But according to the head of U.S. Army Recruiting Command, the new soldiers struggled to hold up their end of the deal.

The service’s decades-old Hometown Recruiter Assistance Program has been suspended, Lt. Gen. Johnny Davis confirmed at a forum hosted by the Association of the United States Army.

And while he said it’s being “looked at” for possible next steps, he also described the built-in problems keeping the service from getting its money’s worth.

“I would tell you, when the program was initiated and really delivered to the Army years ago and executed, that we had some good return on investment — about, you know, one or two percent,” Davis said in response to a question at the forum.

“But, bottom line, what we’ve learned over the years is that 20, 30,000 young superstars, when they were headed back home, were good; they got to go home,” he added. “But they weren’t really working with the recruiters as much as we wanted them to.”

Davis said leaders understood the “human element” of what was happening, in that new graduates were eager to reconnect with family and friends in what amounted to additional uncharged leave. But, he added, the Army had to consider what it was getting out of the arrangement.

Likewise, he said, the Army has in the past allowed National Guard and Reserve soldiers to return home for non-charged leave during the holiday break known as the Christmas Exodus on the understanding that they would support Army recruiting as ambassadors during that time.

“During that Christmas holiday, was there a lot of recruiters in the recruiting stations working with them? No,” Davis said. “So we’re really thinking through: is this return on investment, and is it worth the cost to the Army? Or can we take those funds and spend them in other ways to help our men and women.”

Davis said leaders were now “looking at other ways” to help soldiers get coveted hometown leave apart from the hometown recruiting program.

Army recruiting social media pages began discussing the suspension of the Hometown Recruiter Assistance Program in January, though the service has not publicly addressed the move until now.

HRAP dates to the 1980s. In its most recent form, soldiers had to be selected and approved for the program by a company commander.

In a 2022 Army news release, a recruiting center station commander in Missouri, Staff Sgt. Colton Dunbar, said the success of the program came down to “how the soldiers are leveraged.”

“We try to get the most out of them while they’re here by bringing them to the high school where they graduated and their communities to show everyone that this person was in your community six months ago as a civilian, but look at them now,” he said in the release. ”It helps to break down any barriers because they know that person in uniform — it helps show we are people just like everybody else.”

But from early on in the program, a lack of success metrics and specific service requirements have limited HRAP’s success.

A 1983 study from the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences found that it was hard to evaluate the usefulness of program participants, because it was hard to track their impact outside of foot traffic to the recruiting office.

It also suggested, though, that there were nevertheless non-quantifiable benefits to having new soldiers present and visible in their hometown.

“Aides are credited for individuals they brought to the recruiter who subsequently enlist, but the total effect of the aide’s efforts is more subtle than the sum of their recruits,” the study found. “For example, aides can ‘plant seeds’ or lay the groundwork months in advance of an enlistment decision and receive no credit for an enlistment that occurs months after his or her departure.”

The Army hasn’t said when it will make final decisions on the way forward for HRAP.

Hegseth said the project was “not about developing new strategies or new policies,” but rather, “to creatively look to the future and identify the domains that we must conquer, and capabilities we must master.”

Palmer Luckey, who is co-leading the workgroup alongside Elon Musk and Newt Gingrich, talked about his vision for the future of defense in an interview with the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics days ahead of the speech.

Luckey co-founded the defense technology company Anduril, which makes autonomous platforms like drones and submersibles. Before that, he founded virtual headset maker Oculus VR, which was acquired by Facebook in 2014. His two ideas would seemingly merge in the Army’s Integrated Visual Augmentation System, or IVAS.

Sci-fi inspired tech

Luckey explained that much of what he does in the defense space was inspired by science fiction movies like Stealth, which is about an autonomous fighter jet that goes rogue after becoming sentient, and classic science fiction novels that theorized how technology would evolve.

“Turns out, everything we’re doing was predicted by guys who were really sharp [and] really knew what they were doing,” he said, referencing author Robert Heinlein as an example when he wrote about voice activation.

“I love building the things that were invented by people who didn’t have to worry about how it was going to become real. They just knew it would be the right thing,” Luckey added.

He went on to discuss a range of topics for keeping the U.S. wartime-ready, including developing trust in autonomous systems, open source versus patents for weapon designs, and balancing intuitive design with user skill, but he started with his thoughts on industrial manufacturing.

Scaling the industrial base

In response to the question of how the U.S. can regain battlefield dominance, Luckey talked about unified design and information sharing.

“We need to have unified command and control. We need to have unified information sharing. You need to have every sensor be a sensor for every effector and vice versa. You can’t have these stove pipes across systems, across services, and especially across our ally and partner forces. We want everyone to be able to share everything,” he said.

He added that he thinks everyone agrees with that notion, but he differs on how industry should be designed.

“We need to design missiles that can be made in car factories. We need to design aircraft that can be made in tractor factories,” he said. “And we’ve done this before.”

He argued that in World War II, military equipment was designed to be manufactured with commercial equipment and techniques.

“We made weapons to be made by car and tractor and sewing machine factories, etcetera, and I think we need to start doing that again,” he said.

He added that it would serve the practical purpose of meeting wartime demand while also sending a message to adversaries like China that U.S. factories could quickly switch gears and crank out weaponry.

Subterranean fighting

While it might seem obvious that future battlefields might be in space, Luckey listed “the subterranean domain” as a realistic option and “inevitable.”

While the interpretation of “subterranean” is to mean fighting in tunnels or trenches, he said he’s literally talking about “the real deal no shit sub-T fight, where you are using the crust of the earth as a three-dimensional maneuver and battle space.”

“Everyone says that I’m nuts for this and I’m going to keep saying it because it is true,” he said. “The U.S. used to believe this. The Soviets used to believe this. Both countries were working on subterrains, so vehicles that could move through the crust of the earth.”

Why he thinks this is realistic, he argued, is that autonomous systems will make it easier to bore through subterranean environments, and the primary cost is moving forward.

“Everything you drag through it afterwards is free,” he said.

He added that the space could be used for battle or to launch attacks against enemies on the ground.

According to Hegseth’s Project Meridian memo, the working group is expected to submit its findings and recommendations by Jan. 28, 2027.

Anduril previously helped develop the prototype for the service’s Next Generation Command and Control, or NGC2, for the 4th Infantry Division, using its proprietary AI-powered operating system Lattice.

“A common data layer allows the Army to integrate new systems without rebuilding the underlying architecture for every sensor, application, or weapon, so new capabilities can be fielded on the same foundation as those already in use,” Anduril said.

The Army awarded $162.8 million to Anduril to continue working on NGC2’s common data baseline, or software foundation, as it begins to implement it across the service’s I Corps, which commands service members across the Indo-Pacific.

The contract contains options that can grow its value up to $1.8 billion.

Anduril, along with Palantir, Raft and Striveworks, have helped build out the baseline.

The NGC2 system will allow technologies, weapons, sensors, devices and applications from across the force to operate on the same network and increase decision-making speed on the battlefield.

By expanding the NGC2 system to the I Corps, technologies will have to figure out ways to connect to the same network despite being separated by thousands of miles and experiencing interrupted or degraded connectivity.

This will provide the Army and Anduril an opportunity to test how well information flows between the systems as they access the NGC2 framework in a myriad of environments.

During a July 2026 ten-day event at Fort Irwin, California, entitled Project Convergence-Capstone 6, the Army asked 10,000 participants from U.S. and allied forces, as well as industry partners using 90 technologies to test software for the NGC2.

Afterward, the Army awarded a contract to Anduril to develop the software prototype for NGC2 for the 4th Infantry Division.

Over the past year, Anduril has conducted several operational exercises in collaboration with the Army to test the NGC2’s common data layer baseline.

In May, Anduril deployed its NGC2 system at Fort Carson and Pinon Canyon, using over 160 tactical edge computers, over 2,500 devices and 40 applications while navigating simulated cyber and electromagnetic attacks.

Two months later, after a joint force exercise at Fort Irwin, the service said the battlefield command system was ready to be scaled.

The NGC2 is set to replace the Army’s first-gen command-and-control system, which helps control fire, logistics and airspace on the battlefield.

The Army has made it clear that it wants to implement the NGC2 as soon as possible.

“We know the biggest risk to our national security and our national defense is not moving too fast. It’s not moving fast enough,” said former Army Secretary Dan Driscoll. “The side that can sense a target, process the data, and deliver a kinetic effect the fastest, wins. That is the decisive advantage this capability provides.”

Acting Army Chief of Staff Gen. Christopher LaNeve said that the Futures and Concepts Command has been redesignated as U.S. Army Futures and Autonomous Systems Command, or FASCOM. The change comes as the Army aligns its weapons purchases, force structure and training around new “How the Army Fights” guidance, which was published last week and explains how the service intends to wield land power in future wars.

“We are not walking away from modernization,” LaNeve said, addressing the industry partners directly at one point in his speech. “We are sprinting towards, it,” he said, adding “and we are doing so responsibly with a recognition that resources are not endless.”

LaNeve has charged FASCOM with developing corps-level autonomous capabilities through experimentation and testing.

According to a Tuesday release, the three-star command will have “capability-based formations centered on autonomous long-range fires, protection, tanks, logistics and obstacle breaching,” and will include some of the Army’s first 390A Robotic Technicians, which were activated this month.

The Army said it chose those capabilities based on their ability to affect maneuver and their alignment to the “four elements” of land power outlined in last week’s guidance: convergence, strike, close battle and endurance.

“This goes beyond drones,” LaNeve said in the release, “FASCOM will pioneer operational concepts that harness autonomous capabilities across all warfighting functions.”

The Army has come under fire recently after shuttering its experimental drone battalion in Europe less than a year after launching the novel unit to test how such a formation could operate. According to The Wall Street Journal, the decision to end the experiment — the brainchild of LeNeve’s predecessor, Randy George — came as part of LeNeve’s broad “back-to-basics” approach.

