Military Campaign Planning

This week one of the SDR authors Gen Barrons told me: “We should be absolutely clear that the UK armed forces in NATO would not fight a war like Ukraine has to fight war.” Why is this important? Because learning the lessons from Ukraine does not mean assuming the next war will be won with the same tech. It means learning the necessity of being able to innovate, acquire and evolve at pace. Yes we are seeing the primacy of drones in Ukraine. But counter drone technology may soon reset the balance on the battlefield. So, as Sir Barrons says, the answer isn’t to fill warehouses with increasingly obsolescent, consumable drones. The focus should be on developing the ability to design, produce, and adapt defence technology at the speed that future conflicts will demand. A good Defence Committee session that brought home how far the MOD still has to go in turning agility into a core capability — not just in industry, but in procurement, R&D, and doctrine. We don't just need to own the kit. We need to understand how to evolve with it.

𝗘𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗱𝗶𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗼: 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗹𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗯𝗶𝘁. Tallinn has halted a planned €500 million purchase of new combat vehicles and is redirecting that money toward air defence, drones, and other unmanned capabilities. That is not symbolism. That is adaptation. 🛡️ Estonia is not saying armored vehicles no longer matter. It is saying the first priority on a battlefield shaped by drones, persistent surveillance, and precision strike is no longer just buying more steel. It is building the ability to survive, see, and fight in a drone-saturated war. 📡 That is the real lesson from Ukraine. Heavy platforms still have a role. But their dominance is no longer automatic. Not when every vehicle can be watched, tracked, and hunted from above. ⚙️ Estonia’s decision matters because it reflects a harder kind of seriousness. Not abstract innovation talk. Not small pilot projects. But a real budgetary shift toward the capabilities that modern war is already rewarding: air defence, unmanned systems, situational awareness, and distributed combat effect. 📦 And this is where the rest of #NATO should pay attention. Adapting to drone warfare is not just about buying a few clever systems. It means depth: stockpiles of components, batteries, repair parts, EW resilience, and training pipelines that make drone use and drone survival part of normal soldiering. 🎯 It also means pushing capability downward. Drone warfare cannot remain a boutique asset controlled only from above. It has to be embedded into tactical formations, close to the fight, where commanders need immediate options to find, fix, and strike in real time. For #Defence, #DroneWar, #AirDefence, and #MilitaryInnovation observers, Estonia’s move is the real strategic signal: the most serious militaries are no longer asking whether the battlefield has changed. They are asking what they are willing to stop buying in order to adapt to it. 𝘐𝘯 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘺 — 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘱 𝘣𝘶𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨.

What the Iran War Conflict Means for the Future of NATO Defense My latest piece, "A Harbinger of Future Conflict," argues that the 'Iran War' was not a localized anomaly but a preview of the threats @NATO must be prepared to defeat. The current gaps between Alliance capabilities and this new reality are widening fast. We must immediately internalize four urgent lessons across procurement, doctrine, and command: 1. Integrated Air and Missile Defense is Expensive But Indispensable. No single system can handle this kind of volume and complexity. We need a layered, fully networked "Alliance air picture," not 32 distinct national ones. 2. Intelligence Fusion and Precision Munitions Decide the Fight Early. The side that identifies, targets, and strikes faster dictates the entire tempo. This requires massive integration and precision stocks meant for a "real war," not a budget cycle. 3. Early Warning Must Be Redundant and Truly 360°. Threats now come from every domain—air, sea, land, space, and cyber. A "brittle" or single-node detection system will be blinded immediately. 4. The Drone Problem is Permanent and We Need Cost-Effective Solutions. The asymmetry is unsustainable: We cannot keep firing multi-million dollar interceptors at $5,000 drones. The answer lies in EW, directed energy, and high-volume, affordable kinetic defense. The strategic choice for NATO is clear: Adapt now, on its own timeline, or be forced to adapt under far worse conditions. This harbinger of conflict is clear. Let’s keep the debate going to highlight the urgency. Read the full deep-dive below. 👇 https://lnkd.in/d8ASEfjE #NATO #NationalSecurity #FutureWarfare #IranWar #MissileDefense #DefenseProcurement #AI #Drones #InnovationInDefense #StrategicWarning #Geopolitics

