1. Executive Summary

The modernization of the United States military is increasingly defined by a pivot toward unmanned systems, autonomy, and the algorithmic orchestration of forces. As peer competitors accelerate their own investments in asymmetric and autonomous capabilities, the United States has initiated historic funding measures to field attritable, autonomous platforms at scale. However, strategic analysis indicates a critical vulnerability in this modernization trajectory: a systemic fixation on the acquisition of the physical platforms themselves, often at the expense of the digital, regulatory, and cryptographic connective tissue required to operate them within a multi-national coalition.

The Department of Defense (DoD) is actively pursuing an operational doctrine that relies on Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2) to network sensors and shooters across all domains. Yet, warfare is inherently a coalition endeavor. If United States unmanned aerial systems (UAS) cannot seamlessly share targeting data, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) feeds, and command-and-control (C2) directives with allied partner networks, the sheer mass of deployed platforms will yield diminishing tactical returns. Operating an isolated fleet of drones, regardless of their individual technological sophistication, creates dangerous operational blind spots and fundamentally fractures the coalition battlefield.

This report analyzes the systemic hurdles to allied interoperability in unmanned systems operations. It identifies that acquiring physical capabilities frequently ignores profound integration barriers, specifically within cryptographic standards, cross-domain data sharing, and export control regulations like the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). To successfully enable unified warfighter operations, leadership must mandate integration frameworks that prioritize data-centric security architectures, Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) encryption over legacy paradigms, and strict adherence to the Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA). Failing to address these systemic requirements will result in a fragmented coalition battlefield, negating the strategic advantage of the DoD’s massive investments in drone technology and ceding decision dominance to adversaries capable of faster, multi-national data synthesis.

2. The Strategic Pivot Toward Autonomous Mass and “Commercial-First” Acquisition

The current fiscal and strategic environment reflects an unprecedented prioritization of unmanned systems and counter-unmanned aircraft systems (C-UAS). The budgetary proposals for the coming fiscal cycles illustrate a paradigm shift from exquisite, easily targeted legacy platforms toward distributed, attritable mass.

Recent budgetary requests for fiscal year 2027 seek to allocate more than $70 billion toward military drones and counter-drone weapon systems, representing the largest investment in drone warfare in United States history.¹ Within this framework, approximately $53.6 billion is specifically requested for autonomy, drone platforms, collaborative combat aircraft, and contested logistics, while $21 billion is designated for munitions and counter-drone technologies.¹ This marks an exponential increase from prior years, such as the fiscal year 2026 allocation, which sought $13.4 billion for autonomous systems and $3.1 billion for C-UAS capabilities.¹

Complementing this baseline funding are rapid acquisition initiatives designed to circumvent traditional bureaucratic procurement delays. The Drone Dominance Program, launched by the War Department with a projected $1.1 billion investment across four phases, aims to rapidly field low-cost, weaponized one-way attack drones across combat units.² Announced in February 2026, this program initiates “The Gauntlet” at Fort Benning, wherein military operators directly assess 25 competing vendors in operational conditions.² By prioritizing battlefield-driven evaluation over traditional acquisition models, the Department expects to issue $150 million in prototype delivery orders rapidly, projecting the fielding of hundreds of thousands of combat-ready systems by 2027.²

This operationalizes priorities outlined in Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s July 2025 memorandum, signaling a pivot toward attritable mass production.² It echoes lessons drawn from the rapid defense technology ecosystem cultivated by Ukraine following the 2022 Russian invasion.³ Ukraine’s wartime transformation demonstrated that legacy military-industrial complexes, riddled with institutional inertia, are insufficient for modern survival.³ Instead, radical decentralization, bottom-up innovation, and the integration of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies through dedicated, parallel commercial-first budgets are vital.³

Concurrently, the Defense Innovation Unit’s (DIU) Replicator initiative serves as the strategic response to adversarial quantitative advantages, specifically Chinese military mass.⁴ Launched in August 2023, Replicator 1 targets the fielding of multiple thousands of all-domain attritable autonomous (ADA2) systems by August 2025.⁴ Selected systems include AeroVironment’s Switchblade 600, Anduril’s Altius-600 and Ghost-X, alongside software vendors tasked with enabling swarming navigation.⁴ The subsequent phase, Replicator 2, shifts focus to counter-small UAS (C-sUAS) systems for the protection of critical installations and force concentrations.⁴

However, the rapid acquisition of these platforms obscures deeper systemic vulnerabilities. As operationalized through initiatives like Replicator, autonomy solves the challenge of controlling mass numbers of systems simultaneously in anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) contested environments without relying on vulnerable operator control links.⁷ Yet, the network backbone required to support hundreds of thousands of sensors transmitting data, and the interoperability necessary to fight jointly with allies, remains a critical work in progress.⁸ The logistical considerations for fueling, maintaining, mapping, and networking thousands of unmanned vehicles across distributed theaters like INDOPACOM will severely test the limits of current architectures.⁸ Procuring the hardware is ultimately the simplest phase; integrating these diverse assets into a cohesive, secure, multi-national network represents the actual operational bottleneck.

3. The Baseline of Coalition Interoperability

Interoperability within a multi-national alliance is not merely a technical specification; it is a multi-layered strategic imperative. The expansion of NATO to 32 nations, coupled with the commitment of allied leaders to invest 5% of GDP annually on defense by June 2025, amplifies the need for seamless integration.⁹ The Defence Production Action Plan, agreed upon at the 2023 Vilnius Summit, and the NATO Industrial Capacity Expansion Pledge from the 2024 Washington Summit, underscore the commitment to harmonizing defense procurement.⁹

However, defining and measuring this interoperability remains complex. Andreas Tolk’s model of Coalition Interoperability outlines nine distinct layers required for success: (1) Physical Interoperability, (2) Protocol Interoperability, (3) Data/Object Model Interoperability, (4) Information Interoperability, (5) Knowledge/Awareness, (6) Aligned Procedures, (7) Aligned Operations, (8) Harmonized Strategy/Doctrines, and (9) Political Objectives.¹¹ The technological challenges (layers 1-4) frequently yield to political and cultural hurdles, but without a unified technical foundation, the higher strategic layers cannot function.¹¹

In the context of drone warfare, this means that a US-manufactured UAS must not only physically fly in allied airspace but must utilize compatible cryptographic protocols, share a standardized data object model for targeting, and feed information into an aligned operational picture. The lack of agreed formats for collection, management, and the communication of findings prevents allies from developing common interoperability measurement tools, often forcing ad-hoc procedural agility that increases mission risk.¹⁰ A core obstacle to overcoming these layers lies in the rigid cryptographic standards currently employed by the US military.

4. Cryptographic Standards and the Security-Interoperability Paradox

A foundational hurdle to allied interoperability in unmanned systems is the strict regime of cryptographic standards enforced by the United States. Achieving seamless data sharing with coalition partners presents a paradox: the systems must be secure enough to protect highly classified National Security Systems (NSS) data from advanced persistent cyber threats, yet accessible and agile enough to allow foreign partners to plug into the network at the tactical edge.

4.1 The Logistical Burden of Legacy NSA Type 1 Encryption

Historically, the DoD has relied heavily on National Security Agency (NSA) Type 1 encryption to protect data at rest and data in transit.¹³ Type 1 products are highly restricted, classified hardware devices (often referred to as HAIPE devices) designed to encrypt and decrypt sensitive national security information using Suite A algorithms.¹⁴ While they offer unparalleled security assurance, their integration into multi-national, distributed unmanned operations imposes massive logistical and operational burdens.

The deployment of Type 1 encryption on autonomous platforms or in distributed multi-national teams creates severe friction. These devices require stringent continuous physical control, specialized handling procedures, and extensive user training that cannot be rapidly imparted to coalition partners or integrated into their distinct C2 networks.¹⁵ Furthermore, Type 1 devices are expensive, bespoke, and often subject to rigid export restrictions, inherently limiting their distribution to foreign allies.¹⁷ In a highly dynamic, distributed drone swarming environment—where nodes are explicitly designed to be “attritable” and are therefore likely to be lost, jammed, or captured—embedding classified hardware creates an unacceptable operational risk.¹⁴ If a drone carrying a Type 1 device is compromised, the incident triggers catastrophic security protocols.

4.2 The Shift to Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC)

To overcome this paradox, a pivotal shift toward the NSA’s Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC) program is required.¹⁴ CSfC allows organizations to protect classified NSS data using layered Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) technologies, moving away from exclusively developed, classified hardware.¹⁹ By mandating at least two independent, approved layers of encryption (such as MACsec and IPsec protocols), CSfC achieves robust security without the administrative paralyzation of Type 1 devices.¹⁷ If one layer is found to be vulnerable, the secondary layer maintains the integrity of the data.²⁰

The adoption of CSfC fundamentally alters the interoperability landscape. It replaces bespoke hardware with software-driven, commercial standards that can be fielded in months rather than years.¹⁹ For example, commercial tactical networking devices—such as those utilizing Wave Relay mobile ad hoc networks (MANET)—have secured NSA CSfC approval, allowing non-ITAR networking solutions to handle classified data.¹³ This enables warfighters to maintain secure access to classified data even when operating alongside foreign partners on host-nation cellular (5G) or commercial satellite (Starlink) infrastructures, which are otherwise highly exposed domains.¹³ The encryption resides on software within handheld MANET devices or drone payloads, vastly reducing the size, weight, power, and cost constraints.¹⁷

For DoD leadership, the imperative is clear: the integration of unmanned platforms into a multi-national network dictates that acquisition programs explicitly favor CSfC architectures over legacy Type 1 mandates. Without this cryptographic agility, allied forces will remain technologically locked out of the United States’ operational picture, forced to operate through slow, manual liaison channels.

5. Architectural Frameworks: CJADC2 and Cross-Domain Data Sharing

The modern battlefield is inherently multi-domain. Unmanned systems no longer operate in siloed environments; maritime surface drone operations interact with aerial ISR feeds, which are supported by space-based surveillance and ground-based tactical units.²¹ Operating across these spaces requires complex, cross-domain interoperability, which presents significant technical challenges regarding latency, data integrity, and cyber resilience.²¹

5.1 The Evolution of CJADC2

The DoD’s strategic approach to orchestrating this complexity is Combined Joint All-Domain Command and Control (CJADC2). Initiated in 2019, CJADC2 is not a single platform but a warfighting concept and a fusion of technologies, policies, tools, and talent designed to connect sensors and shooters across space, air, land, sea, and cyberspace via a unified network.²⁴ The primary operational goal is to move away from the highly inefficient “swivel chair” model of analysis—where human operators must manually receive data from one isolated system, interpret it, and enter it into another—toward a fully integrated, automated data ecosystem that provides decision advantage.²⁶

Recent milestones demonstrate tangible progress. Following a series of Global Information Dominance Experiments (GIDE), the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office (CDAO) successfully delivered a Minimum Viable Capability (MVC) for CJADC2.²⁶ This iteration combines software applications, data integration, and cross-domain operational concepts that are characterized as low latency and highly reliable.²⁵ Furthermore, initiatives like Project Olympus, led by the Joint Staff J-6, are actively forging digital pathways to implement mission partner environment architectures on live networks, supporting multi-national operations spanning multiple combatant commands.²⁸

However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) notes that the DoD has historically struggled to build a comprehensive framework to guide CJADC2 investments enterprise-wide.²⁴ In the absence of strict, centralized direction, military departments continue to pursue C2 projects in isolation, risking duplication of effort and the creation of new, incompatible data silos.²⁴

5.2 Transitioning to Data-Centric Security

A primary barrier to realizing CJADC2 with international partners is overly restrictive data classification.²⁴ Historically, security was approached through network-centric models: building high, secure walls around specific, isolated networks (e.g., SIPRNet) and strictly controlling access to the network itself.²⁸ This model fails catastrophically in a coalition environment where partners utilize disparate national networks and custom infrastructures that take weeks or months to specially bridge and configure.²⁹

To achieve multi-national interoperability, the DoD is fundamentally transitioning to data-centric security.²⁸ Rather than relying solely on network boundaries, data-centricity manages access at the individual data object level.²⁸ Intelligence and ISR data are tagged with specific metadata that determines releaseability based on the attributes, nationality, and clearance of the end-user.²⁸ This paradigm allows for agile and targeted access to critical information on an integrated network, effectively enabling greater information sharing by applying more granular, rather than broader, security controls.²⁸

5.3 Cross Domain Solutions (CDS) as the Mission Enabler

Safely moving this data between domains, classification levels, and coalition networks requires robust Cross Domain Solutions (CDS). A CDS is far more than a simple firewall; it is a specialized device or collection of devices that mediate controlled access and the transfer of information across varying security boundaries.³² In the context of unmanned operations, a CDS enforces defined security policies to automatically and meticulously inspect, sanitize, and validate every single transaction.³²

This allows vital information—such as real-time drone video feeds, cursor-on-target data, command and control instructions, and sensor cueing messages—to flow securely between highly classified networks (like a US Navy combat information center) and unclassified or coalition systems.³² Without integrated CDS, the vast streams of data generated by multi-national ISR platforms would remain trapped in isolated enclaves, creating dangerous operational blind spots and delaying the decision-making kill chain in highly contested environments.³³ Tactical CDS variants (TACDS) guarantee the integrity of mission-critical data when transferred between US networks, Five Eyes (FVEY) coalition networks, and broader NATO partners, stimulating opportunities for real-time data convergence in multi-domain operations.³²

6. The Material Solution: SABRE and the Mission Partner Environment

The conceptual shift toward data-centricity and CJADC2 requires a concrete material solution. The DoD is operationalizing this through the Mission Partner Environment (MPE), which acts as the United States’ primary contribution to federated mission networking.²⁹ The MPE is designed to provide a connected operating environment for US forces and coalition partners, allowing them to exchange information seamlessly.²⁹

The core software tool enabling the MPE is the Secret and Below Releasable Environment (SABRE).³⁰ SABRE provides a globally connected, continuous collaboration environment that allows US Combatant Commands, select allies, and interagency partners to share tactical data using their own disparate networks.³¹ Hosted across geographically dispersed, government-owned/contractor-operated classified cloud production environments, SABRE liberates data from incompatible silos.²⁹

SABRE leverages strict data-centric protocols, incorporating standards like ADatP-4774 (Confidentiality Metadata Label Syntax) and ADatP-4778 (Metadata Binding Mechanism) to ensure that information shared within chat environments or C2 applications is accurately tagged for releaseability.³⁷ This ensures that when a US drone identifies a target, the intelligence can be instantly routed through SABRE to a partnered artillery unit whose network is authorized to view that specific classification of data, cutting the decision-making kill chain drastically.³¹

Recent tests, such as the Capstone 2025 event conducted by the US Air Force’s Battle Lab (ShOC-N), demonstrate SABRE’s potential. By integrating joint forces alongside Five Eyes partners (the UK and Canada), the experiment successfully assessed the interoperability of AI and machine learning tools, advancing cross-national technological collaboration in dynamic targeting scenarios.³⁸

7. Navigating the Regulatory Labyrinth: Export Controls and Technology Transfer

While cryptographic architecture and data-centric software provide the technical means for interoperability, the policy frameworks governing the export and transfer of military technology frequently create profound procedural delays. The goal of integrating allied capabilities is consistently undermined by outdated export control systems originally designed to contain Cold War proliferation.