In September, a bipartisan group of lawmakers signed a letter expressing concern about eliminating the 600-member “Unmanned Assault Battalion,” which was created as part of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. The legislators questioned how the U.S. would continue to learn drone warfare from Ukraine.

In a September media roundtable, Maj. Gen. Christopher Norrie, the acting Commanding General of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, said the future of the U.S. Army’s drone warfare is spread across formations, not condensed into one unit.

“In Ukraine and Russia you’ve seen those armies create brigades and entire unmanned systems forces, whereas the U.S. Army’s approach has been to decentralize; to accelerate learning across all units,” he said, adding that the Army is aiming to push one-way attack drones to the squad level in the near future.

The international defense company introduced the Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System, or MDACS, and the High-Power Microwave, or HPM, as complementary systems for protecting critical installations and field units.

Travis Langer, BAE Systems’ communication manager, explained to Military Times that the systems together fill a capability gap created by evolving technological threats and the military’s traditional procurement process.

“Both products complement existing air defense systems, but each offer a more cost-effective solution for defense against high-volume, low-cost threats allowing the preservation of high-value missiles for the most critical targets, which extends the life and effectiveness of the entire missile stockpile,” Langer said.

The Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System

According to BAE Systems, MDACS forms the kinetic layer of the defensive shield, using precision-guided munitions called Hypervelocity Projectiles, or HVPs, for both offensive and defensive operations.

“It fills a gap that traditional artillery cannot, providing a scalable layer of protection that complements existing high-tier systems,” Langer said, adding that it allows the Defense Department “to maintain a sustainable defense without draining the budget on every single engagement.”

He explained MDACS combines high-accuracy guidance with the extreme velocity of the HVP. “We reduce the time-to-target and the window the enemy has to maneuver,” he said. “We are collaborating with the Army to integrate the organic sensor network and IBCS to ensure the system remains lethal even when GPS is unavailable.”

Compared with traditional missiles, HVPs are smaller and less expensive, allowing troops to carry tens to hundreds of rounds in a magazine. Rather than relying on a rocket motor, the projectiles use what the company describes as a “low drag aerodynamic design” to achieve high velocities, maneuverability and extended range.

For offensive operations, MDACS will fire the Scorpio-XR, the latest addition to the HVP family. Designed for artillery units, the projectile is expected to double the range of existing 155mm cannon-launched precision munitions, according to the company.

Langer added that MDACs will use HVP rounds to engage air targets, counter-missile and Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System, or C-UAS, while the Scorpio-XR round will be used to defeat fixed and moving ground targets in contested environments.

BAE Systems secured an Army agreement to develop a prototype of MDACS in January 2025, according to reports. The Army had planned to spend approximately $646 million on the project through fiscal year 2027.

The High-Power Microwave

BAE Systems describes its HPM system as a “scalable directed energy weapon” built with an emphasis on affordability. The company said 99% of the system’s components are commercial off-the-shelf parts.

Unlike kinetic weapons, the HPM uses “focused electromagnetic energy” to neutralize airborne threats, specifically “high-volume, low-cost” threats, such as drone swarms, that can strain conventional air defenses.

A video simulation of the system shows the HPM mounted on a trailer in a field. Its sensors automatically detect an approaching swarm of drones, prompting a large magnet to shift into position before the system unleashes what the company describes as “billions of pulses” at the airborne targets.

Although the system remains in the prototype stage, BAE Systems said it has reached Technology Readiness Level 6, or TRL 6. That designation means a technology has been demonstrated in a relevant environment beyond laboratory testing.

Layered air-defense

Langer explained that the two systems are not specifically designed to be used together, but they could complement each other if the mission set requires it.

“MDACS is C-130 transportable, allowing it to deliver rapid, high-rate firepower wherever the fight demands. It is designed to protect critical assets from drone attacks and missile threats, providing a scalable and efficient layer of protection,” he said.

Whereas he called the HPM “an effective layer of wide-area protection” that can complement existing kinetic and missile systems. Langer said it creates “a comprehensive shield for armed forces installations and forward-deployed units.”

As for when soldiers will begin fielding these new systems, Langer said they’re still prototypes. “Final testing and qualification decisions are made by the government,” he concluded.

During Project Sandhills 2.0, soldiers planned flight routes and operated Bumblebee V2 small unmanned aircraft systems at Range 63.

The project tested how unmanned systems could support contested obstacle breaching, while soldiers and industry partners collected feedback to inform future Army capabilities.

The Army said the effort included autonomous trucks, robotic breaching payloads, drone swarms, mine detection and counter-UAS tools operating on the same problem.

A counter-UAS turret used a human-authorized effector, underscoring that autonomy did not mean removing people from critical decisions. Human decision-making remains central to the Army’s approach.

The experiment illustrates the larger question raised by retired Army Col. Dave Rowland and retired Command Sgt. Maj. Brian Hester in a Sept. 29 Modern War Institute analysis: Autonomy becomes consequential not when the Army adds an individual robotic system, but when it has enough autonomous systems, performing enough missions, to change how an entire brigade fights.

That difference becomes more consequential as autonomous systems are integrated across a battlefield shaped by drones, sensors, electronic warfare and precision fires.

Rowland and Hester argue that persistent observation and long-range fires make large formations easier to find and attack, threatening the maneuver that allows combined-arms forces to concentrate combat power.

They envision autonomous systems moving ahead of manned formations to identify enemy positions, obstacles and usable routes. Other systems could provide counter-drone, electronic-warfare, sensing or deception capabilities, while autonomous platforms could move supplies through exposed areas.

Beyond experimentation

The Army is moving beyond experimentation into acquisition and organizational changes, with its fiscal 2026 budget justification including an “Autonomy Formation” effort intended to accelerate robotics for armored and infantry formations.

In July, the Army selected four companies for its Engineer Autonomous Breaching Capability program, which calls for prototypes capable of breaching complex obstacles and minefields under direct observation and fire using beyond-line-of-sight autonomous control. An assessment of the unit is planned for early 2027.

On Oct. 1, Acting Army Secretary Adam Telle signed a memorandum directing the establishment of the U.S. Army Futures and Autonomous Systems Command, or FASCOM. The Army announced the move Oct. 2, saying the command will integrate autonomous capabilities into aviation, armor, fires, sustainment, engineer and training formations.

It will also prioritize autonomous fires, combat vehicles, watercraft resupply, breaching, reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition, and crewed-uncrewed teaming for acquisition and fielding by fiscal 2028.

But the Army’s own research shows why turning that ambition into battlefield capability won’t be simple.

In a Sept. 30 Army Research Laboratory study, 13 soldiers operated a mixed air-ground formation during a two-week simulation. The formation included a manned control vehicle, two robotic combat vehicles, a Future Vertical Lift platform and shared launched effects, operating against a human-controlled opposing force under contested conditions.

Researchers found that the formation adapted rapidly, developed effective coordination patterns and maintained stable subjective workload as mission complexity increased. The findings suggest that air-ground teaming was feasible under the conditions tested and that soldiers could integrate autonomous capabilities without an unsustainable cognitive burden.

However, the study did not demonstrate autonomous maneuver by an operational brigade. It tested a specific human-machine formation in a simulation under defined conditions.

Another Army Research Laboratory study examining autonomous reconnaissance and screening identified soldier-robot trust, communications, shared understanding and cognitive load as areas requiring further research. Those issues become especially important when communications are degraded or denied.

That is where Rowland and Hester envision a fundamental change in command.

A brigade cannot scale autonomy if every unmanned vehicle requires a soldier continuously controlling it. The retired Army leaders describe a progression from operating individual systems, to supervising multiple systems, to coordinating mixed manned-unmanned teams and eventually commanding autonomous formations through mission command.

Ukraine offers evidence of what unmanned systems can already do, but also a warning against overstating the technology.

Rowland and Hester point to Ukrainian use of unmanned ground systems for logistics and casualty evacuation while noting that most remain remotely operated or have only limited autonomy. Their use demonstrates the value of shifting dangerous work from people to machines; it does not establish that fully autonomous formations are ready for combat.

Acquisition isn’t the only issue

The Army faces a problem bigger than acquiring machines alone. It must determine how many systems formations can absorb, how soldiers should supervise them, how networks can support them under attack and what happens when a machine encounters circumstances its programming does not anticipate.

Rowland and Hester argue the Army should learn those lessons before the technology is perfected. They call for brigades to train with meaningful quantities of autonomous systems at home stations, identify failures and refine tactics before those systems reach combat training centers.

The Army is now aligning its organizations, acquisition efforts and training around that broader push. The unresolved question is whether those efforts can produce something more difficult than a successful demonstration: a repeatable way for a brigade to see, survive, sustain and maneuver when an adversary is actively disrupting its communications and attacking its forces.

Since then, Rivet has raised $55 million in Series A financing and delivered its first 70 prototypes to the Army, according to co-founder and chief executive Dave Marra.

While the other contractor, Anduril, developed a headset resembling the original Integrated Visual Augmentation System, or IVAS, which it had also helped develop, Rivet took a different approach: a pair of militarized smart glasses called the Rivet Hard Spec.

Marra explained in an interview with Military Times that the idea behind the Hard Spec is helping people who “do hard jobs in hard places.”

While the initial goal was to give infantrymen actionable information for targeting and navigation, the application has expanded to other tasks, including technical and mechanical work that soldiers may not perform regularly.

He explained that the idea isn’t to turn an infantryman into an IT specialist or mechanic, but rather, the glasses could give a trained professional the correct procedures for a task without requiring a physical manual.

“So it’s not just like, ‘Hey, we want to create one solution for every military occupational specialty,’” Marra said. “[It’s] what you want to do as a multifunctional soldier or Marine or airman. And this kind of technology is a great accelerator to exactly that.”

He added that Rivet is also adapting the technology for other fields, primarily aerospace manufacturing and aircraft and motor pool maintenance.

