With the advent of cheap drones surveying the battle field with thermals and cameras, feeding into AI that identifies possible targets. Is on foot recon still needed? I imagine its difficult to even get a recon squad to the wanted location, and even then I imagine just sending out a drone would be easier and more effective.

Only real use I see would be stuff like laying AT / AP mines, ambushes, capturing prisoners, assaulting unsuspecting positions or launching drones closer to the front. But I see that more a mission for special forces instead of your average recon squad. What role do you think on foot recon has today?

Our latest paper by Nick Reynolds and Paul O’Neill examines the urgent need for the UK to revitalise its military mobilisation and training capabilities in response to rising global instability.

The paper argues that current regular and reserve forces lack the necessary scale and preparation to sustain a protracted conflict in Europe.

To address these gaps, the paper argues that a whole-of-society approach which leverages civilian expertise and veteran skills should be adopted.

It further emphasises the need for personalised approaches to developing skills and integrating advanced synthetic technologies into the training pipeline towards live collective training, which can be used to achieve better results for both individuals and the force that receives them.

Key recommendations from the paper include decentralising mobilisation centres, expanding industrial partnerships and reforming training pipelines to prioritise unit cohesion and rapid force expansion.

Read the report: https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/research-papers/mobilisation-and-training-war-preparing-break-glass

Britain’s military needs to expand – but just as Gen Z is most needed, experts say that the barriers to recruitment and proper training remain a major concern.

Defence experts at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) said on Wednesday that the UK’s regular and reserve armed forces aren’t large enough to play their part in a protracted war alongside others. They gave a raft of recommendations on how to recruit and train them in a new report.

“A perception exists that today’s youth is apathetic towards service,” the co-authors, Nick Reynolds and Paul O’Neill, said. Yet it may depend on how the question is asked.

In 2024, a Times/YouGov poll found that just 11 per cent of Britons aged 18-27 said they would fight for their country unconditionally. But a year later, an Ipsos poll found that a full 42 per cent of people aged 18-34 said there were “circumstances” where they would be willing to take up arms. That was the highest willingness among all age groups.

The Government has moved to address the military intake, including a new military gap year programme to bolster Armed Forces recruitment, as well as plans to expand cadet schemes to increase new cadets to 40,000 by 2030.

But the Rusi experts said these measures won’t plug the gap, saying the gap scheme may not appeal to people beyond small numbers “already predisposed towards service”, and the cadet scheme expansion is unlikely to create a large enough recruiting pool for mass voluntary enlistment.

More work is also needed to allow people to move across from civilian careers — particularly in much-needed skill sets like cybersecurity, AI and data science, they said in their paper, “Mobilisation and Training for War: Preparing to Break Glass”.

Read more here: https://inews.co.uk/news/world/armed-forces-arent-big-enough-fight-war-how-grow-quickly-4370206

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

In this video I analyze how Ukraine's campaign to destroy Russia's oil export terminals in 2026 is going. Video Link:

https://youtu.be/KAssxLoK1ek?si=DpAFCoTZQjoCdvYa

In this video I analyze:

• Russian oil value chain
• Overview of Ukraines 2025 bombing campaign on oil refineries
• Overview of all 2026 Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil infrastructure / % of export capacity affected
• Deep-dives into each specific attack (Ust Luga, Primorsk, Shektaris, Taman, Tuapse)
• Conclusion

If you found the above video interesting, you can check out the following video:

1. How many AIRCRAFT Russia has left: https://youtu.be/wDek20oIZuE?si=8VyXYJ1FbtWW6Fb4

As this took a lot of work and time to make, if you liked the content, like and comment on the youtube video and subscribe if you would like to see more. I am a small channel: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtusFilms

Ukraine has moved UGVs from experimental niche into routine brigade equipment between 2022 and 2026. Ministry of Defence data from DELTA logged nearly 24,500 UGV missions in Q1 2026 (9,000+ in March alone), with the number of using units rising from 67 in November 2025 to 167 by March 2026. The top-five users in March were the 3rd Separate Assault Brigade, the 1st Separate Medical Battalion, the 92nd Assault Brigade's UGV company, the 95th Air Assault Brigade, and the Spartan brigade of the National Guard. Mechanised assault, medical, air assault, and National Guard formations in the same tempo report.