Ukraine is the C-student, the U.S. is the straight-A student. But the U.S. must learn from Ukraine speed, cheap production, and asymmetric war. Michael Brown and Matt Kaplan write in Foreign Affairs that Washington must draw hard lessons from Ukraine to prepare for China. The U.S. bet on short wars and exquisite systems after 1991. Ukraine shows the opposite: wars are long, attritional, software-driven. Mass and adaptation beat prestige platforms. Ukraine started the war with one small warship. Russia had a fleet. Ukraine destroyed or disabled 25+ Russian ships — about one-third of the Black Sea Fleet — including the cruiser Moskva. Blockade broken and grain exports resumed. In spring 2025, Ukraine smuggled 117 FPV drones near five Russian airfields. Cost per drone: a few thousand dollars. Damage: up to 30% of Russia’s strategic bombers. Estimated cost to Moscow: $7 billion. Drone war now evolves in three-week cycles. Ukraine attacks. Russia jams. Ukraine adds computer vision. Russia expands jammers. Software updates decide survival within days, not years. Cheap drones — hundreds of dollars — replaced $100,000 Excalibur precision shells. Precision moved to small teams near the frontline. Scale replaced elegance. Contrast this with the U.S.: F-35 — 20 years development, $80m per jet. Ford-class carrier — $13bn. B-21 — in development since early 2010s. For the cost of one aircraft carrier, the Pentagon could buy 13 million drones — nearly 100 per U.S. infantryman. Yet only 20% of the $900bn defense budget goes to procurement. 17% goes to developing new exquisite platforms. China’s shipbuilding capacity is 200× that of the U.S. In a prolonged war, manufacturing wins. Quantity has a quality of its own. Imagine a Pacific conflict where satellites are jammed, carriers are targeted, logistics degrade, and drones swarm at scale. Would exquisite platforms survive attrition? Or would cheap, modular systems dominate? Brown and Kaplan argue: — War-game asymmetric threats seriously. — Rebuild stockpiles. — Invest in modular systems. — Use 3D printing and scalable drone production. — Design for replacement, not perfection. Russia planned a three-day war. It has lasted four years. The next conflict will not wait for 20-year procurement cycles. If you were the Pentagon, what would you build first — another carrier, or a factory that produces millions of drones?

The UK has just published its most comprehensive defence review in 25 years, and it reveals a military on the cusp of its biggest technological transformation since the Second World War. The review's most striking finding isn't about threats or spending—it's about how warfare itself is being fundamentally redefined by technology. As the document starkly notes, drones now kill more people than traditional artillery in Ukraine, and military advantage increasingly comes from speed of innovation rather than size of forces. The technological revolution outlined is comprehensive: Artificial Intelligence becomes central to everything. The review calls for a protected Defence AI Investment Fund and a digital targeting web by 2027 that connects sensors, decision-makers, and weapons across all domains in real-time. Data and digital systems are no longer optional extras—they're foundational to every military capability. Autonomous systems transform the battlefield equation. The UK will establish a Defence Uncrewed Systems Centre by February 2026, moving toward a high-low mix where 20% crewed platforms control 40% reusable autonomous systems and 40% single-use effectors like attack drones. This isn't just about adding drones—it's about completely reimagining how forces operate. Space and cyber become contested battlegrounds. A new CyberEM Command launches by end-2025 to coordinate operations in cyberspace—the only domain under daily attack. Meanwhile, space capabilities become critical as China and Russia's combined satellite fleets grew 70% in recent years, with quantum technologies promising to revolutionise both encryption and navigation. Innovation cycles accelerate dramatically. Defence procurement must shift from 6.5-year contract cycles to three-month rapid commercial exploitation, with a new UK Defence Innovation organisation receiving a ringfenced £400 million annual budget to harness commercial breakthroughs. Advanced weapons reshape deterrence calculations. From hypersonic missiles travelling five times the speed of sound to directed energy weapons like the UK's DragonFire system, the review highlights how precision, range, and speed are transforming military mathematics. This isn't just military modernisation—it's recognition that the character of warfare has changed more in the past decade than in the previous century. The question for defence industries and tech companies is clear: are you ready for this transformation? #DefenceTech #Innovation #AI #AutonomousSystems #DefenceReview #UKDefence