“If you happen to forget or you’re not 100% proficient in this role or you don’t do this particular procedure every single day, you can very easily see how a step could be overlooked, especially when you’re in a high-stress environment,” he said.

The company’s longer-term goal is even more ambitious: enabling soldiers to use the glasses to command AI agents that can control robots and drones on the battlefield.

Marra said that means moving beyond using AI to provide a reasoned response to a complicated question.

“I’m asking an agent to go do something on my behalf,” he said. “What we want to get is where an agent and a robot can task each other.”

He said soldiers should be able to communicate with those systems “in common language, not command language.”

For example, he said, a soldier could tell a drone: “‘Hey, there is a target over that hill. Please orbit over that hill and reconnoiter it and send me back the video.’”

If that sounds familiar, it’s because the concept is almost identical to the MacGuffin in the 2019 film Spider-Man: Far From Home. In the movie, Spider-Man and the villain Mysterio fight over a pair of glasses that connect the wearer to an AI-enabled global defense system.

“And the best way to do that today is having a pair of glasses that has eyes and ears on [the AI],” Marra said. “So in many cases, I would say that we’re putting eyes and ears on AI, and then allowing this kind of agentic ensemble to happen within the human workforce.”

The service expects to soon make a decision in light of a wide-ranging review of its prepositioned stocks “within the next calendar year,” Maj. Gen. Gavin Lawrence, deputy commanding general of U.S. Army Materiel Command, told Military Times in an interview.

The review, called TAP2E, Total Army Power Projection Equipment, aims to assess the laydown of the Army’s forward-deployed and stored gear, including weapons and large vehicles, that can be activated and distributed rapidly if conflict needs arise.

The effort continues through 2032, according to a recently published Army strategy, and will cost $702 million in the next year, per Army budget documents.

“Strategically placing TAP2E in key theaters, such as the Indo-Pacific and Europe, shortens deployment timelines and demonstrates a credible commitment to allies, underpinning the nation’s integrated deterrence posture,” a budget overview for Fiscal Year 2027 states.

The Army has at least seven publicly identified stockpiles, according to a 2024 congressional report. They include two in North America; two in Asia; one afloat; and two in Europe.

The Army’s budget proposal calls for an eighth stockpile in the southwest Indo-Pacific and increases to “comprehensive maintenance and care” funding for the existing prepositioned stock focused on Europe.

“Together, these TAP2E investments ensure that forward-positioned assets are maintained at the highest state of readiness, providing a tangible deterrent to adversaries and a rapid response capability for the Joint Force,” the proposal states.

According to Lawrence, the work continues.

“Is it located in the right places? Do we have the right equipment in the right quantities to support preposition of materiel?” Lawrence said. “That’s critically important, right, as you look at our ability to support and prosecute operations in a contested environment, and so we’re in the process of doing that in lockstep with [the Office of the Secretary of Defense] as they make posture decisions. So we are supporting and prioritizing where we’re putting materiel accordingly.”

Last year, the then-commander of Army 8th Theater Sustainment Command, Maj. Gen. Gavin Gardner, outlined some changes that had already been identified, such as stashing less equipment on ships through the program called APS afloat and moving one new set of equipment to the Pacific in light of an increased focus on that region.

Lawrence added that another change in motion was increased reliance on Joint Theater Distribution Centers, or stockpile sites that hold more expendable gear such as medical supplies.

“We’re working hand-in-hand with the combatant commands to identify where those need to be and provide materiel according to those requirements,” he said. He declined to say how many sites had already been set up or what the total number might be.

In June, the Air Force’s Air University compiled a number of proposals dating to 2023 about how to improve Army Prepositioned Stocks for future conflict. Among them were moving maintenance and reset facilities for APS afloat stocks from stateside locations to regions in the Pacific — where the vessels are tethered — and moving prepositioned gear from concentrated “iron mountain” storage locations to smaller and more distributed caches that are harder for an enemy to target.

Lawrence emphasized that the Army was “in lockstep” with the Pentagon in carrying out changes to prepositioning stocks and “awaiting some additional guidance” from OSW before making concrete changes.

The investment is connected to the company’s cooperation with Polish state-run defense group PGZ to deliver the San anti-drone system to the Polish military.

“We have been present in Poland for many years. We think it’s important that we establish local sites in Poland,” Eirik Lie, the president and CEO of Kongsberg, told Defense News at the Warsaw Security Forum here on Oct. 12. “We are on good track for deliveries on the San program. But also, we expect export contracts, so this enables us to be prepared for these exports from Poland.”

Under the San deal, valued at around PLN 15 billion ($3.8 billion), Kongsberg and PGZ are to supply 18 anti-drone batteries, 52 firing platoons, 18 command platoons, and 703 vehicles to the Polish military, according to data from Poland’s Ministry of National Defence. The contract will be largely financed by loans that Poland has secured from the European Union’s Security Action For Europe (SAFE) scheme.

Given the region-wide concern over drone incursions, Lie said Kongsberg expects the demand for its solutions to rise significantly in the coming years. In the future, the envisioned Polish factory could also introduce additional defense solutions to its portfolio.

“As a company, we are expanding quite a lot. We want to build on this factory for other elements as well,” the CEO said.

In a statement, the Norwegian group said it plans to sign a construction contract by the end of 2026 and begin work immediately afterward. Serial production of counter-drone systems could begin in the first half of 2028. The investment is expected to create more than 100 jobs in Poland once the plant reaches full capacity.

“We would love to be able to keep the first unit off the line for our testing and training. However, what we’ve seen is, with the environment as it is, everything that we produce as a capable counter-UAS system tends to get deployed somewhere,” said Kirk Williams, chief engineer at the U.S. Army Directed Energy Project Office.

In September, the Army awarded AeroVironment a $464.8 million contract for LOCUST X3, its modular, palletized high-energy laser system. Earlier generations of the LOCUST system are actively fielded in operational environments, including at the U.S. southern border, according to AeroVironment. The first LOCUST X3 is slated for delivery by Q4 of FY 2027 and will be mounted on the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.

The goal is to push it through testing, validation, verification and “give it to soldiers as soon as possible,” said Brig. Gen. Guy Yelverton, capability program executive for Defensive Fires. “My far-down point would be spring [2028], and if I could get in the December-January timeframe, that would be awesome. That would be a great win for the Army.”

It is unclear where the first high-energy counter-drone weapons under H-ELS will be deployed. Yelverton suggested the 7th Infantry Division could be a potential partner.

Deputy commanding officer of Support for the 7th Infantry Division, Col. Charles Kean, described directed-energy weapons as a component of defense against high-echelon air threats, including individual UAS or formations, but said they were not a “single bullet” solution.

“The more capabilities we put in the hands of soldiers, the easier they are to maintain, the more reliable they are, the better,” Kean told an audience at AUSA’s Warriors Corner.

The Army successfully demonstrated eight kills using the directed energy platform prototype during the Army Modernization Day in October.

The palletized, modular solutions can be integrated onto a number of vehicles, including the JLTV and Infantry Squad Vehicle, or ISV.

The modular system will improve reliability and sustainability by making it possible for soldiers to perform field-level maintenance, according to Williams. It will also allow the Army to “continuously improve the system over time” without replacing the full unit.

The counter-drone E-HEL contract is for more than 26 laser weapons units total, according to AeroVironment vice president of Directed Energy, John Garrity, who indicated the initial system is on target for 2027 delivery.

“We were able to lean forward with a lot of the long-lead procurements early, so we’re ramping up for production,” Garrity told Military Times. “Because drones aren’t getting any slower and our adversaries aren’t getting any lazier with them.”

Directed energy weapons are one of the capabilities the Army is pursuing at speed to counter the growing threat of low-cost, unmanned aircraft systems.

During an earlier speech at AUSA, Secretary of the Army Adam Telle highlighted the need to field low-cost interceptors to shoot down missiles and drones. Telle hailed the Army’s work to streamline acquisition and get soldiers the gear they need.

Steelfin, a family of highly configurable, mass-producible, surface-to-air interceptor missiles, has been developed to deliver cost, volume and capability across a variety of threats, according to a release.

Steefin uses a two-stage architecture compatible with different fielded designs, allowing the defense company to configure interceptor performance while reusing the same parts, production processes, and design across its family of interceptors.

The missile has a two-stage design with a booster and terminal interceptor, the release states. The first-stage booster can accommodate various solid rocket motor boosters to meet a set range, performance, booster types, launch configurations or packing density requirements. The second stage terminal interceptor shares the same baseline airframe, avionics, software, flight control system and interfaces across all Steelfin variants.

“Steelfin delivers a diversity of effects to meet a diversity of threats,” the release says. “Unlike legacy missiles that carry fixed, inflexible designs that are resistant to change, Steelfin offers a common interceptor architecture that produces a family of interceptor missiles, each of which can be configured for a specific mission.”

The interceptor family was built to address threats across the air-and-missile defense spectrum, such as point defense, integrated air and missile defense and ballistic missile defense, while aiming to come at a fraction of the cost of other interceptors in mission classes.

To address issues with manufacturing volume and high demand, Anduril expects to “surge” production for any Steelfin variant by moving the interceptor through the same production line, with the same tooling, techniques and facilities, since they share a common architecture and components.

Anduril anticipates producing several thousand Steelfin variants per year in the short term, the announcement says.

The variants are compatible with established land- and sea-based launch infrastructure, including the M903A2, Mk 41 Vertical Launch System and Typho systems. Steelfin is meant to be able to integrate with any fielded fire control software systems, like AEGIS and IBCS, to ensure it fits into established battle management processes and procedures.

“By making Steelfin compatible with fielded air defense hardware and software infrastructure, Anduril has streamlined the path to fielding, accelerated deployment, and ensured that Steelfin will multiply the combat power of the joint force on an operationally-relevant timeline,” the release reads.

Anduril has completed ballistic testing with representative air vehicles, and flight testing for Steelfin variants is slated to begin next year.