7.1 Reinterpreting the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)

The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is a voluntary multilateral arrangement established in 1987 to limit the proliferation of delivery systems capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction.³⁹ Under the MTCR Guidelines, “Category I” items are subject to a strong presumption of denial for export.³⁹ Historically, the regime categorized complete unmanned aerial vehicle systems capable of a 300-kilometer range and a 500-kilogram payload directly alongside ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles.³⁹ Furthermore, “range” under these regulations is rigidly defined as the maximum distance an aircraft can travel in one direction under perfect, fuel-efficient flight conditions, completely independent of operational reality, payloads, or telemetry limits.⁴²

This categorization severely hindered the United States’ ability to export capable, long-endurance drones to allied nations. By enforcing an even higher bar than the MTCR Guidelines required, the US unintentionally ceded global drone market share to nations operating outside the regime’s strict interpretations, such as China and Turkey, fracturing the technological baseline of the broader NATO alliance.⁴⁰

Recognizing this strategic failure, the US Department of State implemented a crucial policy shift in September 2025.⁴³ The update explicitly reinterprets MTCR rules, directing that requests to export military UAS will now be reviewed under policies similar to those for crewed fighter aircraft, rather than as missile systems.⁴¹ This fast-track framework reduces bureaucratic friction, streamlines Foreign Military Sales (FMS) approval, and signals a shift toward faster capability adoption by trusted allies.⁴¹ Faster exports open the door for adjacent innovations—secure communications, counter-UAS systems, and swarming software—which are prerequisites for achieving platform interoperability across NATO and the Indo-Pacific.⁴⁴

7.2 ITAR Constraints and the Algorithmic Classification Trap

The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) similarly governs the export of defense-related technologies.⁴⁵ Drone technologies intended for military use reliably fall under the US Munitions List (USML) Categories IV, VIII, or XII, depending on their capability.⁴² While exporting the physical airframe presents known regulatory challenges, a unique and severe bottleneck emerges regarding artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous software.

As the DoD aggressively pursues collaborative combat aircraft and autonomous swarming logic to fulfill Replicator’s mandate, the algorithms driving these systems are heavily scrutinized. If an AI layer provides capabilities such as target identification, weapons guidance, electronic-warfare countermeasure optimization, or autonomous strike authorization, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) views the algorithm as fundamentally inseparable from the defense article itself.⁴⁶ Thus, the software—even if derived from commercial origins—becomes ITAR-controlled technical data.

Furnishing assistance to foreign persons in designing or optimizing these targeting algorithms triggers severe defense-service exposure.⁴⁶ This creates an intractable bottleneck in multi-national drone operations. If an allied nation purchases an American drone platform but cannot access, update, or integrate its underlying autonomy software with their indigenous C2 systems due to ITAR technical data constraints, the platform remains functionally isolated. Prototyping and program calendars shrink significantly when engineers must treat ITAR as a design constraint rather than a post-design hurdle, requiring secure data flows and centralized U.S. fabrication footprints.⁴⁷

7.3 The AUKUS Exemption Framework

To mitigate these regulatory choke points among the closest allies, the US implementation of the ITAR § 126.7 Exemption for the AUKUS partnership (Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) represents a landmark legislative shift.⁴⁸ Effective September 1, 2025, this exemption grants the UK and Australia a privileged status comparable to Canada, officially recognizing their export control systems as comparable to those of the United States.⁵⁰

This significantly reduces the requirement to obtain individual DDTC licenses for defense trade among Authorized Users.⁴⁸ By removing restrictions on transfers, the exemption theoretically allows for deep defense industrial integration and co-development of advanced UAS capabilities.⁵⁰ However, aerospace industry analysis warns that the operational success of this exemption depends entirely on its administrative implementation.⁵¹ Current treaty exemptions are often ignored by industry due to disproportionate administrative burdens; if the scope of Congress’s intent is unnecessarily narrowed by legacy bureaucratic reflexes, the friction will persist.⁵¹ Expanding such streamlined, reciprocal regulatory models beyond AUKUS to the broader NATO alliance is critical to meet the operational timelines demanded by the Drone Dominance Program.

8. Tactical Integration Frameworks: Bridging the “Day Zero” Gap

The strategic alignment of cryptographic policies and export control reform must eventually translate into tangible, tactical capability at the edge. “Day Zero” interoperability refers to the capability of multi-national systems to function seamlessly in a coalition operation from the very first moment of deployment, without requiring extensive in-theater retrofitting.⁵³ Achieving this requires robust, pre-established integration frameworks.

8.1 Federated Mission Networking (FMN)

NATO’s broad approach to Day Zero interoperability is rooted in Federated Mission Networking (FMN).⁵⁴ Evolving from the Afghanistan Mission Network (AMN)—which was initially built to unify disparate national communication systems into a single operational picture within a specific theater—FMN establishes standardized operating procedures and capability baselines for future coalition warfare.⁵⁴

FMN dictates that participating nations confirm their communication systems comply with NATO security and interoperability principles prior to allocation.⁵⁶ It relies heavily on standardization across modelling and simulation, utilizing protocols like the High Level Architecture (HLA) and Command and Control Systems – Simulation Systems Interoperation (C2SIM).⁵³ However, the adoption of FMN faces severe technical, logistical, and bureaucratic challenges.⁵⁷ The slow pace of allied defense procurement often prevents the rapid adoption of innovative technology required to meet FMN baselines.⁵⁷ Furthermore, the continuous need for rigorous Federated Service Management and Control (FSMC) to align IT components across borders means that FMN is often too cumbersome for rapid, tactical deployments involving newly acquired commercial drone tech.⁵⁸

8.2 The Mission Partner Kit (MPK) Paradigm

While strategic networks like FMN mature at the enterprise level, tactical units require immediate solutions. The development of the Mission Partner Kit (MPK) by the US Army’s 2nd Cavalry Regiment (2CR) provides a highly effective blueprint for rapid, tactical-level interoperability.⁵⁹ Informed directly by the rapid assimilation of commercial technologies in the Ukraine conflict, the MPK addresses the severe delays and operational risks caused by the fundamental incompatibility of partner radio networks and C2 systems.⁵⁹

The MPK is entirely software-centric and platform-agnostic, leveraging COTS applications built upon the Army’s Nett Warrior foundation.⁵⁹ Hosted in government-approved commercial clouds and secured via zero-trust cybersecurity principles and software-based encryption, it completely circumvents the need for specialized, ITAR-restricted hardware encryption devices.⁵⁹

By allowing multinational partners to access applications via simple quick response (QR) codes on any mobile device—or by allowing US units to issue pre-loaded commercial smartphones to allies lacking compatible tech—the MPK instantly brings allied forces onto a synchronized Common Operating Picture (COP).⁵⁹ Tested successfully during major NATO exercises like Griffin Shock 23 and Saber Strike 24, the MPK allowed German battalion leaders to report operational data and checkpoint crossings to US headquarters in real-time, completely bypassing traditional technical and cryptographic barriers that historically plagued joint exercises.⁵⁹

9. Platform Standardization: STANAG 4586 and the Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)

To ensure that the physical drone platforms acquired by the DoD can integrate into these tactical and strategic networks, strict adherence to engineering standards is required. The aerospace market’s gradual transition from closed, proprietary, monolithic systems to open architectures is vital for multi-domain operations.⁶¹

9.1 NATO STANAG 4586

For unmanned aerial vehicles specifically, interoperability relies heavily on standardization agreements. STANAG 4586 establishes the standard interfaces for UAV Control Systems (UCS) within NATO.⁶¹ It defines critical architectural elements, specifically the Vehicle Specific Module (VSM) and the Data Link Interface (DLI).⁶² The DLI provides a common set of messages and formats to enable communication between a variety of air vehicles and compliant control systems.⁶⁴ Ensuring compliance with STANAG 4586 means that a control station operated by one NATO nation can effectively communicate with, task, and operate a drone manufactured by another, breaking down the siloed procurement models of the past.⁶¹

9.2 The Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA)

This philosophy of open architecture is broadly encapsulated in the DoD’s mandate for a Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA).⁶⁵ Mandated by Title 10 U.S.C. 4401(b) for all major defense acquisition programs, MOSA dictates that systems be designed using modular interfaces between major components.⁶⁶ By adhering to widely supported, consensus-based standards—such as Open Mission Systems (OMS) for aviation, the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) for software, and the C5ISR/EW Modular Open Suite of Standards (CMOSS)—MOSA ensures that sensors, communications payloads, and flight control software are severable.⁶⁶

Embracing MOSA prevents vendor lock-in, reduces total lifecycle costs, and facilitates continuous technology refresh.⁶⁵ Crucially for interoperability, a MOSA-compliant drone allows the Department of Defense to strip out a proprietary US communications module and replace it with an allied nation’s sovereign radio system, or upgrade a targeting sensor without requiring a total system redesign.⁶⁸ The operational flexibility to configure available assets to meet rapidly changing, multi-national operational requirements is a direct result of strict MOSA enforcement.⁶⁸

10. Strategic Directives for Department of Defense Leadership

The tendency of American defense planning to fixate on the technological specifications of the platform itself—speed, payload capacity, and autonomous swarming capability—ignores the stark reality that a drone is only as lethal and effective as the network it inhabits. The Department of Defense cannot achieve unified warfighter operations within a multi-national coalition through raw procurement scale alone; it requires deliberate, mandated integration frameworks established and enforced from the highest levels of leadership.

The planned expenditure of over $70 billion on drone warfare, alongside rapid procurement mechanisms like the Drone Dominance Program and Replicator, represents a decisive commitment to modernizing the force.¹ However, as the logistical and procedural friction of previous INDOPACOM experiments demonstrates, pushing programs rapidly through the acquisition system is vastly easier than employing them effectively alongside allies in combat.⁸

To overcome the systemic hurdles of cryptographic standards, cross-domain data sharing, and export control friction, DoD leadership must aggressively pursue the following strategic directives:

1. Mandate Data-Centric Security Across All Acquisitions: The era of network-centric “high castle wall” security is incompatible with coalition warfare. Leadership must ensure that all newly acquired unmanned systems and C2 software integrate natively with data-centric models like SABRE and the Mission Partner Environment (MPE).²⁸ The ability to apply zero-trust authentication and tag individual ISR data objects for releaseability must be written into the base requirements of the Replicator initiative.⁴ Without this, the United States will field hundreds of thousands of drones that are technically incapable of sharing sensor data with the allies fighting alongside them.

2. Default to Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC): To ensure allied forces can plug into the tactical network, leadership must shift away from the reflexive use of highly restrictive, bespoke Type 1 encryption hardware for attritable edge devices.¹⁴ Embracing CSfC frameworks that utilize dual-layered software encryption (such as MACsec and IPsec) allows for the deployment of advanced MANET networks on commercial hardware.¹³ This provides the agility required to securely connect disparate forces in contested environments without the untenable logistical burdens and export restrictions of legacy classified equipment.¹⁴

3. Standardize Joint Interoperability Frameworks: Agreements such as the US/UK Joint Declaration of Intent to establish common data standards for C-UAS technologies, driven by Joint Interagency Task Force 401 (JIATF-401), must become the default operational standard rather than exceptional milestones.⁷⁰ The integration of diverse capabilities is heavily hindered by incompatible data formats; by mandating that vendors comply with joint data standards to participate in defense marketplaces, the DoD forces the industry to build interoperability natively.⁷⁰ Furthermore, compliance with NATO STANAG 4586 for control system interfaces must be rigorously enforced to prevent closed, proprietary ecosystems from fracturing the alliance.⁶¹

4. Fully Operationalize MOSA Requirements: The Modular Open Systems Approach must transition from a theoretical preference to an absolute contractual necessity in all drone procurements.⁶⁶ Leadership must utilize legal frameworks and acquisition strategies to ensure that all drone platforms utilize severable, modular architectures with open interfaces like FACE and CMOSS.⁶⁵ This allows for the rapid integration of third-party software—including allied targeting algorithms or sovereign communications protocols—without requiring total system redesigns by the original manufacturer.⁶⁸

5. Aggressively Pursue Export Control Modernization: While the recent MTCR reinterpretation and the AUKUS ITAR exemptions are vital steps forward, they must be rigorously implemented and expanded.⁴⁰ Leadership must work closely with the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) to establish clearer guidelines for the export of AI-driven autonomy software.⁴⁶ If the algorithmic layers of drones remain trapped behind impenetrable ITAR defense-service firewalls, true collaborative swarming and co-development with coalition partners will remain impossible.⁴⁶

The defining metric of success for the United States’ unmanned systems strategy will not be the raw number of attritable platforms fielded by 2027. Rather, success will be measured by the speed, security, and interoperability of the network connecting them. It will be defined by the latency with which a US autonomous sensor can detect a threat, process the targeting data through a Cross Domain Solution, navigate ITAR releaseability protocols via SABRE, and securely transmit firing coordinates to an allied strike asset. By pivoting strategic focus from the platform to the network—enforcing data-centric architectures, prioritizing CSfC and MOSA frameworks, and dismantling antiquated export constraints—the Department of Defense can ensure that its massive investments yield a truly unified, interoperable, and overwhelmingly lethal coalition force.