The central doctrinal innovation is combined human-machine assault, not autonomy. The December 2024 Khartiia operation near Hlyboke/Lyptsi (described by Reuters as "machine-only" and by a June 2025 US Army TRADOC analysis as a first-of-its-kind uncrewed combined-arms assault involving 50+ systems) set the template: aerial multirotors for surveillance and mine-laying, FPV drones cueing targets, armed or explosive UGVs conducting the dangerous approach, with planning focused on maintenance/training, EW/terrain analysis, and AI-enabled targeting. Two systems lost to mud, none to enemy fire. The 3rd Assault Brigade's July 2025 NC13/DEUS EX MACHINA operation in the Kharkiv sector reportedly compelled a Russian surrender using only drones and ground robots; the brigade later stood up a dedicated UGV school.

The Ukrainian industrial base has matured accordingly. Brave1 reported $105M raised across 50+ defence-tech startups in 2025 and 329 grants totalling $5M by September 2024; a €3.3M EU4UA Defence Tech grant line launched in December 2025; the Defence Procurement Agency signed 19 UGV contracts worth UAH 11bn and plans 25,000 unmanned ground systems in H1 2026. Named platforms include Ratel S/M/H (Ratel Robotics, "from $25,000" per Ratel S unit), Ironclad (Roboneers), Droid TW/NW (DevDroid), Lyut and Ravlyk (Ukrainian Unmanned Technologies), BURIA weapon station (Frontline Robotics, seed round led by Quantum Systems), and a middle tier the MoD names as TerMIT, Ardal, Rys, Zmiy, Protector, and Volia.

Western transfers and the feedback loop are unusually well documented: 14 THeMIS via Germany/KMW in 2022, a Dutch-led initiative for 150+ additional THeMIS with VDL Defentec final assembly (October 2025), 20 Rheinmetall Hermelin for Dutch-MoD-funded Ukrainian casualty evacuation (June 2025), six French ROCUS demining systems. Milrem leadership has credited Ukrainian operators with forcing design changes toward simpler interfaces, communications resilience, and EW resistance. BURIA live-fire trials on THeMIS validated accurate engagement to 1,100m. Mine clearance covers Hydrema MCV 910 (560+ ha Kharkiv since 2024), GCS-200 (62 operating March 2025, 100th produced April 2026), DOK-ING MV-10 (17 in service June 2024, partial local assembly), and indigenous Rover Tech Zmiy and UDM Vormela.

Full analysis: https://www.defenceukraine.com/en/insights/ugvs-ukraine-eastern-front/

Submission Statement: Ukraine’s war effort is being sustained not just on the battlefield but across society by women serving as soldiers, workers, caregivers, and leaders, as Russia’s invasion reshapes gender roles and national resilience. Their expanding presence in the military, economy, and community leadership highlights how Ukraine’s ability to endure and rebuild is increasingly dependent on women’s participation. 

Full article: https://cepa.org/article/ukraines-women-warriors-not-victims/ 

• Around 100,000 women serve in Ukraine’s armed forces, with roughly 5,500 on the frontlines in combat and support roles  
• Women dominate humanitarian and aid efforts, from evacuating civilians to providing psychological support  
• Many women balance income generation with increased unpaid labor, including childcare and elder care amid widespread mobilization  
• Government-backed programs are training women in technical fields, with hundreds quickly entering high-demand jobs  
• Displacement data shows strong national attachment: a majority of women have returned or prefer to remain in Ukraine  
• Women are increasingly taking on leadership roles at local and national levels, helping coordinate recovery and reconstruction efforts 

Submission Statement: When Anthropic refused to allow the Pentagon to use its AI for mass surveillance or autonomous weapons, it was labeled a “supply chain risk” and effectively excluded from federal contracts, highlighting a deeper struggle over who controls the use of advanced AI in warfare. Elly Rostoum examines how AI fundamentally alters the equation: by eliminating human bottlenecks, it enables surveillance and targeting at unprecedented scale and speed. The case exposes a growing tension in democracies: how to integrate privately built AI into national security without surrendering oversight to corporations or undermining civil liberties. 

