelligence: Ethical Concerns in an Uncertain World | RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3139-1.html
  120. Weaponized AI: A New Era of Threats and How We Can Counter It – Ash Center, accessed November 16, 2025, https://ash.harvard.edu/articles/weaponized-ai-a-new-era-of-threats/
  121. How Adversarial Attacks Could Destabilize Military AI Systems – CNAS, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.cnas.org/publications/commentary/how-adversarial-attacks-could-destabilize-military-ai-systems
  122. Algorithmic Stability: How AI Could Shape the Future of Deterrence – CSIS, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/algorithmic-stability-how-ai-could-shape-future-deterrence
  123. Algorithms of war: The use of artificial intelligence in decision making in armed conflict, accessed November 16, 2025, https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2023/10/24/algorithms-of-war-use-of-artificial-intelligence-decision-making-armed-conflict/
  124. Strategic competition in the age of AI: Emerging risks and opportunities from military use of artificial intelligence—Summary – RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA3200/RRA3295-1/RAND_RRA3295-1.summary.pdf
  125. An AI Revolution in Military Affairs? How Artificial Intelligence Could Reshape Future Warfare – RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/WRA4000/WRA4004-1/RAND_WRA4004-1.pdf
  126. Evaluating the Risks of Preventive Attack in the Race for Advanced AI – RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA3691-13.html
  127. Human Oversight in AI-Driven Defence – at what positions do we need the Human in the Loop – NATO C2COE, accessed November 16, 2025, https://c2coe.org/download/human-oversight-in-ai-driven-defence-at-what-positions-do-we-need-the-human-in-the-loop/
  128. Achieving Decision Dominance in the Age of AI – Everfox, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.everfox.com/blog/news/achieving-decision-dominance-in-the-age-of-ai
  129. Achieving Decision Dominance through Convergence: The U.S. Army and JADC2 | AUSA, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.ausa.org/publications/achieving-decision-dominance-through-convergence-us-army-and-jadc2
  130. The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Military Defence and Security – Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.cigionline.org/documents/2120/no.263.pdf
  131. Understanding the Limits of Artificial Intelligence for Warfighters: Volume 5, Mission Planning | RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1722-5.html
  132. The Impact Of Artificial Intelligence On The Military Decision-Making Process And Mission Command – The Defence Horizon Journal, accessed November 16, 2025, https://tdhj.org/blog/post/ai-military-decision-making-2/
  133. Responsible and Ethical Military AI | CSET, accessed November 16, 2025, https://cset.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/CSET-Responsible-and-Ethical-Military-AI.pdf

Automated Course of Action Generation – Army SBIR|STTR Program, accessed November 16, 2025, https://armysbir.army.mil/topics/automated-course-action-generation/

The Augmented Operator: AI’s Near-Term Impact on Special Operations Forces (2025-2030)

This report assesses the near-term (2025-2030) impacts of artificial intelligence (AI) on first-world Special Operations Forces (SOF). The central finding is that the next five years will be defined not by the invention of new AI, but by its migration from centralized, high-echelon intelligence platforms to the “tactical edge”.1 This decentralization is a strategic necessity, driven by SOF’s operational requirement to function in disconnected, disrupted, intermittent, or limited (DDIL) communications environments where reliance on cloud-based processing is not viable.2

The primary operational impact will be the creation of the “augmented operator.” This operator will leverage AI as both a sensor and a weapon, processed directly on-device. This will manifest as:

  1. AI-Driven Situational Awareness (SA): Operator-worn systems will provide real-time, AI-generated overlays, identifying threats, “blue forces,” and navigational paths, even in GPS-denied environments.5
  2. On-Device Human Interface: AI will enable offline, real-time language translation 8 and multi-modal biometric identification 9, revolutionizing Foreign Internal Defense (FID) and Unconventional Warfare (UW) missions.
  3. Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T): Operators will move from controlling single drones to directing AI-coordinated swarms of loitering munitions 10 and, potentially, ground-controlled Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs).12

This opportunity is mirrored by extreme, symmetric risk. The “democratization” of AI 14 means adversaries, including violent non-state actors (VNSAs), will leverage the same commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies against SOF.15 The most immediate threats are adversarial AI-powered drone swarms 16 and Generative AI (GenAI)-based deepfakes and propaganda designed to shatter trust in partner-force missions.18

The greatest dangers, however, are institutional and internal:

  • Cognitive Skill Atrophy: Over-reliance on AI planning tools (e.g., COA-GPT) risks the erosion of core staff planning and decision-making capabilities.21
  • The “Black Box” Problem: Fielding non-transparent AI for targeting creates catastrophic legal and ethical liabilities under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).22
  • Accelerated, Flawed Targeting: The misuse of AI to “accelerate the kill chain” 24 at the expense of human judgment—as demonstrated in the 2021 Kabul drone strike 25—presents the single greatest risk for strategic failure and high-profile civilian harm (CIVHARM).

SOF leadership must immediately prioritize the procurement of explainable, decentralized “Edge AI” systems, mandate aggressive “Red Team” AI testing (including data poisoning) 27, and implement training protocols that actively combat skill atrophy and automation bias.

2.0. SUMMARY TABLE: AI IMPACT ON SOF CORE ACTIVITIES (2025-2030)

The following table maps projected AI impacts directly to the doctrinal core activities of first-world SOF.28

SOF Core ActivityKey AI Opportunity (Technology & Application)Operational Impact (The “So What”)Key Risk / VulnerabilityRelevant Technologies
Direct Action (DA)AI-enabled loitering munitions (LMs) and autonomous swarms.Provides scalable, overwhelming, and precise fires from a small-footprint team. A single operator can achieve the kinetic effect of a much larger unit.Adversary VNSA COTS AI swarms overwhelm SOF C-UAS and base defenses.15XTEND ACQME-DK 10, Rafael Spike family 32, Anduril YFQ-44A (CCA).33
Special Reconnaissance (SR)On-device, AI-powered Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) and pattern-of-life (PoL) analysis on small UAS (sUAS) and wearable sensors.Reduces operator cognitive load. Enables persistent, autonomous surveillance in DDIL environments. Fuses multi-sensor data into actionable intelligence at the edge.34High risk of “black box” targeting logic.22 Misidentification based on flawed PoL analysis leads to catastrophic CIVHARM and mission failure.24Anduril EagleEye 5, VIO Navigation 6, Project Maven.36
Counter-Terrorism (CT)AI-driven multi-source data fusion (e.g., SIGINT, HUMINT, ISR) for HVT targeting. Predictive analytics for threat anticipation.Fuses massive, disparate datasets 37 to unmask clandestine networks. Shifts targeting from reactive (find-fix-finish) to proactive (predict-disrupt).Data Poisoning: Adversary covertly compromises training data, causing the AI to miss threats or, worse, identify friendlies as targets.27Torch.AI ORCUS 37, Palantir AI, Reveal-tech Identifi.9
Unconventional Warfare (UW) & Foreign Internal Defense (FID)Wearable, real-time, offline language translation devices. On-device, offline multi-modal biometric identification.Dramatically enhances human interface. Allows operators to rapidly build rapport, vet partner forces, and identify insider threats without a network connection.9Adversary use of COTS AI (translation, biometrics) for counter-intelligence, building databases of SOF operators and their local partners.20Reveal-tech Identifi 9, Timekettle WT2 8, Meta Ray-Ban.8
Military Info. Support Ops (MISO)Generative AI (LLMs) for high-speed audience analysis and content generation.Overcomes MISO force capacity shortfalls.40 Enables rapid, culturally-resonant, and scalable influence campaigns to counter adversary propaganda in real time.41Adversary “deepfakes” and GenAI-powered disinformation 18 are faster and more believable, shattering trust in SOF and partner forces.COA-GPT 21, GPT-4/5 derivatives 42, Llama-series LLMs.
Civil Affairs Operations (CAO)AI-powered data-mining and sentiment analysis of local populations. LLMs for rapid generation of civil-affairs products (e.g., pamphlets, info-sheets).Provides real-time understanding of “human terrain” needs, grievances, and key nodes of influence. Allows CA teams to rapidly meet information needs.43AI hallucinations 42 or biases in the training data lead to factually incorrect or culturally offensive products, causing catastrophic loss of trust.Open-source LLMs 41, commercial translation tools.44
Logistics / ResupplyAutonomous Unmanned Ground Vehicles (A-UGVs) or “robotic mules.”Promise: Unburdens light SOF teams, provides autonomous “last-mile” resupply, and enables robotic CASEVAC.45Reality: A-UGV mobility in “complex terrain” (e.g., non-permissive routes) is an unsolved R&D problem. Over-reliance will lead to mission failure.47Rheinmetall Mission Master 45, Army S-MET.47

3.0. OPPORTUNITIES: AI INTEGRATION ACROSS SOF CORE ACTIVITIES

In the 2025-2030 timeframe, AI will not be a single technology but a new, pervasive layer of capability integrated across all SOF mission sets. Its primary value will be to compress decision cycles, augment operator perception, and scale operator effects.

3.1. Intelligence, Planning, and C5ISTAR: From “Big Data” to Decision Advantage

The core challenge for SOF intelligence is not data collection, but data sense-making. Operators and analysts are overwhelmed by fragmented feeds from sensors, ISR platforms, and electronic warfare (EW) systems.50 AI offers a direct solution to this cognitive burden by automating fusion and analysis.

AI-Driven Multi-Source Fusion

In the next five years, AI-driven data platforms will become the standard. Systems like Torch.AI’s ORCUS, which is “battle-proven” in over three dozen DoD deployments, are designed to break down information silos.37 This technology moves beyond simple data aggregation. It uses AI to autonomously integrate structured and unstructured data from multiple classified and unclassified sources—including ISR platforms, battlefield sensors, and cyber threats—in real time.37 For a SOF command, this means an intelligence analyst can receive a single, fused operational picture that correlates a SIGINT “hit,” a full-motion video (FMV) feed, and a human intelligence report, providing actionable intelligence rather than just more data.51

Predictive Analytics & Pattern-of-Life

This fused data layer enables the next step: predictive analytics. AI models, particularly machine learning and deep learning 54, excel at “pattern-of-life” (PoL) analysis.55 Where a human analyst team (e.g., in Project Maven 36) might manually tag FMV, an AI can process thousands of hours of multi-domain sensor data to identify and “learn” an adversary’s habits, schedules, and networks.57 This capability is migrating to the tactical edge.58 This will allow a SOF team to move from reacting to an HVT’s location to proactively anticipating the target’s next move, enabling threat mitigation and proactive strategy.59

Automated COA Generation

The Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) is notoriously time- and resource-intensive, ill-suited for the “fleeting windows of opportunity” typical of SOF operations.60 AI-powered planning tools, such as the in-development Course of Action GPT (COA-GPT), promise to revolutionize this process.21 These tools leverage LLMs, military doctrine, and domain expertise to “swiftly develop valid COAs… in a matter of seconds”.61 A commander can input mission specifics (text and images) and receive multiple, strategically-aligned, and pre-wargamed COAs.61 This technology addresses a core weakness of manual MDMP, where staffs are often constrained to analyzing only the “most likely” and “most dangerous” enemy COAs.60 By using AI to generate a “broader spectrum of COAs” 60, commanders and staffs are freed from manual product generation and can focus on the higher-order cognitive tasks of analysis, comparison, and human judgment.21

3.2. Direct Action (DA) & Counter-Terrorism (CT): The AI-Enabled Kill Chain

In kinetic operations, AI will provide SOF teams with unprecedented, scalable precision and lethality. This will be most evident in the maturation of autonomous weapons systems.

Autonomous Swarms & Loitering Munitions (LMs)

This is the most significant near-term kinetic impact. The DoD is already moving to procure AI-enabled swarm systems, such as the XTEND ACQME-DK, specifically for “irregular warfare”.10 These systems are not just multiple drones; they are AI-coordinated “cohesive units”.62 AI manages the complex task delegation and swarm coordination 11, allowing a single SOF operator to deploy dozens of assets for tasks ranging from ISR and EW to overwhelming, precision strikes. This distributed, resilient approach is exceptionally difficult for an adversary to counter.64

Simultaneously, AI is enhancing individual loitering munitions. Current LMs are “man-in-the-loop.” The next generation, such as Israel’s Spike family 32 and MBDA’s Akeron 65, are “AI-in-the-loop.” These systems use onboard AI and machine learning to autonomously detect, track, and engage targets without continuous human guidance.32 This is a critical capability in a comms-denied or GPS-denied environment. The LM can be launched to “hunt” in a designated area, using its own AI to identify and engage a pre-defined target profile, immune to hostile electronic warfare.32

Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) & Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCAs)

AI is the cognitive “brain” that makes true Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) possible.68 MUM-T is defined as the “synchronized employment of soldier, manned and unmanned air and ground vehicles, robotics, and sensors” to enhance lethality and survivability.69

The most revolutionary development in this area is the Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) program.68 These are AI-piloted, jet-powered “loyal wingmen”.68 While often viewed as an Air Force asset to support F-35s 33, the program’s development includes “ground control interfaces”.12 This implies a profound shift for SOF: a ground-based operator, such as a SOF-qualified JTAC, could soon exercise tactical control over a CCA like the Anduril YFQ-44A “Fury”.33

This capability would fundamentally change the battlefield for a SOF team. The team’s “air support” would no longer be a temporary asset on station; it would be a persistent, autonomous platform (a “loyal wingman”) that can be tasked directly by the ground element to perform autonomous ISR, provide EW screening, or conduct precision strikes.72 This integration of SOF C5ISTAR 77 with autonomous air assets represents an asymmetric leap in kinetic power, effectively giving a small SOF team the scalable kinetic effect of a much larger conventional force.

3.3. Military Information Support Operations (MISO): GenAI and the Influence Domain

The influence domain is perhaps the area most poised for immediate disruption by Generative AI (LLMs). The Army’s PSYOP (MISO) force is currently facing “structural and capacity challenges,” unable to meet growing global demand with an understaffed force.40 GenAI offers a direct solution to this “force multiplier” problem.

MISO planning is “extraordinarily difficult,” with a standard operation taking months.42 AI can compress this timeline to minutes.

  1. Automated Audience & Sentiment Analysis: LLMs can “scrutinize” and “summarize” massive, multilingual datasets from the information environment (e.g., social media, local news) to extract an adversary’s “goals, tactics, and narrative frames”.41 This automates the most time-consuming phase of MISO (Target Audience Analysis), allowing planners to understand the information “battlespace” in real time.43
  2. Hyper-Personalized Content Generation: Once an audience is analyzed, GenAI can “generate content, such as text and images, within seconds”.42 This capability moves MISO beyond generic products (like leaflets) to hyper-personalized digital campaigns. A MISO team can use AI to rapidly generate thousands of variants of a message, each tailored to a specific cultural or demographic sub-group, and disseminate them “at the speed of conflict”.42

This industrialization of MISO allows a small PSYOP team to conduct influence operations at a scale and speed that was previously impossible. The “human quality controller” 42 remains critical, not as a content creator, but as a final editor and arbiter to prevent AI “hallucinations” 42 from causing unintended diplomatic crises.

3.4. Unconventional Warfare (UW) & Foreign Internal Defense (FID): AI at the Human Edge

The core of SOF’s “by, with, and through” missions 79 is the human interface: building rapport with partner forces and “knowing the human terrain.” AI, particularly at the edge, will serve as a powerful enhancement to this human-to-human mission.

Real-Time Language Translation

A fundamental SF skill is language proficiency 79, but operators rarely speak all dialects in a region. Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) AI-powered translation devices are now viable tactical tools.81 Wearable earbuds like the Timekettle WT2 provide “bidirectional simultaneous translation” in 40+ languages.8 Crucially, they offer offline translation packages.8 This allows an ODA operator to conduct a negotiation, train a partner force, or de-escalate a situation in real time, without relying on a human translator who can be a security risk or a cultural barrier.

On-Device Biometric Identification

“Knowing the human terrain” 9 is paramount in UW (identifying resistance members) and FID (vetting partner forces). The single greatest threat in these environments is the “insider.” The Reveal-tech “Identifi” system, developed with USSOCOM operators, represents a paradigm shift in counter-intelligence and force protection.9

Identifi is an AI-driven, multi-modal biometric (face, iris, fingerprint, voice) platform that runs “entirely offline”.9 It executes all AI matching and analysis on-device, requiring no data connection.9 This allows a SOF team in an “austere environment” 83 to:

  • Enroll and vet partner forces, creating an “on-device watchlist”.9
  • Instantly identify individuals at checkpoints or key leader engagements.
  • Securely identify high-value targets (HVTs) or CI threats without transmitting sensitive biometric data over a network.

This capability to weaponize identity at the tactical edge, completely disconnected, is a revolutionary tool for securing the mission in complex human environments.

Augmented Reality (AR) for Partner Force Training

AR systems, suchab as Anduril’s EagleEye HMD, provide an “AI partner embedded in your display”.5 While designed for C2 and SA, this technology is a powerful training tool. In an FID context, a SOF advisor can use the AR system to create a “collaborative 3D sand table” 5 or overlay digital information (routes, objectives, threat locations) onto the partner force’s view of the real world.84 This “enhanced perception” 5 dramatically improves training effectiveness and shared operational understanding.

3.5. Autonomous Logistics & CASEVAC: The “Robotic Mule”

One of the most requested AI applications is for autonomous systems to perform the “dull, dirty, and dangerous” work of logistics. The vision is for Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs) like the Rheinmetall Mission Master 45 or the Army’s Small Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S-MET) 47 to serve as “robotic mules.” These systems promise to unburden dismounted SOF teams by autonomously carrying heavy equipment, conducting “last-mile resupply” to contested outposts, and performing non-medical CASEVAC.45

However, this report must be candid: this capability is one of the least operationally mature for complex SOF missions. While aerial autonomy (drones, LMs, CCAs) is advancing rapidly, autonomous ground mobility in “complex natural terrain” 49 and urban environments 86 remains an unsolved research and development problem.48

Practical experiments have produced “mixed results”.47 A 2024 US Army trial with the S-MET concluded that the unit was “unable to overcome obstacles in rough terrain,” forcing the infantry squad to “deviate from its concealed route”.47 This is not just an inconvenience; it is a tactical failure that compromises concealment and mission success. Decades of research show that AI perception for UGVs still struggles to detect “below ground obstacles” (like ditches) or correctly characterize “foliage” density.49

Therefore, in the 2025-2030 timeframe, leaders should not bank on autonomous UGVs for high-risk, dismounted missions in complex terrain. Over-reliance on this unproven “mule” 47 will create a new and critical point of mission failure.


4.0. RISKS AND VULNERABILITIES: THE AI-ENABLED THREAT MATRIX

The proliferation of AI is not a one-sided advantage. It creates new, symmetric, and asymmetric vulnerabilities. These risks must be understood as both external (adversarial use) and internal (failures of our own adoption).

4.1. External Threat: Adversarial AI (Red Team)

SOF’s traditional technological overmatch is eroding as adversaries gain access to the same COTS AI tools.