The company’s current plan is an ambitious effort to expand air defense stockpiles after the Iran war dwindled America’s munitions supply, with analysis detailing that it would take at least three years to replenish to pre-war levels.

The news comes as the U.S. Army recently awarded Anduril a contract to increase delivery of a “common data layer,” meaning software foundation, baseline for Next Generation Command and Control, or NGC2, beginning with 1 Corps, which commands service members across the Indo-Pacific.

The contract’s base period is valued at $162.8 million, but it includes options that could bring the total value up to $1.8 billion over five years.

Discussions about producing more Patriot interceptors outside the United States have picked up steam since Ukrainian leaders said over the summer they were promised by the Trump administration a license to make them in Ukraine to defend against Russian missile and drone barrages.

U.S. government officials are still expected to make a decision, which could entail the production of PAC-2 interceptors, made by Raytheon, or Lockheed’s PAC-3.

“From a PAC-3 perspective, we’re absolutely willing to talk to Ukraine,” Jason Reynolds, vice president and general manager of the company’s integrated air and missile defense division, told Defense News in an interview at the Association of the United States Army annual convention in Washington, DC.

Patriot interceptor deliveries to Poland will be delayed, top general says

“It’s really a matter of what’s their industrial capability, what’s the parts availability, those types of things,” he continued. “It might be something like an ACE, as opposed to an MSE, that we would start with for Ukraine.”

Lockheed announced development of an ACE variant during the summer, billing it as a cheaper option against relatively simple threats — at half the cost of an MSE missile designed to go against sophisticated missiles. The new interceptor will make do with a single-pulse motor, compared with a dual-pulse of the MSE interceptor, and utilize a blast fragmentation warhead, versus the direct hit-to-kill mechanics of the MSE missile.

Reynolds cautioned that setting up interceptor missile production of whatever variant in Ukraine comes with the risk of Russian attacks on the plant.

“The first question is, ‘Can we build a factory that’s survivable in a war zone?’” he said.

That’s why the company is considering options to make them in nearby safe countries instead, and quickly ferrying them into Ukraine as they are needed.

“There is a whole number of countries that are interested in potentially producing ACE,” Reynolds said. “If we can get that started, get the supply chain started and then migrate to Ukraine as an option, that would make a lot of sense to me.”

Germany is among the countries where leaders have offered to host PAC-3 production. Raytheon, in partnership with MBDA, already makes the PAC-2 product line in the country.

For an eventual PAC-3 production, Lockheed is considering partnering with Diehl Defence, with which there is a cooperation agreement on interceptor parts in place dating from October 2025, Reynolds said.

“If we were to go forward with exploring any kind of production in Germany, we would likely do that with a company like Diehl,” he told Defense News.

A Diehl spokesperson confirmed consultations ongoing with Lockheed Martin, pointing to the October 2025 agreement. The German company has been ramping up its production capabilities at all its sites, the spokesperson added.

A new facility is in the works in Lübben, Brandenburg, which comes with requisite licensing for explosives handling because it was used by the German Democratic Republic for military equipment manufacturing.

The U.S. government has the final say about where sensitive defense products can be produced outside the United States, including Patriot air-defense equipment.

“We at Lockheed don’t have the authority to just build factories wherever we want,” Reynolds noted.

General Dynamics Land Systems is showcasing a 1/8 model of the Wolf XM30, the company’s candidate to replace the M2 Bradley, along with PERCH 2.0, M-SHORAD Increment 4 and the F600 Leonidas at the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting this week.

The Wolf is one of two vehicles competing in the Army’s XM30 program, with American Rheinmetall delivering its first Lynx XM30 prototype to the Army in September.

Retired Army officer Scott Taylor, General Dynamics Land Systems’ director of U.S. growth, told Military Times that the Bradley has reached the limits of its ability to accommodate additional capabilities and weight.

The Wolf is designed with greater capacity in mind, while improving fightability, lethality and survivability, Taylor said. General Dynamics Land Systems delivered its first Wolf prototype to the Army in August.

PERCH 2.0 allows M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks and Stryker vehicles to launch Switchblade 300 loitering munitions while keeping operators under armor.

One PERCH 2.0 prototype has been provided to the Army for experimentation, with three more on the way. Soldiers with 2nd Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, known as “Thunder Horse,” are currently testing the prototype at Fort Hood, Texas, Taylor noted.

The system grew out of General Dynamics Land Systems’ development of PERCH 1.0, which the company developed in less than four months after senior Army leaders discussed observations from the war in Ukraine during a 2025 event, Taylor said. Soldiers with the 1st Cavalry Division then tested the system at Fort Hood and provided feedback that led to changes in loading procedures, use of space and integration with the tank’s loader display.

The Army initially experimented with Switchblade 600 before asking the company to focus on the smaller Switchblade 300, according to Taylor. General Dynamics Land Systems continued developing PERCH 2.0 with its own independent research and development funding before the Army contracted for three additional prototypes under the Abrams program office.

The Army will evaluate the design after the experimentation and could compete the capability or purchase it, depending on the results, Taylor explained.

“In many ways, it’s become attrition-based warfare over there, and that’s not the way the U.S. Army or the U.S. Marine Corps or many of our allies fight,” Taylor said.

Also on the AUSA floor is the M-SHORAD Increment 4, a platform-agnostic air-defense system built around a Self-Loading Equipment Dock, or SLED, that can be mounted on different vehicles. Charles Woody, the company’s program manager for M-SHORAD Increment 4, told Military Times that the system is designed in part to reduce the cognitive burden on soldiers conducting air-defense and counter-UAS missions.

The configuration includes a 7.62mm machine gun, an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance drone, a loitering munition and a counter-drone system.

The F600 Leonidas combines Epirus’ high-powered microwave technology for defeating drones with a commercially based Ford F-600 chassis modified for military use. The Army is expected to use a prototype to determine where the capability fits in its future air-defense plans.

An Oct. 1 memo signed by Acting Army Secretary Adam Telle directs the Army vice chief of staff to establish the U.S. Army Futures and Autonomous Systems Command, or FASCOM. It also tells the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics and technology, who oversees how the Army buys weapons, to put one office in charge of purchasing its priority autonomous systems. Telle wrote that he issued the memo under guidance from Hegseth’s Sept. 30 State of the Force address.

The memo does not say who will lead FASCOM, where it will be based or when it will be established. “Specifics on structure, command, mission, etc. will be announced at a future date,” Col. Marty Meiners, an Army spokesperson, told Defense News.

The new acquisition office, a Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Autonomy, would have single authority over buying the Army’s priority autonomous systems. The Army reorganized its weapons buying last year under six portfolio acquisition executives, each overseeing a group of related programs. This would add another for autonomy.

The memo also directs the assistant secretary to prioritize buying and fielding several types of autonomous systems no later than fiscal 2028. The list includes fires, the Army’s term for artillery, rockets and missiles; combat vehicles; watercraft resupply; breaching systems that clear obstacles such as minefields; reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition systems; and drones and robots working alongside crewed vehicles and aircraft.

The Army said in its release that the memo’s initiatives build on work already underway, including an office set up earlier this year to work autonomous technology into weapons programs across the Army. Neither the memo nor the release says whether that office, the Capability Program Executive Office for Mission Autonomy, will move under the new acquisition office.

The memo tasks the Army staff’s force management office, which shapes how units are organized and equipped, with quickly working out how to fit autonomous systems into at least six existing types of units: aviation, armor, fires, sustainment, engineer and training.

It also tells the assistant secretary of the Army who oversees manpower and personnel policy to add drone and robotics specialist positions to all applicable Army units.

Both specialties already exist: the 15X tactical unmanned aircraft systems specialist for enlisted soldiers, and the 390A robotics technician for warrant officers.

“The Army is rapidly advancing to maintain our lethal edge,” Telle said in a statement released by the Army. “We are forging the U.S. Army Futures and Autonomous Systems Command to get cutting-edge technology into the hands of soldiers, while prioritizing autonomy in our formations, our acquisitions, and our training to dominate the future of warfare.”

Hegseth announced the Autonomous Warfare Command, or AutoWarCom, during his Sept. 30 State of the Force address at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, Military Times reported. He said the command would have service-like authorities to scale autonomous and robotic capabilities across the military.

Hegseth’s own memo, “Project Agincourt: Pathway to the Autonomous Warfare Command,” signed the same day as his address, puts the Pentagon’s unmanned systems office in charge of Project Agincourt, an effort to lay the groundwork for AutoWarCom.

Hegseth said in his address that the project is named for the 1415 battle in which an outnumbered English army used the longbow to defeat a larger, heavily armored French force. The memo argues that cheap, precise weapons built at massive scale now threaten the expensive aircraft, ships and vehicles the military has long relied on.

The Agincourt memo describes AutoWarCom as a four-star functional combatant command, a headquarters organized around a mission rather than a region, like U.S. Cyber Command. It says the command would have dedicated manpower, budget and authority to buy equipment.

Powers like those require an act of Congress, which gave U.S. Special Operations Command a similar setup when it was created in 1987. The memo directs the unmanned systems office to work with Congress on the needed legislation, with a goal of establishing AutoWarCom by Oct. 1, 2027.

The Agincourt memo says AutoWarCom will “define joint needs and integrate Service-provided forces in support of geographic combatant commanders,” the four-star officers who lead U.S. forces in regions such as the Middle East and the Pacific. A plan due by Oct. 30 is to lay out command relationships and what forces each service will contribute. Telle’s memo does not say how FASCOM will fit into that structure.

The new command’s name revives “Futures” a year after the Army inactivated Army Futures Command. In October 2025, the service merged Futures Command with Training and Doctrine Command to form the Army Transformation and Training Command, or T2COM, headquartered in Austin, Texas.

The memo does not address how FASCOM will relate to T2COM. A T2COM spokesperson referred questions about the new command to Army headquarters.