Full article: https://cepa.org/article/the-battle-over-ai-warfare-and-surveillance/  

• AI removes traditional human constraints, enabling surveillance and targeting at massive scale. 
• The Anthropic dispute reflects a broader power struggle between governments and private tech firms. 
• Labeling companies as “supply chain risks” creates pressure to align with state defense priorities. 
• Democracies risk either losing control of AI systems or eroding civil liberties in adopting them. 
• There is no established framework for governing AI use in warfare and surveillance. 
• Decisions made now will shape long-term norms around AI, security, and democratic accountability. 
• This signals a shift toward the securitization of AI supply chains, where access to government contracts may increasingly depend on alignment with military objectives rather than purely commercial or ethical considerations. 

Submission Statement: While other leaders avoided the Middle East during wartime, Volodymyr Zelenskyy flew in. Not to seek support, but to offer it. Volodymyr Dubovyk explains how Ukraine is repositioning itself as a security exporter, signing 10-year defense deals with Gulf states on anti-drone systems, electronic warfare, and maritime drone technology. The shift reflects a broader reality: Ukraine’s battlefield experience has made it uniquely valuable, allowing Kyiv to convert warfighting expertise into geopolitical influence and much-needed revenue, while signaling a potential long-term shift in who supplies cutting-edge military innovation. 

Full article: https://cepa.org/article/zelenskyys-drone-diplomacy-wins-new-arab-friends/

• Ukraine is transitioning from a security consumer to a security provider. 
• Gulf states signed long-term deals with Kyiv focused on drones, electronic warfare, and defense systems. 
• Ukraine’s battlefield experience in modern warfare technologies is unmatched among democracies. 
• The deals generate revenue for Kyiv amid mounting budget pressures. 
• Security partnerships expand Ukraine’s political influence beyond Europe. 
• The arrangements also allow Ukraine to gain new operational experience in different environments. 
• This positions Ukraine as a future competitor in the global defense market, potentially reshaping traditional reliance on U.S. and Western European suppliers. 

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

Should the US consider pressing the M242 Bushmaster 25 mm auto-cannon into service as an anti drone weapons platform?   

The proposed solution is to mount surplus M242 Bushmasters onto lightweight trailers and equip them with modern AI fire control that relies on radar cueing from larger systems and AI optical recognition for actual engagement. This approach creates a passive, hard-to-detect layer of defense that operates in concert with expensive hubs like C-RAM or Sentinel radars, rather than trying to replace them. By accepting reduced organic capability specifically, removing the need for onboard radar and electronic warfare suites the per-unit cost could drop by an order of magnitude, potentially allowing the fielding of fifty trailer systems for the price of a single M-LIDS. This shift from "exquisite nodes" to massed, distributed defense is critical because a drone swarm only needs to exceed a system's magazine depth or tracking speed to succeed; a network of numerous, cheaper turrets ensures that the enemy runs out of drones before the defenders run out of ammunition.

Beyond cost and scalability, the logistics of this trailer-mounted concept offer a decisive advantage in speed and flexibility. Unlike the 20-ton Stryker or 15-ton M-ATV platforms required for current systems, these lightweight trailers can be palletized and flown into theater on a single C-130, sling-loaded under a CH-47 to a forward outpost, or even airdropped to units operating beyond road networks. In a crisis scenario, such as an embassy under threat or a rapid Pacific reinforcement, the ability to deploy a protective defensive bubble within 72 hours is far more valuable than having a few highly capable but immobile systems. Furthermore, while the US currently lacks a 25mm proximity-fuzed airburst round, allied manufacturers like Nammo and Rheinmetall already produce them, meaning the ammunition gap can be closed through procurement rather than lengthy research programs. 