Democratization of Asymmetric Threats (VNSAs)

Violent non-state actors (VNSAs) like Hamas and the Houthis have already “revolutionized modern warfare” 15 with cheap, COTS drones. The next, immediate evolution is the integration of COTS AI.14

  • Adversarial AI Swarms: An adversary no longer needs a state-sponsor to deploy an autonomous swarm. They can use open-source AI software to manage “swarm coordination” 63 for COTS drones, creating a low-cost, high-volume, “unmanageable threat” 17 that can saturate SOF C-UAS systems.16
  • AI-Guided IEDs (“Smart Mines”): Adversaries will adapt AI technology from commercial industries (e.g., “smart mining” 89) to create the next generation of IEDs. An AI-guided munition could be trained on open-source imagery to recognize SOF-specific vehicles or even US-pattern uniforms, remaining dormant until its AI sensor makes a positive target identification.

Peer Adversary Counter-SOF (GenAI & Counter-Intel)

Peer adversaries (e.g., China, Russia) 91 will leverage AI for sophisticated counter-SOF operations.

  • GenAI Deception & Deepfakes: The greatest threat of GenAI in a UW/FID environment is deception.18 An adversary can use deepfake technology to create a realistic but false video of a SOF operator or partner force leader committing an atrocity, then use AI-driven information warfare 19 to “amplify” this message and destroy local trust, causing mission-failure.
  • COTS AI for Counter-Intelligence: This is a critical, under-appreciated threat. Adversaries can use the same COTS tools we plan to use. They can use AI-powered translation 20 to instantly analyze captured documents or radio intercepts. Most dangerously, they can use open-source AI biometric tools and “jailbroken” LLMs 38 to “scrape” public-facing internet and social media, building facial recognition databases of SOF operators and their families for targeting and blackmail.39

4.2. Internal Risk: Technical & Operational Failure (Blue Team)

The most insidious threats are the ones we introduce ourselves through flawed technology and poor adoption.

Technical Vulnerabilities: Data Poisoning

AI systems are “highly vulnerable” 95 to data-centric attacks. The most significant threat is data poisoning.27 This is a “covert weapon” 27 where an adversary gains access to and manipulates the training data for an AI model.

  • Scenario: A peer adversary covertly “poisons” the training data for our AI-powered Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) system. They feed it thousands of images where friendly vehicles (e.g., an M-ATV) are mislabeled as hostile, or where hostile vehicles are mislabeled as civilian. The “poisoned” AI is deployed. In combat, this AI, which we trust, will be rendered “ineffective”.27 It will either autonomously identify friendly forces as targets, leading to catastrophic fratricide, or deliberately filter out real threats, providing a “false positive” of a safe environment.

Operational Over-Reliance & Skill Atrophy

  • The “Atrophy” Risk: This is the most profound institutional risk. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s dictum “plans are worthless, but planning is everything” 21 highlights that the process of planning creates “experiential learning” and “shared understanding”.21 When we outsource core cognitive tasks—like COA development—to AI planning tools (e.g., COA-GPT) 21, our staffs lose that shared understanding. Their critical thinking and planning skills “atrophy”.98 This creates a brittle force of commanders who can select an AI’s COA but cannot create one when the AI fails, is unavailable, or is compromised.
  • Over-Reliance (Automation Bias): This is the tactical risk. Over-reliance occurs when operators “accept incorrect or incomplete AI outputs”.99 An operator wearing an AR HMD 5 that “highlights” a potential target may develop “tunnel vision,” ceasing to scan un-highlighted areas.101 This “automation bias” 102 means the operator misses the actual threat that the AI failed to classify, leading to a lethal surprise.

The “Black Box” Problem (LOAC & Ethics)

  • Un-explainable Decisions: Many advanced AI models are “black boxes”.22 They provide an output (e.g., “Target X is a 95% match”) but cannot explain the logic or data used to reach that conclusion.22 This is legally and ethically catastrophic. A commander who authorizes a strike based on an AI’s “black box” recommendation cannot legally justify that action under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). They cannot prove distinction or proportionality if they cannot explain the “why” behind the strike.
  • Accelerating the Kill Chain (The “Lavender” Risk): AI is not a panacea for civilian harm (CIVHARM). In fact, evidence suggests it can increase it. Reports on the Israeli military’s alleged use of AI systems like “Lavender” (to identify militants) and “Where’s Daddy?” (to predict when they are home) 24 indicate a dangerous trend. By “accelerating the kill chain” 24, the AI reportedly generated 100 targets per day, giving human officers as little as “20 seconds to verify” the AI’s recommendation.24 This prioritization of speed over judgment leads to catastrophic errors. The infamous 2021 drone strike in Kabul that killed 10 civilians was a direct result of a flawed, eight-hour “pattern-of-life” analysis that “misinterpreted the target’s behavior”.25 This is the single greatest risk of AI targeting: it scales up bad decisions and flawed intelligence at machine speed.

5.0. STRATEGIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOF LEADERSHIP

To harness AI’s opportunities while mitigating its profound risks, SOF leadership must immediately adopt a deliberate, clear-eyed, and candid approach.

  1. Prioritize “Edge AI” & Operator Augmentation: Aggressively fund and field decentralized, on-device AI systems. The procurement priority must be on systems that are “ruggedized” 2 and proven to function in DDIL environments.2 Focus on:
  • Operator-worn SA/C2 HMDs (e.g., Anduril EagleEye).5
  • On-device, offline Biometrics/Intel (e.g., Reveal-tech Identifi).9
  • Resilient Navigation (VIO/LIDAR) for GPS-denied environments.6
  1. Invest in “Red Team” AI & C-AI: Establish a dedicated “Red Team” AI cell. This cell’s sole purpose must be to develop and test adversary AI TTPs against our own forces in exercises. This cell must be tasked with:
  • Weaponizing COTS AI and hardware 14 to test C-UAS and base defense protocols.
  • Conducting GenAI/Deepfake attacks 19 against our own partner-force missions (in training) to build MISO and CI resilience.
  • Actively attempting data poisoning attacks 27 against all AI systems before they are fielded to test their security and resilience.
  1. Mandate “Explainability” & “Glass Box” Targeting: Prohibit the fielding of “black box” kinetic AI systems.22
  • Mandate that all AI-assisted targeting systems be “explainable” (XAI). The system must be able to “show its work” 23 to the human operator and, crucially, to a legal reviewer. This is the only way to ensure compliance with LOAC.
  • Do not accept vendor claims of “AI magic.” Demand transparency in procurement.
  1. Redefine the “Human-in-the-Loop”: The human operator must be more than a “clicker”.24
  • Training: Modify training protocols 101 to focus on combating automation bias.99 Operators must be rigorously trained when to distrust the AI.
  • Time: Prohibit AI-accelerated “kill chains” 24 that remove human judgment. Mandate minimum human decision-time for AI-generated targets. The “20-second” verification 24 is a “never-again” lesson. The human must be a veto-wielding critical thinker, not a rubber-stamping functionary.
  1. Combat Skill Atrophy: Embrace AI planning tools (e.g., COA-GPT) 21 for speed, but retain analog planning for expertise.
  • Mandate that for every one AI-generated plan, the staff must manually produce one during training exercises.21
  • Use AI to generate options, but force humans to perform the “experiential learning” 21 of wargaming, analysis, and decision. The goal is an AI-augmented staff, not an AI-replaced staff.
  1. Manage UGV Expectations: Be candid about UGV limitations.47 Do not procure “robotic mule” 47 systems at scale until they have been independently verified to navigate complex, “off-road” terrain 48 relevant to dismounted SOF operations. Focus near-term UGV investment on simple, proven tasks (e.g., static perimeter defense, “follow-me” on established routes).

APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY

This report was compiled using a structured analytical methodology designed to provide predictive, operationally-relevant insights for senior SOF leadership.

  1. Doctrinal Scaffolding: The analysis framework was built upon the established Core Activities of first-world SOF (e.g., USSOCOM 28, NATO 30, and UKSF 105). All technological opportunities and risks were mapped directly to these doctrinal functions to ensure operational relevance.
  2. Cross-Correlated Data Synthesis: Research was clustered into key technological and thematic areas (e.g., “Edge AI,” “Autonomous Swarms,” “Generative AI,” “Operational Risks”). Insights were generated by synthesizing disparate data points, such as connecting a vendor’s technical promise for a UGV 45 with a candid field-trial failure report.47
  3. Near-Term Horizon (5-Year Scope): The analysis excluded theoretical, long-term AI (e.g., Artificial General Intelligence). It focused on technologies in advanced R&D (e.g., DARPA 107), active testing (e.g., CCA YFQ-44A 33), or existing/COTS deployment (e.g., Identifi 9, XTEND 10, GenAI 42).
  4. Candid Risk Assessment: Per the requirement for an “objective, candid” report, the analysis actively sought out contradictions, documented failures, and ethical challenges. This included analyzing documented CIVHARM incidents 24, institutional risks 21, and technical vulnerabilities 27 to provide a balanced, non-biased assessment.
  5. Second- and Third-Order Insight Generation: The methodology moved beyond descriptive analysis (what the technology does) to predictive and prescriptive analysis (what the operational implication is, and what leaders must do about it). This was achieved by identifying causal relationships and their strategic implications (e.g., The necessity of Edge AI in a DDIL environment implies the operator becomes a new C5ISTAR node, which implies a new signature vulnerability).

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


Sources Used

  1. Edge AI in Tactical Defense: Empowering the Future of Military and Aerospace Operations, accessed November 16, 2025, https://dedicatedcomputing.com/edge-ai-in-tactical-defense-empowering-the-future-of-military-and-aerospace-operations/
  2. From core to tactical edge: A unified platform for defense innovation – Red Hat, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/core-tactical-edge-unified-platform-defense-innovation
  3. The future of defense: AI at the edge for real-time tactical advantage, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.washingtontechnology.com/sponsors/sponsor-content/2025/04/future-defense-ai-edge-real-time-tactical-advantage/404000/
  4. The new frontline: Winning the information war at the tactical edge | FedScoop, accessed November 16, 2025, https://fedscoop.com/the-new-frontline-winning-the-information-war-at-the-tactical-edge/
  5. Anduril’s EagleEye Puts Mission Command and AI Directly into the …, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.anduril.com/article/anduril-s-eagleeye-puts-mission-command-and-ai-directly-into-the-warfighter-s-helmet/
  6. GPS-denied navigation expands the threshold for mission-critical drone use cases, accessed November 16, 2025, https://militaryembedded.com/comms/gps/gps-denied-navigation-expands-the-threshold-for-mission-critical-drone-use-cases
  7. HIGHLY ACCURATE GPS-DENIED PNT USING DIRECT DOPPLER LIDAR MEASUREMENTS – NDIA – Michigan, accessed November 16, 2025, https://ndia-mich.org/images/events/gvsets/2024/papers/AAIR/1%2010PM%20Highly%20Accurate%20GPS%20Denied%20PNT%20Using%20Doppler%20LIDAR%20Measurements.pdf
  8. 5 Real-Time AI Translation Devices That Will Blow Your Mind – KUDO, accessed November 16, 2025, https://kudo.ai/blog/mind-blowing-real-time-translation-devices/
  9. Identifi – Reveal Technology, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.revealtech.ai/identifi
  10. DoD contracts Israeli drone startup XTEND for combat drones | The …, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-873488
  11. Military Drone Swarm Intelligence Explained – Sentient Digital, Inc., accessed November 16, 2025, https://sdi.ai/blog/military-drone-swarm-intelligence-explained/
  12. Our First Look At The YFQ-44A ‘Fighter Drone’ Collaborative Combat Aircraft – The War Zone, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.twz.com/air/our-first-look-at-yfq-44a-fighter-drone-prototype
  13. DAF begins ground testing for Collaborative Combat Aircraft, selects Beale AFB as the preferred location for aircraft readiness unit > Air Force > Article Display – AF.mil, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4171208/daf-begins-ground-testing-for-collaborative-combat-aircraft-selects-beale-afb-a/
  14. Democratizing harm: Artificial intelligence in the hands of nonstate actors – Brookings Institution, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FP_20211122_ai_nonstate_actors_kreps.pdf
  15. The Rising Threat of Non-State Actor Commercial Drone Use …, accessed November 16, 2025, https://ctc.westpoint.edu/the-rising-threat-of-non-state-actor-commercial-drone-use-emerging-capabilities-and-threats/
  16. From Autonomy to Swarms: The Evolving Non-State Drone Threat – HSToday, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.hstoday.us/featured/from-autonomy-to-swarms-the-evolving-non-state-drone-threat/
  17. Countering Swarms: Strategic Considerations and Opportunities in Drone Warfare, accessed November 16, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3197193/countering-swarms-strategic-considerations-and-opportunities-in-drone-warfare/
  18. Impacts of Adversarial Use of Generative AI on Homeland Security, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-01/25_0110_st_impacts_of_adversarial_generative_aI_on_homeland_security_0.pdf
  19. Deepfake Technology in the Age of Information Warfare – Lieber Institute West Point, accessed November 16, 2025, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/deepfake-technology-age-information-warfare/
  20. How Dangerous Is Criminal Use of AI Translation for Global Security? – Elmura Linguistics, accessed November 16, 2025, https://elmuralinguistics.com/ai-translation-criminal-use-global-security/
  21. Harnessing the Algorithm: Shaping the Future of AI-Enabled Staff …, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.ausa.org/publications/harding-paper/harnessing-the-algorithm
  22. Common ethical challenges in AI – Human Rights and Biomedicine – The Council of Europe, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-and-biomedicine/common-ethical-challenges-in-ai
  23. Risks of Gen AI: the black box problem – KWM, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.kwm.com/au/en/insights/latest-thinking/risks-of-gen-ai-the-black-box-problem.html
  24. Does AI really reduce casualties in war? “That’s highly questionable …, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.uu.nl/en/news/does-ai-really-reduce-casualties-in-war-thats-highly-questionable-says-lauren-gould
  25. Algorithms of war: The use of artificial intelligence in decision making in armed conflict, accessed November 16, 2025, https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2023/10/24/algorithms-of-war-use-of-artificial-intelligence-decision-making-armed-conflict/
  26. Operational Errors and Civilian Casualties | Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University, accessed November 16, 2025, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/11/13/operational-errors-and-civilian-causalties/
  27. Data Poisoning as a Covert Weapon: Securing U.S. Military Superiority in AI-Driven Warfare, accessed November 16, 2025, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/data-poisoning-covert-weapon-securing-us-military-superiority-ai-driven-warfare/
  28. ​SOF Core Activ​ities – SOCOM.mil, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.socom.mil/about/core-activities
  29. 2025 Fact Book.pdf – SOCOM.mil, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.socom.mil/FactBook/2025%20Fact%20Book.pdf
  30. U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS21048
  31. The Strategic Utility Of Special Operations Forces In The U.S. Homeland Security And Defense – NATO Veterans Initiative, accessed November 16, 2025, https://nato-veterans.org/strategic-utility-of-special-operations-forces/
  32. AI-Powered Loitering Munition Systems Set New Standard for Battlefield Autonomy, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.autonomyglobal.co/ai-powered-loitering-munition-systems-set-new-standard-for-battlefield-autonomy/
  33. Fury’s Dawn: Anduril’s AI Jet Soars into Combat Future, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.webpronews.com/furys-dawn-andurils-ai-jet-soars-into-combat-future/
  34. [2211.05883] Open-Set Automatic Target Recognition – arXiv, accessed November 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.05883
  35. Aided target recognition visual design impacts on cognition in simulated augmented reality, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/virtual-reality/articles/10.3389/frvir.2022.982010/full
  36. Big Data at War: Special Operations Forces, Project Maven, and Twenty-First-Century Warfare, accessed November 16, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/big-data-at-war-special-operations-forces-project-maven-and-twenty-first-century-warfare/
  37. Torch.AI Releases New Open-Source AI-Powered Data Orchestrator …, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.torch.ai/newsroom/torch-ai-releases-new-open-source-ai-powered-data-orchestrator-to-transform-defense-and-national-security-operations
  38. Trend Micro State of AI Security Report 1H 2025, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/news/threat-landscape/trend-micro-state-of-ai-security-report-1h-2025
  39. The risks and inefficacies of AI systems in military targeting support, accessed November 16, 2025, https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2024/09/04/the-risks-and-inefficacies-of-ai-systems-in-military-targeting-support/
  40. Press Release: Evaluation of the DoD’s Military Information Support Operations Workforce (Report No. DODIG-2024-068), accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.dodig.mil/In-the-Spotlight/Article/3719783/press-release-evaluation-of-the-dods-military-information-support-operations-wo/
  41. [2405.03688] Large Language Models Reveal Information Operation Goals, Tactics, and Narrative Frames – arXiv, accessed November 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.03688
  42. Automating OIE with Large Language Models > Air University (AU) > Wild Blue Yonder, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Articles/Article-Display/Article/3607802/automating-oie-with-large-language-models/
  43. Acquiring Generative Artificial Intelligence to Improve U.S. Department of Defense Influence Activities – RAND, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA3100/RRA3157-1/RAND_RRA3157-1.pdf
  44. AI Translation & Captions for Meetings and Events | Wordly, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.wordly.ai/
  45. Mission Master – Uncrewed Ground Vehicles family (UGV) – Rheinmetall, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/products/uncrewed-vehicles/uncrewed-ground-systems/mission-master-a-ugs
  46. The Future Of CASEVAC: Uncrewed Ground Vehicles on the Battlefield – Line of Departure, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Pulse-of-Army-Medicine/Archive/July-2025/Future-Of-CASEVAC/
  47. Is drone-based resupply viable? – European Security & Defence, accessed November 16, 2025, https://euro-sd.com/2025/10/articles/armament/47250/is-drone-based-resupply-viable/
  48. The Future of Unmanned Ground Systems in the Operational Environment – Army.mil, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/238342/the_future_of_unmanned_ground_systems_in_the_operational_environment
  49. Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) Lessons Learned – DTIC, accessed November 16, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA495124.pdf
  50. Persistent ISR at the Tactical Edge – You Need More Than AI to Counter Today’s Threats, accessed November 16, 2025, https://clearalign.com/knowledge-center/id/24/persistent-isr-at-the-tactical-edge–you-need-more-than-ai-to-counter-todays-threats
  51. Air Force Doctrine Note 25-1, Artificial Intelligence (AI), accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_25-1/AFDN%2025-1%20Artificial%20Intelligence.pdf
  52. AI Analytics In Military Defense Market Analysis, Size, and Forecast 2025-2029 – Technavio, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.technavio.com/report/ai-analytics-in-military-defense-market-industry-analysis
  53. Catalyst Accelerator Launches AI Cohort for Space Force ISR – ExecutiveGov, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.executivegov.com/articles/catalyst-accelerator-cohort-ai-isr-ussf
  54. AI & Analytics in Military and Defense Market, Size Report 2034, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/ai-and-analytics-in-military-and-defense-market
  55. Operationalizing Artificial Intelligence for Algorithmic Warfare – Army University Press, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/July-August-2020/Crosby-Operationalizing-AI/
  56. Artificial Intelligence Analyzing Forensic Data and Patterns of Life – Air University, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Office-of-Sponsored-Programs/Research/Article-Display/Article/2699685/artificial-intelligence-analyzing-forensic-data-and-patterns-of-life/
  57. expert consultation report – artificial intelligence and related technologies in military decision-making on the use of force in armed conflicts, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.geneva-academy.ch/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Artificial%20Intelligence%20And%20Related%20Technologies%20In%20Military%20Decision-Making.pdf
  58. AI in Defense Market Report 2030: Trends, Industry Insights, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.knowledge-sourcing.com/report/ai-in-defense-market
  59. ISAAC-ISR Case Study | AI-Driven ISR Modernization Platform – i3CA, accessed November 16, 2025, https://i3ca.com/case-studies/isaac-isr-ai-driven-intelligence-modernization/
  60. Modernizing Military Decision-Making: Integrating AI into Army Planning, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2025-OLE/Modernizing-Military-Decision-Making/
  61. COA-GPT: Generative Pre-trained Transformers for Accelerated Course of Action Development in Military Operations This research was sponsored by the Army Research Laboratory and was accomplished under Cooperative Agreement Number W911NF-23-2-0072. The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the – arXiv, accessed November 16, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2402.01786v1
  62. INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE: Autonomous Swarm Drones New Face of Warfare, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/12/13/industry-perspective-autonomous-swarm-drones-new-face-of–warfare
  63. AI in Military Drones: Transforming Modern Warfare (2025-2030) – MarketsandMarkets, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ResearchInsight/ai-in-military-drones-transforming-modern-warfare.asp
  64. Smarter Robot Swarms Could Change Warfare – AUSA, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.ausa.org/articles/smarter-robot-swarms-could-change-warfare
  65. SOFINS 2025 – MBDA France: the Akeron family grows with two loitering munitions, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.edrmagazine.eu/sofins-2025-mbda-france-the-akeron-family-grows-with-two-loitering-munitions
  66. HX-2 – AI Strike Drone – Helsing, accessed November 16, 2025, https://helsing.ai/hx-2
  67. Quantum Systems Unveils Vector AI sUAS at AUSA Global Force in the US, accessed November 16, 2025, https://quantum-systems.com/us/news/quantum-systems-unveils-vector-ai/
  68. Manned-unmanned teaming – Wikipedia, accessed November 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manned-unmanned_teaming
  69. What is Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T)? – BAE Systems, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/definition/what-is-manned-unmanned-teaming
  70. Manned-Unmanned Teaming – Joint Air Power Competence Centre, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.japcc.org/articles/manned-unmanned-teaming/
  71. U.S. Air Force Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) – Congress.gov, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12740
  72. 690: LOYAL WINGMAN CONCEPT: REDEFINING AIR COMBAT – 55 NDA Alumni, accessed November 16, 2025, https://55nda.com/blogs/anil-khosla/2025/06/29/690-loyal-wingman-concept-redefining-air-combat/
  73. Inside the race to build America’s next combat drone wingman – YouTube, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuR8_4Qjpuk
  74. Anduril’s YFQ-44A Begins Flight Testing for the Collaborative Combat Aircraft Program, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.anduril.com/article/anduril-yfq-44a-begins-flight-testing-for-the-collaborative-combat-aircraft-program/
  75. Loyal Wingman, Collaborative Combat Aircraft redefine war | The Jerusalem Post, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-865389
  76. Marines Deploy ‘Loyal Wingman’ Drone in Joint Force Test – USNI News, accessed November 16, 2025, https://news.usni.org/2024/10/22/marines-deploy-loyal-wingman-drone-in-joint-force-test
  77. Home – Combat Capabilities Development Command C5ISR Center, accessed November 16, 2025, https://c5isrcenter.devcom.army.mil/
  78. C5ISR Center research connects aided target recognition with small UAS for greater squad lethality | Article – Army.mil, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/287719/c5isr_center_research_connects_aided_target_recognition_with_small_uas_for_greater_squad_lethality
  79. United States Army Special Forces – Wikipedia, accessed November 16, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Special_Forces
  80. An Unconventional Warfare Mindset – The Philosophy of Special Forces Must be Sustained, accessed November 16, 2025, https://sofsupport.org/an-unconventional-warfare-mindset-the-philosophy-of-special-forces-must-be-sustained/
  81. Wearable Translator Technology: How to Choose the Best Solution – Relay, accessed November 16, 2025, https://relaypro.com/blog/wearable-translator-technology-how-to-choose-the-best-solution/
  82. AI-Generated Translation Devices: We Tested 3 So You Don’t Have To, accessed November 16, 2025, https://certifiedlanguages.com/blog/we-tested-ai-generated-translation-devices/
  83. Special Operations Doctrine: Is it Needed – DTIC, accessed November 16, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1042554.pdf
  84. Augmented Reality Tool for the Situational Awareness Improvement of UAV Operators, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/17/2/297
  85. Artificial Intelligence in the Military – AI-Driven Decision-Making for Joint Operations – FlySight, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.flysight.it/artificial-intelligence-in-the-military-ai-driven-decision-making-for-joint-operations/
  86. Intelligent Mobility Research at Defence R&D Canada for Autonomous UGV Mobility in Complex Terrain – NATO, accessed November 16, 2025, https://publications.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Meeting%20Proceedings/RTO-MP-AVT-146/MP-AVT-146-04.pdf
  87. (PDF) Reliable Operations of Unmanned Ground Vehicles: Research at the Ground Robotics Reliability Center – ResearchGate, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228583989_Reliable_Operations_of_Unmanned_Ground_Vehicles_Research_at_the_Ground_Robotics_Reliability_Center
  88. C5ISR Center Supports Border Operations with C-UAS Technology – DVIDS, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.dvidshub.net/news/497513/c5isr-center-supports-border-operations-with-c-uas-technology
  89. AI In Mining Industry: 7 Power Trends For 2025 – Farmonaut, accessed November 16, 2025, https://farmonaut.com/mining/ai-in-mining-industry-7-power-trends-for-2025
  90. The Future of Automated Mining: Technology, AI, and Efficiency in 2025 – WunderTrading, accessed November 16, 2025, https://wundertrading.com/journal/en/learn/article/automated-mining
  91. Special Warfare – usajfkswcs, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.swcs.mil/Portals/111/32-2_APR_JUN_2019.pdf
  92. Integrated Warfare: How U.S. Special Operations Forces Can Counter AI-Equipped Chinese Special Operations Forces – Army University Press, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2024-OLE/Integrated-Warfare/
  93. The Newest Weapon in Irregular Warfare – Artificial Intelligence, accessed November 16, 2025, https://irregularwarfarecenter.org/publications/perspectives/the-newest-weapon-in-irregular-warfare-artificial-intelligence/
  94. Adversarial Misuse of Generative AI | Google Cloud Blog, accessed November 16, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/adversarial-misuse-generative-ai
  95. Navigating cyber vulnerabilities in AI-enabled military systems, accessed November 16, 2025, https://europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/navigating-cyber-vulnerabilities-in-ai-enabled-military-systems/
  96. Risks and Mitigation Strategies for Adversarial Artificial Intelligence Threats: A DHS S&T Study – Homeland Security, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-12/23_1222_st_risks_mitigation_strategies.pdf
  97. When AI Trusts False Data: Exploring Data Spoofing’s Impact on Security – Defence.AI, accessed November 16, 2025, https://defence.ai/ai-security/data-spoofing-ai/
  98. AI and Software Development: Risks of Over-Reliance and How to Mitigate Them, accessed November 16, 2025, https://techtalks.qima.com/ai-and-software-development-risks-of-over-reliance-and-how-to-mitigate-them/
  99. Overreliance on AI: Risk Identification and Mitigation Framework – Microsoft Learn, accessed November 16, 2025, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/playbook/technology-guidance/overreliance-on-ai/overreliance-on-ai
  100. The Risks of Over-Reliance on AI – Glaxit, accessed November 16, 2025, https://glaxit.com/blog/the-risks-of-over-reliance-on-ai/
  101. Enhancing Tactical Level Targeting With Artificial Intelligence – Line of Departure, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Field-Artillery/FA-2024-Issue-1/Enhancing-Tactical-Level-Targeting/
  102. Depending on your AI: Risks of over-reliance from people and business – AICC, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.aicc.co/responsible-ai-hub/keep-up-to-date-with-responsible-ai/blog-posts/depending-on-your-ai-risks-of-over-reliance-from-people-and-business
  103. Risks and Remedies for Black Box Artificial Intelligence – C3 AI, accessed November 16, 2025, https://c3.ai/blog/risks-and-remedies-for-black-box-artificial-intelligence/
  104. Black box algorithms and the rights of individuals: no easy solution to the “explainability” problem | Internet Policy Review, accessed November 16, 2025, https://policyreview.info/articles/analysis/black-box-algorithms-and-rights-individuals-no-easy-solution-explainability
  105. What are the Special Forces? | National Army Museum, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/what-are-special-forces
  106. UKSF: The United Kingdom Special Forces – Grey Dynamics, accessed November 16, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/uksf-the-united-kingdom-special-forces/
  107. AI Next Campaign – DARPA, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/ai-next-campaign
  108. AI Forward | DARPA, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.darpa.mil/research/programs/ai-forward
  109. DARPA Aims to Develop AI, Autonomy Applications Warfighters Can Trust, accessed November 16, 2025, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3722849/darpa-aims-to-develop-ai-autonomy-applications-warfighters-can-trust/