Asked how FASCOM will relate to T2COM and AutoWarCom and how the changes will be paid for, Meiners said the Army had no information to provide beyond its release.

American Rheinmetall, one of two defense companies chosen to develop replacements for the Army’s M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle, announced in September the delivery of its Lynx XM30 prototype to the service. The Army conducted initial safety tests before allowing soldiers to join the trial-and-error phase.

“Now it’s in soldiers’ hands,” said Chris Haag, vice president of business development and strategy at Rheinmetall. “Seeing their eyes light up when they got to see the vehicle for the first time is pretty awesome.”

While Haag could not disclose where soldiers were along the tinkering process, he confirmed that service members were in possession of the vehicle and were at least able to hop inside and turn it on, beginning a new era for Army combat vehicles.

Rheinmetall is currently competing for the XM30 Army contract with General Dynamics Land Systems, which is unveiling its Wolf XM30 prototype at the Association of the U.S. Army Annual Meeting and Exposition in Washington, D.C., from Oct. 12 to 14.

The Army selected the companies in 2023 for the design phase of a process that will eventually replace the Bradley, which arrived in the 1980s.

The Lynx XM30 is designed for modern combat environments riddled with drones and electronic warfare, like those seen in Ukraine.

The vehicle will wield a hybrid-electric powertrain and an uncrewed 50mm turret, providing more firepower than the Bradley, which boasts a 25mm M242 Bushmaster.

American Rheinmetall’s prototype likely wouldn’t differ from General Dynamics’ XM30 design when it came to physical architecture, Haag said, which meant the Lynx could differentiate itself from competition through aspects like power, engine, transmission and soldiers’ experience with user interface and operability in general.

The Army’s initial solicitation called for a new combat vehicle shaped by a modular, open architecture, which will allow it to undergo updates more swiftly than its predecessor.

For large modernization efforts, the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle may have to travel back to an Army or manufacturing facility to undergo overhauls or block upgrades, whereas the XM30 could potentially undergo software updates that revamp the system in a much shorter timeframe and require less geographical displacement.

The company will deliver seven more prototypes to the Army by the end of the year, all part of a nearly $764 million Engineering and Manufacturing Development contract to expand the XM30 from digital design through validation.

Regarding next steps, Haag said the Army will put the prototype through testing and evaluation with soldiers, driving it hundreds of miles to see what works and what doesn’t.

The service will then provide feedback to American Rheinmetall, at which point the company can incorporate those suggestions into updated designs that it will use to try to nail down a final contract.

The idea: to radically reduce the sound signature of friendly troops by suppressing every weapon on a battlefield.

The contract also plunged the company into engagement with an emerging area of concern: the health dangers of toxic gases and particles blasted back into the shooter’s face when firing a suppressed weapon.

While the full extent of the risks is still being understood, SOCOM made it clear to Sig at the time of the contract that it wanted to cut down on toxicity, setting a standard that seemed unreachable.

“The requirement at the time was that they wanted a suppressed upper receiver group that produced less toxicity than an unsuppressed M4,” Josh Shoemaker, product manager for defense systems at Sig, told Military Times. “At the time the industry was all like, ‘That’s not physically possible.’ It was really a set of requirements that was defying everybody’s understanding of suppressors.”

In the years that followed, Sig would come under fire multiple times for tests that showed various suppressed weapons had too much toxic blowback. But through lengthy development and the introduction of advanced manufacturing, Shoemaker said, the company reached the ability to reduce 70% of toxic gas blowback in a suppressor.

But there’s a tradeoff, he added. Suppressors can excel at reducing noise, flash or blowback, but not all three at once. One solution the company is now proposing would offer specialized suppressors that maximize blowback reduction for training and signature masking for combat.

The idea, Shoemaker said, is that troops are most at risk from toxic gas exposure when shooting in enclosed spaces and over long periods in the same area, both of which are more likely to happen in training. On top of that, he said, training accounts for the vast majority of the rounds a soldier will ever fire.

“The Army already has this principle where they have training ammunition and go-to-war ammunition. When they go to war, they’re using a different projectile and different ammunition than they are when they’re training,” Shoemaker said. “They do this with their body armor, with their uniforms — their uniforms, when they’re training, are not all flame retardant. … Why wouldn’t we do that same thing with the suppressors?”

Early in its 10-year production contract to design the Army’s next rifle and light machine gun — a program known as Next Generation Squad Weapon — military testing officials cited concerns about how much toxic back-blast the suppressed weapons were producing. The result was a delay that pushed fielding from late 2023 into 2024.

And these problems continued to be reported as recently as last year. The Pentagon’s weapons testing branch noted in its Fiscal Year 2025 annual report that soldiers in an operational assessment “reported negative physiological effects caused by the noxious off-gassing from their weapons, as well as concerns about the extreme heat from the weapons’ suppressors after firing.”

Shoemaker said that some of this feedback was expected when comparing the previous standard rifle, an unsuppressed M4, to the new M7, which has a larger round and a more powerful discharge. But he added that the company was listening to soldiers and “actively working” to address concerns.

“Toxic fumes [are] still a very new thing, right?” Shoemaker said. “When you have a very narrow audience that you’ve been providing these products to for years, you don’t get the same feedback that you do when you’re providing to a much wider audience.”

Behind the scenes, according to Shoemaker, Sig has been close to the forefront of fume-reduction technology. The company uses a 3D printing process called Direct Metal Laser Sintering, or DMLS, to build “complex labyrinths” into their SLX and SLH suppressors designed for fume reduction.

Previously, suppressors were made with machined baffles that were welded together, one by one.

“There would have been no way to get a tool in here to cut any of these paths or direct any of that gas,” Shoemaker said of the new suppressors. “It was game-changing for the entire suppressor industry because it unlocked all of these abilities to … make these complex geometries.”

In service of developing reduced-toxicity suppressors for the Army and later the Navy, Sig acquired two specialized testing environments: the Crane box, invented at Naval Surface Warfare Center-Crane Division, Ind., to precisely measure released carbon dioxide as weapons fire in a confined space; and the Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) chamber, which now measures precise particulate amounts and concentrations of four gases: carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ammonia and hydrogen cyanide. Sig is the only non-military entity to possess the chambers.

While Shoemaker said the company is still seeking to make incremental improvements to the blowback reduction capabilities of existing suppressors — from, say, the current 70% reduction maximum to 75% — he also said the DMLS technology would make it easy to deliver a variety of suppressors specialized to maximize reduction of either sound, flash or fumes based on use case.

The Army has yet to ask for a mix of training suppressors and combat suppressors. But Shoemaker indicated it may emerge as a solution for a service that wants to have it all in terms of sound, flash and toxic gas reduction, and can’t practically have it all in one can.

If so, the company will be ready.

“With DMLS, [engineers] can make a new design, and we can have it and shoot it three days later,” he said.

Survival in Alaska’s vast wilderness, where any hint of complacency can indeed kill, presents a colossal difficulty. Training service members to fight in these environs is an undertaking even more daunting.

For the soldiers of the U.S. Army’s 11th Airborne Division, this task rests, ultimately, on the shoulders of Maj. Gen. John Cogbill and the capable leaders he advises.

And the commanding general of the Arctic Angels would not trade it for anything.

“We have a saying that everything breaks at 40 below,” Cogbill says when asked about these challenges.

Everything, except morale.

From the outside, the soldiers of the 11th Airborne appear to be built differently. But Cogbill insists that’s not the case.

Perhaps it’s the frigid air, wilderness that stretches beyond the horizon or a sky that unleashes snow without end, but troops reporting to Alaska for the first time often do so with “trepidation in their eyes,” he says.

“But when I see them six months later, after they’ve been through their cold-weather indoctrination course and gone out to the field, they realize their team leader, their squad leader, their platoon sergeant — they’re being taken care of,” he says.

“We’re not going to give them something they can’t handle. Then they start to build that trust in their leaders and trust in themselves. That’s when they truly become Arctic-tough.”

Achieving that rare brand of toughness requires both sound leadership and reliable equipment, Cogbill says. Nestled in a region that places the 11th Airborne at a crucial convergence of three combatant commands — U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Northern Command and U.S. European Command — a soldier’s ability to trust in both is the difference between success and failure.

Cogbill spoke to Military Times about what goes into earning that trust, and how a relentless pursuit of innovation is critical to keeping abreast of distant developments that would be reduced to ruin in the far North.

For the Arctic Angels, accounting for their surroundings is part of the fun.

“Winter is always coming in Alaska,” Cogbill says. “They embrace it.”

Editor’s note: Some answers have been edited for clarity.

MT: We’re watching the Arctic domain become increasingly vital, with threats evolving rapidly. How are developments in the region impacting how you’re preparing your soldiers?

Cogbill: The Department of War has an Arctic strategy for a reason. We can range any of these locations and be within 90% of the industrial world within nine hours.

Billy Mitchell, the father of the modern-day Air Force, said whoever owns Alaska owns the world. It’s a power projection platform in any of those directions — west of the International Date Line to the Indo-Pacific or over the pole to Europe.

Therefore, we have to be able to fight in different environments. But we optimize for the Arctic, because we’re the only Arctic division.

We have to have certain vehicles that no other unit has, such as the Cold Weather All-Terrain Vehicle (CATV), the workhorse for moving soldiers and equipment over snow.

We have to be proficient in skis and snowshoes. We have to be able to jump out of airplanes with this gear. We have to be able to do air assault missions with this kit and then sustain ourselves — not just survive, but fight and thrive.

You mentioned unique equipment. Today’s tech does not universally function in Arctic extremes. How are your troops innovating to overcome those challenges?

Drones are a hot topic right now, and it’s something that I’d say we’re catching up a little bit with the rest of the Army.