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

Sources Used

1. DOD moves to make its largest-ever investment in drones and anti-drone weapons, accessed April 24, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2026/04/21/dod-plans-largest-ever-investment-drones-anti-drone-weapons/
2. Drone Dominance Program Begins With 25 U.S. and Allied Vendors, accessed April 24, 2026, https://botsanddrones.co/news/f/drone-dominance-program-begins-with-25-us-and-allied-vendors
3. Unleashing U.S. Military Drone Dominance: What the United States Can Learn from Ukraine, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/unleashing-us-military-drone-dominance-what-united-states-can-learn-ukraine
4. Deep Dive: Pentagon’s Replicator Initiative Raises Questions | Inkstick, accessed April 24, 2026, https://inkstickmedia.com/deep-dive-pentagons-replicator-initiative-raises-questions/
5. Is Replicator Replicable? | The Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/replicator-replicable
6. Fact Sheet: DoD Strategy for Countering Unmanned Systems – Department of War, accessed April 24, 2026, https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/05/2003599149/-1/-1/0/FACT-SHEET-STRATEGY-FOR-COUNTERING-UNMANNED-SYSTEMS.PDF
7. Replicator: A Bold New Path for DoD | Center for Security and Emerging Technology %, accessed April 24, 2026, https://cset.georgetown.edu/article/replicator-a-bold-new-path-for-dod/
8. Replicator Initiative Continues Unmanned System Development | Federal Budget IQ, accessed April 24, 2026, https://federalbudgetiq.com/insights/replicator-initiative-continues-unmanned-system-development/
9. NATO’s role in defence industry production, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/deterrence-and-defence/natos-role-in-defence-industry-production
10. Measuring Interoperability Within NATO: Adapted Off-the-Shelf Tool or Bespoke Solution?, accessed April 24, 2026, https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/4129346/measuring-interoperability-within-nato-adapted-off-the-shelf-tool-or-bespoke-so/
11. Air Defense Integration and Interoperability Challenges within the NATO Alliance – DTIC, accessed April 24, 2026, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1162310.pdf
12. Interoperability: Winning Happens in the Off-Season – The Imperative for Warfighting Success in a Coalition Warfighter Exercise | Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University, accessed April 24, 2026, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2025/11/19/interoperability-warfighter-exercises/
13. NSA Approves Wave Relay Devices for Securing Classified Information, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.afcea.org/signal-media/cyber-edge/nsa-approves-wave-relay-devices-securing-classified-information
14. UXS Authentication and Key Exchange Requirements for Multidomain Operation and Joint Interoperability – DTIC, accessed April 24, 2026, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1185016.pdf
15. COMMERCIAL SOLUTIONS for CLASSIFIED (CSfC) Data-at-Rest Capability Package 5.1.0 Draft 1.0 – National Security Agency, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/75/(U)%20Data-at-Rest%20CP%20v5_1%20Draft%201_0.pdf?ver=5imAoljF7WynEopBPpKOxQ%3D%3D
16. Sponsored: NSA Type 1 Products vs. Commercial Solutions for Classified (CSfC), accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.afcea.org/signal-media/cyber/sponsored-nsa-type-1-products-vs-commercial-solutions-classified-csfc
17. Wave Relay Devices Receive NSA Approval for Classified Communications | UST, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/2025/06/wave-relay-devices-receive-nsa-approval-for-classified-communications/
18. Commercial Solutions for Classified Program (CSfC) – National Security Agency, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.nsa.gov/resources/Commercial-Solutions-for-Classified-Program/
19. Commercial Solutions for Classified Program – Overview – National Security Agency, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.nsa.gov/Resources/Commercial-Solutions-for-Classified-Program/Overview/
20. CSfC vs Type 1 Encryption: An Overview – Crystal Group, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.crystalrugged.com/knowledge/csfc-vs-type-1-encryption/
21. Cross-Platform Drone Training: Prepare Now for Multi-Domain Operations, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.autonomyglobal.co/cross-platform-drone-training-prepare-now-for-multi-domain-operations/
22. Multi-Domain Situational Awareness | L3Harris® Fast. Forward., accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/multi-domain-situational-awareness
23. From Silos to Systems: Why America’s Transportation Future Demands a Cross Domain Digital Infrastructure Strategy | Commercial UAV News, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.commercialuavnews.com/from-silos-to-systems-cross-domain-digital-infrastructure-transportation
24. Defense Dept. Still Lacks Unified CJADC2 Framework, GAO Finds, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2025/4/8/defense-dept-still-lacks-unified-cjadc2-framework-gao-finds
25. Pentagon Delivers ‘Minimum Viable’ CJADC2 Capabilities – MeriTalk, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.meritalk.com/articles/pentagon-delivers-minimum-viable-cjadc2-capabilities/
26. GAO-25-106454, DEFENSE COMMAND AND CONTROL : Further Progress Hinges on Establishing a Comprehensive Framework, accessed April 24, 2026, https://files.gao.gov/reports/GAO-25-106454/index.html
27. Hicks Announces Delivery of Initial CJADC2 Capability – Department of War, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3683482/hicks-announces-delivery-of-initial-cjadc2-capability/
28. Project Olympus Forges Critical Digital Pathways to Enable …, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3981139/project-olympus-forges-critical-digital-pathways-to-enable-interoperability/
29. Data-Centricity for Global Mission Collaboration – Booz Allen, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.boozallen.com/insights/jadc2/going-data-centric-for-global-mission-collaboration.html
30. Modernizing DOD–Coalition Information Sharing for JADC2 Warfare – SAIC, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.saic.com/perspectives/jadc2/modernizing-dod-coalition-information-sharing-for-jadc2-warfare
31. Mission Partner Environment Cuts Decision Making, Kill Chain – Department of War, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2854238/mission-partner-environment-cuts-decision-making-kill-chain/
32. FAQ For Cross Domain Solutions – General Dynamics Mission Systems, accessed April 24, 2026, https://gdmissionsystems.com/cross-domain-solutions/faqs
33. Cross Domain Solutions: DoD-Approved CDS, TACDS & Hardware Suppliers, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.defenseadvancement.com/suppliers/cross-domain-solutions/
34. How to Secure ISR Data Sharing for Multi-Domain Operations – Everfox, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.everfox.com/blog/cross-domain-solutions/how-to-secure-isr-data-sharing-for-multi-domain-operations
35. SABRE military software tool approaching initial operational capability – DefenseScoop, accessed April 24, 2026, https://defensescoop.com/2022/04/27/sabre-military-software-tool-approaching-initial-operational-capability%EF%BF%BC/
36. Secret and Below Releasable Environment (SABRE) IT Integration Service Request For Information (RFI) – SAM.gov, accessed April 24, 2026, https://sam.gov/opp/10eba1801c234ced888af0265b6abd0f/view
37. Secret and Below Releasable Environment (SABRE) – NCSI, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.ncsi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Mr.-Grasse-.pdf
38. Capstone 2025: Advancing AI for C2, dynamic targeting, coalition integration – USAF, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4363112/capstone-2025-advancing-ai-for-c2-dynamic-targeting-coalition-integration/
39. MTCR Guidelines, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.mtcr.info/en/mtcr-guidelines
40. Missile Technology Control Regime Reform: Key Changes and Next …, accessed April 24, 2026, https://aerospace.csis.org/missile-technology-control-regime-reform-key-changes-and-next-steps/
41. U.S. Reinterprets MTCR Rules to Fast Track Drone Sales | Arms Control Association, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2025-10/news/us-reinterprets-mtcr-rules-fast-track-drone-sales
42. UAVs and ITAR: Why Range Matters – Wiggin and Dana LLP, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.wiggin.com/publication/uavs-and-itar-why-range-matters/
43. U.S. Department of State Eases Military Drone Export Review Policy | Blank Rome LLP, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.blankrome.com/publications/us-department-state-eases-military-drone-export-review-policy
44. Drone Export Policy Reset: Faster Allies’ Adoption – eMerge Americas, accessed April 24, 2026, https://emergeamericas.com/us-drone-export-policy-reset-2025/
45. Drone Guidance – UTA Faculty & Staff Resources, accessed April 24, 2026, https://resources.uta.edu/research/regulatory-services/export-control/drone-guidance.php
46. ITAR & AI-Enabled Defense Technologies: Autonomous Systems, Targeting Algorithms, and the New Export-Control Frontier – International Law Services, accessed April 24, 2026, https://frilinglaw.com/tr/blog/itar-ai-defense-technologies
47. ITAR Certified UAV and Drone Manufacturing | Protolabs, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.protolabs.com/resources/blog/how-to-accelerate-defense-uav-prototyping-under-itar-constraints/
48. ITAR § 126.7 Exemption for Australia and the UK – DDTC, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/ddtc_public?id=ddtc_kb_article_page&sys_id=aed45e8b9702b2d067b1791ad053af7b
49. International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Exemption for Defense Trade and Cooperation Among Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States – Federal Register, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/30/2025-23998/international-traffic-in-arms-regulations-exemption-for-defense-trade-and-cooperation-among
50. On the third AUKUS anniversary, a toast to ITAR reform and a call to keep going, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/on-the-third-aukus-anniversary-a-toast-to-itar-reform-and-a-call-to-keep-going/
51. Aerospace Industries Association Comments On The Proposed Rule Entitled “International Traffic in Arms Regulations: Exemption, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.aia-aerospace.org/wp-content/uploads/AIA_AUKUS-ITAR-Exemption-Comments-5.31.2024-FINAL-1.pdf
52. Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles and Systems | FIU Export Control, accessed April 24, 2026, https://exportcontrol.fiu.edu/export/topics/unmanned-and-autonomous-vehicles/
53. Advancing Modelling and Simulation in NATO Federated Mission Networking, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.sto.nato.int/document/advancing-modelling-and-simulation-in-nato-federated-mission-networking/
54. History of Federated Mission Networking (FMN) Development – Base Camp Connect, accessed April 24, 2026, https://basecampconnect.com/history-federated-mission-networking-fmn/
55. Federated Mission Network Preparing for Sweden – Issuu, accessed April 24, 2026, https://issuu.com/globalmediapartners/docs/nitech8/s/17732020
56. Ensuring Cyber Resilience in NATO’s Command, Control and Communication Systems, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/07/ensuring-cyber-resilience-natos-command-control-and-communication-systems-0/3-nuclear
57. Overcoming the Challenges of Federated Mission Networking – Base Camp Connect, accessed April 24, 2026, https://basecampconnect.com/overcoming-the-challenges-of-federated-mission-networking/
58. Mission Networks Require Service Management – AFCEA International, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.afcea.org/signal-media/cyber-edge/mission-networks-require-service-management
59. Mission Partner Kit: Advancing Multinational Interoperability with …, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.army.mil/article/283999/mission_partner_kit_advancing_multinational_interoperability_with_nato_allies
60. Mission Partner Kit: Advancing Multinational Interoperability with NATO Allies, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Infantry/Infantry-Archive/Spring-2025/Mission-Partner-Kit/
61. Interoperability and STANAG 4586 In Flight Control Systems By UAV Navigation-Grupo Oesía, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.uavnavigation.com/company/blog/interoperability-and-stanag-4586-flight-control-systems-uav-navigation-grupo-oesia
62. STANAG 4586–Standard Interfaces of UCS for NATO UAV Interoperability, accessed April 24, 2026, https://publications.sto.nato.int/publications/STO%20Educational%20Notes/STO-EN-SCI-271/EN-SCI-271-03.pdf
63. STANAG 4586: UAV Control System Standards | PDF | Unmanned Aerial Vehicle – Scribd, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.scribd.com/document/814956193/4586eed3draft
64. nato unclassified – InnUVative Systems, accessed April 24, 2026, http://www.innuvativesystems.com/STANAG4586Eed02a2_PubliclyReleased.pdf
65. MOSA | NAVAIR, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.navair.navy.mil/MOSA
66. Modular Open Systems Approach (MOSA) – Defense Standardization Program, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.dsp.dla.mil/Programs/MOSA/
67. What is MOSA? – BAE Systems, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/definition/what-is-mosa
68. Modular Open Systems Approach – DoW Research & Engineering, OUSW(R&E), accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.cto.mil/sea/mosa/
69. Modular open systems: The future of flight for the U.S. Army | Collins Aerospace – RTX, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.rtx.com/collinsaerospace/news/stories/2024/10/modular-open-systems-the-future-of-flight-for-the-us-army
70. US, UK set joint counter-drone technology standards | Article | The United States Army, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.army.mil/article/290973/us_uk_set_joint_counter_drone_technology_standards
71. JIATF 401 Publishes New Guidance for Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4394552/jiatf-401-publishes-new-guidance-for-physical-protection-of-critical-infrastruc/

1. Executive Summary

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is in the midst of a foundational paradigm shift regarding the procurement, deployment, and operational integration of unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Driven by strategic initiatives such as Replicator, the DoD aims to field all-domain attritable autonomous systems at an unprecedented scale to offset the quantitative and anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) advantages of near-peer competitors.¹ This initiative represents a recognition that the character of warfare has fundamentally changed; massed, low-cost precision strike capabilities are replacing solitary, exquisite platforms as the primary arbiters of tactical success.³ However, while institutional focus and capital investment are overwhelmingly directed toward the kinematic capabilities and production scale of these airframes, a critical operational vulnerability remains largely unaddressed: the systemic enterprise architecture required to conduct accurate, near-real-time post-strike Battle Damage Assessment (BDA).

When hundreds of autonomous assets engage a target matrix simultaneously, the resulting battlespace becomes highly opaque. The traditional methodology for evaluating strike effectiveness relies heavily on centralized Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets, supported by human-in-the-loop Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination (PED) workflows.⁴ These legacy systems, developed for deliberate operations, are entirely unsuited for the speed, volume, and complexity of autonomous swarm engagements. The inability to rapidly verify target destruction, attribute specific kinetic effects to individual platforms amidst heavy electronic warfare, and dynamically update the Common Operating Picture (COP) creates severe situational awareness deficits for commanders operating at echelon.⁵

This strategic report identifies the doctrinal, technological, and enterprise-level methodology gaps that DoD leadership must address to ensure swarm technologies yield decisive operational advantages. The analysis evaluates the physical challenges of massed detonations, the necessity of multi-modal sensor fusion in degraded environments, the imperative for edge-based neuromorphic processing, and the legal and ethical requirements for establishing accountability in AI-driven targeting.⁸ Failure to modernize the BDA enterprise concurrently with UAS procurement risks fielding a force capable of mass destruction but incapable of operational assessment, leading to inefficient resource allocation, disrupted mission command, and significant strategic liability. Addressing these methodology gaps is not a secondary sustainment concern; it is a primary warfighting requisite for the future joint force.