The Evolution, Doctrine, and Armament of the Spanish Mando de Operaciones Especiales

The origins of Spain’s elite special operations forces are deeply rooted in the nation’s unique military history and the geopolitical realities of the Cold War. While Spain possesses a long and storied tradition of irregular warfare, dating back to the guerrilleros of the Peninsular War against Napoleon, the modern incarnation of its special forces was conceived in the mid-20th century. The formal proposal to create dedicated special operations units emerged in 1956, a decision influenced by the global proliferation of guerrilla conflicts and the examples set by established Western special forces, notably the United States Army’s Green Berets and the British Special Air Service (SAS).1

This initiative took concrete form in 1957 with the establishment of the first experimental “Aptitud para el Mando de Unidades Guerrilleras” (Aptitude for Command of Guerrilla Units) course at the prestigious Escuela Militar de Montaña (Military Mountain School – EMM) in Jaca.1 This venue was not incidental; it forged an inextricable link between high-altitude mountain warfare and special operations that would define the character of Spain’s elite soldiers for decades.

The First “Boinas Verdes”: From UOE to COE

By the end of 1961, the EMM had graduated a sufficient cadre of specialized officers and non-commissioned officers to form the first operational units. On an experimental basis, the Ministry of Defense ordered the creation of two Unidades de Operaciones Especiales (Special Operations Units – UOEs): UOE No. 71, based in Oviedo, and UOE No. 81, in Orense. These units were mandated to be fully organized by March 1, 1962.1 From their inception, these units were composed exclusively of volunteers who had to pass a stringent selection process. Their initial armament was the standard infantry issue of the day: the robust 7.62x51mm CETME assault rifle, a service pistol, and a combat knife.1 In December 1962, UOE No. 71 formally adopted the green beret (boina verde), which would become the iconic symbol of Spanish special forces.3

The success of these two experimental UOEs prompted a significant expansion. Between 1966 and 1969, the Spanish Army established a nationwide network of Compañías de Operaciones Especiales (Special Operations Companies – COEs). These company-sized formations were attached to the various Regiments of the Brigadas de Defensa Operativa del Territorio (Territorial Operational Defense Brigades – BRIDOT), a structure that firmly embedded their primary mission within a doctrine of national territorial defense against a potential Warsaw Pact invasion.3 At their peak in 1981, there were 25 distinct COEs spread across Spain’s military regions, each with a unique numerical designation and often a historical sobriquet honoring a famous Spanish guerrilla leader.3

Doctrine, Training, and the “Guerrillero Spirit”

The foundational doctrine of the COEs was guerrilla and counter-guerrilla warfare. Their personnel were universally known as guerrilleros, a title they embraced with pride.4 The training regimen was exceptionally arduous and designed to produce soldiers of unparalleled physical and mental resilience. The curriculum was remarkably comprehensive for its era, encompassing a wide array of skills essential for operating behind enemy lines in small, autonomous teams. Subjects included advanced topography and land navigation, demolitions and explosives, instinctive and combat shooting, survival and evasion techniques, rock climbing and rappelling, specialized winter and mountain warfare including skiing, and extensive waterborne operations such as river crossings and coastal reconnaissance.4

The culmination of this grueling training was the infamous prueba de la boina (beret test). This was a continuous, multi-day field exercise that pushed candidates to their absolute limits through sleep deprivation, constant physical exertion, and a series of high-stress tests, including live-fire exercises simulating movement under enemy fire and resistance to interrogation.4 Only those who successfully completed this ordeal earned the right to wear the green beret. This process cultivated a unique ethos—the “guerrillero spirit”—a mindset characterized by extreme self-sufficiency, unwavering determination, and the conviction that no obstacle was insurmountable.4

A crucial distinction must be made, however, between the development of the mainland COEs and the special operations units of the Spanish Legion. While the COEs were training for a hypothetical, future conflict, the Legion’s Secciones de Operaciones Especiales (SOEs) were being forged in the crucible of active combat. During the 1970s, these Legion SOEs were formed to conduct counter-insurgency operations in the Spanish Sahara, specifically heliborne patrols and ambushes to control the movements of the Polisario Front and Moroccan irregulars.1 The historical record is clear that these Legion units were the only Spanish special operations forces of the era to engage in sustained combat operations and suffer casualties in action.1 This created two distinct but convergent streams of experience within Spanish SOF: the COEs, whose culture was defined by surviving one of the toughest training regimes in the world, and the Legion SOEs, whose culture was hardened by the realities of a protracted, low-intensity war. This injection of combat-proven experience would later prove invaluable to the unified command.

The armament of these early units reflected their mission. The primary individual weapon was the Spanish-designed CETME assault rifle, initially the Model B, which was replaced by the improved Model C in 1971.1 The standard sidearm evolved from the Astra 400 to the Star Model B pistol.5 For close-quarters work, the reliable Star Z-70/B submachine gun was available.11 Support weapons included the formidable MG-42/58 (a post-war variant of the German MG 42 chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO) and the Spanish-made Instalaza C90 disposable rocket launcher.1

II. Transformation and Professionalization: The GOE Era and NATO Integration (1979-1997)

The late 1970s and 1980s marked a period of profound transformation for Spain and its armed forces. The transition to democracy and the strategic decision to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1982 acted as a powerful catalyst for military modernization. This geopolitical shift rendered the foundational doctrine of the COEs—territorial defense against a conventional invasion—effectively obsolete.3 The new strategic imperative was interoperability and the ability to deploy professional, expeditionary forces capable of operating seamlessly alongside NATO allies.

This new reality was the primary forcing function behind a complete reorganization of Spanish special operations forces. The alliance’s operational standards and doctrinal frameworks demanded a move away from a singular focus on guerrilla warfare toward a more versatile and internationally recognized mission set. This necessitated a top-down revolution in the structure, training, and purpose of Spain’s boinas verdes.3

From Companies to Groups (COE to GOE)

The organizational solution to this new doctrinal requirement was the consolidation of the disparate, company-sized COEs into larger, more capable, battalion-sized formations known as Grupos de Operaciones Especiales (Special Operations Groups – GOEs). This process began in May 1979 with the establishment of the first such unit, GOE I “Órdenes Militares,” in Colmenar Viejo, which integrated the former COE 11 and COE 12.1

Over the next decade, this consolidation continued systematically. Throughout the mid-1980s, new GOEs were formed by merging existing COEs, while others were disbanded:

  • 1984: GOE III “Valencia” was formed from COE 31 and 32.1
  • 1985: GOE II “Santa Fé” was formed in Granada, and the Legion’s special operations unit in Ronda was formally established as the Bandera de Operaciones Especiales de la Legión (BOEL) XIX, absorbing personnel and material from the dissolved COEs 21, 22, 91, and 92.1
  • 1986: GOE V “San Marcial” was created in Burgos from COE 61 and 62.1
  • 1987: GOE IV “Almogávares” was formed in Barcelona from COE 41 and 42.1
  • 1988: GOE VI “La Victoria” was established in La Coruña, incorporating the remaining COEs 71, 72, 81, and 82.1

This structural evolution from company to group provided significant advantages. It centralized command under higher-ranking officers (lieutenant colonels), streamlined logistical support, and greatly enhanced the capacity for independent operational planning and execution.1 The GOEs were structured into specialized operational teams, mirroring the organization of their NATO counterparts and facilitating easier integration into multinational command structures.6

The most fundamental change was doctrinal. The singular focus on guerrilla and counter-guerrilla tactics gave way to the standardized NATO SOF mission triad:

  • Direct Action (DA): Short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions.
  • Special Reconnaissance (SR): Acquiring information concerning the capabilities, intentions, and activities of an enemy.
  • Military Assistance (MA): Training, advising, and otherwise assisting foreign military and paramilitary forces.

This doctrinal shift marked the birth of modern Spanish special operations forces, representing a deliberate and necessary break from the legacy of the territorial guerrilleros to create a professional, expeditionary force aligned with its new alliance commitments.6

Evolving Arsenal

This period of professionalization was also reflected in the force’s weaponry. While the Spanish-made CETME rifle remained in service, it underwent its own evolution with the adoption of the 5.56x45mm NATO caliber CETME Model L in the 1980s, replacing the older 7.62x51mm versions.15 More significantly, the GOEs began to acquire specialized weapon systems that were becoming the global standard for elite units. The most prominent of these was the Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun, particularly its suppressed variants, which offered unparalleled performance in close-quarters and counter-terrorism roles.1 The focus on NATO interoperability drove the adoption of standardized calibers and equipment interfaces, laying the groundwork for the highly advanced and modular arsenal that would be fielded in the 21st century.

III. A Unified Command: The Modern MOE (1997-Present)

The creation of the GOEs was a critical step in professionalizing Spain’s special operations capabilities, but a final piece of the command structure was needed to fully integrate these assets into the joint operational planning of the Spanish Armed Forces. To achieve this, the Mando de Operaciones Especiales (Special Operations Command – MOE) was officially created in October 1997 and became fully operational in July 1998.1

Establishment and Structure

The establishment of the MOE consolidated the remaining GOEs and the Legion’s elite BOEL under a single, unified command led by a Brigadier General. After an initial period headquartered in Jaca, the command was permanently established at the Alférez Rojas Navarrete barracks in Alicante.1 A further reorganization in 1996 had streamlined the force, dissolving GOEs I, II, V, and VI, leaving a core of highly professional units to form the new command.6

The modern structure of the MOE is lean and mission-focused, comprising:

  • Headquarters Group: Responsible for command, control, planning, and intelligence.
  • Grupo de Operaciones Especiales “Valencia” III (GOE III).
  • Grupo de Operaciones Especiales “Tercio del Ampurdán” IV (GOE IV).
  • Bandera de Operaciones Especiales “C. L. Maderal Oleaga” XIX (GOE XIX): The heir to the Legion’s combat-proven BOEL.
  • Logistics Unit: Provides dedicated logistical and maintenance support to the operational groups.3

The Modern Mission Set

The MOE fully embodies the modern, multi-faceted role of a top-tier NATO special operations force. While retaining the toughness and self-reliance of its guerrillero predecessors, its missions have evolved to meet the complex demands of contemporary conflict.20 The core tasks remain Direct Action, Special Reconnaissance, and Military Assistance, executed with surgical precision by small, highly trained operational teams.3

The MOE’s Direct Action capability was demonstrated most publicly in July 2002 during Operation Romeo-Sierra. In response to the occupation of the disputed Perejil Island by Moroccan forces, 23 operators from GOE III were inserted by helicopter, swiftly securing the island without a single shot fired and restoring Spanish sovereignty.3 This operation showcased the command’s ability to execute a high-stakes, politically sensitive mission with speed and precision.