We’re not a Transformation-in-Contact division, which means we didn’t have an initial fielding of a large number of small- and medium-range drones. But continuous transformation is a mindset for the 11th Airborne Division, which means we’re learning and adapting quickly, and we’re also bootstrapping this effort by learning from other divisions in the Army and how they’ve utilized first-person-view drones, either for reconnaissance or for strike.

So, we are collaborating with these other divisions — like the 101st Airborne Division and the 25th Infantry Division — to get our own parts, stand up our own Arctic innovation labs and build similar systems.

The difference is, if we want to fly these drones in Alaska during our winter training exercise, the battery life will be about 1/20th of what it is in the Pacific. So, we’re trying to figure out ways to prolong battery life, to build drones that are more capable in high wind, high altitude and sub-freezing temperatures.

Something that works anywhere else in the world — we bring it up to Alaska, take it out to the field and put it through its paces.

If it doesn’t work, then we have innovation partners — academic partners at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, for instance — who we go to and say, “Hey, this is an engineering problem. What can you do to help us?”

They’ve got one of the best small UAS engineering programs in the entire world, because they live and operate in this environment.

So, we share as much as we can, learn from our peers and work closely with the modernization enterprise to pioneer some of these efforts.

When you’re seeking those solutions, what combat lessons can you learn from places like Ukraine or Iran, which may be inherently different environmentally?

There are certain things that just work differently in the Arctic. Mobility is harder, going from point A to point B. Sustainment is harder when you’re talking about moving things off-road through waist-deep snow. Battery life is shortened, which means you have to resupply more often. Water can’t be delivered in bulk. Fuel has to be delivered in cubed ice.

Those are all the logistical challenges. For the individual soldier, it’s about just being able to maneuver.

Common across all these operating environments are the need for decision dominance and for human-machine teaming.

So, we understand the importance of drones, which is why we’re catching up as fast as we can and working with the Army Materiel Command and SkyFoundry initiative to get as many of these drones as possible into the hands of our soldiers so they can operate in any environment.

For the decision dominance piece, it’s about being able to develop a common operating picture and a common intel picture at echelon.

Everywhere from the rifle squad up to the division and corps, all the way up to a combatant commander — where we can see the enemy, see ourselves and use all the sensors at our disposal to make decisions about how to strike most efficiently.

We’re using existing exercises and joint partners to pass targets through tactical data links to do machine-to-machine communication, gain and maintain custody of targets and increase our lethality as a division and warfighting headquarters.

When it comes to unmanned and AI integration, what is your command doing to ensure soldiers are critical thinkers who can inform sound decision-making?

It varies depending on the echelon of command. As the division commander, I’m responsible for every decision we make as a division, whether it’s in training or combat. If I make a decision to strike a target, I own that decision and the outcome.

A culture where commanders feel empowered also means a culture of accountability. Having commanders in the loop — although the machines and AI are evolving rapidly, the Army still expects us as commanders to use judgment and experience to make a call to strike or not strike.

You have to practice that. You have to get reps and sets, and do it through training as often as you can. So, we do exercises every 90 days to help us see the strengths and weaknesses of the algorithms, to code, to work with the engineers and our own operators.

We need to be able to program new strategies and develop agentic AI solutions for targeting that allow us to not only find optimal solutions for shortening kill chains, but also to be able to incorporate large language models in things like rules of engagement and lessons learned.

Anything that we’re doing in a training exercise can then be referenced using these large language models to make us better, to make my decisions faster, better, more informed and hopefully yield better outcomes.

Over the last few years, it is the speed of innovation that has been most staggering. How do you ensure the 11th Airborne is up to speed a year or five years from now?

With the proliferation of these machines — and not just at my level or the squad level, but throughout our formations — we have to train and rehearse this physically.

I mentioned digital targeting, but when you talk about the mechanics of lethal squads, platoons and company commanders who are trying to converge fire and maneuver, you have to put that into live-fire training.

Our brigades at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson recently went through nine company iterations of combined arms live fire. In every single one of those live fires, they were employing FPV drones in a strike capability and in a reconnaissance capability, while also trying to think, “Where would the enemy be attacking us right now? What is our counter-UAS posture?”

So, you’re adding another dimension to a company commander’s thought process as they try to make tactical decisions about how to assault an objective. Again, it’s getting those reps and sets. It becomes ingrained in them that there’s always a machine aspect.

So, maybe you’re a battalion commander, and you have to think, “Who can see me right now? Who can see this command post? How many tents do I have set up? What does that look like from above? What does it look like in the summer? What does it look like in the winter, when I’ve got a green tent on a snowy landscape?”

Or, if you’re one step ahead, maybe you set up a white tent, but then you have to consider, “What kind of EW signature am I emitting that can be picked up by a machine or a sensor? What does my heat signature look like? Because I’ve got all these bodies and machines cranking out processing power inside of a tent.”

So, how do you mitigate that? It requires constant thought about how we see the enemy, but also how the enemy sees us, and making sure that we can adapt and stay ahead.

That’s where I think those lessons learned from the battle labs in Ukraine, Operation Epic Fury and other places inform the way we train. That feedback loop has to be super fast, because we can’t be everywhere and do everything, but we can certainly learn from everywhere.

So, if we can use large language models to put all these lessons learned into a one-stop shop, it makes it a lot easier for us to access all that knowledge and incorporate it into how we train every single day.

You’re not just dealing with tech that needs to work, but a changing landscape as well. Impacts of climate change have opened up sea lanes. Chinese-Russian collaboration has surged as a result. How is the Army adapting to those changes?

We’re worldwide deployable and the Pentagon’s only Arctic division, but we could go anywhere.

We’re very aware of the collusion between adversaries and what that would mean to us. With environmental changes — you talked about sea lanes opening — there are also strategic choke points, and we’re seeing how important choke points can be — like the Strait of Hormuz or Bab al-Mandeb in the Red Sea.

We have the Bering Strait right off the coast of Alaska. And there are people in our neighborhood who don’t always have the best interests of the United States in mind.

So, how do we deter? That’s probably the most important thing we can do is deter an adversary from thinking, “Today’s the day that we’re going to go. We’re going to take a shot at the United States of America.”

You deter through forward presence. You deter through people who are trained, and you deter through capable partners that are able to prevail if it goes from competition to crisis to conflict.

That’s what we’re trying to build every day through Operation Pathways. As we train with our multinational partners, we need the ability to project power, to put ourselves astride some of those strategic choke points and be capable of holding adversaries at bay if they start to encroach on our national boundaries.

You mentioned that everything breaks at -40. But there is a certain love, among troops, in shared misery. How do your junior enlisted stay motivated?

We get our soldiers from the same basic training as anywhere else.

They may be coming from Hawaii. They may be coming from Fort Polk. But when they arrive in Alaska, they realize they have a job to do, and they are going to be expected to operate anywhere from -20 to -40, which was the range of temperatures during our last Joint Pacific Multinational Readiness Center rotation in February.

That’s expected. That’s what our nation needs us to do. And they rise to the occasion.

My sergeant major and I use the ANGELS acronym to remind soldiers of our expectations of every paratrooper in the 11th Airborne Division as the Arctic Angels.

The A is for Arctic tough. Everybody, whether you’re a sustainer, a cyber warrior or an infantryman, has to be Arctic tough, and you’ve got to be able to operate in that environment.

The N means you’ve got to be able to fight at night. Night fighters have to own the night and maintain that advantage over our enemies.

The G represents being a great teammate, whether that’s inside of your team, squad, company, up to your higher headquarters or down to a subordinate unit. We demand that you be a great teammate.

The E represents being experts in the fundamentals — your PT, marksmanship, battle drills, medical training and mobility. This means a lot. Being part of the 11th Airborne Division means you’ve got to be able to jump out of a plane, air assault, move on snowshoes and skis, pull a sled — do all that’s expected.

The L is to be lethal. That’s why we exist — to close with and destroy the enemy anywhere in the world.

And then lastly, the S. We need soldiers to be standard bearers. Because if you violate a standard in the Arctic, people lose a finger, a hand, a leg or a life. It’s a natural risk to operate in this environment, so we need leaders who are very engaged, who know the standard, who uphold it and model it themselves. That builds trust in the organization.

There’s ultimately so much value in Arctic warfare expertise. Not only are we training Rangers, jump masters, air assault and repel masters, but these are people who have learned how to fight and not just survive, but thrive in these conditions.

And once you’ve served in Alaska, you kind of never want to leave. Most people come here a little bit nervous, but they leave kicking and screaming.

That expertise is only enhanced when working with other services and allies. The Marines this year announced an Alaska rotation, for instance. Do you anticipate more collaboration as the region receives greater focus?

We’re all about joint training opportunities and service interoperability. When we do our annual training exercise up there in the Yukon Training Area, we invite all of our multinational partners and all of our joint partners.

We’ll never fight alone. We’ll never fight as just an Army, and we’ll never fight as just the United States of America. We want everybody to come together.

There is plenty of training area in the Joint Pacific Alaskan Range Complex. It’s two and a half times the size of the National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California. So, imagine all that wild and wonderful wilderness out there with very permissive airspace and a lot of maneuver area.

So, the more the merrier for us, and those joint training opportunities help us see gaps and seams where maybe our machines are not talking. But we want to be able to seamlessly have a common operating picture and share a common intel picture on a single pane of glass.

You can’t know if you can do it well or not unless you train together on a regular basis, so we welcome that opportunity.

Part of maximizing training is budgeting for it. If you were going to pitch the importance of the Arctic to those who distribute those resources, what would you say?

With the budget, it’ll work out, and soldiers will find ways to train. PT is free, so if we have physically fit, Arctic-tough soldiers, then that’s what we’re going to be.

We can go out there and train in the elements and do all those things we’ve discussed, but I think the most important thing is that we have to be able to project this power. Alaska is far away from a lot, but it’s strategically located at the center of three combatant commands.

If you’re going to build an Arctic-capable lethal fighting force, you have to be able to get it to the fight, whether that’s in the Pacific, Europe, or anywhere else in the world.