2. Strategic Context: The Proliferation of Autonomous Mass

The character of contemporary warfare is undergoing a rapid evolution characterized by the democratization of precision fires. For decades, the United States maintained a near-monopoly on precision strike capabilities, relying on deep magazines of advanced munitions delivered by highly survivable, yet incredibly expensive, platforms.³ The proliferation of cheap drone technology has fundamentally altered this landscape, rendering traditional models of air dominance and force protection increasingly vulnerable.³

2.1 The Replicator Initiative and the Offset Strategy

The DoD’s introduction of the Replicator initiative signifies a concerted effort to allocate resources toward the fielding and deployment of all-domain expendable autonomous capabilities at a scale capable of yielding significant operational impact.¹¹ The core objective of this initiative is to thwart the asymmetric advantages of adversaries—particularly the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of China—through the application of many, small, “attritable” weapons and combat platforms.² The PLA is rapidly advancing its drone capabilities by developing more autonomous systems and acquiring them at scale.³ Without deep magazines of autonomous capabilities and the supporting architectures to manage them, the United States risks having its distributed warfighting strategies overwhelmed by massed drone attacks.³

Replicator poses an opportunity for the U.S. Army and the broader Joint Force to continuously transform concepts, capabilities, and capacities.² However, as the DoD integrates lessons learned from executing the first iterations of the Replicator initiative, leadership must recognize that scale alone is an insufficient countermeasure.¹¹ A pronounced production advantage must be paired with a concerted innovation effort focused on optimizing tactical efficacy.¹¹ Efficacy is directly tied to the ability to assess, adapt, and redirect force—all of which rely entirely on the BDA enterprise.

2.2 Operational Lessons from Contemporary Conflicts

Observations from the Russo-Ukrainian war and conflicts in the Middle East provide a stark preview of the future battlefield. The front lines have expanded into wide “kill zones” where drones detect and strike targets across vast areas with unprecedented precision.¹³ Ukrainian commanders have leveraged the relatively low cost and high accuracy of these systems to develop new tactical concepts, employing first-person-view (FPV) drones for real-time reconnaissance and loitering munitions for precision strikes against enemy armor, artillery, and command posts.¹⁵

The integration of UAS with artillery has been particularly transformative, enabling real-time adjustments of fire and immediate battle damage assessment, thereby changing the entire calculus of fire support.¹⁵ However, this operational success is currently predicated on heavy human-in-the-loop involvement. Warfighters manually pilot FPVs, manually assess the video feeds, and manually call for adjustments. As conflicts scale and electronic warfare environments become more hostile, this manual methodology becomes unsustainable. The Ukrainian military’s stated objective is to eventually remove warfighters from direct combat and replace them with autonomous unmanned systems, recognizing that human capacity to process and fuse large amounts of data is a critical vulnerability.¹⁶

Furthermore, operations in Syria demonstrate the evolving use of massed systems. During Operation Spring Shield in 2020, Turkish forces grouped armed UAVs together in significant numbers—described as “swarms”—with the specific aim of overwhelming opponent air defenses.¹⁷ This approach negated the need to ensure that ground-based air defenses were fully neutralized prior to engagement, as the drones themselves acted as both the sensor and the kinetic effector.¹⁷ As these tactics evolve from remote-controlled operations to fully autonomous algorithmic swarms, the necessity for an automated, enterprise-level BDA capability becomes paramount.

3. The Doctrinal Chasm: Legacy BDA Frameworks Versus Swarm Velocity

Current DoD joint targeting doctrine is primarily codified within publications such as Joint Publication 3-60 (JP 3-60). This doctrinal framework was meticulously developed for an era of deliberate, single-platform precision strikes and relies upon methodologies that represent a fundamental mismatch with the operational realities of autonomous drone swarms.¹⁸

3.1 The Structural Limitations of Joint Publication 3-60

Targeting encompasses many processes, all linked and logically guided by the joint targeting cycle, which continuously seeks to analyze, identify, develop, validate, assess, and prioritize targets for engagement.¹⁹ Combat assessment measures whether desired effects are created, if objectives are achieved, and what next steps are required.⁴ According to established doctrine, the BDA process is divided into distinct, chronological phases.

Phase I BDA focuses on initial functional damage assessment. This initial reporting is generally expected within a 24-hour window after the information becomes available.⁴ Phase II assesses specific target element damage. Phase III, known as Target System Assessment, evaluates the broader impact on an adversary’s overall capabilities. Doctrine explicitly describes Phase III as a “data-intensive process” that “typically requires weeks to months to accumulate the data to assess the impact on the target system”.⁴

In the context of a massed drone strike, where hundreds of loitering munitions or small FPV drones may engage an enemy defensive line within a span of minutes, a 24-hour feedback loop is tactically obsolete. Autonomous swarm logic relies on instantaneous, continuous feedback to effectively reallocate surviving airborne assets to undestroyed targets.²⁰ If a swarm must hold position or return to base to wait for external ISR platforms to conduct a Phase I assessment, the principles of mass, momentum, and operational tempo are entirely forfeited.

Furthermore, JP 3-60 explicitly acknowledges a critical methodology gap: the limited availability of collection assets. The doctrine states that Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination (PED) assets are “usually limited in number”.⁴ In operational reality, collection requirements for target development, Joint Intelligence Preparation of the Operational Environment (JIPOE), and indications and warnings frequently take precedence over combat assessment.⁴ Relying on these scarce, highly centralized assets to monitor and evaluate hundreds of simultaneous drone strikes is mathematically and operationally untenable.

3.2 The Operational Risk of Estimated Damage Assessment (EDA)

In scenarios where physical confirmation of damage is unavailable—a highly probable situation in heavily contested, A2/AD airspace where dedicated BDA ISR assets cannot survive—doctrine permits the use of Estimated Damage Assessment (EDA).⁴ The EDA methodology anticipates damage by utilizing probabilistic models based on the known effectiveness of specific weapons against specific target types. This allows a commander to accept operational risk in the absence of definitive visual data.⁴

Relying on EDA methodologies for massed drone strikes introduces profound strategic and tactical risk. Unmanned systems, particularly the lower-cost “attritable” models envisioned by the Replicator initiative, possess highly variable failure rates, payload yields, and navigation vulnerabilities compared to traditional munitions.²¹ If a swarm of 500 autonomous drones is launched against a mechanized brigade, and the EDA methodology assumes an 85% success rate based on pre-flight probabilities, operational commanders may erroneously advance friendly maneuver forces into fully intact enemy defensive networks. Alternatively, if commanders lack confidence in the EDA due to known high attrition rates of small UAS, they may authorize continuous re-attacks on already destroyed targets, rapidly depleting the finite magazine depth of the swarm and stressing logistical supply chains.²⁰

3.3 Munitions Effectiveness Assessment (MEA) Latency

Another significant doctrinal gap exists within the Munitions Effectiveness Assessment (MEA) framework. MEA evaluates whether a weapon functioned as engineered and intended.⁴ Currently, MEA data generation relies on a long-term feedback loop. The intelligence gathered is typically funneled into the Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual (JMEM) revision process to inform future capability analysis, rather than providing an immediate tactical adjustment for ongoing engagements.⁴

For drone swarms to function as intelligent, adaptive combat systems, MEA must transition from a retrospective analytical tool to a near-real-time tactical capability. If an adversary introduces a novel electronic warfare (EW) jamming technique, a new directed energy weapon, or a physical countermeasure that causes a specific munition to fail in the terminal phase, the swarm must immediately recognize this failure.²³ It must then rapidly shift tactics, alter approach trajectories, or switch sensor modalities. A delayed MEA feedback loop renders the entire massed swarm highly susceptible to a single, rapidly deployed countermeasure, potentially neutralizing the entire force package before human analysts even register the failure.²²

4. The Physical and Environmental Realities of Massed Strikes

The visual and electromagnetic environment resulting from a massed drone strike creates immense physical barriers to accurate post-strike assessment. The sheer density of kinetic events generates systemic interference that routinely blinds traditional optical sensor arrays, necessitating a complete overhaul of how autonomous systems perceive the post-strike battlespace.

4.1 Visual Occlusion, Thermal Blooming, and Electromagnetic Chaos

When kinetic energy weapons, such as the shaped charges or fragmentation payloads carried by loitering munitions, impact their targets, they deposit massive amounts of kinetic and thermal energy, generating highly localized destruction.²⁴ In a coordinated mass strike involving dozens or hundreds of detonations within a tightly confined geographical area, the resulting physical phenomena actively obscure the battlefield from observation.

The primary impediment is particulate obscuration. Pulverized concrete, displaced earth, fragmented armor, and combustion smoke create a dense, persistent aerosol layer over the target area. Traditional visual (RGB) cameras, which are heavily relied upon for FPV targeting and basic intelligence gathering, cannot penetrate this layer.¹⁰

Simultaneously, the heat generated by consecutive explosions saturates infrared (IR) sensors, a phenomenon known as thermal blooming. An incoming follow-on drone attempting to assess the damage of a preceding strike wave will find its thermal optics blinded by the residual heat signature of the destroyed target, the burning terrain, and the atmospheric distortion.¹⁰ This makes it nearly impossible for basic algorithms to differentiate between a burning, destroyed vehicle and the still-intact armor positioned adjacent to it.

Furthermore, these massed detonations, coupled with active adversary electronic warfare and the necessary friendly jamming meant to protect the swarm from counter-UAS systems, create a highly contested and chaotic electromagnetic spectrum (EMS).²¹ The denial of the EMS affects friendly units just as severely as adversaries.²¹ If a swarm is programmed to strike in rapid succession, the drones arriving at the target area moments after the initial wave are flying into an environment that is visually, thermally, and electromagnetically opaque. Without specialized, multi-modal methodologies to see through this post-strike fog, follow-on drones cannot conduct BDA, nor can they accurately acquire secondary targets.

4.2 The Imperative of Multi-Modal Sensor Fusion

To overcome these severe physical limitations, the enterprise BDA methodology must definitively shift from single-sensor reliance to automated, multi-modal sensor fusion driven by advanced neural networks.¹⁰

Recent research in remote sensing and disaster monitoring demonstrates that relying solely on Electro-Optical (EO) or IR sensors is entirely insufficient for highly obscured environments.¹⁰ Advanced methodologies necessitate the integration of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) with high-resolution UAV-based optical and thermal imagery.¹⁰ SAR possesses the unique physical capability to penetrate dense smoke, heavy cloud cover, and airborne obscurants, providing high-fidelity topological mapping and structural analysis of the target area regardless of visual conditions.¹⁰

Implementing this level of multi-modal fusion across a swarm requires highly sophisticated neural network architectures capable of operating on constrained hardware. For example, hybrid learning frameworks utilizing Vision Transformers (such as FPANet) can capture both local textures and global spatial dependencies to achieve robust segmentation from SAR data under cloudy or smoky conditions.¹⁰ Simultaneously, models designed specifically for the synergistic fusion of thermal and RGB imagery (such as DualSegFormer) ensure high-fidelity target delineation even when visibility is partially compromised.¹⁰ Other optimization algorithms, such as customized versions of YOLOv8 utilizing High Intersection over Union (HIoU) loss functions, dynamically adjust the weight of various visual components to achieve precise target localization despite background noise.²⁷

The core enterprise challenge for the DoD is not merely acquiring these diverse sensors, but engineering the algorithms that allow attritable, low-cost drones to fuse this disparate data organically and autonomously.

5. Enterprise Architecture and Telemetry Bottlenecks

The defining characteristic of a functional drone swarm is its interconnectedness—the ability of multiple independent agents to share data and act cooperatively.²⁰ However, this critical connectivity creates a massive structural vulnerability when applied to traditional BDA methodologies, which rely on moving large packets of raw data back to human analysts.

5.1 The Bandwidth Paradox and Electromagnetic Contestation

A swarm comprising hundreds of drones, each equipped with visual, thermal, SAR, and telemetry sensors, generates an astronomical volume of data continuously.⁹ In a peacetime, uncontested environment—such as a disaster response scenario or a domestic training exercise—streaming high-definition multi-modal data from multiple platforms to a centralized Ground Control Station (GCS) is feasible via 5G networks and unhindered line-of-sight communications.²⁹ In a large-scale combat operation (LSCO) against a near-peer adversary, this data architecture will immediately collapse.

Adversaries will employ aggressive electronic warfare (EW), attempting to jam the radio-frequency links required for both command and control (C2) and data transmission.²³ Furthermore, wide-area and wide-spectrum jamming operations inherently affect both friendly and enemy units. To operate effectively, friendly forces must meticulously map, interpret, and deconflict their own EMS usage to avoid electronic fratricide.²¹ Consequently, the available bandwidth for a swarm operating over a contested target area will be severely constrained, highly intermittent, or entirely denied for extended periods.

5.2 Edge Computing and Semantic Compression Methodologies

To successfully execute BDA under these highly contested conditions, the fundamental methodology of data processing must be inverted. Instead of transmitting raw, high-bandwidth data (such as live video feeds or raw radar returns) back to human analysts for processing, the data must be analyzed autonomously on the drone itself, and only the resulting assessment transmitted. This architectural shift relies on edge computing and semantic compression.³¹

Onboard edge processing capabilities drastically reduce latency by analyzing data locally rather than transmitting it to remote servers.³¹ From a practical standpoint, instead of attempting to transmit a gigabyte of video showing a burning enemy surface-to-air missile system, the drone’s onboard AI processes the video, confirms the destruction of the target against its pre-loaded threat library, and transmits a kilobyte-sized text telemetry packet: “.

This methodological shift is critical for the viability of massed autonomous operations. It transforms the swarm from a collection of “dumb” aerial cameras requiring massive, vulnerable data pipelines into a decentralized network of distributed intelligence nodes requiring minimal bandwidth to rapidly update the COP.

5.3 Neuromorphic Computing for Advanced RF Analysis

Achieving this level of sophisticated edge computing on small, attritable platforms presents a significant hardware challenge. Traditional processors consume substantial power and generate heat, which directly reduces the flight time, range, and payload capacity of small UAS.⁶ To bridge this gap, the DoD is currently funding research into advanced methodologies, particularly the application of artificial intelligence based on neuromorphic networks.⁹

Neuromorphic computing seeks to replicate human brain functionality at the nanoscale using man-made artificial neurons and synapses.⁹ This architecture allows for highly parallelized computing, with vast amounts of memory located in immediate proximity to the computing elements. The result is substantially increased processing speed coupled with drastically reduced power consumption.⁹ For military applications, a critical advantage of neuromorphic networks is their ability to operate in GHz and even THz frequency ranges.⁹ This high-frequency property allows the neural network to process microwave and RF signals directly at the carrier frequency without the power-intensive need for prior digitization or super-heterodyning.⁹

A swarm equipped with low-power neuromorphic processors could instantly analyze the complex RF signatures of a contested environment, detect the emissions of an enemy radar system, assess the functional damage of that electronic target post-strike by noting the cessation or alteration of its signal, and share that assessment across the swarm instantly, all while operating under stringent power and bandwidth limitations.