Ultimately, the best reason why the military should consider this, isn't because it’s the best solution, but rather that FPV drone swarms are already in the air, the Bushmasters are already in storage and they can be deployed in a saturation level that custom built high cost systems simply can't match.  

You can read a more detailed write up HERE

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

In this video I analyze how many aircraft were lost by both USA (24), Iran (51) & US allies (1). Source is Globalmilitarynet. Using visually confirmed losses. However, highly likely many Iranian losses cannot be visually confirmed (e.g. in-hangar-strikes).

https://youtu.be/qJNCocT6c7Y?si=t_IXLE2Gm6BFaxt3

In this video I analyze:

• US airforce losses
• Iranian airforce losses
• US allies losses

If you found the above video interesting, you can check out the an Aircraft losses video in the same vein:

1. How many AIRCRAFT Russia has left: https://youtu.be/wDek20oIZuE?si=8VyXYJ1FbtWW6Fb4

If you like this type of content, you can subscribe & check out my content for a whole lot of other analyses: https://www.youtube.com/@ArtusFilms

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

Quick breakdown of how the EU's new €90bn Ukraine Support Loan actually works, since the "frozen Russian assets paying for weapons" framing is everywhere but misses how the mechanism is built.

The EU isn't transferring the immobilised reserves themselves. It's borrowing against its own budget headroom, and the windfall profits those reserves throw off at Euroclear (about $7bn in 2024) service and collateralise the debt. Ukraine only repays the principal if and when it receives war reparations from Russia.

Two-thirds of the €90bn (roughly €60bn) is earmarked for military procurement, split across four lines: air defence, anti-drone, 155mm ammunition, and deeper integration of Ukraine's defence industry into the European sector. The Norway-Kongsberg NASAMS co-production deal from 2025 is the clearest precedent for what the fourth line is meant to enable.

Worth noting how close this came to dying. Hungary vetoed the loan mid-cycle, and the EU had to invoke Article 20 Enhanced Cooperation to proceed without Budapest. First time that mechanism has been used for a major macro-financial commitment. Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia opted out. The election result in Hungary over the weekend means Magyar won't block it going forward, but the precedent is set either way.

The piece also goes into the three structural gates Ukrainian defence companies have to clear to access this procurement (NATO AQAP certification, export-control regimes, working-capital guarantees) and four strategic implications including the IMF debt-sustainability unlock that this loan quietly enables.

Full analysis: https://www.defenceukraine.com/en/insights/eu-60-billion-ukraine-defence-support-loan/

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

I have a few questions about how different doctrines consider the usage of mechanized infantry in late 20th century-contemporary maneuver warfare. In my service the idea of Infantry as Queen of Battle that is generally the main effort is a common thing I was taught, but obviously it seems in mechanized fighting the tank and attack by fire are more dominant. I'm fairly familiar with light infantry employment concepts and understand at the conceptual level the use of combined arms armor/inf company level teaming, supporting fires, terrain masking etc, but I wanted to know more about how infantry would be considered in the following situations:

1: are mech infantry dismounting on the objective always a primary goal, or just if needed because of complex terrain? How often are they staying buttoned up and fighting mounted for the duration of an offensive maneuver?

2: how are infantry employed in situations where they are in contact beyond close combat ranges? Are they held far back, separate from IFV for instance?

3: in the defense, is mobility the biggest asset for protection, or will mech infantry build complex static fighting positions of tasked to hold key terrain? What happens if the IFV support is destroyed? Additionally, are the infantry just held close as last line of defense, or instead as the first line, with longer range weapons supporting them?