Operational History in the Asymmetric Era

Since its formation, the MOE has been one of Spain’s most consistently deployed military assets, participating in nearly every major international mission undertaken by the Spanish Armed Forces. Operators have served in peacekeeping, stabilization, and counter-terrorism operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and across the Sahel region of Africa.1

This extensive operational experience, particularly in the post-2003 asymmetric battlefields of Iraq and the Sahel, has shaped the command’s modern identity. While proficient in Direct Action, the MOE has cultivated a deep expertise in the “indirect approach” of Military Assistance. This “by, with, and through” methodology, where indigenous forces are trained and enabled to secure their own territory, has become a hallmark of modern Western SOF strategy.

In Iraq, as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the MOE’s primary mission has been the training, advising, and assisting of the elite Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Service (CTS).23 Deployed to locations like Baghdad and Erbil, Spanish operators embed with CTS units, providing expert instruction and acting as a critical command-and-control link to the wider coalition. During CTS-led operations against Daesh remnants, the MOE’s Special Operations Task Group (SOTG) coordinates vital coalition support, including airpower, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets, and medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) capabilities.23 The depth of this partnership is exemplified by the fact that Iraqi K9 handlers have been trained to give their dogs commands in Spanish.23

Similarly, in the vast and unstable Sahel region, MOE teams have been instrumental in European Union and multinational training missions in countries like Mali, Mauritania, and the Central African Republic.1 In these austere environments, they work to build the capacity of local militaries to combat the spread of violent extremist organizations.25

This evolution reveals the MOE’s maturation into a sophisticated and strategically vital force. Its value to Spain and its allies is now defined as much by its ability to teach, advise, and build partner capacity as by its ability to conduct unilateral raids. This shift has profound implications for operator selection, training, and equipment, demanding skills in languages, cultural intelligence, and instruction alongside the traditional martial virtues of the commando.

IV. The Operator’s Toolkit: Contemporary Small Arms and Equipment of the MOE

The small arms inventory of the Mando de Operaciones Especiales reflects a procurement philosophy that is both pragmatic and aligned with the highest standards of modern special operations forces. The arsenal is characterized by its emphasis on proven reliability, logistical commonality with the broader Spanish Army where feasible, and complete interoperability with key NATO partners. This approach prioritizes performance and operator mastery over the adoption of unproven or niche systems. The result is a comprehensive toolkit of high-quality weapons sourced from premier European and American manufacturers, allowing MOE teams to configure their loadouts precisely for any given mission.

Sidearms

  • Heckler & Koch USP-SD: The standard-issue sidearm for the MOE is the Heckler & Koch Universelle Selbstladepistole (Universal Self-loading Pistol) in its “SD” configuration, chambered in 9x19mm Parabellum.1 This robust, polymer-framed pistol operates on a short-recoil, locked-breech principle and features a traditional double-action/single-action (DA/SA) trigger mechanism.28 The “SD” designation indicates that the barrel is extended and threaded, allowing for the direct attachment of a sound suppressor, a critical capability for clandestine operations.1 Renowned for its durability and reliability in harsh environments, the USP has served the command well for many years.

Submachine Guns & Personal Defense Weapons

  • Heckler & Koch MP5SD: For missions requiring maximum acoustic signature reduction, the MOE retains the legendary Heckler & Koch MP5SD.27 This variant of the MP5 family features an integral suppressor that is highly effective even with standard velocity 9x19mm ammunition. Its roller-delayed blowback action makes it an exceptionally smooth-shooting and accurate platform, ideal for stealthy close-quarters engagements, sentry elimination, and operations where discretion is paramount.1
  • Heckler & Koch MP7A1: A more recent addition to the inventory is the HK MP7A1 Personal Defense Weapon (PDW).1 Chambered for the high-velocity, armor-piercing 4.6x30mm cartridge, the MP7 bridges the gap between a traditional submachine gun and a carbine. Its compact, lightweight design and ability to defeat modern body armor make it an excellent choice for personal security details, vehicle crews, and close-quarters battle (CQB) scenarios where the over-penetration of a rifle round could be a liability.29

Assault Rifles & Carbines

  • Heckler & Koch G36 (K/C Variants): The primary individual weapon for most MOE operators is a variant of the Heckler & Koch G36, the standard-issue rifle of the Spanish Army.1 The MOE favors the shorter, more maneuverable G36K (Kurz/Short) and G36C (Compact) versions.1 These rifles are heavily customized to meet special operations requirements, featuring extensive MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny or similar rail systems (such as the HKey Slim Line handguard) to accommodate a full suite of mission-essential accessories, including advanced optics, laser aiming modules, and tactical lights.1 This commonality with the main army provides a significant logistical advantage, simplifying the supply of spare parts and ammunition during deployments.
  • Heckler & Koch HK416: The MOE also employs the HK416 assault rifle.1 This platform, which has become a benchmark for elite Western SOF, utilizes a short-stroke gas piston operating system. This system prevents hot propellant gases from entering the receiver, resulting in a cleaner, cooler-running weapon with enhanced reliability, particularly during suppressed fire or in austere environments like deserts or maritime settings. Its adoption ensures seamless interoperability with the most advanced NATO special operations units.

Battle Rifles & Designated Marksman Rifles (DMR)

  • Heckler & Koch G28: To provide operational teams with precision fire capability beyond the effective range of 5.56mm carbines, the MOE fields the Heckler & Koch G28.1 Based on the HK417 battle rifle, the G28 is a highly accurate semi-automatic platform chambered in the powerful 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. It functions as a Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR), enabling a skilled shooter to rapidly engage targets out to 800 meters.31 The G28 is frequently equipped with high-magnification variable-power optics, such as the Schmidt & Bender 3-20×50 PMII, and has been documented in use as an aerial platform weapon, fired from the side doors of Spanish Army NH90 helicopters to provide precision overwatch.31

Sniper & Anti-Materiel Rifles

  • Accuracy International AXMC: For long-range anti-personnel engagements, the MOE’s primary precision weapon is the Accuracy International AXMC (AX Multi Caliber) bolt-action sniper rifle, chambered in.338 Lapua Magnum.1 This cartridge offers exceptional ballistic performance, allowing operators to accurately engage targets well beyond 1,500 meters.32 The AXMC is built on AI’s legendary chassis system, renowned for its accuracy, ruggedness, and modularity. It is typically paired with a world-class optic, such as the Schmidt & Bender 5-25×56 PMII, to maximize its extreme-range potential.1
  • Barrett M95 / M107A1: When the mission requires the engagement of hard targets, the MOE turns to the Barrett anti-materiel rifle, chambered in the formidable 12.7x99mm NATO (.50 BMG) cartridge.27 Both the bolt-action M95 and the semi-automatic M107A1 are in service.33 The role of this weapon is not anti-personnel, but rather the destruction of high-value enemy equipment, including light-skinned vehicles, communications arrays, radar installations, and ordnance, at ranges approaching 2,000 meters.33

Machine Guns

  • FN Minimi: For squad-level suppressive fire, the MOE utilizes the Belgian-designed FN Minimi light machine gun, chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO.35 This belt-fed weapon provides a high volume of fire in a relatively lightweight and portable package, allowing a small team to effectively suppress enemy positions.
  • Heckler & Koch MG5: The command is in the process of replacing its aging inventory of MG3 machine guns with the modern Heckler & Koch MG5.1 The MG5 is a general-purpose machine gun chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO. It offers significant advantages over its predecessor, including a more controllable, user-selectable rate of fire (640-800 rounds per minute), superior ergonomics, and an integrated Picatinny rail on the receiver cover for the mounting of modern optics, which greatly enhances its accuracy.36
  • Browning M2HB: For heavy, vehicle-mounted fire support, the MOE relies on the timeless Browning M2HB heavy machine gun. Chambered in.50 BMG, the M2 provides devastating firepower against both personnel and light materiel targets.1

Summary of Contemporary MOE Small Arms

Weapon SystemTypeOriginCaliberWeight (Unloaded)Length (Overall)Feed SystemPrimary Role / Remarks
Heckler & Koch USP-SDSemi-Automatic PistolGermany9x19mm0.72 kg 27194 mm 2715-round magazine 27Standard issue sidearm; threaded barrel for suppressors.
Heckler & Koch MP5SDSubmachine GunGermany9x19mm3.4 kg 27610 mm 2730-round magazine 27Integrally suppressed for clandestine CQB operations.
Heckler & Koch MP7A1Personal Defense WeaponGermany4.6x30mm< 2.0 kg 29415 mm (stock collapsed)20/30/40-round magazine 29Armor-piercing capability in a compact platform.
Heckler & Koch G36KAssault CarbineGermany5.56x45mm3.40 kg 27860 mm (stock extended) 3030-round magazine 27Primary individual weapon; shortened barrel for mobility.
Heckler & Koch HK416Assault RifleGermany5.56x45mm~3.12 kg~881 mm (14.5″ barrel)30-round STANAG magazinePiston-operated system for enhanced reliability; NATO SOF standard.
Heckler & Koch G28Designated Marksman RifleGermany7.62x51mm~5.8 kg965 mm 3110/20-round magazinePrecision semi-automatic fire to 800 meters.
FN MinimiLight Machine GunBelgium5.56x45mm~7.1 kg 351,040 mm 35Belt-fed / STANAG magazineSquad-level suppressive fire.
Heckler & Koch MG5General-Purpose Machine GunGermany7.62x51mm~11.2 kg 361,160 mm 37Belt-fed (M13 links)Replacing the MG3; controllable rate of fire and optics-ready.
Accuracy Int’l AXMCSniper RifleUnited Kingdom.338 Lapua Magnum~6.8 kg~1,250 mm10-round magazine 1Primary long-range anti-personnel system (>1500m).
Barrett M95 / M107A1Anti-Materiel RifleUSA12.7x99mm (.50 BMG)10.7 kg (M95) 341,143 mm (M95) 345/10-round magazineEngagement of hard targets (vehicles, equipment) to 2000m.
Browning M2HBHeavy Machine GunUSA12.7x99mm (.50 BMG)~38 kg~1,654 mmBelt-fed (M2/M9 links)Vehicle-mounted heavy fire support.

V. The Future Commando: MOE 2035 and Beyond

As the character of global conflict continues to evolve, the Spanish Mando de Operaciones Especiales is proactively shaping its future force structure, capabilities, and technology to maintain its edge. The command’s strategic vision is encapsulated in the “MOE-35” initiative, a comprehensive plan designed to ensure the unit is fully adapted to the multi-domain, technologically saturated battlefields of the coming decades.39

The “MOE-35” Initiative

Launched in 2020, MOE-35 is more than a simple modernization program; it is a fundamental rethinking of what a special operator is and what the command provides to the Spanish state. The plan calls for a significant expansion of the force, increasing its ranks from approximately 900 to 1,300 personnel by 2035.3 However, the core of the initiative is not merely quantitative growth but a qualitative evolution of its “human capital”.39

Recognizing that future conflicts will be won not just by kinetic force but also by influence and information, MOE-35 places a heavy emphasis on recruiting and developing operators with specialized non-kinetic skills. This includes creating teams of experts in communications, negotiation, and regional studies, possessing deep knowledge of the cultures, customs, and languages of potential operational areas.39 This focus is a direct lesson learned from the command’s extensive experience in Military Assistance missions in Iraq and the Sahel, where understanding the human terrain is as critical as mastering the physical terrain.

The Networked Operator and Future Technology

The future MOE operator will function as a fully integrated node within a networked battlespace. A key enabler of this vision is the Spanish Army’s “Future Soldier System” (SISCAP) program. This initiative aims to equip individual operators with a suite of advanced technologies, including a helmet-mounted vision system with augmented reality overlays. This will allow the operator to see real-time tactical data, the positions of friendly forces, and identified threats without looking down at a separate device.41

Furthermore, the system will integrate personal and weapon-mounted cameras (both visible and thermal), allowing an operator to share their perspective with the team and command elements. This also enables non-line-of-sight engagement, where an operator can point their weapon around a corner and use their helmet display to aim, minimizing their exposure to enemy fire.41 This constant flow of data transforms the operator from a simple combatant into a mobile sensor platform, contributing to a common operational picture shared across the force.

The integration of unmanned systems will also deepen. The command will expand its use of small, tactical Remotely Piloted Air Systems (RPAS) for organic, team-level intelligence and reconnaissance, as well as enhancing its cinology (military working dog) capabilities.21 Crucially, the MOE is developing its capacity to operate in the non-physical domains of conflict, integrating cyber and electronic warfare techniques to protect its own communications and disrupt those of its adversaries.18

Speculative Armament Evolution

While the MOE’s current arsenal is formidable, it will continue to evolve in line with technological advancements and emerging threats.

  • Sidearms: The venerable HK USP-SD, while reliable, lacks the features of more modern pistols. A future transition to a striker-fired, polymer-framed pistol with a modular optics system is highly probable. Platforms like the Glock 17 Gen5 MOS, which are becoming a de facto standard among many Western SOF units, offer superior ergonomics, trigger characteristics, and the ability to easily mount miniature red dot sights for faster target acquisition.42
  • Carbines: The 5.56x45mm cartridge, while effective, has known limitations in barrier penetration and performance against modern body armor. The MOE, along with other NATO SOF, will be closely observing the long-term results of the U.S. Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) program and its adoption of the 6.8mm cartridge.45 While a complete caliber change represents a massive logistical challenge, a future adoption of a more powerful intermediate caliber for special operations use is a distinct possibility to ensure overmatch against peer adversaries.
  • Precision Weapons: The evolution in this domain will be driven by advancements in sensor and data processing technology. The integration of “smart scopes” with onboard ballistic computers, laser rangefinders, and atmospheric sensors will become standard, dramatically increasing the first-round hit probability at extreme ranges and reducing the cognitive load on the sniper.

Ultimately, the MOE-35 initiative and its associated technological programs point toward a future where the special operator is a hybrid warrior. This individual will be a master of the kinetic fight but also a sensor, a communicator, and a non-kinetic effector. They will be capable of processing vast amounts of data from the network, controlling multiple unmanned assets, and applying a precise effect—be it a rifle shot, an electronic warfare pulse, or a targeted influence message—to achieve strategic objectives. This vision ensures that the legacy of the adaptable and resilient guerrillero will continue to evolve, keeping the Mando de Operaciones Especiales at the cutting edge of modern warfare.


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


Sources Used

  1. Grupos de Operaciones Especiales (España) – Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre, accessed September 6, 2025, https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grupos_de_Operaciones_Especiales_(Espa%C3%B1a)
  2. Spanish Special Forces – Prov Tildic – Prezi, accessed September 6, 2025, https://prezi.com/p/ra0jpywseqas/spanish-special-forces/
  3. Mando de Operaciones Especiales (MOE): SPAIN’S ARMY SOF – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 6, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/mando-de-operaciones-especiales-moe-spains-army-sof/
  4. Boinas Verdes españoles: de las COE al MOE – Veteranos … – VetPac, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.vetpac.es/boinas-verdes-espanoles-de-las-coe-al-moe/
  5. Compañía de Operaciones Especiales 101-7, accessed September 6, 2025, https://coebaleares.com/
  6. La evolución de las unidades de operaciones especiales …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://militaresescritores.es/noticias/la-evolucion-de-las-unidades-de-operaciones-especiales/
  7. E.T. – C.O.E.S. COMPAÑÍAS DE OPERACIONES ESPECIALES – COLECCIONISMO MILITAR, accessed September 6, 2025, http://www.coleccionismomilitar.com/2013/07/et-companias-de-operaciones-especiales.html
  8. SÍNTESIS HISTÓRICA COE 52 1967/1986 – Federación de Asociaciones de Veteranos Boinas Verdes de España, accessed September 6, 2025, https://fedavbve.com/sintesis-historica-coe-52-1967-1986/
  9. Historia y vida de la COE 61 – Federación de Asociaciones de Veteranos Boinas Verdes de España, accessed September 6, 2025, https://fedavbve.com/historia-y-vida-de-la-coe-61/
  10. BOEL: Spanish Legion’s Elite – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 6, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/boel-spanish-legions-elite/
  11. Star Z-70 Submachine Gun Review – Firearms News, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.firearmsnews.com/editorial/star-z70-submachine-gun-review/374989
  12. SPAIN REVISITED: THE MARINES – Small Arms Review, accessed September 6, 2025, https://smallarmsreview.com/spain-revisited-the-marines/
  13. Spanish Armed Forces – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armed_Forces
  14. Spanish Joint Special Operations Command – NRDC Italy – NATO, accessed September 6, 2025, https://nrdc-ita.nato.int/operations/allied-reaction-force/spanish-special-operations-command
  15. CETME Model L – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CETME_Model_L
  16. CETME L – Green – GEN 2 – MarColMar Firearms, accessed September 6, 2025, https://marcolmarfirearms.com/shop/cetme/green-cetme-l
  17. Special Operations Command (Spain) – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Operations_Command_(Spain)
  18. Mando de Operaciones Especiales (MOE) – Ejercito de Tierra – Blog Prefortex, accessed September 6, 2025, https://blog.prefortex.es/mando-de-operaciones-especiales-moe-ejercito-tierra/
  19. Special Operations Groups (Spain) – Wikiwand, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Special_Operations_Groups_(Spain)
  20. MOE, así son los “guerrilleros”, la temible fuerza de élite del Ejército y una de las más preparadas del mundo – La Razón, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.larazon.es/espana/moe-asi-son-guerrillleros-temible-fuerza-elite-ejercito-mas-preparadas-mundo_202305046453f3f622859d00017f1ea0.html
  21. UNIDADES ESPECIALES: Mando de Operaciones Especiales (MOE) – Davinci, accessed September 6, 2025, https://tropaymarineria.es/unidades-especiales-mando-de-operaciones-especiales-moe/
  22. FGNE, EZAPAC y MOE, estas son las tres grandes unidades de élite de las fuerzas armadas españolas: quiénes son y qué hacen – La Razón, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.larazon.es/espana/defensa/fgne-ezapac-moe-estas-son-tres-grandes-unidades-elite-fuerzas-armadas-espanolas-quienes-son-que-hacen_2023072967091c98596dfb00012a7b83.html
  23. Special Operations collaborate with Iraqi units in consolidating …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://emad.defensa.gob.es/en/operaciones/operaciones-en-el-exterior/10-Operacion_Inherent_Resolve/noticias/listado/250829-sotgxii-operaciones.html?__locale=en
  24. For the past ten years, members of the Spanish Special Operations …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://emad.defensa.gob.es/en/operaciones/operaciones-en-el-exterior/10-Operacion_Inherent_Resolve/noticias/listado/250113-ni-irak-aniversario-sotg.html
  25. To improve its Sahel policy, the US must update four assumptions – Atlantic Council, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/africasource/to-improve-its-sahel-policy-the-us-must-update-four-assumptions/
  26. Violent Extremism in the Sahel | Global Conflict Tracker – Council on Foreign Relations, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/violent-extremism-sahel
  27. Mando de Operaciones Especiales – Contenido – Ejército de tierra, accessed September 6, 2025, https://ejercito.defensa.gob.es/unidades/Alicante/cg_moe/Organizacion/materiales/index.html
  28. Heckler & Koch USP – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_USP
  29. Munición y accesorios para el arma más exótica del Mando de Operaciones Especiales del Ejército de Tierra – Defensa.com, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defensa.com/espana/municion-accesorios-para-arma-mas-exotica-mando-operaciones
  30. G36 – Heckler & Koch, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.heckler-koch.com/en/Products/Military%20and%20Law%20Enforcement/Assault%20rifles/G36
  31. Los rifles de precisión G28 están ya operativos en el MOE – Noticias …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defensa.com/espana/tiradores-mando-operaciones-especiales-disparan-desde-nh90-g28
  32. Accuracy International AWM – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_International_AWM
  33. MOE RECIBE POTENTES FUSILES SEMIAUTOMÁTICOS DE PRECISIÓN BARRET M107, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU7nZwJ9AE0
  34. Barrett M95 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_M95
  35. FN Minimi – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_Minimi
  36. Nuevas ametralladoras MG5 fuerzas especiales Ejército de Tierra …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defensa.com/espana/nueva-ametralladora-mg5-mando-operaciones-especiales-ejercito
  37. Heckler & Koch MG5 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_MG5
  38. MG5 – HK USA, accessed September 6, 2025, https://hk-usa.com/product/mg5/
  39. Los comandos del 2035 – Ministerio de Defensa de España, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.defensa.gob.es/comun/slider/2020/03/040320-moe-2035.html
  40. Boinas verdes 4.0: así será en el futuro la unidad de élite del Ejército de Tierra – La Razón, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.larazon.es/espana/20200122/wmplylgw7ja4zmmfoul75ib4k4.html
  41. The Spanish Army tests the Future Soldier System developed by Indra and GMV to enhance soldiers’ capabilities with cutting-edge technologies, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.indracompany.com/en/noticia/spanish-army-tests-future-soldier-system-developed-indra-gmv-enhance-soldiers-capabilities
  42. G17 Gen5 MOS – Simplified mounting of optical sights – Glock, accessed September 6, 2025, https://us.glock.com/en/pistols/g17-gen5-mos-fs
  43. G17 Gen5 MOS – Simplified mounting of optical sights – GLOCK Perfection, accessed September 6, 2025, https://eu.glock.com/en/products/pistols/g17-gen5-mos
  44. G17 Gen5 – GLOCK Perfection, accessed September 6, 2025, https://eu.glock.com/en/products/pistols/g17-gen5
  45. Small Arms Market – Industry Research & Share | 2025 – 2030 – Mordor Intelligence, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/small-arms-market
  46. NATO and the Next Generation Squad Weapon- NGSW – Wavell Room, accessed September 6, 2025, https://wavellroom.com/2024/09/17/nato-and-the-next-generation-squad-weapon-ngsw/

The White Tigers: An Analytical History and Future Assessment of the ROK 707th Special Mission Group

The creation of the Republic of Korea’s (ROK) 707th Special Mission Group, known unofficially as the “White Tigers,” was the product of a confluence of global and domestic pressures. Its origins lie in the international recognition of a new form of warfare—modern terrorism—and the volatile political landscape of South Korea during a period of authoritarian military rule. This dual impetus forged a unit designed from its inception to be both a national security instrument for external threats and a highly responsive asset for the state’s internal security concerns.