When I served in Alaska 25 years ago, we had an airborne battalion task force, but now we have an entire division that’s airborne and air assault capable. And we have these cold-weather all-terrain vehicles. We have all of the kit that the Army has invested in.

How do you get it to the fight? That’s infrastructure, that’s power projection, that’s joint interoperability with the Air Force to make sure we can get there. That’s understanding the sea lines of communication that you brought up earlier, so we can float those things and get it there fast enough.

That goes to our ready-forward concept with Operation Pathways. Not only do we train with multinational partners to build that interoperability and trust, but we also train in those locations to be west of the International Date Line with soldiers and equipment.

So, if we need to do something somewhere in the Pacific, we’re already there with our gear. That really shortens the commute time, if you will.

It’s critically important that we maintain that capability.

At U.S. Army Materiel Support Command — Korea, the unit Carpenter commands, soldiers built the bolt through the drill-out process of subtractive manufacturing for a cost of $1.27, avoiding months of delay and saving more than $300 in the process.

As the Eighth Army in Korea builds out its logistics capability, it’s investing in advanced manufacturing with an eye to supplying spares, not only to local Army forces, but also to troops across the Pacific region.

“I want to be the advanced manufacturing center for INDOPACOM,” Carpenter said at an engagement with reporters at the AUSA meeting. “That’s my goal.”

Eighth Army officials spoke earlier this year about how establishing a Korea-based regional sustainment hub, or center for logistics, maintenance and supply, could cut down the burden and cost of long-distance sustainment. At a roundtable event Monday, Eighth Army Commander Lt. Gen. Joseph Hilber indicated the force was moving out to build that sustainment hub.

“Now, rather than taking equipment that might need a major overhaul and send it back to the United States, we’re looking at ways that we can overhaul it there in Korea and keep it in the fight longer. Keep it west of the [International Dateline] longer,” Hilber said. “That’s going to involve everything from some added manufacturing capabilities to additional repair capabilities that we’ve got in there in terms of being able to fabricate parts, being able to fabricate materials, and then being able to return that equipment back into the fight.”

The Eighth Army has already resourced maintenance support teams that cross service and regional boundaries, departing the Korean Peninsula to support the III Marine Expeditionary Force in Okinawa, Japan, and to Hawaii to support Army rotational units, Carpenter said.

Through additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, and subtractive manufacturing, or cutting a part out of a solid block of metal, the Eighth Army is manufacturing an increasing number of critical parts, Carpenter said. The materiel support command recently acquired a metal 3D printer and is now building out infrastructure to house it.

“But we think come January, February, the metal 3D printer [will be] in, and my goal is … I would like to get to a point where I can 3D print the bolt,” Carpenter said.

By next summer, he said, the Eighth Army is set to receive $3 million worth of advanced manufacturing machines, with some $10 million worth of additional machinery set to be requested in the Army’s fiscal 2028 budget.

“I’ll be able to print bumpers; I’ll be able to print doors,” Carpenter said. “These are not just desktop printers.”

Recently, he said, a Guam-based military unit requested an assembly that would have cost $36,000. The Korea-based team built it through subtractive manufacturing for $82.

Through a request system, Carpenter said, any joint forces member can now request a part and get routed to the Army’s logistics hub in Daegu, South Korea.

“If you’re the Marines operating in Okinawa and you need this bolt … I get this bolt back over to the Marine at a fraction of the cost, and a lot quicker than if they were to order through the supply system,” he said. “So again, we’re maintaining combat power inside the First Island Chain.”

Hilbert said some hurdles remained for the Eighth Army, including intellectual property restrictions with manufacturers; data-sharing to ensure the advanced manufacturing processes deliver components that are up to spec; and seamless connection into existing Army logistics systems not designed for these new modes of parts production.

“We’re continuing to work through those pieces to enable us to fix faster,” Hilbert said.

Sig Sauer completed the test in concert with Israel Aerospace Industries, maker of the Fire Storm 250, a reusable drone that can stay airborne for two hours and is designed with a stabilized machine-gun mount.

According to a Tuesday announcement from the companies, the test required the system to hover over a simulated battlefield, ID targets with an onboard camera and fire on them using both single-shot and semi-automatic firing modes “from varying distances and altitudes.”

It’s a fast development timeline for the drone, which was first unveiled last October. The defense publication Janes reported in February that flight tests for the system were scheduled for summer 2026. The system, as Janes reported, incorporates Sig’s micro-remote-controlled weapon system along with the M250, a version of which is set to replace the Army’s M249 squad automatic weapon as part of the service’s Next-Generation Squad Weapon program.

According to Tuesday’s announcement, the system can carry 200 rounds of ammunition and the 53-pound RCWS. It can take off and land vertically, lending itself to operation in austere forward locations.

“Sensor information and fire-control data are combined into a unified targeting solution, giving the operator a continuous operational picture and supporting a rapid sensor-to-shooter cycle,” the companies said.

An internal combustion engine can accept a variety of jet fuels, allowing the drone to be reused in the field, per the Janes report. It’s designed, according to the company, to accompany tactical units “with limited manpower and support requirements.”

While it’s previously been reported that the system incorporates artificial intelligence to automate components of tracking and detection, the companies emphasized its human-in-the-loop fire control system, allowing human operators to make engagement and fire decisions while receiving imagery and tracking data from the Fire Storm 250’s onboard sensors.

“FIRE STORM 250 brings together the most advanced technologies in the world,” Sali Okanin, Israel General Manager for SIG SAUER, said in an announcement. “We’re proud of the new SIG SAUER M250, which is combat-proven technology. It is a belt-fed platform with greater range than legacy systems and weight savings that not only provide squad-level benefits but also make drone capabilities possible.”

Sig Sauer executives told Military Times earlier this month that fielding for the M250 is expected to begin in the first half of next year. While the Army’s version of the weapon is chambered in Sig Sauer’s internally developed 6.8X51mm ammo, the Israel Defense Forces began using a 7.62X51mm variant in 2025. The Fire Storm 250 reportedly can carry either.

The team attempted to return fire as they pulled back from a harrowing effort to target a cartel leader. Fajardo, then early into his military career, felt his adrenaline surge as he realized the team had been unsuccessful: A bullet had torn through the flesh of his friend.

Over a decade later, with the early autumn sun sinking over Panamanian base Aeronaval Cristóbal Colón, the 47-year-old, now a first sergeant, recounted the ordeal. His friend survived, but the horror changed Fajardo’s life.

The brush with death, he said, fueled him to learn as much as he could, militarily, and eventually led him to become an instructor at the U.S. Army’s Jungle Operations Training Course in Panama.

The class, offered for decades in the Central American nation before it was shuttered in 1999, has resumed in partnership between U.S. and Panamanian forces, with Panamanian service members teaching and attending the 18-day course.

As Panama’s troops have trained, lived — and in some cases, fought — in such environments, they are largely seen by U.S. personnel as the ultimate masters of the terrain.

Lt. Col. Andrew Eagen, who heads the U.S. Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama, said that as U.S. forces developed the course, they became quickly attuned to the deft tactics their Panamanian counterparts had developed for survival.

“They are the experts of this environment. We will never catch up,” he told Military Times in a mosquito-riddled interview at the jungle school.

“This does not exist in the continental United States,” he said, gesturing to the lush canopy, which was twinkling with the day’s last glimmers of sun and abuzz with the evening hum of jungle creatures. “We do not have an exposure to it. They do, and they have incredible techniques and an incredible level of comfort that the average American [does not].”

Fajardo is one of nine Panamanian instructors — from three branches of the country’s armed forces — who teach at the reestablished school.

The instructors assist in some parts of the course, but lead in areas where students learn about jungle survival, Eagen said.

In addition to the leading group, more than 10 Panamanian service members attended the course in which Military Times took part, according to Eagen.

Throughout each exercise, Panamanian troops sat interspersed with U.S. personnel and were placed in squads with a Spanish-speaking U.S. participant for course assignments.

Though the language barrier admittedly made some tactical movements difficult, U.S. personnel seemingly learned just from observing their Panamanian counterparts.

During one practical exercise, one squad had to hide in the jungle, cover their tracks to erase any disturbance to the foliage, and position themselves so they would be alerted to any incoming intruders.

The other squad’s job was to hunt down the hiding squad using tracking clues, the activity forming a tense game of tactical hide-and-seek.

The hunters ultimately won, thanks to one Panamanian squadmate who spotted a tiny vine that appeared slightly too parallel to the ground.

One rule of the jungle? Nothing is a straight line. The Panamanian student correctly identified the trailing plant, hovering inches above the muddy ground, as a hasty trip wire. Made using a vine and a piece of trash, it would have alerted the hiding squad to the hunters’ presence.

When the two groups gathered to discuss the interaction, the lanewalker found that the Panamanian student in the other squad had set up the tripwire; a particularly impressive development, considering a tripwire class was scheduled for later in the day.

During that class, an American instructor showed students how to create different forms of tripwires that could act as early warning systems. Some set off rattling cans. Others used fauna.

Before letting students practice, the instructor shared stories from Panamanian cadres who once operated in the Darién Gap, a roadless land bridge of brutally dense, remote jungle that spans 60-plus miles between Panama and Colombia and has been notoriously rife with human and drug trafficking.

Trip wires there are not historical relics of warfare from decades ago, the instructor said. Cartel members are using them now.

Several instructors, including Fajardo, have attended Panama’s own jungle school, called Panajungla.

Fajardo shook his head and shivered as he recounted the intense course in which participants were forced to survive on their own in the Teribe region of Panama’s Bocas del Toro province.

Students of the Panamanian course must shop at the “supermarket de la selva” — the jungle supermarket — to eat, using machetes to prepare or kill any nourishment they can find, Fajardo said.

Fajardo’s prized jungle delicacy is ñame, a tropical root vegetable similar to a yam. He also appreciates the taste of grubs, he said, which he likens to butter.