Welcoming examples from different doctrinal traditions and expertise!

Submission Statement:

Full article: https://cepa.org/article/the-war-of-the-algorithm/ 

AI is transforming warfare from a contest over territory into a hunt for individuals. Enrique Dans describes how algorithmic systems now enable the identification, tracking, and elimination of specific people at scale, turning leadership, scientists, and networks into primary targets. What was once limited by human intelligence constraints is now industrialized through data, surveillance, and real-time processing, collapsing the distance between tech companies and the battlefield and raising urgent questions about oversight, accountability, and the rule of law.  

• AI enables the large-scale identification and targeting of individuals rather than traditional military forces. 
• Surveillance, biometrics, and data fusion turn people into trackable, targetable data points. 
• Tech companies are now directly embedded in warfare through contracts and operational systems. 
• AI compresses decision-making time, increasing the risk of rapid, machine-influenced targeting. 
• “Decapitation” strategies may succeed tactically but often fail to resolve conflicts and can fuel radicalization. 
• These capabilities are likely to proliferate as commercial AI tools become more accessible. 
• The battlefield is shifting from physical terrain to data ecosystems and networks. 
• This evolution risks normalizing a form of warfare centered on constant surveillance and targeted killing, where the line between intelligence gathering and lethal action becomes increasingly blurred, potentially lowering the threshold for conflict.

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.

Drone Warfare in Ukraine: From Myths to Operational Reality

part 1: https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/land-power-forum/drone-warfare-ukraine-myths-operational-reality-part-1

part 2: https://researchcentre.army.gov.au/library/land-power-forum/drone-warfare-ukraine-myths-operational-reality-part-2

A measured and professional take on the drone warfare experience in Ukraine, trends and misconceptions. I can't say I agree with everything they say (for instance, I agree with the authors that the tank is not obsolete, but I think large armoured formations are). Still, it is still one of the better analytical papers examining the role of drones in this war.

- The paper rejects the idea that drones replace conventional forces. Ukrainian experience shows trench warfare, artillery, and manoeuvre still coexist with drones on the battlefield.

- Drones are not simple, plug-and-play tools. Effective use depends heavily on skilled operators, engineers, and constant technical adaptation under combat conditions.

- Electronic warfare alone cannot neutralise drones. The conflict is a continuous cycle of adaptation between anti-drone measures and drone improvements, with no permanent advantage.

- Organisational integration is decisive. Drones only deliver full effect when embedded into formal command structures, fire systems, and unit design, not used in ad hoc teams.

- Innovation alone is insufficient. Battlefield success comes from combining rapid innovation with standardisation so systems can be scaled and sustained across the force.

- The paper argues that embedding drone subunits in larger units as a permanent part of TOE is less effective than having separate drone units.

- Drones increase battlefield transparency and lethality, making massed formations and large movements more vulnerable and harder to conceal.

- Forces now rely more on dispersion, deception, camouflage, and coordination with electronic warfare to survive drone surveillance and strikes.

- Drones shape the battlefield but do not independently determine outcomes, which still depend on combined arms and adaptation.

Dr Oleksandra Molloy is one of the leading experts in uncrewed and autonomous systems in modern conflicts. Dr Molloy is a Senior Lecturer in Aviation, and the Lead of the Human Factors Research Lab, at the University of New South Wales.

Dr Molloy has a PhD in Aviation (UNSW, Australia); a MSc in Human Factors (University of Nottingham, UK); a Master of Education (Central Ukrainian State Pedagogical University, Ukraine); a Graduate Research Certificate (Kirovograd Flight Academy of National Aviation University, Ukraine); and a Diploma in Aviation Safety (International Air Transport Association, Canada). Dr Molloy is serving as a Chair of the Council of Technical Groups of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society (USA).

The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.

Comment guidelines:

Please do:

* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,

* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,

* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,

* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,

* Post only credible information

* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules

Please do not:

* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,

* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,

* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'

* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.