The Neglected Symbiosis Why Military Technology and Tactics Must Evolve Together The recent surge in defence spending across the UK and Europe has predominantly focused on acquiring cutting-edge technology - advanced weapons systems, sophisticated software, and next-generation platforms. Yet a critical oversight threatens to undermine this massive investment: the parallel development of Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs) has been largely neglected. This disconnect creates a dangerous paradigm where technology, rather than operational need, begins to dictate the character of warfare. History has repeatedly shown that technology alone cannot win conflicts - it must be integrated within a coherent and adaptive operational framework. ➡️ Technology Without Tactical Evolution: A Recipe for Failure When examining historical precedents, we see this pattern repeating. The French military's investment in the Maginot Line without adapting their mobile defence doctrine, the US military's initial struggles in Vietnam despite technological superiority, and more recently, the challenges faced in asymmetric conflicts despite overwhelming technological advantages - all demonstrate that hardware without corresponding tactical innovation leads to suboptimal outcomes. ➡️ The Symbiotic Relationship Military effectiveness emerges from the symbiosis between technology and tactics. New capabilities demand new methods of employment, while tactical innovations often drive technological requirements. This relationship must be cultivated deliberately, not left to chance. Consider the revolution in drone warfare. The platforms themselves provide capabilities, but their transformative impact stems from how they're integrated into operations - from reconnaissance to targeting to swarming tactics. Without corresponding TTPs, these technological assets deliver only a fraction of their potential value. ➡️ The Way Forward Defence ministries and military commands must institute formal mechanisms for parallel development: ⚡️ Involve operators in technology acquisition decisions from the outset ⚡️Allocate specific funding for TTP development alongside procurement ⚡️Create rapid experimentation units to explore new tactical applications ⚡️Incorporate realistic technology integration challenges in training exercises ⚡️Develop feedback loops between equipment developers and field units The current imbalance in funding and attention between technology and tactics creates not just inefficiency but genuine strategic vulnerability. Our adversaries study these gaps and will exploit them. As defence spending continues to increase, we must ensure we're not just buying better tools but developing better ways to use them. The character of future warfare will be determined not by who has the most advanced technology, but by who most effectively integrates that technology into their operational art. Richard Gwilliam Benjamin Moody Ches Clark MA (Hons)

My latest commentary looks at what Ukraine’s wartime drone revolution can teach militaries worldwide, including the Singapore Armed Forces. Drones have shifted from niche tools to decisive battlefield assets. In Ukraine, small, agile drone units like the renowned Nemesis Regiment and Magyar’s Birds have fundamentally reshaped tactical engagements, transforming frontline operations into iterations of constant experimentation and adaptation.   Meanwhile, Magyar’s Birds have evolved from a small recon team to a brigade focused on attack drones, signals intelligence, and electronic warfare under commander Robert “Magyar” Brovdi. They have implemented low-cost, high-impact tactics, using fibre-optic FPV drones to both strike and intercept enemy systems.    For these innovative drone units, every mission becomes a tactical experiment generating immediate insights and operational adjustments. Success is tracked via a performance-based “drone league table,” with the best teams getting priority access to supplies. The culture is competitive, data-driven, and ruthlessly effective.   What can the SAF learn from Ukraninian military innovation?   It means going beyond teaching recruits how to fly drones. It requires developing specialised drone units structured more like high-performance startups than traditional line infantry. These units must be empowered to iterate quickly, on hardware, software, and tactics. Think of them as “innovation battalions” with engineers, software developers, and ISR specialists working side-by-side with combat operators.   Such SAF won’t emerge from existing pathways. Instead, it will require a culture of shared experimentation, rapid iteration, and intellectual diversity.     To enable such a culture, three pillars must underpin the SAF’s transformation. First, its leadership must be willing to absorb risk, empowering subordinates to innovate, experiment, and explore unconventional options.    Second, Singapore must build stronger bridges between the SAF, local start-ups, research universities, and global tech firms. The goal is not to outsource innovation but to foster co-creation, where military users shape requirements dynamically and developers adapt in real-time.   Third, Singapore’s defence ecosystem must be willing to invest in high-risk, high-reward technologies and explore their full range of operational pathways... more in the article below. #DefenceInnovation #Drones #Ukraine #MilitaryTechnology #InnovationCulture #SAF #Mindef #DSTA #Singapore #RSIS #AI