6. Methodological Paradigms for Attributing Kinetic Effects

In a legacy dispersed targeting scenario utilizing single platforms, attributing a kinetic effect is highly straightforward: one weapon is deployed against one target, and the resultant outcome is assessed directly.²¹ However, in a mass precision strike, where salvos of hundreds of effectors are launched to overwhelm point defenses at key sites, attributing kinetic effects becomes a mathematically and tactically complex “many-to-many” problem.²¹

6.1 The Challenge of Distinguishing Intercepts from Impacts

When an autonomous swarm of 200 drones assaults a heavily defended position, the adversary’s air defense artillery (ADA), electronic warfare elements, directed energy weapons, and kinetic counter-UAS systems will engage the swarm simultaneously.³ If 60 drones detonate mid-air due to kinetic intercepts, 40 crash indiscriminately due to intense EW jamming, and 100 successfully strike their designated targets, the resulting battlespace telemetry is highly ambiguous.

A critical BDA methodology gap is the enterprise’s ability to distinguish a mid-air intercept from a successful target impact based solely on the loss of platform telemetry. Currently, if an attritable drone loses connection or its telemetry suddenly ceases, the overarching system cannot definitively determine if the asset reached its objective, was neutralized en route by kinetic fire, or succumbed to electronic interference.³⁴ This lack of granular data leads to profound inaccuracies in determining enemy attrition rates and forces commanders to make decisions based on highly flawed data sets.

6.2 The “Observer-Striker” Topology and Trailing Observers

To resolve these severe attribution gaps without relying on vulnerable centralized ISR assets, the swarm itself must adopt specialized, internal structural topologies. Rather than engineering every drone in the swarm to act solely as a kinetic effector, the swarm must autonomously designate specific platforms as trailing observers or organic BDA nodes.³⁵

This methodology involves explicitly pairing loitering munitions with dedicated surveillance drones within the swarm’s algorithmic structure.³⁶ By trailing an observer drone slightly behind a kinetic wave, the observer can continuously record the terminal trajectory of the munitions. Telemetry sensors on a striking munition can transmit its GPS coordinates and flight data up to the exact millisecond before detonation.³⁵ The trailing observer then analyzes the characteristics of the medium the munition passed through—for example, assessing whether a weapon successfully penetrated a reinforced bunker roof before detonating, or if it detonated harmlessly on the exterior.³⁵

This “observer-striker” methodology allows the swarm to establish a continuous, localized, and autonomous feedback loop. The observer assesses the initial kinetic wave, utilizes its multi-modal sensors to confirm exactly which targets were successfully destroyed, and instantly assigns remaining, un-engaged targets to the second wave of strikers. This creates a highly efficient one-to-one engagement ratio that conserves the swarm’s overall ammunition depth and minimizes unintended collateral damage, operating almost entirely independently of human oversight.²⁰

7. Updating Intelligence, Mission Command, and Situational Awareness

The ultimate operational purpose of Battle Damage Assessment is not merely to compile a post-action inventory of destroyed enemy equipment. The primary objective is to continuously update the commander’s understanding of the operational environment, enabling rapid, informed decision-making and facilitating the deployment of exploitation forces.⁷

7.1 The Disconnect in the Common Operating Picture (COP)

Mission Command is a foundational doctrine based on a hybrid of centralized control and decentralized execution.³² However, there is a recognized trade-off between the proximity of forces to tactical engagements and their access to different kinds of operational information.³² As distance from the forward edge of the battlefield increases, situational awareness regarding specific tactical engagements inherently decreases.³² Put simply, the farther a commander is from the front lines, the less granular their understanding of the immediate ground truth.

Commanders located in centralized Joint Operations Centers rely entirely on the COP to understand the disposition of forces. However, if a drone swarm acts autonomously and alters its targeting priorities based on its own edge-processed BDA, the COP immediately becomes desynchronized from reality. For instance, if a swarm of 300 drones is deployed against a confirmed enemy artillery battery, and the swarm’s organic intelligence nodes determine upon arrival that the battery is actually an elaborate decoy setup, the swarm may autonomously re-route to a pre-planned secondary target.³⁷ If this decision logic and the subsequent BDA findings are not efficiently and automatically communicated back to the enterprise level, the Joint Force Commander will continue to operate under the dangerously false assumption that the primary target was engaged and neutralized.

7.2 Vision-Language Models (VLM) for Automated Reporting

To bridge this critical intelligence gap without overwhelming the constrained bandwidth of the contested EMS, the DoD must invest heavily in integrating Vision-Language Models (VLM) into the drone enterprise architecture.¹⁰ VLMs possess the advanced algorithmic capability to ingest complex, multi-modal sensor data—such as fused SAR, thermal, and RGB imagery—and translate those visual inputs into actionable, human-readable intelligence insights.¹⁰

Instead of a human intelligence analyst reviewing hours of degraded drone footage to manually compile a Phase I BDA report, a VLM operating either at the tactical edge or at a localized forward relay node can instantly generate a formatted text report for transmission. Experimental results demonstrate that VLM components show strong semantic alignment, producing highly accurate translations of complex sensor data.¹⁰ A system could autonomously transmit a concise packet: “Assault on Grid Alpha complete. 12 of 15 air defense assets neutralized. 3 assets remain active. Swarm expended 80% of kinetic payload. Recommend follow-on artillery strike.”

This methodology ensures that high-level commanders maintain acute operational awareness and can effectively exercise Mission Command without the need to micromanage the swarm’s individual tactical engagements.³²

7.3 Data Formats, API Integration, and MLOps

Processing massed drone strike data requires a robust, scalable enterprise architecture that extends far beyond the physical airframe. The current methodology of retrieving data manually from returning platforms or relying on “swivel-chair” integration by analysts manually inputting data into the COP is unworkable at scale.³⁰

The enterprise architecture must incorporate:

• Modular Data Platforms: Systems capable of receiving diverse telemetry and sensor data from various drone manufacturers, formatting it, filtering it for relevance, and converting it for immediate ingestion into joint intelligence systems.³⁰
• API Integration: The GCS must seamlessly interface with broader military intelligence databases via Application Programming Interfaces (APIs), pushing BDA updates automatically so that all adjacent units and echelons are instantly aware of target status changes.³⁸
• Machine Learning Operations (MLOps): Edge AI models will inevitably encounter novel adversary countermeasures, new camouflage techniques, or unexpected environmental variables. The enterprise requires a continuous, automated MLOps pipeline to ingest post-mission data, retrain the computer vision and BDA models, and push updated algorithmic weights back to the swarm fleet before the next operational deployment.³³

8. Legal, Ethical, and Accountability Frameworks for Autonomous BDA

As BDA methodologies inevitably shift from human-in-the-loop PED architectures to edge-AI autonomous assessments, the DoD faces significant legal, ethical, and oversight challenges. Existing international law, particularly concerning the conduct of war, is heavily predicated on human accountability and conscious decision-making.⁸

8.1 Proportionality and the Assessment of Collateral Damage

Under the established Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), military operations must strictly adhere to the rule of proportionality. This principle dictates that the incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage of an attack.⁴⁰ Assessing proportionality requires a deeply contextual understanding of the operational environment—a nuanced cognitive capability that current AI systems struggle to reliably frame.⁴⁰

In a massed drone strike, if an autonomous system initiates an attack, it must inherently possess the capability to assess collateral damage post-strike to determine if further engagement violates LOAC. The deployment of autonomous explosive devices, such as the Shahed-136 loitering munitions used extensively against energy infrastructure in the Russo-Ukrainian war, highlights these dangers.⁸ These systems, classified as Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS), engage pre-selected target groups independently.⁸

If a U.S. swarm strikes a legitimate military target but causes unintended, cascading failures in adjacent civilian infrastructure, who is accountable? The inability of an autonomous system to “frame” and contextualize the broader environment may result in the system deciding to launch follow-on attacks based not merely on incomplete, but fundamentally flawed understandings of the circumstances.⁴⁰ If the swarm lacks robust, multi-modal BDA capabilities to realize it has caused excessive collateral damage, it lacks the necessary failsafes to halt its own operations.

8.2 The “Black Box” Problem and Systemic Traceability

The deployment of LAWS raises profound questions regarding how individuals or state actors answer for crimes or errors committed on a mass scale by autonomous entities.⁸ If a swarm executes a coordinated strike utilizing its own edge-assessed BDA to determine target validity and authorize kinetic deployment, the human operator is effectively removed from the kill chain.⁴¹

Without meticulous enterprise requirements to log the decision-making process of every single drone—often referred to as the “black box” problem for autonomous systems—attributing a kinetic effect to a specific algorithm or decision node becomes impossible. Process evidence must be derived from how data is prepared, managed, analyzed, and delivered throughout the flight lifecycle.³³

If an unlawful strike occurs, or a friendly fire incident takes place, investigators must be able to pull the BDA telemetry, the sensor logs, and the specific AI decision tree to determine the root cause. Was the error due to hardware sensor failure, algorithmic bias in the targeting model, or sophisticated adversary spoofing and deception? The current institutional rush to field vast quantities of attritable drones often overlooks the massive data storage, logging architectures, and forensic methodologies required to maintain this legal compliance and operational accountability.³³

9. Strategic Recommendations and Institutional Reform

The Department of Defense’s pursuit of drone dominance, catalyzed by the rapid innovations and harsh lessons observed in theaters like Ukraine and the Middle East ¹⁴, is a strategically necessary evolution. However, deploying mass without the institutional capacity to assess its impact is strategically hollow and operationally reckless. To ensure commanders possess accurate situational awareness, maintain compliance with international law, and retain the ability to dictate the tempo of modern conflict, DoD leadership must aggressively address the following methodological gaps.

9.1 Shift Investment Priorities from Platforms to Architectures

The acquisition focus must widen significantly from the procurement of individual, attritable drone platforms to the procurement of the underlying software, data pipelines, and sensing architectures. A swarm of 10,000 highly advanced drones is entirely neutralized if the enterprise cannot process their telemetry or conduct BDA in a severely jammed environment. Investment should heavily prioritize the development of ultra-fast neural networks, neuromorphic computing, and multi-modal sensor fusion algorithms (specifically integrating SAR, EO, and IR) that operate reliably at the tactical edge.⁹ The software that assesses the strike is as vital as the hardware that delivers it.

9.2 Establish Composite Formations to Reduce Sensor-to-Shooter Latency

Operational latency expands unacceptably when detection systems, kinetic shooters, EW cells, and BDA analysts operate in separate, stovepiped organizational stacks.²² The DoD must develop composite formations that co-locate and institutionalize the integration of these complementary capabilities at the brigade and battalion levels.²² Drone defense and employment cannot be siloed exclusively to dedicated air defense or aviation units; every unit must possess organic, integrated capabilities to launch, assess, and iterate upon unmanned strikes.³

9.3 Codify Autonomous BDA Methodologies in Doctrine

Joint Publication 3-60 and supporting multi-service tactics, techniques, and procedures must be comprehensively revised to reflect the realities of the modern, automated battlefield.¹⁸ Doctrine must move beyond the centralized, human-dependent Phase I-III BDA processes and formally establish frameworks for automated, probabilistic edge assessment. Furthermore, doctrine must establish clear, standardized guidelines for when a commander is authorized to rely on AI-generated BDA to approve follow-on fires, explicitly addressing the inherent risks of algorithmic deception and false positives.

9.4 Mandate Systemic Traceability and Forensic Logging

To resolve the ethical and legal ambiguities surrounding massed autonomous strikes, the DoD must implement strict, non-negotiable enterprise requirements for data logging. Every drone within a deployed swarm must act as a distinct node that continuously records its sensor inputs, target selections, and BDA conclusions.³³ This methodology ensures that kinetic effects can be accurately attributed, AI behaviors can be audited post-mission, and compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict can be rigidly maintained, even when the human operator is no longer present in the immediate tactical loop.

By aggressively addressing these systemic requirements to design, build, operate, and evolve the BDA enterprise, the Department of Defense can successfully transform massed drone swarms from a blunt instrument of attrition into a highly precise, intelligent, and strategically decisive capability for the future Joint Force.