1.1 The Global Catalyst: The Munich Massacre and the Dawn of Modern Counter-Terrorism

The attack on the Israeli Olympic team at the 1972 Munich Games was a watershed moment in the history of special operations. The event, broadcast globally, demonstrated a new vulnerability for modern states and exposed the inadequacy of conventional police forces in responding to determined, well-armed terrorists.1 The botched rescue attempt by West German police, who lacked the specialized training, equipment, and doctrine for such a high-stakes hostage crisis, served as a stark lesson for governments worldwide.1

This failure created what analysts term a “critical juncture,” a pivotal event that fundamentally alters institutional development.1 For Western nations and their allies, Munich fused the concepts of counter-terrorism (CT) and military special operations forces (SOF), establishing a new “path dependency” in security doctrine.1 The emerging consensus was that such threats were not merely criminal matters but constituted a form of warfare requiring a military response characterized by surgical precision, advanced marksmanship, and sophisticated infiltration techniques. In the months and years following the massacre, numerous countries established elite military or gendarmerie units specifically for counter-terrorism and hostage rescue (HR) missions.1

For the South Korean government, this global shift in threat perception was particularly acute. With Seoul slated to host the 1986 Asian Games and, more importantly, the 1988 Summer Olympics, the possibility of a Munich-style attack on its own soil became a primary national security concern.4 The government recognized the urgent need to create a dedicated, world-class counter-terrorism unit capable of preventing or responding to such an incident, as well as countering the persistent threat of infiltration by North Korean special forces.4 This imperative, born directly from the tragedy in Munich, was the public and strategic rationale for the formation of the 707th.5

1.2 The Domestic Crucible: South Korea’s Political Instability and the Requirement for an Elite Presidential Asset

While the Munich Massacre provided the international impetus, the domestic political environment of South Korea provided a powerful, parallel motivation for the 707th’s creation. The unit was officially established by presidential executive order on April 17, 1981, a period of profound political upheaval.5 In October 1979, authoritarian President Park Chung Hee was assassinated, plunging the nation into a political vacuum.9 This was swiftly filled by Major General Chun Doo-hwan, head of the Defense Security Command, who seized control of the military in the Coup d’état of December 12, 1979.9

Chun consolidated his power with a second coup on May 17, 1980, extending martial law across the nation and suppressing political dissent.9 This act triggered the Gwangju Uprising, a pro-democracy movement that was violently crushed by ROK Army Special Warfare Command (ROK-SWC) paratroopers, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths.10 This brutal event cemented the military’s control but also highlighted the role of special forces as instruments of state power. Within this context, the creation of a new, elite special forces unit directly under the ROK-SWC—a command whose leaders, including Chun himself, had proven political ambitions—carried significant internal implications.13

The 707th was structured from its inception to be the nation’s primary quick reaction force (QRF), noted for being the “fastest rapid response unit” and uniquely within the President’s immediate reach.5 This structure suggests a dual-purpose design. Publicly, it was the nation’s shield against terrorism for the upcoming Olympics. Internally, however, it was also a highly trained, politically reliable force available to the executive during a period of fragile authoritarian rule. This underlying purpose was starkly demonstrated decades later, on December 3, 2024, when President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law and deployed the 707th to the National Assembly to prevent lawmakers from overturning his decree.4 This event serves as a historical confirmation of the unit’s potential for political employment, a characteristic seemingly embedded in its organizational DNA from its founding during a military dictatorship.

1.3 Formation and Foundational Doctrine

The 707th Special Mission Battalion was officially activated under the ROK Army Special Warfare Command, an organization with its own deep history of U.S. Army Special Forces influence dating back to the Korean War and its formal establishment in 1969.4 The battalion’s initial, clearly defined missions were to provide security for the 1986 Asian Games and the 1988 Seoul Olympics, addressing the direct threat highlighted by the Munich massacre.4

The unit’s early tactical development was not conducted in isolation. A pivotal event occurred in 1984 when B Squadron of the U.S. Army’s 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (Delta Force) traveled to South Korea to conduct training directly with the 707th.5 This engagement was more than a routine joint exercise; it represented a direct transference of doctrine and TTPs from the West’s most advanced and secretive special mission unit of the era. Delta Force had been established in the late 1970s, heavily influenced by the British Special Air Service (SAS), to provide the United States with a dedicated CT/HR capability.16

This direct mentorship from Delta Force was instrumental in shaping the 707th’s foundational doctrine. It is highly probable that this training covered the full spectrum of counter-terrorism operations, including advanced close-quarters battle (CQB) techniques, explosive breaching, sniper/observer employment, and hostage rescue planning methodologies. This established a doctrinal lineage that aligned the 707th with its U.S. counterpart from its earliest days, setting it on a developmental path to mirror the structure, standards, and operational philosophy of a Western Tier 1 unit. This foundational relationship explains why, decades later, the 707th is still frequently compared to the U.S. Army’s Combat Applications Group (the modern designation for Delta Force) and maintains its closest international ties with U.S. SOF.4

Section 2: Evolution into a Multi-Spectrum Force (1989-2018)

Following its successful role in securing the 1988 Seoul Olympics, the 707th Special Mission Battalion entered a period of significant evolution. The post-Cold War security environment presented new and diverse challenges, prompting the unit to expand its capabilities far beyond its original counter-terrorism mandate. This era saw the 707th mature from a single-mission domestic guardian into a versatile, multi-spectrum special operations force capable of operating globally, a transformation reflected in its mission set, organizational structure, and armament.

2.1 Expanding Mission Parameters Beyond Hostage Rescue

While counter-terrorism and hostage rescue remained a core competency, the 707th “morphed into a multipurpose unit capable of unconventional warfare and direct action” in both overt and covert capacities.4 The unit’s responsibilities grew to encompass the full range of special operations, including direct action raids against high-value targets, special reconnaissance, black operations, and serving as the ROK Army’s primary Quick Reaction Force for national-level emergencies.5

This expansion of the mission set was a natural development that mirrored a global trend among elite special mission units. The exceptional selection standards, intensive training, and advanced equipment required for high-stakes hostage rescue create a force with the inherent skills for other complex and dangerous operations. As the ROK government faced new security challenges—from threats to its nationals abroad to the need for a surgical strike capability against North Korean strategic assets—it logically turned to its most capable and trusted force.

The battalion’s internal structure reflected this diversification. Prior to its 2019 reorganization, the unit was organized into specialized teams, including not only a Counter-Terrorism Team but also a Maritime-Operations Team and an Air-Assault Team.5 The existence of these specialized elements is clear evidence of a mission set that had grown far beyond urban CT. A dedicated maritime team indicates a capability to conduct operations at sea, such as vessel takedowns (Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure – VBSS), while an air-assault team points to a focus on helicopter-borne infiltration for direct action raids, capabilities not strictly required for a purely domestic HR unit but essential for a multi-domain special mission force.

2.2 From Domestic Guardian to Global Trainer: The ‘Akh Unit’

A defining moment in the 707th’s evolution was its first major, long-term overseas deployment. Since 2011, the unit has maintained a continuous rotational presence in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a core component of the ROK Special Forces contingent known as the ‘Akh Unit’ (meaning ‘Brother’ in Arabic).5 The primary mission of this deployment is to train local UAE special forces, building partner capacity and strengthening the strategic relationship between the two nations.5

The Akh Unit deployment represents a significant maturation in South Korea’s use of its military as an instrument of foreign policy and defense diplomacy. It marks a strategic shift from using a Tier 1 SOF unit solely for kinetic operations to employing it for persistent, long-term engagement to achieve national objectives abroad. This “by, with, and through” approach, a cornerstone of U.S. SOF doctrine, allows South Korea to project influence, build strong alliances in a strategically vital region, and protect its economic interests, such as the security of commercial vessels navigating the Persian Gulf.4

Furthermore, the deployment provides the 707th with invaluable operational experience in a desert environment, a stark contrast to the mountainous and temperate climate of the Korean Peninsula. This long-term exposure to different operational conditions, cultures, and partner forces enhances the unit’s adaptability and global readiness, transforming it from a force focused solely on the Korean theater into one with proven expeditionary capabilities.

2.3 Organizational and Armament Shifts

The unit’s internal structure and equipment also evolved during this period to reflect its changing roles. An early, unique feature of the 707th was an all-female company, tasked with low-visibility operations and providing close protection for dignitaries.5 This company was deactivated in 2014, a move that suggests a doctrinal shift towards a more conventional SOF structure focused on standardized male-only direct action teams, aligning the unit more closely with its Western counterparts like Delta Force and the SAS.5

This period also marked the beginning of a critical divergence between the armament of the 707th and that of the conventional ROK Army. In its early years, the unit was armed with domestically produced Daewoo Precision Industries firearms, such as the K1A carbine (adopted in 1981) and the K2 assault rifle (adopted in 1985).20 These were robust and reliable weapons designed for a large conscript army, prioritizing ease of mass production and general-purpose utility.

However, as the 707th’s focus on specialized missions like CQB intensified, the limitations of these general-issue rifles became apparent. The unit began to procure foreign weapon systems better suited to its specific requirements. The Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine gun, with its controllable roller-delayed blowback action and compact size, became the global standard for CT units and was adopted by the 707th.23 This move signaled a fundamental recognition within the ROK defense establishment: the needs of a Tier 1 special mission unit are distinct from those of the general army, justifying the procurement of specialized, often foreign-made, equipment to ensure maximum operational effectiveness. This philosophy of prioritizing capability over domestic industrial preference would come to define the unit’s modern arsenal.

Section 3: The Modern 707th Special Mission Group (2019-Present)

The contemporary era for the 707th is defined by its elevation to a group-level command and an expansion of its strategic importance. This period has seen the unit solidify its role as a multi-purpose, Tier 1 asset central to South Korea’s national defense strategy. This enhanced status was underscored by its controversial involvement in the 2024 martial law crisis, an event that tested the unit’s professional identity and highlighted its unique position within the ROK’s power structure.

3.1 The 2019 Reorganization: A Strategic Expansion

On March 18, 2019, the 707th Special Mission Battalion was officially reorganized and expanded into the 707th Special Mission Group.4 This was a significant structural change, not merely an administrative redesignation. The Ministry of National Defence stated the reorganization was necessary to expand the unit’s manpower and capabilities in response to emerging threats.4 The expansion included additional personnel and equipment to ensure a higher state of readiness, and, critically, the unit’s command was elevated from a Lieutenant Colonel to a full Colonel.4

This upgrade from a battalion to a group signifies a fundamental shift in the unit’s role from a primarily tactical entity to a strategic national asset. In most military hierarchies, a battalion is a tactical formation, whereas a group or regiment often holds broader operational or strategic responsibilities. The promotion of the commander to Colonel grants the unit’s leader greater authority and influence, placing them on a more equal footing with commanders of conventional brigades and senior staff officers within the ROK-SWC and the Ministry of National Defence.

This formal expansion provided the necessary institutional framework to support the 707th’s diverse and demanding mission set, which had outgrown the capacity of its original 200-person battalion structure.5 The group structure is better suited to manage the complex requirements of maintaining readiness for counter-terrorism, direct action, overseas partner training via the Akh Unit, and its role in South Korea’s strategic deterrence plans, including potential “decapitation missions” against the North Korean leadership.10

3.2 Case Study: The 2024 Martial Law Incident

The 707th’s most prominent and controversial public appearance occurred on December 3, 2024. Following President Yoon Suk Yeol’s surprise declaration of martial law, he mobilized the 707th SMG to secure the National Assembly building in Seoul.4 The stated objective was to physically prevent lawmakers from convening to vote on a motion to overturn the martial law decree.4

Operators from the unit inserted by UH-60P Black Hawk helicopters and attempted to force their way into the main hall, leading to scuffles with legislators, their staff, and protestors who blocked their entry.4 A critical detail observed during the confrontation was that at least some of the operators were carrying rifles loaded with non-lethal simunition rounds rather than live ammunition.5 Ultimately, the National Assembly was able to convene and voted overwhelmingly to nullify the martial law decree. Following the vote, the 707th personnel withdrew from the premises, with some soldiers reportedly apologizing to citizens as they left.26 The unit’s commander, Colonel Kim Hyun-Tae, publicly assumed full responsibility for his unit’s actions.4

This incident placed the 707th at the center of a national constitutional crisis, forcing its operators into a mission for which they were never intended: the coercion of their own country’s democratic institutions. The deployment of a “surgical scalpel” of national security as a blunt instrument of political will represented a profound misapplication of the unit’s purpose.14 The decision by the chain of command to issue simunitions was pivotal; it suggests a desire to intimidate and obstruct without causing mass casualties, but it may also indicate a reluctance at some level—perhaps within the unit’s own leadership—to use lethal force against unarmed civilians and politicians. This internal conflict between following a legally dubious order and upholding democratic principles appears to be reflected in the soldiers’ reported apologies upon withdrawal. The 2024 incident has undoubtedly triggered a deep re-evaluation of the legal and ethical guardrails governing the domestic deployment of such an elite unit, with lasting implications for civil-military relations in South Korea.

3.3 Current Training Doctrine and Interoperability

To maintain its status as a Tier 1 force, the 707th employs one of the most demanding selection and training pipelines in any military. The initial selection process is exceptionally rigorous, with a 10-day evaluation that eliminates approximately 90% of all applicants.5 Candidates are drawn from volunteers across all branches of the ROK Armed Forces, with some being handpicked by their superiors for their potential.4

Those who pass selection undergo a grueling training regimen. All members must become qualified in both airborne operations (including advanced High Altitude, Low Opening [HALO] jumps) and combat diving (SCUBA), skills which are mandatory for a multi-domain SOF unit.4 The training is legendary for its difficulty, reportedly including daily calisthenics in snow and sub-zero temperatures and swimming in frozen lakes without thermal protection to build extreme physical and mental resilience.5

Crucially, the 707th’s doctrine is continuously refined through close relationships and interoperability drills with its most advanced allied counterparts. The unit maintains its strongest ties with U.S. SOF, particularly Delta Force and the 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne), but also trains with elite units like the Australian SASR and Singapore’s STAR.4 The 707th is a regular participant in large-scale combined ROK-U.S. exercises such as the annual Freedom Shield series, where its teams hone skills in direct action, special reconnaissance, and countering weapons of mass destruction alongside U.S. special operators.27 This constant, high-level engagement is not merely for diplomatic purposes; it is essential for ensuring that the 707th’s TTPs, communications protocols, and operational standards remain aligned with its most likely coalition partners in any future regional contingency, representing a critical force multiplier for the ROK-U.S. alliance.

Section 4: Technical Analysis of Current Small Arms Arsenal

The small arms inventory of the 707th Special Mission Group reflects a mature procurement philosophy that prioritizes mission-specific capability over logistical uniformity. The unit has largely eschewed standard-issue domestic firearms in favor of a diverse and highly specialized arsenal of best-in-class weapon systems sourced from premier international manufacturers. This approach is a hallmark of a well-funded, top-tier special mission unit with the autonomy to select the precise tools required to maintain a tactical edge.

4.1 Primary Carbines: A Trifecta of Western Excellence

The 707th’s primary individual weapon is the assault carbine, and the unit has been observed employing a trio of elite, foreign-made systems. This diverse inventory allows for continuous evaluation and fielding of the most advanced platforms available.

  • FN SCAR-L: For over a decade, the Belgian-made FN SCAR-L has been the dominant carbine within the unit.23 Chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO, its key feature is a short-stroke gas piston operating system. This mechanism prevents hot propellant gases from entering the receiver, resulting in a cleaner, cooler, and theoretically more reliable action under sustained fire compared to direct impingement systems. This high degree of reliability was a major factor in its adoption by USSOCOM and subsequently by many allied SOF units, including the 707th.31
  • Knight’s Armament Company (KAC) KS-3: A more recent and limited acquisition, the KAC KS-3 represents the pinnacle of the direct impingement AR-15/M4 platform.27 Manufactured in the United States, its standout feature is the proprietary E3.2 bolt. This advanced bolt design incorporates radiused lugs to reduce stress fractures, dual ejectors for more reliable ejection with short barrels and suppressors, and an improved extractor design, all of which significantly enhance durability and lifespan over a standard Mil-Spec bolt.33 The KS-3 offers exceptional ergonomics, accuracy, and modularity in a lightweight package.34
  • Noveske N4: Also seen in use is the Noveske N4, another high-end American AR-15 variant.4 Noveske Rifleworks is renowned in the industry for the quality and accuracy of its barrels, which are often considered among the best available. The N4 provides operators with a highly reliable and exceptionally accurate carbine, particularly in short-barreled configurations suited for CQB and vehicle operations.35

The concurrent use of these three distinct systems demonstrates a procurement strategy focused on capability above all else. It allows the unit to leverage the unique strengths of each platform while continuously evaluating the state-of-the-art in carbine technology, ensuring its operators are never at a material disadvantage.