The West Needs More Low-Cost Weapons to Counter Russia and China Shifting Focus from High-Tech to High-Quantity For decades, Western military strategy has centered on producing sophisticated, high-cost weaponry, prioritizing quality over quantity. However, the war in Ukraine has exposed a critical vulnerability—modern conflicts require large volumes of expendable, cost-effective weaponry, not just cutting-edge systems. NATO officials and defense ministers, including Denmark’s defense minister and Lithuania’s former foreign minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, stress that the West must learn from Russia’s mass-production approach. While the U.S. and Europe have focused on complex, expensive systems, Russia has rapidly produced and deployed cheap, disposable weapons—a strategy that has helped sustain its war effort despite heavy losses. Why Quantity Matters in Modern Warfare Western forces have historically relied on advanced precision-guided weapons, stealth aircraft, and high-tech defense systems. However, wars like Ukraine show that: • High-tech weapons are expensive and slow to replace, making prolonged conflicts unsustainable. • Russia and China emphasize mass production, fielding large numbers of cheap drones, artillery shells, and missiles to overwhelm defenses. • Attrition warfare requires steady resupply, and Western stockpiles are depleting faster than they can be replenished. Sweden’s Defense Minister Pål Jonson emphasized that both the U.S. and Europe are struggling with military production bottlenecks, making it difficult to keep up with the sheer scale of Russia’s war machine. Building Cheaper, Scalable Weapons To counter adversaries like Russia and China, NATO and its allies must rethink their defense procurement strategies: • Increase production of low-cost, expendable drones, loitering munitions, and artillery shells. • Develop faster, simplified manufacturing processes to ensure steady supply. • Invest in mass production of autonomous systems to counter Russia’s drone warfare and China’s growing military-industrial capabilities. A New Defense Strategy for the West The war in Ukraine has reshaped military priorities, proving that high-tech superiority alone isn’t enough. While advanced systems remain crucial, Western militaries must balance their approach with cost-effective, rapidly producible weaponry. Failing to do so could leave NATO at a disadvantage in future conflicts where mass, speed, and endurance determine the winner.

A very important point raised by Finland’s Chief of Defence. And one that deserves much more attention in Europe’s current technology hype cycle. General Janne Jaakkola recently warned against rushing the adoption of new military technologies without corresponding doctrinal and leadership reform. Because the real risk is not technological stagnation. The real risk is building expensive, complex systems that ultimately reduce operational effectiveness. This is something I have been emphasising repeatedly in my writing and talks. Technology alone does not transform defence. Institutions do. Key takeaways worth reflecting: 1. Technology hype can distort priorities Public debate often focuses on individual technologies- drones, AI, autonomy, amplified by social media and headlines. But technology visible at the tactical edge does not automatically translate into operational advantage. 2. Concepts and doctrine often follow technology when it should be the opposite. As Jaakkola noted, new technical solutions are often introduced to solve immediate battlefield problems, while concepts and doctrine emerge later, if they emerge at all.  That inversion is dangerous. Doctrine, leadership, and operational thinking should guide technology integration not chase it. 3. Over-engineering defence architectures can create fragility Layering new systems on top of existing structures risks creating heavy, expensive and ineffective systems.  Anyone who has worked inside large defence organisations has seen this happen. 4. Innovation ecosystems matter as much as technology Ukraine’s wartime innovation model works not just because of drones or software. It works because industry, battlefield feedback, and policy frameworks are tightly integrated. You cannot replicate that simply by purchasing hardware. Where this connects with my own work For a long time I’ve been arguing that many debates around defence AI and emerging technologies are framed incorrectly. People talk about algorithms, autonomy, platforms, sensors. But the real bottlenecks usually sit elsewhere: * institutional culture * procurement models * leadership mindset * decision-making structures * integration across systems * policy ... In other words defence innovation fails far more often because of institutions than because of technology. The deeper question for Europe. Europe does not lack technology. What we must learn is how to integrate technology into doctrine, command structures, operational thinking fast enough. That requires: * leadership adaptation * organisational change * new approaches to manoeuvre and decision cycles Exactly the point being raised here and it is a conversation Europe needs to take seriously. #DefenceInnovation #MilitaryTransformation #AIinDefence #FutureOfWarfare #CommandAndControl #EuropeanDefence https://lnkd.in/dSu6fxJK

In many European and national documents, we still read statements like “procurement of system X” under the heading of “capability.” But… is a product a capability? Is a drone, a fighter jet, or a communications system a capability on its own? The answer is no. A military capability is the ability to generate an effect in the operational environment. To achieve this, three elements are essential: knowing what effect is sought (doctrine), what activities produce it (functionality), and what combination of means enables it (systems). Without all three, the system is a shell. It may fly, shoot, observe… but it does not deliver advantage. Europe suffers from chronic technolatry. It falls in love with systems, over-specifies them, delays them, and turns them into ends in themselves. The consequence: fragmented capabilities, limited interoperability, and acquisitions that arrive late and wrong. The future lies in going back to basics: defining capability from the mission. What needs to be done? What effects must be delivered? What gaps exist today—and how do we close them? Acquiring a capability is not about buying a thing. It’s about sealing a fracture. #militarycapabilities #Europeandefence #missionengineering #strategicthinking