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

Sources Used

1. Implementing DoD Replicator Initiative at Speed and Scale – Defense Innovation Unit, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.diu.mil/latest/implementing-the-department-of-defense-replicator-initiative-to-accelerate
2. The Replicator initiative is key to the Army’s modernization | Brookings, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-replicator-initiative-is-key-to-the-armys-modernization/
3. Countering the Swarm – CNAS, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/countering-the-swarm
4. Air Force Doctrine Publication 3-60, Targeting, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-60/3-60-AFDP-TARGETING.pdf
5. Countering Swarms: Strategic Considerations and Opportunities in …, accessed April 24, 2026, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Joint-Force-Quarterly/Joint-Force-Quarterly-107/Article/Article/3197193/countering-swarms-strategic-considerations-and-opportunities-in-drone-warfare/
6. Unmanned Aerial Systems Intelligent Swarm Technology – RAND, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2300/RRA2380-1/RAND_RRA2380-1.pdf
7. Beyond The Count: BDA For Modern Warfare – from MIPB, accessed April 24, 2026, https://mipb.ikn.army.mil/issues/jul-dec-2025/beyond-the-count/
8. Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (LAWS): Accountability, Collateral Damage, and the Inadequacies of International Law – Temple iLIT, accessed April 24, 2026, https://law.temple.edu/ilit/lethal-autonomous-weapon-systems-laws-accountability-collateral-damage-and-the-inadequacies-of-international-law/
9. Drone Swarm Detection Using Artificial Intelligence Based on Ultrafast Neural Networks, accessed April 24, 2026, https://armysbir.army.mil/topics/drone-swarm-detection-ai-based-ultrafast-neural-networks/
10. Hybrid learning framework for synergistic fusion of SAR and optical UAV data in wildfire surveillance – PMC, accessed April 24, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12669746/
11. Defining Swarm: A Critical Step Toward Harnessing the Power of Autonomous Systems, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2025-ole/defining-swarm/
12. DOD Innovation Official Discusses Progress on Replicator – Department of War, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3999474/dod-innovation-official-discusses-progress-on-replicator/
13. Drone Swarms: The Potential AI Future of Drone Warfare – Small Wars Journal, accessed April 24, 2026, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2026/03/31/drone-warfare-ukraine-ai-swarms/
14. The Enduring Role of Fires on the Modern Battlefield – CSIS, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/chapter-6-enduring-role-fires
15. Unmanned Aircraft and the Revolution in Operational Warfare – Army University Press, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/July-August-2025/Unmanned-Aircraft-Revolution/
16. Ukraine’s Future Vision and Current Capabilities for Waging AI-Enabled Autonomous Warfare – CSIS, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.csis.org/analysis/ukraines-future-vision-and-current-capabilities-waging-ai-enabled-autonomous-warfare
17. Armed uninhabited aerial vehicles and the challenges of autonomy – The International Institute for Strategic Studies, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.iiss.org/globalassets/media-library—content–migration/files/research-papers/armed-uninhabited-aerial-vehicles-and-the-challenges-of-autonomy.pdf
18. JP 3-60, Joint Targeting – Just Security, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Joint_Chiefs-Joint_Targeting_20130131.pdf
19. Joint Publication 3-60 – Executive Services Directorate, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Joint_Staff/21-F-0520_JP_3-60_9-28-2018.pdf
20. Drones Aren’t Swarming Yet — But They Could – War on the Rocks, accessed April 24, 2026, https://warontherocks.com/drones-arent-swarming-yet-but-they-could/
21. Mass Precision Strike: Designing UAV Complexes for Land Forces – RUSI, accessed April 24, 2026, https://static.rusi.org/mass-precision-strike-final.pdf
22. Composite Air Defense Artillery Formations: Converging Non-Kinetic and Kinetic Capabilities – Line of Departure, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Air-Defense-Artillery/ADA-Archive/2026-E-Edition/Composite-Air-Defense/
23. Breaking the Shield: Countering Drone Defenses – NDU Press, accessed April 24, 2026, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/3838997/breaking-the-shield-countering-drone-defenses/
24. DE Weapons, Projectiles, Damage – DRONE DELIVERY OF CBNRECy – New Prairie Press Open Book Publishing, accessed April 24, 2026, https://kstatelibraries.pressbooks.pub/drone-delivery/chapter/9-kinetic-energy-weapons/
25. Eyes across the spectrum: Advancing India’s EO/IR Capabilities, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.ey.com/content/dam/ey-unified-site/ey-com/en-in/insights/aerospace-defense/2025/ey-eyes-across-the-spectrum-advancing-india-s-eo-ir-capabilities.pdf
26. Drone-Based Wildfire Detection with Multi-Sensor Integration – MDPI, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/16/24/4651
27. Intelligent Firefighting Technology for Drone Swarms with Multi-Sensor Integrated Path Planning: YOLOv8 Algorithm-Driven Fire Source Identification and Precision Deployment Strategy – MDPI, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/9/5/348
28. Monitoring and Cordoning Wildfires with an Autonomous Swarm of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles – MDPI, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2504-446X/6/10/301
29. An inside look at drone swarm behavior – McKelvey School of Engineering – WashU, accessed April 24, 2026, https://engineering.washu.edu/news/2026/An-inside-look-at-drone-swarm-behavior.html
30. Data Processing for Drones & Unmanned Systems, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.unmannedsystemstechnology.com/expo/drone-data-processing/
31. Real-Time Disaster Response with AI Drone Swarms – Folio3 AI, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.folio3.ai/blog/ai-drone-swarms-disaster-response
32. How Artificial Intelligence Could Reshape Four Essential Competitions in Future Warfare – RAND, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA4300/RRA4316-1/RAND_RRA4316-1.pdf
33. A Comprehensive Approach to Countering Unmanned Aircraft Systems – Joint Air Power Competence Centre, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.japcc.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Comprehensive-Approach-to-Countering-Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems.pdf
34. Fusing Data into a Battle Damage Assessment for the Commander – U.S. Army, accessed April 24, 2026, https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2023/01/31/cb115ad9/22-732.pdf
35. Capabilities and Limitations of Real-Time Battle Damage Assessment – DTIC, accessed April 24, 2026, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA420587.pdf
36. Loitering Munitions 101: What They Are and Why They Matter – IDGA, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.idga.org/command-and-control/articles/loitering-munitions-101-what-they-are-why-they-matter
37. How AI is rewriting the rules of modern warfare – Vision of Humanity, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.visionofhumanity.org/how-ai-is-rewriting-the-rules-of-modern-warfare/
38. UAV swarm communication and control architectures: a review, accessed April 24, 2026, https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/juvs-2018-0009
39. Scaling an Enterprise Drone Program for Future Success, accessed April 24, 2026, https://enterprise.dronenerds.com/blog/uncategorized/scaling-an-enterprise-drone-program-for-future-success/
40. Libya, The Use of Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems – How does law protect in war?, accessed April 24, 2026, https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/libya-use-lethal-autonomous-weapon-systems
41. Effects of AI-Enhanced Decision-Making on Air Force Doctrine – Air University, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Articles/Article-Display/Article/3828212/effects-of-ai-enhanced-decision-making-on-air-force-doctrine/

1. Executive Summary

The United States Department of Defense (DoD) is actively pursuing a fundamental paradigm shift in its approach to force projection. Driven by the imperative to offset the mass and capacity advantages of near-peer adversaries, the DoD has prioritized the rapid acquisition and fielding of thousands of all-domain attritable autonomous (ADA2) systems.¹ Initially operationalized through the Replicator initiative and subsequently evolving into the broader, heavily funded Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG) ³, this strategic vector seeks to overwhelm adversary anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) networks using low-cost, expendable platforms.¹ However, the prevailing discourse surrounding mass unmanned aerial systems (UAS) operations suffers from a severe analytical blind spot: an overwhelming fixation on the digital, aerodynamic, and software-defined capabilities of the platforms, coupled with a systemic disregard for the physical logistics required to project them into a contested theater of operations.

Attritable systems are frequently conceptualized by defense planners as intangible, software-driven assets. In reality, fielding thousands of uncrewed platforms generates a colossal, highly sensitive, and dangerous physical footprint. This report outlines the systemic logistical requirements and constraints that dictate the feasibility of mass drone operations. The analysis reveals that the primary bottlenecks to these initiatives will not be autonomous swarming software or airframe manufacturing capacity, but rather the severe volumetric inefficiency of shipping fragile electronics, the stringent regulatory constraints governing the global transport of Class 9 hazardous lithium-ion batteries, and the immense power generation and climate-controlled storage requirements placed on austere forward operating bases.

Leadership must recognize that a drone’s operational weight is entirely distinct from its logistical weight. Its protective packaging, associated launch systems, and ground support equipment multiply its footprint exponentially. Furthermore, due to mandatory aviation transport regulations requiring lithium batteries to be shipped at a state of charge (SOC) below 30% ⁵, these platforms arrive at the tactical edge effectively incapacitated. This dynamic shifts the burden of energy generation directly to forward units, demanding industrial-scale charging infrastructure that relies heavily on vulnerable Class III bulk fuel supply chains.⁶

To ensure that thousands of ADA2 platforms can reliably reach and operate within contested environments, DoD planning must pivot from a platform-centric acquisition model to a logistics-first sustainment architecture. The ability to mass autonomous forces is entirely contingent on the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM), the Military Sealift Command (MSC), and the tactical energy networks of deployed units.⁷ This report provides a comprehensive overview of the physical, regulatory, and infrastructural realities that currently threaten to throttle the deployment of mass autonomy.

2. The Strategic Context of Mass Autonomy and the Illusion of Scale

The modern battlefield is undergoing a rapid evolution, driven by the proliferation of networked, autonomous, and semi-autonomous systems. The Replicator initiative, launched in 2023 by the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), represents a deliberate endeavor to integrate commercial-scale autonomous production with military operations.² The first iteration, Replicator 1, focuses on fielding thousands of aerial, ground, and maritime platforms by late 2025, while Replicator 2 pivots toward countering small unmanned aerial systems (C-sUAS).¹⁰ Selected platforms for these initial tranches include AeroVironment’s Switchblade 600, Anduril’s Altius-600, and the Ghost-X.²

To sustain and expand these efforts, the DoD has transitioned the underlying principles of Replicator into the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group (DAWG), signaling a massive financial commitment with nearly $55 billion allocated for research, development, and procurement in the coming fiscal cycles.³ The strategic appeal of these systems lies in their classification as “attritable”—platforms engineered and manufactured affordably enough that combatant commanders can tolerate a much higher degree of risk in their tactical employment.⁴

2.1 The Divergence Between Manned and Unmanned Logistics

The concept of attritability, while operationally advantageous, creates a psychological disconnect regarding logistics. Because the platforms are intended to be lost in combat ², there is a pervasive assumption that their supply chain is equally frictionless and expendable. This is a fundamental fallacy. An attritable drone requires the exact same meticulous supply chain handling, climate controls, and hazardous material processing as a non-attritable, multi-million-dollar precision-guided munition.

When procuring conventional manned aircraft, the DoD heavily scrutinizes the logistics tail. Platforms like the MQ-9 Reaper, which has amassed over two million flight hours, are supported by deeply entrenched, highly evolved logistical networks featuring dedicated runways, sophisticated hangars, and predictable maintenance schedules.¹³ Crucially, manned systems and large medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) drones self-deploy; they fly from their point of origin to the theater of operations.

Attritable tactical drones, conversely, are classified as cargo. They do not fly to the fight; they must be boxed, palletized, trucked, flown via strategic airlift, offloaded, and distributed via tactical ground vehicles. Consequently, procuring a fleet of 10,000 small drones imposes a fundamentally different, and arguably more complex, strain on the Defense Transportation System (DTS) than sustaining a squadron of manned fighters.¹⁴ If the DoD attempts to scale drone procurement without proportionally scaling the physical infrastructure required to transport, store, and power them, the result will be localized logistical paralysis. Pallets of drones will inevitably become stranded at aerial ports of embarkation (APOEs) due to hazard restrictions, or they will arrive at forward bases that lack the electrical capacity to charge them.

3. Volumetric Inefficiency: Airframes, Fragility, and Packaging Standards

The most immediate physical constraint of mass drone deployment is the mathematical relationship between the drone’s operational dimensions and its required shipping volume. Modern tactical drones are meticulously optimized for aerodynamics and payload capacity, resulting in lightweight, fragile, and often awkwardly shaped airframes. To survive the extreme rigors of the military supply chain—which includes extreme temperature fluctuations, moisture, vibration, mechanical shock, and rough terrain handling—these systems must be packaged according to stringent, unyielding military specifications.

3.1 MIL-STD-2073-1E and the Reality of Level A Packing

The preservation, packaging, packing, and marking of military supplies are governed by(https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=37232), which dictates the methods required to protect materiel against environmentally induced degradation during multiple handling events in the DTS.¹⁴ Tactical drones, categorized as highly sensitive electronics with low fragility factors (frequently rated at less than 50 Gs of shock tolerance), require Level A military packing.¹⁶ Level A is the highest level of protection, mandated for items intended for long-term storage or deployment in austere, wartime environments.

Under these standards, a bare drone cannot simply be placed in a standard cardboard box. Level A packaging requires that the item be placed in individual, non-metallic inner packaging.¹⁸ This inner layer must be surrounded by specific cushioning material—such as foam-in-place (FIP) polyurethanes or specialized fast-pack inserts (PPP-B-1672)—that is non-combustible, electrically non-conductive, and highly absorbent.¹⁶ Furthermore, the entire cushioned assembly is often sealed within waterproof and vapor-proof barrier bags before being secured inside robust exterior shipping containers, such as wood-cleated panelboard boxes (ASTM-D-6251) or heavy-duty reusable molded containers.¹⁷

This mandatory preservation process creates massive volumetric inefficiency. A tactical drone’s weight is relatively negligible, but its “cube”—the cubic volume of its compliant shipping crate—is massive. The military logistics enterprise operates on the physical limitations of pallets and containers, and drones consume this space at an alarming rate.

3.2 Platform Loadout Metrics and the All-Up Round

Examining the specific physical dimensions of the platforms selected for the initial phases of the Replicator initiative illustrates this volumetric trap:

• AeroVironment Switchblade 600: This extended-range loitering munition is designed for precision strikes against armored targets.²² The bare munition itself weighs 15 kg (33 lbs) and has a length of 1.3 meters (51 inches).²² However, the Switchblade is shipped and deployed as an All-In-One Tube-Launched System. The All-Up Round (AUR), which includes the protective launcher tube and integrated firing hardware, weighs 29.5 kg (65 lbs).²² The Level A packaging required to protect this 1.3-meter AUR further increases the gross weight and significantly expands the volume.
• Anduril Altius-600: The ALTIUS-600 has a length of 1 meter and a base weight of 12.2 kg (27 lbs).²⁵ It is deployed from a pneumatic launch container.²⁶ While the airframe is lightweight, the rigid launch tube and the necessary foam-in-place cushioning demand substantial cargo space.¹⁹
• Anduril Ghost-X: Selected for the Army’s Company Level Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) Directed Requirement ²⁷, this system provides expeditionary surveillance. While highly capable, its complex rotor systems and delicate optics require extensive physical protection during transit to prevent misalignment.

When Air Force loadmasters build standard 463L pallets for strategic airlift, they are constrained by a usable base of 104 by 84 inches and a maximum height of 96 inches. Because drone crates cannot be stacked infinitely due to crush hazards and delicate center-of-gravity constraints, a single 463L pallet that could theoretically hold 10,000 pounds of dense artillery ammunition or water might only hold a few dozen attritable drones weighing a fraction of that amount. The DoD is effectively consuming its most premium strategic transportation asset to fly empty space and protective foam across the ocean.

4. The Class 9 Hazard: Lithium Battery Transport Regulations

While volumetric inefficiency restricts the amount of cargo space available, lithium-ion batteries present an acute, hard-stop regulatory constraint that dictates how, when, and if these platforms can be moved at all.