4.2 Close Quarters Battle (CQB) Weaponry: Compact and Specialized

For operations in confined spaces where a carbine may be too cumbersome, the 707th employs a range of submachine guns (SMGs) and personal defense weapons (PDWs).

  • Brügger & Thomet (B&T) MP9 and APC9K Pro: The Swiss-made B&T MP9 is an extremely compact and lightweight machine pistol, weighing only 1.4 kg.23 Its small size makes it ideal for concealed carry in low-visibility roles or for use within vehicles. In 2023, the unit also adopted the B&T APC9K Pro, a slightly larger but still very compact SMG that has been selected by the U.S. Army for its Sub Compact Weapon program.38 This adoption demonstrates the unit’s commitment to continuous modernization of its CQB arsenal.
  • Heckler & Koch (H&K) MP7A1: The German H&K MP7 offers a unique capability. It fires a proprietary high-velocity, small-caliber 4.6x30mm cartridge designed to defeat modern body armor at close ranges—a task for which traditional 9mm SMGs are ill-suited.4 This makes the MP7 a critical tool for engaging near-peer adversaries who are likely to be equipped with personal armor.
  • Heckler & Koch MP5: While a legacy design, the H&K MP5 remains in the 707th’s inventory.4 Its roller-delayed blowback operating system is famously smooth, producing very little recoil and allowing for highly accurate and controllable fire, particularly in semi-automatic or short bursts.24 It continues to be a viable and effective tool for precision CQB engagements.

4.3 Sidearms: A Diverse Toolkit

The 707th employs a wide variety of 9x19mm Parabellum sidearms, suggesting a mix of legacy systems, mission-specific selections, and a degree of operator preference.

  • Striker-Fired: The Austrian Glock 17 is a primary sidearm, reflecting its global dominance as a reliable, simple, and effective striker-fired pistol.4
  • Hammer-Fired (DA/SA): A significant number of operators use traditional double-action/single-action (DA/SA) pistols. The German/Swiss SIG Sauer P226 is a legendary combat handgun, renowned for its accuracy, reliability, and adoption by units like the U.S. Navy SEALs.4 The German H&K USP is another robust, service-proven design known for its durability.4 Italian pistols, including the iconic Beretta 92FS (the former U.S. M9) and the more modern, polymer-framed Beretta Px4 Storm with its rotating barrel action, are also in use.4 The Israeli IWI Jericho 941, a design based on the venerable CZ-75 system, rounds out the inventory.4

4.4 Precision Engagement Systems: Long-Range Dominance

To control the battlefield at extended ranges, 707th sniper teams are equipped with a modern, multi-caliber suite of precision rifles.

  • Knight’s Armament M110 SASS: For the semi-automatic sniper system (SASS) role, the unit uses the U.S.-made KAC M110.4 Chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO, this AR-10-based platform allows for rapid engagement of multiple targets at intermediate ranges (out to 800-1000 meters) and is often employed in a designated marksman or overwatch role.49
  • Accuracy International AWSM: For extreme long-range anti-personnel engagements, the 707th fields the British-made Accuracy International Arctic Warfare Super Magnum (AWSM).4 This bolt-action rifle is chambered in.338 Lapua Magnum, a specialized cartridge designed to provide accurate and effective fire on human-sized targets well beyond 1,500 meters.51
  • Barrett MRAD: The U.S.-made Barrett Multi-Role Adaptive Design (MRAD) rifle provides the unit with ultimate flexibility.4 This modern bolt-action platform features a user-changeable barrel system, allowing operators to quickly switch between various calibers (such as 7.62x51mm NATO,.300 Winchester Magnum, or.338 Lapua Magnum) in the field to best suit the mission requirements.53 This adaptability makes it an exceptionally versatile tool for a special mission unit.

Table 4.1: Current Small Arms of the 707th Special Mission Group

Weapon CategoryModel NameCountry of OriginCaliberActionKey Specifications (Weight / Barrel Length / Rate of Fire)
Assault CarbineFN SCAR-LBelgium5.56×45mm NATOShort-Stroke Gas Piston3.5 kg / 368 mm / 550-650 RPM 31
Assault CarbineKAC KS-3USA5.56×45mm NATODirect Impingement2.79 kg / 292 mm / ~700-900 RPM 33
Assault CarbineNoveske N4USA5.56×45mm NATODirect Impingement~2.7 kg / 267 mm / ~700-900 RPM 35
SMG / PDWB&T MP9Switzerland9×19mm ParabellumShort Recoil, Rotating Barrel1.4 kg / 130 mm / 900 RPM 36
SMG / PDWB&T APC9K ProSwitzerland9×19mm ParabellumStraight Blowback2.5 kg / 110 mm / 1080 RPM 38
SMG / PDWH&K MP7A1Germany4.6×30mmGas-Operated, Rotating Bolt1.5 kg / 180 mm / 950 RPM 39
SMGH&K MP5A5Germany9×19mm ParabellumRoller-Delayed Blowback2.88 kg / 225 mm / 800 RPM 24
SidearmGlock 17 Gen5Austria9×19mm ParabellumStriker-Fired630 g / 114 mm / N/A 42
SidearmSIG Sauer P226Germany/Switzerland9×19mm ParabellumDA/SA964 g / 112 mm / N/A 43
Sniper RifleAI AWSMUnited Kingdom.338 Lapua MagnumBolt-Action6.9 kg / 686 mm / N/A 51
SASSKAC M110USA7.62×51mm NATODirect Impingement6.23 kg / 508 mm / N/A 49
Sniper RifleBarrett MRADUSAMulti-CaliberBolt-Action~6.3 kg / 508-660 mm / N/A 53

Section 5: The Future of the White Tigers: A Speculative Forecast

The future trajectory of the 707th Special Mission Group will be shaped by three primary drivers: the rapid modernization of South Korea’s defense capabilities, the evolving nature of the threat posed by North Korea, and the technological and doctrinal shifts occurring within its key ally, the United States. The unit will continue to serve as the tip of the spear for the ROK military, adopting new technologies and refining its tactics to address the complex challenges of the 21st-century battlefield.

5.1 Armament for 2030 and Beyond: Domestic Innovation and Allied Influence

The next generation of the 707th’s primary carbine is already being determined. The ROK military has initiated the “Special Operations Submachinegun Type I” program to find a modern replacement for the aging Daewoo K1A carbines used by its wider special forces community.56 The main competitors are two domestic firms: Dasan Machineries with its AR-15-derived DSAR-15PQ, and S&T Motiv (the successor to Daewoo) with its K13 carbine (also known as the STC-16).56 While the 707th currently uses foreign carbines, the outcome of this program will influence its future procurement, as it may be directed to adopt the winning domestic platform.

However, a far more significant strategic question looms: the U.S. Army’s adoption of the Next Generation Squad Weapon (NGSW) system.58 This program introduces a new, high-pressure 6.8mm common cartridge designed to defeat modern body armor at extended ranges, a paradigm shift away from the 5.56mm NATO standard that has defined the alliance for decades.60 The ROK-U.S. military alliance is the cornerstone of South Korean defense, and interoperability is paramount. The prospect of U.S. and ROK infantry forces using different standard rifle ammunition in a major conflict on the peninsula presents a significant logistical challenge.

This creates a powerful “interoperability dilemma” for Seoul. In the short term, adopting a new 5.56mm carbine from the domestic competition is the simplest path. In the long term, however, the pressure to align with the new U.S. standard will be immense, especially for a Tier 1 unit like the 707th that works more closely with U.S. SOF than any other ROK unit. South Korean industry is already anticipating this shift, with S&T Motiv having displayed a prototype 6.8mm rifle.62 It is therefore highly probable that by the 2030s, the 707th will be testing, if not actively fielding, a 6.8mm platform to ensure seamless integration with its American counterparts in a future conflict.

5.2 Force Modernization: The “Warrior Platform” and “Defense Innovation 4.0”

The individual 707th operator will be a key beneficiary of South Korea’s ambitious force modernization plans. The “Defense Innovation 4.0” initiative is a national strategy to leverage advanced technology—including artificial intelligence, robotics, and big data—to create a smaller, smarter, and more lethal military capable of offsetting the country’s declining population and shrinking pool of conscripts.63

For the individual soldier, this translates into the “Warrior Platform” program, an effort to equip troops with integrated high-tech gear such as advanced ballistic helmets, next-generation night vision devices, and networked communication and targeting systems.64 For the 707th, this means the operator of the future will evolve from being simply a highly skilled shooter into a networked sensor and effector on the battlefield. Their small arms will become integrated weapon systems, likely equipped with sophisticated fire control optics similar to the U.S. Army’s XM157.61 These devices integrate a variable-power optic with a laser rangefinder, ballistic computer, and atmospheric sensors, providing the operator with a calculated aiming point that dramatically increases first-round hit probability at all ranges.

Furthermore, the unit’s tactics will increasingly incorporate manned-unmanned teaming. Operators will not just infiltrate an objective; they will orchestrate an array of effects, using networked devices to direct swarms of small reconnaissance drones, command robotic platforms for breaching or clearing rooms, and designate targets for loitering munitions, all while maintaining cognitive overmatch through AI-assisted decision-making tools.66

5.3 Evolving Threat Scenarios and Future Roles

While the 707th will retain its capabilities for a range of contingencies, its primary focus will continue to be sharpened by the evolving threat from North Korea. Pyongyang maintains one of the world’s largest special operations forces, estimated at up to 200,000 personnel, and is actively modernizing its own tactics based on lessons from modern conflicts like the war in Ukraine.67 Plausible future war scenarios involve not just a conventional attack across the DMZ, but a simultaneous, massive infiltration of North Korean SOF into the South’s rear areas via tunnels, semi-submersibles, and other covert means to create a “second front” designed to paralyze the ROK’s command and control and logistical networks.68

In this context, the 707th’s future role will likely pivot towards two critical, high-stakes missions that transcend traditional counter-terrorism:

  1. Counter-SOF Operations: The 707th will be the premier force tasked with hunting and neutralizing the most critical elements of a North Korean SOF incursion. This mission requires a higher level of skill, intelligence integration, and lethality than that of general-purpose forces, making the 707th the ideal tool to counter the most dangerous threats in the rear area.
  2. Strategic Deterrence and Retaliation: The unit is a key component of South Korea’s “Korea Massive Punishment and Retaliation” (KMPR) strategy, a core pillar of the ROK’s “three-axis” system designed to deter North Korean aggression.25 The KMPR doctrine relies on the credible threat of surgical strikes against the North Korean leadership and its key command-and-control facilities in the event of a major attack. Executing these “decapitation missions” is arguably the most demanding and highest-risk direct action scenario conceivable. The 707th is the only ROK unit with the specialized training, advanced equipment, and deep interoperability with U.S. assets required to plausibly execute such a mission.

Therefore, the future development of the White Tigers—their training, procurement, and doctrine—will be increasingly optimized for success in these two vital national security roles. The unit has evolved far beyond its origins as an Olympic security force into an indispensable strategic asset, central to South Korea’s ability to deter and, if necessary, prevail in a future conflict on the Korean Peninsula.


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


Sources Used

  1. Full article: The Munich massacre and the proliferation of counterterrorism special operation forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537121.2022.2088134
  2. The Munich massacre and the proliferation of counterterrorism special operation forces, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13537121.2022.2088134
  3. Marshall Center counterterrorism students delve into ‘Munich Massacre’ lessons learned, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/164020/marshall_center_counterterrorism_students_delve_into_munich_massacre_lessons_learned
  4. 707th Special Mission Group: The South Korean Delta Force – Grey Dynamics, accessed September 6, 2025, https://greydynamics.com/707th-special-mission-group-the-south-korean-delta-force/
  5. 707th Special Mission Group – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/707th_Special_Mission_Group
  6. 707th SMB – The Tom Clancy Wiki, accessed September 6, 2025, https://tomclancy.wiki.gg/wiki/707th_SMB
  7. Special Forces Brigades of the Republic of Korea Army – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Forces_Brigades_of_the_Republic_of_Korea_Army
  8. 707th Special Mission Group – Wikiwand, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/707th_Special_Mission_Group
  9. Coup d’état of May Seventeenth – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_of_May_Seventeenth
  10. Republic of Korea Army Special Warfare Command – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Army_Special_Warfare_Command
  11. Gi-Wook Shin on Gwangju and South Korea’s Democracy | FSI, accessed September 6, 2025, https://fsi.stanford.edu/news/gi-wook-shin-gwangju-and-south-korea%E2%80%99s-democracy
  12. Politics and Protest in South Korea Timeline | East Asian Studies Center – The Ohio State University, accessed September 6, 2025, https://easc.osu.edu/resources/k-16/film-guides/taxi-driver/historical-context/timeline
  13. Special Forces Detachment 39 – ARSOF History, accessed September 6, 2025, https://arsof-history.org/articles/v2n1_detachment_39_page_1.html
  14. More footage of 707th SMG during the declared martial law : r/SpecOpsArchive – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/SpecOpsArchive/comments/1h6b5d1/more_footage_of_707th_smg_during_the_declared/
  15. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Korea_Army_Special_Warfare_Command#:~:text=The%20command%20includes%20six%20special,which%20was%20established%20in%201969.
  16. The U.S. Army’s Delta Force: How This Secret Group of Deadly Soldiers Came to Be, accessed September 6, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-armys-delta-force-how-secret-group-deadly-soldiers-came-be-55057
  17. 22 SAS influence on Delta Force in the 70s? : r/JSOCarchive – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/JSOCarchive/comments/riua6t/22_sas_influence_on_delta_force_in_the_70s/
  18. South Korean 707th Special Mission Group members inside an elevator [750 x 566] – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/10zurfc/south_korean_707th_special_mission_group_members/
  19. U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/RS21048
  20. Weapons of the Republic of Korea Marine Corps – Small Arms Defense Journal, accessed September 6, 2025, https://sadefensejournal.com/weapons-of-the-republic-of-korea-marine-corps/
  21. en.wikipedia.org, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo_Precision_Industries_K1
  22. Daewoo Precision Industries K2 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daewoo_Precision_Industries_K2
  23. List of equipment of the Republic of Korea Armed Forces – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Republic_of_Korea_Armed_Forces
  24. Heckler & Koch MP5 (& variants) – Small Arms Survey, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sites/default/files/SAS-weapons-sub-machine-guns-Heckler-Koch-MP5.pdf
  25. S. Korean commandos sharpen special operations capabilities amid NK threats, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/southkorea/defense/20240623/s-korean-commandos-enhance-special-operations-amid-north-korean-threats
  26. Korean 707th Special Mission Group confronts a fire extinguisher during the protest. [708×497] : r/MilitaryPorn – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/1h5tgc2/korean_707th_special_mission_group_confronts_a/
  27. 707th Special Mission Group training in Seoul, South Korea : r/tacticalgear – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/tacticalgear/comments/1b801av/707th_special_mission_group_training_in_seoul/
  28. U.S. and ROK special operations forces conduct routine combined training during exercise Freedom Shield 2025 – United States Forces Korea, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.usfk.mil/Media/Newsroom/News/Article/4127793/us-and-rok-special-operations-forces-conduct-routine-combined-training-during-e/
  29. South Korea’s Elite 707th Special Mission Group Counter-Terrorism Demonstration | June, 2019 – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFhULsbTn0k
  30. South Korean 707th Special Mission Group members armed with FN SCAR-L and KAC KS-3 carbines [1500 x 1000] : r/MilitaryPorn – Reddit, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/MilitaryPorn/comments/1b8029q/south_korean_707th_special_mission_group_members/
  31. FN SCAR® 16S | FN® Firearms, accessed September 6, 2025, https://fnamerica.com/products/discontinued-rifles/fn-scar-16s/
  32. FN SCAR – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR
  33. KAC Knight’s Armament Company KS-3 – NS Armory, accessed September 6, 2025, https://nsarmory.us/kac-knights-armament-company-ks-3/
  34. KS-3 – Knight’s Armament Company, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.knightarmco.com/28959/shop/military/ks/ks-3
  35. N4 SHORTY 10.5″ | Noveske Rifleworks, accessed September 6, 2025, https://noveske.com/products/10-5-gen-4-shorty-rifle/
  36. Brügger & Thomet MP9 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCgger_%26_Thomet_MP9
  37. MP9 – B&T USA, accessed September 6, 2025, https://bt-usa.com/products/mp9/
  38. Brügger & Thomet APC – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Br%C3%BCgger_%26_Thomet_APC
  39. MP7 | Heckler & Koch, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.heckler-koch.com/en/Products/Military%20and%20Law%20Enforcement/Submachine%20guns/MP7
  40. Heckler & Kock HK MP7A1 Submachine Gun (Germany) 8 | PDF | Projectiles | Weapon Design – Scribd, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/191549851/Heckler-Kock-HK-MP7A1-Submachine-Gun-Germany-8
  41. MP5 9mm – Australian Army, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.army.gov.au/equipment/small-arms/mp5-9mm
  42. Glock 17 Gen 5 Review (SECOND Most Popular Glock Model) – YouTube, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9uZk-LNQ9E
  43. SIG P226 Reviewed – Shooters Report, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.shootersreport.com/pistol/9mm-Shoot-Out-SIG-P226.htm
  44. SIG Sauer P226 Handgun – rdctd, accessed September 6, 2025, https://rdctd.pro/sig-sauer-p226-firearm-review/
  45. Before You Buy – Heckler & Koch USP – Falco Holsters, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.falcoholsters.com/blog/before-you-buy-heckler-koch-usp
  46. 92FS Inox – Beretta, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.beretta.com/en-us/product/92fs-inox-FA0173
  47. Beretta PX4 Storm Review: Unveil Its Full Potential | Craft Holsters, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.craftholsters.com/beretta-px4-storm-review-unveiling-range-performance-features
  48. IWI Jericho 941 Review : Quality, Reliability, and Performance – Gun University, accessed September 6, 2025, https://gununiversity.com/iwi-jericho-941-review/
  49. U.S. ARMY M110 SASS – Sniper Central, accessed September 6, 2025, https://snipercentral.com/u-s-army-m110-sass/
  50. M110 – Knight’s Armament, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.knightarmco.com/12016/shop/military/m110/m110
  51. Accuracy International AWM – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_International_AWM
  52. Accuracy International Super Magnum – Sniper Central, accessed September 6, 2025, https://snipercentral.com/pm_sm.htm
  53. MRAD® – Barrett Firearms, accessed September 6, 2025, https://barrett.net/products/firearms/mrad-standard/
  54. Barrett MRAD – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_MRAD
  55. FN HERSTAL SCAR L STD CAL. 5,56×45 – TR Equipement, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.tr-equipement.com/en/our-products/armement/armes/43-fn-herstal-scar-l-std-cal-556×45.html
  56. Dasan Shows Wares at Seoul ADEX 2023 – Small Arms Defense Journal, accessed September 6, 2025, https://sadefensejournal.com/dasan-shows-wares-at-seoul-adex-2023/
  57. Dasan Machineries DSAR-15 – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasan_Machineries_DSAR-15
  58. Next Generation Squad Weapons (NGSW) Program – PEO Soldier – Army.mil, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.peosoldier.army.mil/Equipment/Equipment-Portfolio/Project-Manager-Soldier-Lethality-Portfolio/Next-Generation-Squad-Weapons-Program/
  59. Army’s Next Generation Squad Weapon – Combat Veterans, accessed September 6, 2025, https://combatvets.socialwork.msu.edu/armys-next-generation-squad-weapon
  60. NATO and the Next Generation Squad Weapon- NGSW – Wavell Room, accessed September 6, 2025, https://wavellroom.com/2024/09/17/nato-and-the-next-generation-squad-weapon-ngsw/
  61. Upcoming Changes to Military Small Arms – SilencerCo, accessed September 6, 2025, https://silencerco.com/blog/upcoming-changes-military-small-arms
  62. SNT Motiv From South Korea Working On 6.8mm Caliber Assault Rifle – CORE Survival, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.coresurvival.com/core-news/snt-motiv-from-south-korea-working-on-68mm-caliber-assault-rifle
  63. South Korea – Defense Industry Equipment – International Trade Administration, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/south-korea-defense-industry-equipment
  64. S. Korean Army launches futuristic demonstration combat team equipped with AI and drones, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOBxrb7enKo
  65. Small arms sights and fire control systems developments – European Security & Defence, accessed September 6, 2025, https://euro-sd.com/2025/02/articles/42724/small_arms_sights_and_fire_control_systems/
  66. The Future of the Battlefield – Office of the Director of National Intelligence – Global Trends, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.dni.gov/index.php/gt2040-home/gt2040-deeper-looks/future-of-the-battlefield
  67. The North Korean Special Purpose Forces an Assessment of the Threat. – DTIC, accessed September 6, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA297448.pdf
  68. Preparing for the Silent Surge: Countering North Korea’s Gambit in a Dual Contingency, accessed September 6, 2025, https://irregularwarfare.org/articles/north-korean-irregular-warfare-dual-contingency/
  69. South Korea’s Offensive Military Strategy and Its Dilemma – Daniel K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, accessed September 6, 2025, https://dkiapcss.edu/south-koreas-offensive-military-strategy-and-its-dilemma/

The Dual Guardians: Iran’s Parallel Military Structure (Artesh vs. IRGC)

Iran’s dual-military structure, comprising the conventional Artesh (the regular army) and the ideological Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), is not an accident of history or a sign of dysfunction. It is a deliberate, core feature of the Islamic Republic’s political architecture, designed to prioritize regime survival above all else. This system is a sophisticated “coup-proofing” strategy 1 that, by design, values ideological purity and asymmetric deterrence over conventional military efficiency.

