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

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

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

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

II. Strategy 1: Attritional Saturation and Economic Warfare

Core Concept

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

The Russian Model (Shahed/Geran-2)

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

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

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

The Attritional Dilemma

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

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

III. Strategy 2: Asymmetric Precision Strike

Core Concept

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

The Ukrainian Model (FPV Dominance)

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

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

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

The Inversion of the Force Protection Pyramid

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

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

IV. Strategy 3: The Integrated Reconnaissance-Strike Network

Core Concept

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

Multi-National Application

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

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

The End of Sanctuary and the Primacy of Networks

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

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

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

Core Concept

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

Doctrinal Development and Testing

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

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

The Shift from Platform-Centric to System-Centric Warfare

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

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

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

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

Core Concept

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

Applications Across Domains

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

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

Redefining the Role of the Human Warfighter

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

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

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

VII. Strategy 6: Drone-Enabled Maneuver Warfare

Core Concept

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

Emerging Doctrine

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

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

The Potential Obsolescence of Static Defense

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

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

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

VIII. Strategy 7: Asymmetric Maritime Denial

Core Concept

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

The Ukrainian Black Sea Campaign

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

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

A “Dreadnought Moment” for Surface Combatants?

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

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

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

IX. Strategy 8: Autonomous Logistics and Combat Sustainment

Core Concept

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

Doctrinal and Conceptual Applications

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

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

The “Unblinking Eye” on the Supply Chain

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

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

X. Strategy 9: Deep Strike and Strategic Degradation

Core Concept

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

Real-World Employment

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

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

The Blurring of Tactical and Strategic Warfare

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

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

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

XI. Strategy 10: AI-Driven Autonomous Operations

Core Concept

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

The Pursuit of True Autonomy

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

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

The Ceding of Tactical Decision-Making to Machines

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

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

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

XII. Conclusion: Synthesis and Future Trajectories

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

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

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

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

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

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

XIII. Summary Table of Drone Employment Strategies

Strategy ID	Strategy Name	Primary Objective	Key Drone Types	Primary Proponents & Examples	Primary Countermeasures
1	Attritional Saturation & Economic Warfare	Overwhelm/bankrupt enemy IADS; psychological warfare.	Low-cost OWA UAS (e.g., Shahed-136).	Russia: Geran-2 campaign against Ukraine.10	Layered air defense, high-energy lasers, EW, mobile gun teams.11
2	Asymmetric Precision Strike	Destroy high-value assets with low-cost systems.	FPV quadcopters, modified commercial drones.	Ukraine: Destruction of Russian armor/ships.3 PLA: Analysis for Taiwan scenario.15	EW (jamming), anti-drone nets/cages, shotgun/small arms fire, integrated C-UAS.15
3	Integrated Reconnaissance-Strike Network	Radically shorten the kill chain for time-sensitive targets.	ISR drones (Orlan-10, Puma) networked with artillery/loitering munitions.	Ukraine: “Unified Combat Matrix”.12 Russia: Reconnaissance-Fire Complex.17 US/China: Core doctrinal goal.8	EW (jamming C2 links), kinetic interception of ISR assets, camouflage/deception.
4	Swarm-Based Overwhelm & Area Control	Saturate defenses, conduct multi-axis attacks, control territory.	Large numbers of small, autonomous, networked drones.	China: “Jiutian” mothership, Taiwan invasion simulations.15 US: Perdix program.22	Directed energy weapons, high-power microwaves, wide-area EW, cyber-attacks.14
5	Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T)	Extend range, lethality, and survivability of manned platforms.	“Loyal wingman” UCAVs (GJ-X), small recon drones paired with tanks.	China: J-20/GJ-X pairing.26 US/UK: Core future force concept.27	Targeting the manned C2 node, severing data links between platforms.
6	Drone-Enabled Maneuver Warfare	Create breakthroughs for ground forces by suppressing/isolating defenses.	Organic drone units at company/battalion level for ISR and strike.	UK: “20-40-40” doctrine.30 Ukraine: Unmanned Systems Forces.12 US: Drone-led strike units.3	Integrated, mobile C-UAS; counter-reconnaissance; rapid reserve forces.
7	Asymmetric Maritime Denial	Contest sea control against a superior conventional navy.	USVs/UUVs (e.g., Sea Baby, Magura).	Ukraine: Black Sea campaign against Russian fleet.12	Ship-based C-UAS (guns, EW), aerial patrol, harbor protection nets.
8	Autonomous Logistics & Sustainment	Secure and automate the supply chain, especially the “last mile.”	Unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), cargo drones, convoy security swarms.	China: Focus on autonomous ground logistics.15 US: Conceptual development for convoy security.22	ISR targeting of logistics nodes/routes, mines, ambushes, EW.
9	Deep Strike & Strategic Degradation	Degrade enemy warfighting capacity and will by striking the homeland.	Long-range OWA UAS, stealth UCAVs (GJ-X).	Ukraine: Strikes on Russian airbases.3 Russia: Strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure.10 China: Doctrine for deep penetration.26	Homeland IADS, dispersal of critical assets, hardening of infrastructure.
10	AI-Driven Autonomous Operations	Execute complex missions based on commander’s intent with minimal human control.	AI-enabled drones with autonomous targeting (e.g., Saker Scout).	US: “Fly by command” vision.8 China: “Intelligentized Warfare”.15 Ukraine: Early-stage deployment.12	EW, cyber-attack on AI algorithms, deception (spoofing AI sensors), development of counter-AI.

XIV. Appendix: Data Collection and Assessment Methodology

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

Phase 1: Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) Aggregation

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

Phase 2: Thematic Analysis and Clustering

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

Phase 3: Comparative Doctrinal Analysis

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

Phase 4: Insight Synthesis and Causal Chain Mapping

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

Phase 5: Strategy Formulation and Validation

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

---

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

---

Sources Used

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