Every modern electric tactical UAS relies on high-energy-density lithium-ion or lithium-polymer batteries to achieve necessary flight times and payload capacities.²⁸ Under both international civilian law and strict military regulations, lithium batteries are universally classified as Class 9 Hazardous Materials.³⁰ Depending on their configuration, they are categorized as UN3480 (for standalone lithium-ion batteries) or UN3481 (for lithium-ion batteries packed with or contained in equipment).³² The transportation of these assets is heavily scrutinized and restricted due to the severe risk of thermal runaway—a catastrophic internal short-circuit chain reaction that causes intense, self-sustaining fires that are highly resistant to standard aviation fire suppression systems.³³

4.1 Air Transport Restrictions and AFMAN 24-204

The strategic airlift of these batteries is governed by a complex web of overlapping authorities, primarily the International Air Transport Association (IATA) Dangerous Goods Regulations and the Air Force Joint Manual (AFMAN 24-204), “Preparing Hazardous Materials for Military Air Shipment”.⁵

To mitigate the existential risk of an in-flight thermal runaway event, current regulations mandate that rechargeable lithium batteries must be shipped at a State of Charge (SOC) not exceeding 30% of their rated capacity.⁵ Furthermore, there are stringent limits on the maximum net quantity of lithium batteries permitted per cargo aircraft compartment.³³ For certain configurations and sizes, the maximum net quantity per cargo aircraft can be as low as 35 kg.³¹ While waivers and exceptions exist for national security movements under 49 CFR 173.7, the baseline safety protocols dictate severe segregation and quantity limits to ensure that an oxygen-starved cargo hold or automated fire suppression system can actually contain a potential blaze.³³

This regulatory environment creates a profound logistical bottleneck for the mass deployment envisioned by the Replicator initiative:

1. Compartment Saturation: A C-17 Globemaster III cannot simply be filled floor-to-ceiling with attritable drones. Load planners must meticulously distribute the UN3480/UN3481 hazardous materials across different isolated cargo compartments to avoid exceeding strict Class 9 net quantity limits.³³ Consequently, if a specific drone model carries a heavy battery payload for extended endurance, the aircraft may “hazmat out” (reach its legal hazardous material weight limit) while the physical cargo bay remains largely empty.
2. Dead on Arrival Logistics: Because batteries must legally and safely be shipped at less than 30% SOC ⁵, drones arriving in the theater of operations are not combat-ready. They cannot be rapidly offloaded from a transport aircraft and immediately launched to counter an advancing adversary. They must first be routed through a logistical node, unpacked, and fully recharged. This operational reality completely transfers the burden of operational readiness directly onto the theater’s tactical power grid, introducing devastating delays to force projection timelines.

4.2 Packaging Integrity and Retrograde Complexities

The dangers of Class 9 materials are amplified when dealing with damaged systems. If an attritable drone is damaged during transit, rough handling, or limited operations and requires retrograde transport for depot-level repair or forensic analysis, the battery must be isolated. Damaged or defective batteries face even stricter protocols, requiring individual non-metallic inner packaging surrounded by non-combustible, electrically non-conductive cushioning, with explicit exterior markings denoting the heightened hazard.¹⁸ Furthermore, it is strictly prohibited to mix hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste in the same package.⁵ Managing this retrograde process across thousands of deployed systems drastically complicates reverse logistics, requiring forward units to act as highly trained hazardous material processing centers. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) has even recommended that the Department of Transportation reclassify lithium batteries from Class 9 to a more restrictive Division 4.3 material due to these runaway thermal reaction risks, which would further tighten future airlift and ground transport requirements.³⁷

5. Strategic Airlift and Sealift Constraints

The ability to successfully mass autonomous forces is entirely contingent on the capacity and readiness of the United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM). The physical realities of volumetric packaging and Class 9 hazardous materials translate directly into severe, structural strain on strategic mobility assets.

5.1 The Strategic Airlift Deficit

USTRANSCOM relies on a validated requirement of a 275-aircraft organic strategic airlift fleet to meet national defense objectives and global contingency plans.⁸ The C-17 Globemaster III serves as the backbone of this fleet, providing rapid, inter-theater mobility. However, strategic airlift is fundamentally designed and optimized for high-value, high-density, time-sensitive cargo.

When the DoD demands the rapid, simultaneous deployment of thousands of high-cube, low-density attritable drones—each packed in expansive protective crates and subject to compartment-specific lithium battery limits—the airlift architecture is forced to operate at maximum inefficiency. In a crisis scenario, drones will compete directly for premium pallet space against critically needed precision munitions, medical supplies, and ground vehicle repair parts. In a contested logistics environment, where speed equates directly to deterrence ⁸, dedicating vast swaths of C-17 capacity to transport empty space and packing foam represents an unacceptable tactical trade-off.

Intra-theater lift faces similar structural pressures. The Air Force’s retirement of older C-130H aircraft has reduced the tactical airlift fleet from over 500 aircraft in 2003 to a congressionally mandated inventory of 271.⁸ Distributing massive quantities of volumetric drone crates from major theater hubs to dispersed forward operating bases using a constrained C-130 fleet will inevitably result in operational delays. While innovative concepts like the Rapid Dragon program—which successfully demonstrated the deployment of palletized munitions directly from C-17 and EC-130 aircraft ³⁸—show promise for direct aerial delivery, these systems still consume vast amounts of cargo volume and require extensive rigging.

5.2 The Atrophy of Strategic Sealift

Historically, when airlift capacity is constrained or reserved for immediate priorities, the DoD relies heavily on the Military Sealift Command (MSC) to transport approximately 90 percent of U.S. Army and Marine Corps equipment into the theater of operations.⁹ For the true mass deployment of drone fleets, utilizing standard International Organization for Standardization (ISO) containers via sealift is the only mathematically viable method.

However, the strategic sealift enterprise is currently facing an unprecedented readiness crisis. Current assessments indicate that MSC readiness levels have dropped to an alarming 59 percent, driven primarily by vessel age and deteriorating material condition.⁹ The sealift fleet is projected to lose between 1 million and 2 million square feet of capacity annually as legacy ships reach the end of their useful service lives.⁹

Furthermore, in a pacing scenario against a near-peer adversary such as China, sea lines of communication (SLOCs) from the continental United States to the Indo-Pacific will be heavily contested.⁹ Transporting mass quantities of Class 9 lithium batteries via sealift also invokes the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code, which mandates robust, fire-resistant packaging, adequate cushioning, and strict stowage segregation.⁵

The systemic requirement is unavoidable: The Replicator initiative cannot rely solely on the C-17 fleet for initial deployment. The DoD must urgently integrate mass drone packaging into standard ISO container dimensions—specifically utilizing TRICON (8’x8’x6.5′), BICON (8’x8’x10′), and QUADCON (8’x6.10’x4.9′) steel-framed containers ³⁹—that are engineered for hazardous material sealift, and combatant commanders must factor the extended transit times of maritime logistics into their operational plans.

6. Forward Operating Base Footprint: Storage and Climate Control

Upon successfully navigating the strategic airlift or sealift pipeline and reaching the theater of operations, the logistical burden transitions entirely from USTRANSCOM to the gaining tactical units. The pervasive assumption that thousands of attritable drones can simply be unloaded, unboxed, and stacked in a general-purpose, unconditioned supply tent completely ignores the volatile chemistry of lithium-ion technology and the fragility of the platforms.

6.1 The Aggregate Risk of Thermal Runaway

Aggregating thousands of lithium-ion batteries at a Forward Operating Base (FOB) introduces a profound vulnerability to the installation. A single thermal runaway event—whether caused by mechanical damage during rough transport, a latent manufacturing defect, or an enemy kinetic strike—can rapidly propagate to adjacent stored batteries. This creates an uncontrollable, self-sustaining chemical blaze that conventional firefighting techniques and standard water suppression systems cannot easily extinguish.³⁴

Military history provides stark precedents. The Navy’s Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Carderock Division has documented incidents where standard military lithium batteries, such as the widely used BB 2590, entered thermal runaway while stored in an Army vehicle-mounted shelter, causing massive damage to surrounding equipment and exposing personnel to severe hazard.³⁴

6.2 Specialized Climate-Controlled Infrastructure

To prevent spontaneous degradation, maintain operational capacity, and prevent thermal events, lithium-ion batteries must be stored in specific, highly regulated environmental conditions. Both industry standards and DoD best practices dictate that these batteries must be kept at stable temperatures, generally below 80°F (26.6°C).⁴¹ In austere, high-temperature operational environments—such as the Middle East or the Indo-Pacific during summer months—maintaining this temperature requires dedicated, power-hungry climate control systems running continuously.

Standard canvas tents or rudimentary plywood structures are entirely inadequate. Adequate storage requires purpose-built facilities, such as commercial DrumLoc buildings or the military’s specialized CLASSIC (Containerized Lithium-ion Battery Storage and Sustained Intelligent Charging) containers developed by NSWC.³⁴ These specialized hazardous material bunkers require robust, integrated safety features, including:

• Explosion-proof electrical accessories, switches, and interior lighting.
• Active clean-agent fire suppression devices (e.g., FM 200 systems) tailored for chemical fires.⁴¹
• Advanced sensors capable of detecting chemical off-gassing, temperature spikes, or smoke prior to a full thermal runaway event.³⁴
• Passive physical mitigation measures, such as internal blast walls, to prevent failure propagation between stored units and to direct the blast outward rather than upward into the facility.³⁴

Consequently, deploying a mass drone capability does not merely require runway space or a clear patch of dirt; it necessitates the deployment of heavy, specialized ISO containers acting as forward hazardous material bunkers, which in turn require constant, uninterrupted power to run their HVAC and automated sensor systems.

7. Industrial-Scale Power Generation at the Tactical Edge

The most critical, yet systematically overlooked, operational requirement of mass drone deployment is tactical power generation. As previously established, drones arrive in theater at less than 30% SOC due to strict aviation transport regulations.⁵ Before a single swarm can be launched to achieve the mass effects envisioned by Replicator, the entire fleet must be charged. This transforms a forward drone unit into an industrial power consumer.

7.1 The Mathematics of Megawatt Demand

Commercial and military drone operations are exceptionally energy-intensive. A single tactical drone team conducting persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) or kinetic strike operations can easily cycle through 10 to 12 battery charges per day, consuming approximately 2 to 3 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity daily.⁴² Scaling this baseline to the DoD’s vision of fielding “multiple thousands” of autonomous platforms ⁴ creates a staggering localized power demand.

If a combatant commander intends to launch a coordinated wave of 1,000 drones within a narrow operational window, those batteries must be charged simultaneously. Fast-charging a single heavy-lift or long-range tactical drone battery requires a dedicated draw of between 150W and 300W of continuous power.⁴³ In parallel, the necessary ground support equipment—including operator laptops, network routers, data relays, and GPS base stations—draws a continuous 100W to 250W per station.⁴³

When operating multiple systems simultaneously during pre-mission staging, the peak electrical demand rapidly surges into the tens of thousands of watts per tactical node.⁴³ Standard consumer-grade portable power stations, small solar arrays, or vehicle-mounted inverters are vastly insufficient for this industrial scale.

7.2 The Vulnerability of Tactical Generators and Class III Logistics

Historically, the default solution to remote, off-grid power demand has been the towed gasoline or diesel generator.⁶ However, relying on traditional internal combustion generators to power mass drone operations presents severe tactical liabilities that undermine the very purpose of the capability:

1. Acoustic and Thermal Signatures: In an era of advanced multi-spectral ISR, the massive noise pollution and intense thermal bloom of a large generator farm immediately compromise the position of the drone launch site.⁶ Adversary sensors will detect the power generation node long before the drones are launched, inviting preemptive kinetic strikes.
2. Vibration Interference: Micro-vibrations emanating from heavy diesel generators can interfere with the delicate calibration of drone targeting optics and sensitive charging equipment, leading to high failure rates before takeoff.⁶
3. Contested Class III Logistics: Generators burn vast quantities of fuel. Moving thousands of gallons of Class III bulk fuel to remote launch sites requires vulnerable, highly visible convoy operations. This reliance on a heavy logistics tail defeats the strategic purpose of utilizing distributed, low-risk attritable forces.

7.3 The Hazards of Parallel Charging

To save time and meet aggressive operational tempos, drone operators frequently utilize parallel charging—connecting multiple lithium-polymer (LiPo) batteries to a single high-output charger via a parallel charging board.⁴⁵ While highly efficient for rapid turnarounds, parallel charging introduces acute fire risks if not managed with absolute precision.

Batteries connected in parallel must possess the identical cell count and very similar starting voltages (typically within 0.1V of each other).⁴⁵ If a depleted battery is hastily connected in parallel with a partially charged battery, the voltage differential causes a massive, uncontrolled rush of current into the depleted battery, frequently resulting in catastrophic cell failure, explosions, and fires.⁴⁷ Furthermore, charging at higher currents (e.g., 2c instead of the safer standard 1c rate) drastically increases the wear on the battery and the risk of thermal events.⁴⁸ Managing this delicate, mathematically precise charging process across thousands of rapidly degrading attritable batteries in a chaotic combat environment requires sophisticated Battery Management Systems (BMS) ²⁹ and highly trained personnel, which inherently slows the tempo of operations.

8. Maintenance Footprint, Personnel, and Training Readiness

The very term “attritable” implies expendability and a short lifecycle, which often leads to the dangerous assumption that these platforms require little to no maintenance or human support. In reality, assembling, calibrating, launching, and managing a fleet of attritable UAS requires a highly specialized human capital footprint and expansive physical facilities.

8.1 Assembly and Facility Square Footage

Most tactical drones, to save volumetric space during strategic airlift, are shipped partially disassembled within their protective MIL-STD crates.⁴⁹ Upon arrival at the FOB, they must be meticulously unpacked, assembled, firmware-updated, and flight-checked before they can be assigned to a mission. Establishing a forward drone assembly and maintenance facility requires significant physical space that must be factored into base planning.

Basic institutional standards for drone laboratories and maintenance facilities dictate a minimum of 750 square feet solely for assembly and maintenance areas, with 10-to-12-foot ceilings to accommodate wingspan clearances and component testing.⁵⁰ Storage rooms capable of holding just 500 drones require upwards of 1,000 square feet of dedicated, secure shelving.⁵⁰ When scaling to the DAWG and Replicator goal of multiple thousands of systems, commanders will require massive, semi-permanent structures—such as large clamshell tents or repurposed aircraft hangars—simply to process the unboxing and assembly of the hardware. This vast physical requirement directly contradicts the operational goal of maintaining a light, agile, and geographically dispersed expeditionary footprint.⁵¹

8.2 The Human Capital Constraint

Unmanned systems, paradoxically, are highly manpower-intensive on the ground. A complex UAV operation often requires at least seven crewmembers dedicated to specific tasks: takeoff and landing procedures, in-flight monitoring, payload operation, and flight line maintenance.⁵² While the Replicator initiative explicitly aims to leverage advanced autonomy to allow a single operator to control multiple vehicles in a swarm configuration ¹, the physical handling, battery swapping, and maintenance of the drones remains a heavily manual task.