This structure has created two fundamentally different organizations with asymmetric missions, power, and resources. The IRGC, the regime’s “praetorian guard” 2, has evolved into the state’s political, economic, and military center of gravity, with a constitutional mandate to protect the Revolution.3 In contrast, the Artesh is a “marginalized” 5 conventional force, constitutionally tasked with the traditional defense of Iran’s national sovereignty and borders.6

This report analyzes the architecture, function, and long-term viability of this split. It finds that while the dual structure is operationally inefficient and fosters resource-wasting competition 1, it is highly effective at its primary goals: insulating the Supreme Leader from internal military threats and providing a flexible, deniable, and potent asymmetric capability to project power abroad. The system is therefore highly sustainable. Analysis indicates the IRGC’s deep-state power ensures it will emerge as the undisputed “kingmaker” and primary guarantor of state continuity in any post-Khamenei succession scenario.9

Part 1: Architecture of a Divided Force: Origins and Command

To understand Iran’s military capabilities, one must first understand that its security apparatus was designed from its inception to serve two masters: the ideological Revolution and the territorial State. This duality is the central pillar of its defense doctrine.

1.1 Ideological Origins of the Split (1979 Revolution)

The dual-military system was born from the foundational mistrust of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.10 The revolutionary leadership, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was deeply suspicious of the existing “Imperial Army,” which it viewed as a pillar of the toppled Shah’s regime and potentially loyal to the exiled monarch.10 Despite the Artesh’s February 11, 1979, declaration of neutrality, the new regime saw it as a potential counter-revolutionary threat.10

Consequently, the regime initiated brutal purges, executing and exiling senior military officials and experienced personnel.4 This “ravaged” the Artesh 5, draining its manpower by an estimated 40-60 percent and leaving it “ill equipped”.4 Simultaneously, Khomeini, fearing a future coup, created a parallel force.3 In May 1979, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) was formally established, consolidating several Islamist militias loyal to the revolution.3

The IRGC’s purpose was explicitly political and ideological: to serve as a “counterweight” to the regular military 11, to thwart potential coups by the Artesh 3, and to act as an ideologically pure “praetorian guard” 2 loyal not to the nation, but to the revolution’s clerical leadership and the doctrine of Velayat-e-faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist).3 This foundational act baked institutional rivalry, resource competition, and doctrinal differences into the DNA of the Islamic Republic’s security apparatus.10 This rivalry was not a flaw; it was the central feature.

The 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War was not the cause of the split, but its crucible.13 The Iraqi invasion in 1980 exposed the weakness of the purged Artesh, which was unable to repel the invasion on its own.4 This military necessity forced the rapid professionalization of the IRGC.7 The war gave the IRGC a platform to prove its ideological zeal and military value, creating a powerful “sacred defense” narrative that the Artesh, as the Shah’s remnant, could never claim.14 This conflict cemented the IRGC’s status and entrenched its doctrinal focus on asymmetric warfare, proxy warfare, and ballistic missiles as tools of survival and deterrence.15

1.2 Constitutional Division of Labor: A Mandate for Asymmetry

The 1979 Constitution formally codifies the dual structure, creating a deliberate and profound asymmetry in mission.

  • Article 143 (Artesh): The Artesh, as the national armed forces, is tasked first and foremost with “defending Iran’s independence and sovereignty” and its territorial integrity.6 This is a classical, national defense mission focused on external borders.10
  • Article 150 (IRGC): The IRGC is tasked with the “guarding of the Revolution and its achievements”.3

This seemingly subtle distinction is, in practice, a vast chasm in mandate. The Artesh’s mission is finite, clear, and conventional (defend the borders). The IRGC’s mission is ambiguous, ideological, and borderless. This “seemingly more rewarding job” 6 is interpreted as an all-encompassing legal mandate for the IRGC to intervene in any sphere to “guard the revolution.” This includes preventing foreign interference 3, thwarting internal coups 3, crushing “deviant movements” 3 and domestic dissent 4, and exporting the revolution’s ideology.4 This constitutional ambiguity in Article 150 legally justifies the IRGC’s pervasive intervention in domestic politics, foreign policy, the economy, and internal security 2, far exceeding the mandate of a traditional military.

1.3 The Supreme Leader’s Command and Control (C2) Architecture

The command and control (C2) structure is the primary mechanism for the regime’s political control and coup-proofing.

  1. Supreme Leader as Commander-in-Chief: The Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) is the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces.7 He has the sole authority to declare war and peace and makes all final security policy decisions.7
  2. Sidelining the Elected Government: The elected government is deliberately excluded from the military chain of command. The President of Iran has “relatively few powers,” does not control any armed forces, and is not in the C2 chain.7 The Ministry of Defense and Armed Forces Logistics (MODAFL) is purely an administrative body for R&D, production, and procurement, not a policy or command institution.7
  3. Parallel Chains of Command: Both the Artesh and the IRGC report directly and separately to the Supreme Leader.7 This C2 architecture is designed for political loyalty, not operational efficiency. By having all military chains terminate only with him, the Supreme Leader ensures their primary loyalty is personal (to the Vali-ye Faqih) and not institutional.
  4. Coordinating Bodies: The Supreme Leader uses two primary bodies to coordinate—but explicitly not unify—the parallel forces:
  • Armed Forces General Staff (AFGS): The senior-most military body, setting policy and strategic guidance. Its chief (currently an IRGC officer) is tasked with overseeing and coordinating both forces.7
  • Khatemolanbia Central Headquarters (KCHQ): The top operational headquarters, responsible for operational C2 and coordinating joint military operations.7
  1. Bypassing the Structure: This formal structure is often subverted. The Supreme Leader frequently bypasses the AFGS and KCHQ to issue orders directly to lower-level commanders.7 Furthermore, high-priority branches, most notably the IRGC-Quds Force, have their own privileged, direct line of communication to the Supreme Leader.7

This C2 architecture is the central nervous system of the coup-proofing strategy.1 A successful coup would require the coordination of both the Artesh and the IRGC. The system is designed to make this impossible. With separate C2 chains 1, separate logistics networks 1, separate intelligence services 7, and pervasive counterintelligence bodies 17 loyal only to the Supreme Leader’s office, the two militaries are institutionally incapable of coordinating against him.


Table 1: The Artesh vs. IRGC: Foundational Comparison

MetricArtesh (Conventional Military)IRGC (Revolutionary Guard)
Constitutional MandateArticle 143: Defend national sovereignty & territorial integrity.6Article 150: “Guard the Revolution and its achievements”.3
Primary MissionNational Defense (external). Conventional border security.5Regime Security (internal & external). Internal suppression, border control (volatile areas), exporting revolution.3
Ideological Role“Apolitical,” national, professional.10 Loyal to the nation.Deeply ideological (Khomeinism, Shia Islamism).3 “Praetorian Guard”.2 Loyal to the Supreme Leader.
Political Influence“Marginalized”.5 “Forced to remain apolitical”.2 Wields “very little influence”.5“Immense”.12 A “central player in Iran’s domestic politics”.12 Former commanders populate parliament & government.10
Budgetary AccessSignificantly smaller official budget (e.g., 1/3 of IRGC in 2018).6 “Not as well-funded”.10Larger official budget.7 Direct access to foreign exchange reserves.10
Economic Role“Limited to several chain stores”.10 A “military-bonyad complex” entity but minor.19A “business empire”.3 Controls vast economic sectors via Khatam al-Anbiya 10 and illicit smuggling.21 Generates massive off-budget revenue.22

Part 2: Comparative Analysis: Doctrines and Capabilities

The divergent missions of the Artesh and IRGC manifest in a practical division of labor, equipment, and areas of responsibility. Both forces maintain complete, parallel ground, naval, and air components, but they are optimized for entirely different types of conflict.7

2.1 Naval Forces: Blue-Water Ambition vs. Asymmetric Swarm

The naval split is the clearest example of Iran’s hybrid doctrine. The two forces have overlapping functions but are “distinct” in training, equipment, and “how they fight”.3

  • Artesh Navy (IRIN): The IRIN is Iran’s “strategic force” 7, with a traditional, conventional doctrine.7 It is tasked with projecting “blue-water” power into the Gulf of Oman, the Caspian Sea, and the high seas of the Indian Ocean.7 It operates Iran’s largest, most conventional (though “aging” 16) platforms: larger surface combatants like the Jamaran-class frigate 10, corvettes, and the core submarine fleet, including Russian-built Kilo-class submarines and domestically produced midget subs.7
  • IRGC Navy (IRGCN): The IRGCN employs a “revolutionary” 24 asymmetric doctrine.7 It is a “guerrilla force at sea” 3 whose primary Area of Responsibility (AOR) is the “Persian Gulf” 7 and the critical chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz 25, which it is expected to control in a conflict.3 The IRGCN specializes in “hit-and-run” 3 and “swarming tactics” 27, maintaining a massive inventory of “hundreds” 7 of small, fast attack craft armed with guns, rockets, torpedoes, and missiles.3 It also controls large arsenals of coastal defense anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and naval mines.3

This structure is a purpose-built, hybrid naval solution. The IRIN is for prestige and conventional state-on-state presence. The IRGCN is the actual war-fighting and deterrent force, designed to counter a technologically superior navy (i.e., the United States) in the “shallow and confined waterways” of the Strait of Hormuz.7 This doctrine was forged by failure; “a series of naval battles with the U.S. Navy in April 1988” during the Iran-Iraq War taught Iran that its “large naval vessels are vulnerable to air and missile attacks”.28 That experience directly “confirmed the efficacy of small boat operations” and “spurred interest in missile-armed fast-attack craft,” forming the foundation of the IRGCN’s swarming doctrine today.28

2.2 Air and Aerospace Forces: Conventional Atrophy vs. Strategic Strike

The split in the air domain highlights the regime’s strategic priorities: asymmetric strike over conventional air superiority.

  • Artesh Air Force (IRIAF): This is a conventional air force tasked with defensive roles, such as supporting the national integrated air defense system and providing combat support to ground forces.16 However, it is widely considered Iran’s “most critical weakness” 29 and a “key structural deficiency”.30 The IRIAF is a “badly dated service” 16 operating a “shrinking and unrenewable air fleet” 31 of aging 1970s/80s-era American (F-14, F-4) and Soviet/Russian (MiG-29, Su-24) airframes.16 It is “vastly inferior” to its adversaries and suffers from high accident rates and crippling budgetary disadvantages.16
  • IRGC Aerospace Force (IRGCASF): Renamed from “Air Force” in 2009 32, this move signaled its true mission: strategic deterrence.32 This force is the regime’s “crown jewel”.16 It does not compete with the IRIAF in conventional air-to-air combat. Instead, it controls all of Iran’s most important strategic strike assets:
  1. Ballistic Missiles: The IRGC-ASF is the “primary body responsible” 33 for Iran’s “formidable” 12 and “large” 7 ballistic missile arsenal, the largest in the Middle East.16 This program, born from the “war of the cities” with Iraq, is the “centerpiece” of Iran’s deterrence doctrine.15
  2. UAV (Drone) Program: The IRGC-ASF controls the lethal, “game-changer” 35 drone arsenal.16 This program, originating in the 1980s 35, has become a core strategic asset. Its R&D arm, the Self-Sufficiency Jihad Organization (SSJO), has reverse-engineered captured technology (like the U.S. RQ-170) to create the Shahed family of UAVs.36
  3. Space Program: The IRGC-ASF also runs Iran’s military space force and satellite-launch (SLV) program.7

The regime has made a conscious strategic and budgetary choice. It has allowed the IRIAF to atrophy 31 because it is not cost-effective against U.S. or Israeli airpower. Instead, it has built an “asymmetric air force” composed of ballistic missiles and swarms of attack drones.35 This force is cheaper, has a longer reach, is deniable when used by proxies, and provides the strategic deterrence 15 that the IRIAF’s aging fighters cannot. The IRGC-ASF’s total control of this portfolio makes it arguably the single most powerful military branch in Iran.

2.3 Ground Forces: Border Defense vs. Internal Security

The ground forces reveal the regime’s “geography of trust.”

  • Artesh Ground Force (IRIGF): This is the numerically larger force, with 350,000 personnel to the IRGC-GF’s 150,000.7 Its primary mission is conventional territorial defense against a state-level invasion.5 It is “avowedly apolitical” 18 and controls the “preponderance of heavy ground armor” (tanks).18 It is largely “sidelined” 5 from the regime’s core security concerns.
  • IRGC Ground Force (IRGCGF): This force is focused on regime security.
  1. Internal Security: Its primary role is acting as the regime’s “Praetorian Guard” 2 to suppress domestic dissent.3
  2. Volatile Border Control: The IRGC-GF has taken over primary security responsibility from the Artesh in the most “volatile border provinces,” such as Kurdistan, Sistan va Baluchestan, and West Azerbaijan, which face active insurgencies.5
  3. Expeditionary Role: The IRGC-GF has deployed to foreign theaters like Syria and Iraq to support Quds Force operations.6
  4. Basij Organization: The IRGC-GF also controls the Basij, a massive volunteer paramilitary militia with 90,000 active members and 300,000 reservists.3 The Basij is the primary tool for internal suppression, “policing morals,” and acting as a mass mobilization reserve.7

The deployment map reveals the regime’s priorities. The “unreliable” but conventional Artesh 10 is placed on the external borders to face external state enemies.38 The “loyal” IRGC 5 is deployed internally in cities and in the most sensitive, ethnically volatile border provinces 5 to protect the regime from its own citizens and separatist threats. The Artesh defends Iran; the IRGC defends the Islamic Republic.

While Artesh special forces (the 65th Airborne Brigade) have been deployed to Syria 6, this is not a sign of integration. They were deployed as “individual advisor-observers” 6 and, critically, “under the auspices of IRGC’s Qods Force”.6 This appears to be a token deployment by the Artesh to “ensure its continued relevance” 6 and prove its loyalty, rather than a genuine shift in mission. Distrust between the services remains “relatively strong,” and the Artesh continues to be the “subordinate force”.15

2.4 Air Defense: The One Domain of Integration

Air defense is the single, critical exception to the rule of parallel, rivalrous forces. A divided air defense is operationally suicidal, as it would lead to fratricide and catastrophic failure against a coordinated air and missile strike.

In 2008, the Artesh Air Defense Force (IRIADF) was split from the Air Force (IRIAF) to become its own separate, fourth branch, controlling the country’s military radar network.41 In 2019, the Supreme Leader established the Khatam ol Anbia Air Defense Headquarters (KADHQ).7

This KADHQ is a national command that oversees and integrates all air defense assets (radars, surface-to-air missiles, anti-aircraft artillery) from both the Artesh Air Defense Force (IRIADF) and the IRGC Aerospace Force (IRGCASF).16

Crucially, this KADHQ is “always commanded by a senior Artesh officer”.16 This is a significant, unspoken concession. The regime, prioritizing operational necessity over ideological purity in this single domain, places its trust in Artesh competence. The Artesh, as the legacy Imperial military, retained the institutional knowledge and “classical doctrine” 10 for running a complex, networked, conventional Integrated Air Defense System (IADS)—a core competency the asymmetrically-focused IRGC lacked.

2.5 Intelligence and Cyber Warfare: The New Asymmetric Domains

The dual-force concept extends into the non-kinetic domains. Iran has multiple, overlapping intelligence services, including the Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS), the IRGC Intelligence Organization (IRGC-IO), and the Artesh Directorate for Intelligence (J2).7 This “overlapping missions” structure “fuel[s] competition”.7 The IRGC-IO is described as the “foremost military intelligence service”.7

In cyber warfare, the IRGC is the dominant player.43 The IRGC, the Basij (managing tens of thousands of “cyberwar volunteers” 43), and the Passive Defense Organization (NPDO) are the three leading military organizations in cyber operations.43 Iran’s cyber capabilities originated from domestic needs: surveillance and control of its own population during the 2009 “Green Revolution”.43 These tools were then turned outward.

Iran sees cyberattacks as a key part of its asymmetric military capability.43 It is low-cost, high-impact, and deniable.45 The IRGC’s dominance here is a natural extension of its doctrine: just as it uses swarm boats and missiles to counter U.S. naval and air supremacy, it uses cyber to counter U.S. economic and military power. The intelligence rivalry, like the military rivalry, is a “coup-proofing” feature, not a bug. By having multiple agencies spying on each other 17 as much as on external foes, the regime prevents any one from becoming powerful enough to challenge the Supreme Leader.