Tucked neatly into each Panamanian instructor’s backpack, razor-sharp machetes sat nestled in intricately carved leather coverings.

The U.S. Army teaches machete training in its jungle school, but some Panamanian instructors have attended a separate, more intensive course on using the long, daunting blade. It can clear brush, help prepare food, carve shelter and even help start a fire.

To Fajardo, it is the single most important tool for survival in the jungle. And with a smile, he jokingly referred to the machete as “mi esposa,” or my wife, in English.

To date, the U.S. Army is developing the course to dedicate at least 20 of its 120 spots to partner forces and at least 15 to Panamanians.

Though no other countries have sent soldiers yet, Eagen is confident that the school is close to having Colombian students join.

The U.S. has partnered with Colombia’s Lancero course, which is similar to Ranger School, and all three countries exchange information. Panama supports hosting Colombian forces, Eagen added, as “they have a direct relationship with the country.

“They have a lot of shared bilat right there at the Darién,” Eagen said, “so both Panamanian leaders and Colombian leaders want them to be first.”

Panama’s expertise in navigating such unforgiving terrain, meanwhile, has also prompted other countries, like Costa Rica and Brazil, to express interest in the course, Eagen said.

Other jungle courses worldwide have so far informed the new U.S. Army jungle school’s curriculum, and Eagen said the Army is designing a scenario construct for the school using threat characteristics seen by Panamanian service members.

And while Panamanian forces often confront small-team drug trafficking operations attempting to establish supply lines, Eagen was clear that the Army endeavored to replicate a potential combat environment, not the country’s security situation.

“That is not the premise of us being in Panama,” he said. “We try to make sure there are clear boundaries of understanding for the students that this is about the skills required of the environment, not about the situation in Panama.”

Though public sentiment between the countries has ebbed and flowed in the decades that followed Panama’s 1994 formal abolishment of its standing army — several years after a U.S. military invasion ousted military dictator Manuel Noriega — those tensions were absent from interactions Military Times observed among the service members during the course.

Eagen said the U.S. is mindful of the pride Panamanians take in their nation’s sovereignty. The Army, he added, has been purposeful in approaching the course’s renewed partnership with an emphasis on learning from — rather than simply teaching — its Panamanian counterparts.

Under the new brand, the Texas-based defense firm debuted Primex, a lightweight wearable meant to provide soldiers with night-vision capabilities and augmented reality so they can “maintain awareness without distraction or cognitive overload.”

For the design, Twenty-Six Defense said it engineered Primex for sustained operational use by equipping it with “the lightest head-borne load and near-neutral center of gravity.”

The company explained Primex uses low-light sensors, thermal imagery, and real-time processing to produce an ultra-low-latency digital perception that enables operators to better interpret the surrounding area even amid challenging environmental conditions.

What separates Primex from other advanced lightweight heads-up display units for operators, according to Twenty-Six Defense, is that its design was built on mature technologies that have already been fielded.

The company said it already produces AN/PSQ-44 Enhanced Night Vision Goggles, which contain features that allow for rapid target acquisition and augment reality to enhance visual clarity.

In August, Ernie Basic, Twenty-Six Defense’s senior director of research and development, explained how his company was developing equipment for the Soldier Borne Mission Command, a project to deliver augmented reality wearables to soldiers.

He said the technology combines fighter-pilot displays with night-vision systems, so soldiers get “the full operational picture.”

“You are not only seeing what is in front of you. You can leverage a feed coming from a drone or from other assets,” he said. “You can start seeing what is going on behind a house or another structure, cue a squad to a different location, and continuously update them.”

In addition to Primex, Twenty-Six Defense showcased defensive weapons and equipment like the XM1168 mobile 120mm mortar system, Autonomous Relocatable Surveillance Tower and SkyStriker Block 4E.

The Italian air force is due to acquire six of the drones, which are derived from Baykar’s TB-3 and are being assembled in Italy by LBA Systems, a joint venture between Baykar and Leonardo.

The Astore Levante is due to carry Leonardo sensors, but at its unveiling at the Farnborough air show in July it was presented alongside Turkish armaments, including Roketsan’s MAM family of guided bombs and Baykar’s KEMANKES-1 mini cruise missile.

Speaking in Rome on Monday, Italian air force chief Gen. Antonio Conserva said he was not ruling out other suppliers of armaments. “At the moment we have not made choices, the natural armament is Turkish but we also have activities with MBDA and small Italian industrial groups,” he said.

Conserva confirmed the new drone was set to be certified by the end of 2026 or in early 2027. European certification is deemed a prerequisite for selling the drone in Europe.

Mounting European arms will also boost sales efforts in Europe. The Italian air force will initially order three systems, each containing two drones, but Conserva said, “We will see if we go on to expand the capability.”

The Astore Levant will replace the Predator MQ1 flown by the air force, Conserva added. As well as being flown on ISR missions and providing armed support for troops, the drones will also be used for training drone pilots, he said.

Before the launch in July of the Astore Levante, the Italian navy said in April it was eyeing the TB-3 as a carrier-borne drone to fly off its Cavour carrier, which also hosts Italy’s F-35Bs.

The TB-3 is already in service on board the Turkish amphibious assault ship TCG Anadolu. Another TB-3 customer, Indonesia, is expected to base the drone on the Garibaldi, a carrier it has purchased from Italy.

Conserva spoke to reporters on Monday at a conference at the HQ of the Italian air force in Rome which gathered air force and industry officials to discuss the future of warfare.

Asked by Defense News about the prospect of Germany possibly joining the GCAP sixth generation fighter program set up by Italy, Japan and the UK, Conserva said he was in favor.

“We are talking about a strategic partner,” he said.

“We would need to find a political and industrial deal. Germany is a great country. We have already collaborated with them on the Tornado which will retire next year, and the Eurofighter which is the backbone of our national defense and deterrence. Whatever emerges I will view favorably,” he added.

During the ceremony, 10 warrant officers were formally introduced as 390A robotics technicians. They will now serve as subject-matter experts on all aspects of using robotic and autonomous systems, including programming, building and repairing them, plus integrating them into combat.

The 390A inauguration is the result of a lengthy process that has been in the works since 2024, when U.S. Army Special Operations Command announced its aim to train experts in using autonomous systems.

The Army deemed it necessary to introduce robotics as a separate specialization to avoid overburdening special warfare operators with having to master an additional, highly complex skill set, in addition to their existing knowledge.

“What we’ve determined is it cannot be an additional task or an additional hat for someone on the ODA,” Chief Warrant Officer 5 Jerry Brown, command chief warrant officer for 1st Special Forces Command (Airborne), said in a release, adding that the new specialists will be able to leverage their specific field of knowledge within robotics to help the force as a whole.

The new 390A technicians will be assigned to tactical formations at the brigade and group level. As experts in autonomous warfare, they will advise commanders on how best to deploy autonomous systems during operations.

They will also be required to think quickly in the field to instantly propose solutions to any problems that may arise with robotics in the field, and to use their expertise to come up with innovative ways of using drones to reach objectives.

To prepare them for this role, 390A candidates are required to complete a 19-week course, where they must build drones from scratch that do not require GPS or radio frequencies to navigate.

The Army stated in a release that robotic systems assembled during the course will rely primarily on artificial intelligence and machine learning to navigate to targets.

Fiber optic cables also provide a way for drones to reach targets while being invulnerable to external signal interference, such as jamming. Known as “tethered drones,” cable-linked unmanned aircraft systems can use artificial intelligence for targeting and navigation while having a direct physical connection to their operator.

At the time of publication, the Army had not responded to questions about whether 390A candidates would be learning to build and field tethered drones.

“The Army is implementing changes in force structures, adding a multi-domain task force equipped with autonomous long-range fires,” Gen. Christopher LaNeve, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, said in a statement.

“These technical experts will help command teams understand integration across the force. We are scaling this across the Army.”

The defense giant unveiled the PAC-3 Edge this Friday and debuted it at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual meeting in Washington, D.C., today.

“This missile is capable of being launched from the traditional M903 launcher. It’s capable of being launched from the containerized launchers that are being sought after domestically and internationally, as well as our HIMARS FLEX, which is the offense and defense configuration of our traditional HIMARS vehicle,” Jason Reynolds, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control Integrated Air and Missile Defense, told Defense News.

Lockheed in January announced a seven-year framework agreement to increase annual PAC-3 interceptor production from approximately 600 to 2,000.

Designed to defend against hypersonic and advanced missile threats, the unveiling of the PAC-3 Edge comes as the U.S. military’s reliance on costly interceptors against cheap munitions, particularly those deployed by Iran during Operation Epic Fury, has come under increased scrutiny over the past eight months.

The new PAC-3 Edge missile builds on the foundations of the PAC-3 MSE, Lockheed’s baseline missile, and pushes its abilities farther.

The Edge system is longer and features a larger diameter, increasing its range.

“It also goes higher in altitude and has more agility. It has attitude control motors, which are located near the front of the missile and basically divert the missile in flight,” Reynolds explained. “This has additional attitude control motors that give it additional agility.”

While the PAC-3 MSE uses a two-pulse solid rocket motor to speedily approach moving targets, the new system has multi-pulse motor designed by Northrop Grumman.

“It has a third pulse to the motor, so that means the motor will fire three times during its flight, giving it additional agility to kill the target,” Reynolds said.

The weapon is designed not only for unprecedented maneuverability but to be easily integrated with both present and future missile defense networks. It is compatible with Northrop’s Integrated Battle Command System, or IBCS, a command-and-control network the Army uses to mesh air and missile defense sensors into a central hub.

The company intends to begin testing the PAC-3 Edge in 2027 and have it ready to deploy by 2031, although Lockheed aims to have it ready earlier, Reynolds added.

“The U.S. Army’s timeline is 2031. We, Lockheed Martin, are trying to pull that in and deliver this capability sooner, so around the turn of the decade,” he said.