To manage the unprecedented battery and maintenance logistics, the DoD will need to fundamentally restructure its forward support companies (FSCs) and sustainment brigades.⁵³ Battlefield energy generation and distribution nodes must be established within Light Support Battalions (LSB) and Division Sustainment Support Battalions (DSSB).⁷ This shift requires existing 91D (Generator Mechanic) and 94-series personnel to undergo extensive retraining to manage complex hybrid and lithium-ion systems, diagnosing battery health and managing parallel charging racks.⁷

Furthermore, training the sheer number of operators required to employ thousands of drones demands a massive expansion of the institutional training base. Simulator training is essential for building initial flight proficiency and mitigating crash risks.⁵⁴ The Marine Corps, for example, is heavily reliant on enterprise-resourced simulation capabilities delivered via the Marine Common Virtual Platform (MCVP)—such as DART 2.0 and FlowState—as well as commercial simulators like Velocidrone, to provide service-wide training solutions.⁵⁴ Scaling this training pipeline to match the procurement of the hardware is a multi-year endeavor.

8.3 Supply Chain Security and Parts Replacement

Finally, forward units cannot simply rely on localized procurement or commercial replacement of broken drone parts to sustain operations. Due to strict supply chain security mandates, such as the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act (FASC), there is a blanket prohibition on the use of FASC-prohibited unmanned aircraft systems and associated elements.⁵⁵ This legislation ensures that no components sourced from adversarial nations (such as certain Chinese-manufactured motors or flight controllers) can be integrated into DoD networks. Consequently, every spare propeller, servo, and circuit board must be sourced through secure, vetted, and often severely backlogged military supply chains. This reality forces deployed units to stockpile vast quantities of authorized spare parts at the FOB to maintain readiness, further increasing the logistical cube and storage requirements.

9. Strategic Conclusions and Required Leadership Action

The United States Department of Defense possesses the unparalleled technological prowess to design, develop, and manufacture thousands of highly capable autonomous systems. The massive financial commitments to the DAWG and Replicator initiatives guarantee that the industrial base will produce the hardware. However, the true measure of mass autonomy’s success will not be determined by factory output or lines of code, but by the Defense Transportation System’s ability to project those assets globally without buckling under the weight of archaic packaging standards, hazardous material laws, and localized power deficits.

To ensure that mass drone operations transition from a theoretical strategic concept to a viable, reliable tactical reality, leadership must immediately acknowledge and aggressively mitigate the physical logistics footprint. The analysis indicates several critical areas for immediate, systemic action:

1. Redesign Military Packaging for Drones: The DoD must collaborate directly with defense contractors to engineer MIL-STD-2073 compliant shipping configurations that drastically reduce the “cube.” Drones should be designed with foldable, robust components that minimize the need for expansive foam-in-place cushioning, maximizing the density of a 463L pallet and ISO containers. The packaging must be considered as important as the payload.
2. Modernize the Class 9 Hazardous Pipeline: USTRANSCOM and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) must develop streamlined, pre-approved hazardous material transport corridors specifically optimized for lithium-ion batteries. To bypass the airlift bottleneck, the DoD must invest heavily in specialized ISO containers (analogous to the CLASSIC system) that can transport, safely store, and simultaneously charge batteries at the tactical edge, relying more heavily on proactive strategic sealift.
3. Elevate Energy to a Primary Supply Class: The Brigade Support Operations (SPO) and unit S4s must immediately begin treating electrical power forecasting with the exact same rigor and priority as Class III (Fuel) and Class V (Ammunition) sustainment.⁷ The DoD must rapidly procure modular, silent, and high-capacity battlefield energy storage networks to decouple deployed drone units from vulnerable liquid fuel supply chains and noisy tactical generators.

The technology of mass autonomy is profound, and its potential to deter aggression is immense. Yet, it remains inextricably tethered to the physical world. By shifting the strategic focus toward the unglamorous realities of logistics, volumetric packaging, hazardous materials, and tactical power generation, DoD leadership can ensure that the autonomous systems built to win the next conflict are actually capable of reaching the battlefield.

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

Sources Used

1. Replicator: A Bold New Path for DoD | Center for Security and Emerging Technology %, accessed April 24, 2026, https://cset.georgetown.edu/article/replicator-a-bold-new-path-for-dod/
2. Deep Dive: Pentagon’s Replicator Initiative Raises Questions | Inkstick, accessed April 24, 2026, https://inkstickmedia.com/deep-dive-pentagons-replicator-initiative-raises-questions/
3. Pentagon officials broadly detail $55 billion drone plan under DAWG – Breaking Defense, accessed April 24, 2026, https://breakingdefense.com/2026/04/pentagon-officials-broadly-detail-55-billion-drone-plan-under-dawg/
4. DOD Innovation Official Discusses Progress on Replicator > Department of Defense Manufacturing Technology Program > News Display, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.dodmantech.mil/News/News-Display/Article/3999474/dod-innovation-official-discusses-progress-on-replicator/
5. Transportation – U.S. Army Batteries, accessed April 24, 2026, https://battery.army.mil/safety/transportation-safety/
6. Unleashing the Swarm: The Ultimate Guide to Professional Portable Power for Drone Operations – New Use Energy, accessed April 24, 2026, https://newuseenergy.com/blogs/news/unleashing-the-swarm-the-ultimate-guide-to-professional-portable-power-for-drone-operations
7. Best Practices on Operationalizing Battlefield Energy | Article | The United States Army, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.army.mil/article/287897/best_practices_on_operationalizing_battlefield_energy
8. 1 Statement of General Randall Reed, United States Air Force Commander, United States Transportation Command Before the House Ar, accessed April 24, 2026, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS28/20260318/119070/HHRG-119-AS28-20260318-SD004.pdf
9. The dangerous collapse of US strategic sealift capacity – The Strategist, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-dangerous-collapse-of-us-strategic-sealift-capacity/
10. DoD promised a ‘swarm’ of attack drones. We’re still waiting. – Responsible Statecraft, accessed April 24, 2026, https://responsiblestatecraft.org/replicator/
11. Pentagon’s Replicator Initiative Sets Sights on Counter-UAS – National Defense Magazine, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2024/12/16/pentagons-replicator-initiative-sets-sights-on-counteruas
12. Attritable Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Conceptualization and Key Players – DSIAC – dtic.mil, accessed April 24, 2026, https://dsiac.dtic.mil/state-of-the-art-reports/attritable-unmanned-aircraft-systems-conceptualization-and-key-players/
13. MQ-9A Passes 2 Million Flight Hours | General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.ga-asi.com/mq-9a-passes-2-million-flight-hours
14. Standard Practice for Military Packaging – ASSIST-QuickSearch Document Details – DLA, accessed April 24, 2026, https://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=37232
15. afman 24-604 – Air Force – USAF, accessed April 24, 2026, https://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a4/publication/afman24-604/afman24-604.pdf
16. What Is MIL-STD-2073 Packaging? – Export Corporation, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.exportcorporation.com/what-is-mil-std-2073-packaging/
17. MIL-STD-2073_1E_CHG-4.pdf – S3VI, accessed April 24, 2026, https://s3vi.ndc.nasa.gov/ssri-kb/static/resources/MIL-STD-2073_1E_CHG-4.pdf
18. 49 CFR 173.185 — Lithium cells and batteries. – eCFR, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-173/subpart-E/section-173.185
19. The Basics – ASC Packaging Storage and Containerization Center – U.S. Army, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.pscc.army.mil/Portals/92/Documents/PKG_01_Packaging%20_the_Basics.pdf?ver=jVqRtUlH0eGE9rfwrGlXnA%3D%3D
20. Military Spec Crates Explained – Valley Box Company, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.valleybox.com/blog/military-spec-crates-explained
21. MIL-STD-2073-1 Exterior Shipping Containers – Camp Hill Logistics, accessed April 24, 2026, https://camphill.leidos.com/code_lookup.nsf/ESC?OpenPage
22. Switchblade® 600 – AeroVironment, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.avinc.com/solution/switchblade-600/
23. AeroVironment Switchblade – Wikipedia, accessed April 24, 2026, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment_Switchblade
24. Switchblade® 600 Loitering Munition Systems | Kamikaze Drones | Suicide Drone | Tactical Missile Systems | AV – AeroVironment, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.avinc.com/lms/switchblade-600
25. Anduril ALTIUS – Designation-Systems.Net, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/altius.html
26. Taiwan Receives First Batch of U.S.-Made Altius 600M Drones, accessed April 24, 2026, https://militarnyi.com/en/news/taiwan-receives-first-batch-of-u-s-made-altius-600m-drones/
27. Ghost-X Selected for U.S. Army’s Company Level sUAS Directed Requirement | Anduril, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.anduril.com/news/ghost-x-selected-for-u-s-army-s-company-level-suas-directed-requirement
28. The Study of Electrical Energy Power Supply System for UAVs Based on the Energy Storage Technology – MDPI, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/9/9/500
29. Drone (UAV) Battery Market Report 2025-2030 [287 Pages & 398 Tables], accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/drone-battery-market-131005766.html
30. Navigating State-Specific Regulations for Lithium-Ion Batteries – Americase, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.americase.com/navigating-state-specific-regulations-for-lithium-ion-batteries/
31. Challenges in Transporting Lithium Batteries – Clip-Lok, accessed April 24, 2026, https://clip-lok.com/challenges-in-transporting-lithium-batteries/
32. Common Challenges in Battery Shipping and Solutions – FreightAmigo, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.freightamigo.com/en/blog/logistics/common-challenges-in-battery-shipping-and-solutions/
33. Lithium Battery Guide for Shippers – Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/sites/phmsa.dot.gov/files/2024-11/Lithium-Battery-Guide-2024.pdf
34. CLASSIC Battery Container – Navsea, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Documents/Exhibits/SAS2022/1300-CLASSIC_BatteryContainer-Hays-20220404.pdf
35. 2024 LITHIUM BATTERY SHIPPING GUIDE – Hazmateam, accessed April 24, 2026, https://hazmateam.learningcart.com/uploads/2024LITHIUMBATTERIES/2024HAZMATEAMLITHIUMBATTERYSHIPPINGGUIDEINTERACTIVEJAN_1_2024.pdf
36. Hazardous Material, Part II, Chapter 204 – USTransCOM, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.ustranscom.mil/dtr/part-ii/dtr_part_ii_204.pdf
37. April 22, 2025 Acting Administrator Kochman U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administr – CVSA, accessed April 24, 2026, https://cvsa.org/wp-content/uploads/CVSA-Letter-to-PHMSA-Regarding-Lithium-Batteries-Recommendations.pdf
38. Rapid Dragon Demonstrates Palletized Munition Capability in First C-17 and EC-130 System-Level Demonstrations – Lockheed Martin, accessed April 24, 2026, https://news.lockheedmartin.com/rapid-dragon-demonstrates-palletized-munition-capability-in-first-C-17-and-EC-130-system-level-demonstrations
39. The Buyer’s Guide for Military Shipping Container – Mobile Modular Portable Storage, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.mobilemodularcontainers.com/blog/military-shipping-containers
40. Appendix B – DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (DOD) INTERMODAL CONTAINER STANDARDS – USTransCOM, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.ustranscom.mil/dtr/part-vi/dtr_part_vi_app_b.pdf
41. Lithium Ion Battery Storage Requirements, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.uschemicalstorage.com/lithium-ion-battery-storage-requirements/
42. No. 26-1116, Powering The Front: Tactical Energy Delivery and Management in the Ukraine War – U.S. Army, accessed April 24, 2026, https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2026/03/30/c260713f/no-26-1116-powering-the-front-tactical-energy-delivery-and-management-in-the-ukraine-war.pdf
43. Drone Show Power Guide: How Many Watts Do You Really Need – EcoFlow, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.ecoflow.com/us/blog/drone-show-power-requirements-guide
44. Power under pressure: Meeting the military’s surging energy demands, accessed April 24, 2026, https://militaryembedded.com/comms/power-electronics/power-under-pressure-meeting-the-militarys-surging-energy-demands
45. Mastering LiPo Parallel Charging: The Safety Guide for FPV Drone Pilots – Oscar Liang, accessed April 24, 2026, https://oscarliang.com/parallel-charging-multiple-lipo/
46. Charging Multiple Lithium-Polymer (Lipo) Batteries at once – Planet Geek!, accessed April 24, 2026, https://planet-geek.com/2017/07/09/drones/charging-multiple-lithium-polymer-lipo-batteries-at-once/
47. Is it safe to charge these different brands at the same time and how many amps should I use? – Reddit, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.reddit.com/r/fpv/comments/12do8ue/is_it_safe_to_charge_these_different_brands_at/
48. At what current should I charge a LiPo battery? – Drones and Model Aircraft Stack Exchange, accessed April 24, 2026, https://drones.stackexchange.com/questions/971/at-what-current-should-i-charge-a-lipo-battery
49. MCO P4030.21D PACKAGING OF MATERIEL – Marines.mil, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.marines.mil/portals/1/Publications/MCO%20P4030.21D.pdf
50. How to Set Up a Drone Lab | Equipment and Space Requirements – Robocraze, accessed April 24, 2026, https://robocraze.com/blogs/post/how-to-set-up-a-drone-lab-equipment-and-space-requirements
51. The fresh maintenance and sustainment challenges as UAVs take off in defense, accessed April 24, 2026, https://militaryembedded.com/unmanned/counter-uas/the-fresh-maintenance-and-sustainment-challenges-as-uavs-take-off-in-defense
52. Annotated Bibliography (1997 – 2021): Crew and Staffing Requirements of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Air Carrier Operations – Federal Aviation Administration, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-07/Annotated%20Bibliography%20(1997-2021)-%20Crew%20and%20Staffing%20Requirements%20of%20Unmanned%20Aircrafts%20Systems%20in%20Air%20Carrier%20Operations.pdf
53. 23-08-682-leader-s-guide-to-maintenance-and-services-aug-23-public.pdf – U.S. Army, accessed April 24, 2026, https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2023/09/29/c9a4e39d/23-08-682-leader-s-guide-to-maintenance-and-services-aug-23-public.pdf
54. APPROVED TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR SMALL UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS > United States Marine Corps Flagship > Messages Display, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/Messages-Display/Article/4366306/approved-training-requirements-for-small-unmanned-aerial-systems/
55. 52.240-1 Prohibition on Unmanned Aircraft Systems Manufactured or Assembled by American Security Drone Act-Covered Foreign Entities. | Acquisition.GOV, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.acquisition.gov/far/52.240-1
56. M-26-02 Ensuring Government Use of Secure Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Supporting – The White House, accessed April 24, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/M-26-02-Ensuring-Government-Use-of-Secure-Unmanned-Aircraft-Systems-and-Supporting-United-States-Producers.pdf