Table 2: Comparative Capability Analysis by Domain

DomainArtesh (Conventional Force)IRGC (Revolutionary Force)
NavalArtesh Navy (IRIN)IRGC Navy (IRGCN)
Mission:Conventional coastal defense; “blue-water” power projection.7Asymmetric “guerilla” warfare; sea denial; chokepoint control.3
AOR:Gulf of Oman, Caspian Sea, Indian Ocean (High Seas).7Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz.7
Key Assets:Large surface ships (frigates, corvettes), Kilo-class submarines, midget subs.7Hundreds of small, fast attack craft; swarming boats; naval mines; coastal anti-ship missiles.3
Air / AerospaceArtesh Air Force (IRIAF)IRGC Aerospace Force (IRGCASF)
Mission:Defensive air-to-air, support for IADS, ground support.16Strategic deterrence; strategic strike.32
Key Assets:“Badly dated” 16 fleet of aging 1970s/80s US/Soviet fighter jets (F-14, F-4, MiG-29, Su-24).30Total control of Iran’s:
1. Ballistic Missile Arsenal 12
2. Strategic UAV (Drone) Program 16
3. Military Space Program.32
GroundArtesh Ground Force (IRIGF)IRGC Ground Force (IRGCGF)
Mission:Conventional territorial defense 6; “apolitical” national defense.18Internal regime security; counter-insurgency; rapid reaction; suppression of dissent.4
AOR:National borders.5Internal provinces; volatile border regions (Sistan, Kurdistan) 5; foreign expeditionary.6
Key Assets:Largest force by manpower (350k) 7; preponderance of heavy armor/tanks.18150k troops 7; Basij Organization (paramilitary militia) 3; light infantry; domestic surveillance tools.
Air DefenseArtesh Air Defense (IRIADF)IRGC Aerospace Force (IRGCASF)
Mission:Operates national radar network 41 and IADS components.16Operates its own air defense assets (SAMs, radars).16
Command:INTEGRATED: Both forces’ assets are integrated under the Khatam ol Anbia Air Defense HQ 16, which is commanded by an Artesh officer.16

Part 3: The IRGC as a “State Within a State”

The massive disparity in power between the Artesh and the IRGC cannot be explained by their military roles alone. The IRGC’s power transcends the purely military domain, making it the true center of gravity of the regime. It has become a “state within a state,” with dominant, independent roles in foreign policy, the economy, and domestic politics.

3.1 The Quds Force (IRGC-QF): Architect of the “Axis of Resistance”

The IRGC-Quds Force (IRGC-QF) is the “expeditionary arm” 12 and “clandestine external operations element” 7 of the IRGC, established in 1990.7 Its primary mission is to “export the revolution” 16 by managing and supporting Iran’s network of foreign proxies and partners, known as the “Axis of Resistance”.7

The Quds Force provides leadership, funding, training, intelligence, and materiel 7 to a myriad of non-state groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, the Houthis in Yemen, and various Shia militias in Iraq and Syria.12

The IRGC-QF is Iran’s primary and most effective foreign policy tool, representing its “comparative advantage” in statecraft.39 It uses an irregular 39 “network-building approach” 49 to project power, achieve strategic depth 50, and bog down adversaries 44 on a budget. This is a mission the conventional, “apolitical” Artesh 18 is ideologically and structurally incapable of performing. The Quds Force holds a “special place” 16 in the regime, with a separate line of communication to the Supreme Leader 7 that bypasses the regular C2 structure and even gives it more influence in some countries than Iran’s own Ministry of Foreign Affairs.7

3.2 The Economic Empire: Funding the Praetorians

The IRGC is not just a military, but a “business empire” 3 and “industrial empire with political clout”.3 Its economic power is vast, unaccountable, and controlled only by the Supreme Leader.13

  • Khatam al-Anbiya (KAA): This is the IRGC’s massive engineering and construction arm 10, established after the Iran-Iraq War to help rebuild the country.20 It has since grown into “the most notable financial institution of the IRGC”.20 It dominates huge sectors of the economy—oil and gas, road construction, housing, water management, and agriculture 10—and has been awarded tens of billions in no-bid contracts.10
  • Off-Budget Funding: The IRGC uses its political influence 22 to generate income 54 to fund its own operations.51 It has direct access to Iran’s foreign exchange reserve (from which the Artesh is barred) 10 and engages in large-scale illicit activities, including smuggling 10 and using front companies to circumvent international sanctions.12

In contrast, the Artesh is barred from these lucrative revenue streams.10 Its economic activities are “limited to several chain stores”.10 This is the fundamental difference: the Artesh is a traditional military—a pure cost center that drains the national budget. The IRGC is a hybrid military-conglomerate that generates its own revenue.

This economic autonomy makes the IRGC financially independent and “sanction-proof.” When international sanctions 55 cripple Iran’s official economy, the IRGC thrives by controlling the smuggling routes 21 and the black market. This perversely strengthens its relative power versus the Artesh 55 and the civilian government. This economic dominance is the engine of its political and military superiority.

3.3 Political and Social Dominance: The “Deep State”

The IRGC is “a central player in Iran’s domestic politics”.12 Supreme Leader Khamenei has appointed numerous former IRGC commanders to top political posts, and former guards in parliament advocate for hard-line policies.12 All parliamentarians with a military background are veterans of the IRGC or Basij.10 In contrast, the Artesh is “avowedly apolitical” 18, “forced to remain apolitical” 2, and has virtually no influence in the “regime’s political centers of power”.5

Socially, the IRGC (through the Basij) is the primary tool for suppressing domestic protests.3 It also controls its own media (Sepah News) 3 and a vast “ideological-political organization” (IPO) to ensure the indoctrination of its forces and the public.57 The regime’s “Sacred Defense Cinema” glorifies the IRGC as the victor of the Iran-Iraq War, while largely ignoring the Artesh’s sacrifices, thus cementing its own prestige while diminishing its rival’s.10

The Artesh is merely “hardware”—tanks and ships for a limited function. The IRGC is both the “hardware” (missiles, boats) and the “software” (ideology, politics, media) of the regime. The Artesh is an employee of the state; the IRGC is a shareholder and “kingmaker”.3

Part 4: Net Assessment: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Sustainability

This dual-military structure, while appearing inefficient from a conventional military perspective, is a rational and highly effective system when viewed through the lens of the regime’s unique strategic goals.

4.1 Strengths of the Dual System (From the Regime’s Perspective)

  1. Highly Effective “Coup-Proofing”: This is the system’s primary strength and purpose. By “counterbalancing” 1 the Artesh with the IRGC, the regime creates parallel forces with separate C2 chains 1, separate logistics 1, and institutionalized rivalry.10 This is reinforced by “pervasive surveillance” from independent counterintelligence organizations.17 This structure makes a coordinated military coup against the Supreme Leader a practical impossibility.
  2. Potent Asymmetric Deterrence: The system allows Iran to “employ a hybrid approach to warfare”.45 The IRGC’s focus on asymmetric capabilities—ballistic missiles, drones, proxies, and naval swarms 7—provides a potent, cost-effective, and deniable deterrent 15 against conventionally superior foes.
  3. Flexible, Deniable Power Projection: The IRGC-QF’s proxy network (“Axis of Resistance”) 16 allows Iran to “export its revolutionary ideology” 16 and wage “war by proxy” 15 across the Middle East 44, giving it strategic depth far from its borders.

This system is perfectly tailored to the regime’s two grand strategic goals: 1) Survive internally, and 2) Deter and resist externally.16 A single, unified, conventional military might be better at fighting a conventional war, but it would be worse at both of the regime’s core tasks. It would be a coup risk 3 and would lack the ideological zeal and asymmetric doctrine to run a global proxy network.

4.2 Weaknesses of the Dual System (From a Military Effectiveness Perspective)

  1. Gross Operational Inefficiency: The dual structure is explicitly listed by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency as a “Key Vulnerability”.7 The lack of coordination, separate C2, and rivalrous information-hoarding create massive conventional inefficiency and “informational compartmentalization”.1
  2. “Disastrous Results”: This inefficiency is not theoretical. During the Iran-Iraq War, the disjointed command led to “disastrous results” 1, including accounts of IRGC and Artesh soldiers firing on each other.1
  3. Resource Competition & Wasteful Duplication: The system creates “fierce rivalry” 10 for funding, recruits, and materiel 10, leading to an “ineffective use of resources” 8 and wasteful duplication (e.g., two navies, two air arms).
  4. Conventional Atrophy: The regime’s prioritization of the IRGC has “marginalized” 5 the Artesh. This has hollowed out Iran’s conventional capabilities, leaving it with a “deficit in advanced conventional weaponry” 29 and an air force that is “ill-prepared for modern combat”.16
  5. Systemic Corruption & Public Resentment: The IRGC’s unaccountable economic power 13 fosters massive corruption 53, which hollows out the civilian economy and breeds deep “discontent” 60 and resentment among the population 61, a long-term vulnerability.

The sum of these weaknesses is that Iran has a military structure that is not designed to win a conventional, state-on-state war against a peer or near-peer competitor. It is designed to survive, deter, and protract conflict through asymmetric means. The system sacrifices war-winning capability for regime-survival capability.

4.3 Assessment of Sustainability and Future Trajectory

The dual-military structure, despite its inefficiencies, is an “inherent feature” 15 of the regime and is highly sustainable. The rivalry is intentionally maintained by the leadership 10 precisely because it serves the regime’s primary goal: survival.45

The central challenge to this system’s stability is the eventual succession of the Supreme Leader.4 Supreme Leader Khamenei is the “unifying force” 4 who has a “mutually beneficial relationship” 12 with the IRGC. Any potential successor is seen as lacking Khamenei’s stature, popularity, and religious credentials.9

As a result, any new Supreme Leader “will have no choice but to rely on the IRGC”.9 In a post-Khamenei era, the new leader’s reliance on the IRGC will increase, while the IRGC’s dependence on the new leader will decrease.9

This dynamic will make the IRGC the “military-security guarantor” 9 and “kingmaker” 21 of the post-Khamenei regime. It will likely consolidate its power even further 9, transforming the state into a “military-theocratic order” 63 with the IRGC as the undisputed “center of gravity”.63 Khamenei, with his revolutionary authority, controls the IRGC; his successor, who will likely owe their position to the IRGC’s support, will be managed by it.

In this future, the Artesh’s marginalization 5 will only accelerate. The IRGC, as the “kingmaker,” will ensure its rival remains subordinate 15 and on the periphery.5 The dual system is sustainable, but not as a balance of rivals. It will sustain as an increasingly unequal partnership, with the IRGC effectively absorbing the state and the Artesh relegated to a hollow, ceremonial role as a “national” border guard. The system’s inefficiency is its sustainability, as it guarantees the survival of the ruling ideology, which is its one and only true purpose.


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


Sources Used

  1. (PDF) Relationship between Coup-proofing and Counterinsurgency …, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369082254_Relationship_between_Coup-proofing_and_Counterinsurgency_Insights_from_Iran
  2. The 2010s shifts between IRGC and Artesh: How false nationalism gave hope for an IRGC coup : r/NewIran – Reddit, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/comments/15ax1pm/the_2010s_shifts_between_irgc_and_artesh_how/
  3. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Wikipedia, accessed November 14, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps
  4. IRGC History and Role in Iranian Statecraft – AHS – Alexander Hamilton Society, accessed November 14, 2025, https://alexanderhamiltonsociety.org/security-strategy/issue-one/irgc-history-and-role-in-iranian-statecraft/
  5. The Artesh: Iran’s Marginalized and Under-Armed Conventional …, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/artesh-irans-marginalized-and-under-armed-conventional-military
  6. Iran’s National Army Reorganizes | The Washington Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/irans-national-army-reorganizes
  7. Iran Military Power – Defense Intelligence Agency, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.dia.mil/portals/110/images/news/military_powers_publications/iran_military_power_lr.pdf
  8. Soviet, Russian, and Israeli Assessments of Iran’s Nuclear Strategic Culture – Executive Services Directorate, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Litigation_Release/Litigation%20Release%20-%20Soviet,%20Russian,%20and%20Israeli%20Assessments%20of%20Iran’s%20Nuclear%20Strategic%20Culture%20%20200909.pdf
  9. Moving to a post-Khamenei era: The role of the IRGC and the clergy …, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/moving-post-khamenei-era-role-irgc-and-clergy
  10. Eternal Rivals? The Artesh and the IRGC | American Enterprise Institute – AEI, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.aei.org/articles/eternal-rivals-the-artesh-and-the-irgc/
  11. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) | History, Growth, & Sanctions – Britannica, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islamic-Revolutionary-Guard-Corps
  12. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – Council on Foreign Relations, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/irans-revolutionary-guards
  13. Khatam al-Anbyia – United Against Nuclear Iran, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com/ideological-expansion/khatam-al-anbyia
  14. Guarding History – Joint Chiefs of Staff, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/History/Monographs/Iran_study_complete.pdf
  15. The Strategic Foundations of Iran’s Military Doctrine, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/media-library—content–migration/images/comment/analysis/2017/december/2-mcinnis2125.pdf
  16. Explainer: The Iranian Armed Forces | American Enterprise Institute – AEI, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.aei.org/articles/explainer-the-iranian-armed-forces/
  17. THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC’S ART of SURVIVAL: – The Washington Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/media/3027
  18. The Politics of Iran’s Regular Army | Middle East Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/politics-irans-regular-army
  19. Beyond the IRGC: The rise of Iran’s military-bonyad complex | Clingendael, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.clingendael.org/publication/beyond-irgc-rise-irans-military-bonyad-complex
  20. The Khatam al-Anbiya company and the future of the IRGC empire – JNS.org, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.jns.org/the-khatam-al-anbiya-company-and-the-future-of-the-irgc-empire/
  21. The Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) from an Iraqi View – a Lost Role or a Bright Future? – CSIS, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/iranian-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-irgc-iraqi-view-lost-role-or-bright-future
  22. Decoding Iran’s defence spending: pitfalls and new pointers, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.iiss.org/online-analysis/military-balance/2018/11/decode-iran-defence-spending/
  23. The Iranian Maritime Challenge – DTIC, accessed November 14, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1200387.pdf
  24. Eternal Rivals? The Artesh and the IRGC – Middle East Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/eternal-rivals-artesh-and-irgc
  25. Iran 022217SP.pdf – ONI.Navy.mil, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.oni.navy.mil/Portals/12/Intel%20agencies/iran/Iran%20022217SP.pdf
  26. Iranian Naval Strategy: The Domestic Roots of Iran’s Asymmetric Warfare, accessed November 14, 2025, https://gulfif.org/iranian-naval-strategy-the-domestic-roots-of-irans-asymmetric-warfare/
  27. Iranian Naval “Swarming” Tactics – CNAS, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.cnas.org/publications/blog/iranian-naval-swarming-tactics
  28. Iran’s Doctrine of Asymmetric Naval Warfare | The Washington Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/irans-doctrine-asymmetric-naval-warfare
  29. Iran’s Conventional Military Capabilities – New Lines Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://newlinesinstitute.org/strategic-competition/irans-conventional-military-capabilities/
  30. Iran’s Airpower Mirage: Why New Jets Won’t Fix a Broken System?, accessed November 14, 2025, https://researchcentre.trtworld.com/publications/analysis/irans-airpower-mirage-why-new-jets-wont-fix-a-broken-system/
  31. Iran’s Air Force Overshadowed by the IRGC – The Washington Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/irans-air-force-overshadowed-irgc
  32. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force – Wikipedia, accessed November 14, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps_Aerospace_Force
  33. accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.aei.org/articles/explainer-the-iranian-armed-forces/#:~:text=The%20IRGC%20is%20the%20primary,Aerospace%20Force%2C%20and%20Quds%20Force.
  34. How IRGC Manages Iran’s Strategic Missiles | Defense.info, accessed November 14, 2025, https://defense.info/global-dynamics/2023/07/how-irgc-manages-irans-strategic-missiles/
  35. Iran’s low-cost drones have shifted regional balance, senior Guards commander says, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.iranintl.com/en/202511119726
  36. Iran’s Game of Drones | The Washington Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/irans-game-drones
  37. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) Aerospace Force Self-Sufficiency Jihad Organization | Iran Watch, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.iranwatch.org/iranian-entities/islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-irgc-aerospace-force-self-sufficiency-jihad-organization
  38. Iran’s Security Policy in the Post-Revolutionary Era – RAND, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1320/RAND_MR1320.pdf
  39. War by Proxy: Iran’s Growing Footprint in the Middle East – CSIS, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-proxy-irans-growing-footprint-middle-east
  40. Iran after Sanctions: Military Procurement and Force-Structure Decisions – The International Institute for Strategic Studies, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/media-library—content–migration/images/comment/analysis/2017/december/3-eisenstadt2125.pdf
  41. Islamic Republic of Iran Air Defense Force – Wikipedia, accessed November 14, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air_Defense_Force
  42. Iran Ballistic Missile Procurement Advisory – Office of Foreign Assets Control, accessed November 14, 2025, https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/932206/download?inline
  43. Iran and Cyber Power – CSIS, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/iran-and-cyber-power
  44. Strategic Competition With Iran: The Military Dimension – CSIS, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/strategic-competition-iran-military-dimension
  45. Iran Military Power Report Statement – Department of War, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/2021009/iran-military-power-report-statement/
  46. Forecasting Iranian Government Responses to Cyberattacks – Marine Corps University, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-vol-13-no-1/Forecasting-Iranian-Government-Responses-to-Cyberattacks/
  47. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, the Al Quds Force, and Other Intelligence and Paramilitary Forces – CSIS, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/irans-revolutionary-guards-al-quds-force-and-other-intelligence-and-paramilitary-forces
  48. The IRGC-Quds Force: Iran’s Secret Military Empire – YouTube, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gu3i5FJ_iPM
  49. Iranian Networks in the Middle East – CSIS, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/iranian-networks-middle-east
  50. Iran After the Battle | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed November 14, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/middle-east/diwan/2025/07/iran-after-the-battle?lang=en
  51. Treasury Targets Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, accessed November 14, 2025, https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/tg539
  52. The Economic Empire of the Revolutionary Guards in Iran – Gulf International Forum, accessed November 14, 2025, https://gulfif.org/the-economic-empire-of-the-revolutionary-guards-in-iran/
  53. Economic activities of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps – Wikipedia, accessed November 14, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_activities_of_the_Iranian_Revolutionary_Guard_Corps
  54. A United States Marine’s View of the Artesh and IRGC | Middle East Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/united-states-marines-view-artesh-and-irgc
  55. Sanctioning Iran’s Military-Industrial Complex | Middle East Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.mei.edu/publications/sanctioning-irans-military-industrial-complex
  56. IRGC and Terrorism-Related Sanctions: Why They Fail, What They Achieve | Middle East Briefs | Publications – Brandeis University, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.brandeis.edu/crown/publications/middle-east-briefs/meb160.html
  57. Beyond Borders: the Expansionist Ideology of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, accessed November 14, 2025, https://institute.global/insights/geopolitics-and-security/beyond-borders-expansionist-ideology-irans-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps
  58. Iran: Background and U.S. Policy – Congress.gov, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47321
  59. Iran: More War(s) In the Middle East? There Still May Be Options. – CSIS, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/iran-more-wars-middle-east-there-still-may-be-options
  60. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps: Military and Political Influence in Today’s Iran, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/events/the-islamic-revolutionary-guard-corps-military-and-political-influence-in-todays-iran/
  61. Iran’s foreign policy weaknesses, and opportunities to exploit them – Brookings Institution, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/irans-foreign-policy-weaknesses-and-opportunities-to-exploit-them/
  62. Adversaries and the Future of Competition – CSIS, accessed November 14, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/chapter-1-adversaries-and-future-competition
  63. THE DOSSIER – Post-Khamenei Iran: The Future of Evolutionary Regime Change – New Lines Institute, accessed November 14, 2025, https://newlinesinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/20240423-Dossier-Iran-Future-NLISAP-1-1.pdf