Leadership1 distinct publisher3 min readPublished
Close to 10,000 soldiers fought a mock peer war at Razish with drones and new software layered on top. The general running the experiment says saturating them with kit would cost more in training quality than it buys in data.
The Board Room · Leadership desk
Compiled by The Board RoomSomething wrong?How this is made
The geometry of that four-kilometer range is generous. A quadcopter cleared to fly four kilometers from its operator hands one unit a disc of roughly 50 square kilometers to look into, since pi times four squared is 50.3 [17]. Capt. Mohamed Elmaola of the 4th Infantry Division described the sequence that reach is meant to enable: find with the uncrewed system, fix with fires, finish with anti-tank weapons [7]. Inside Razish, most of that disc stopped mattering. Once troops dismounted and began clearing buildings, the aircraft went up only occasionally, and soldiers said the use cases had moved toward the fight on the ground as the exercise ran on [8].
The account does not say why the NOMAD ground robot sat out the assault [18]. An exercise like this produces attendance data on new systems well before it produces performance data on them, and the two are easy to confuse when the only source is a reporter's notebook.
Brig. Gen. Daniel Hibner, who heads the Army Joint Modernization Command, told Business Insider that the intent is not to "saturate the environment with a bunch of technology" because "that becomes so distracting" that soldiers cannot train efficiently and effectively [10]. The trade is between breadth and depth. Every additional system in a rotation adds a line to the evidence base and subtracts attention from the crew drills the same soldiers are there to rehearse, so the Army can learn a little about many tools or a lot about few, and Hibner has chosen the second.
The reportable detail runs against the service flattering its own modernization program: the ground robot took no part in the main event [9], the drones went quiet indoors [8], and Business Insider's account states that traditional warfighting skills remain central to combat operations [5]. The kit comes off looking secondary, not vindicated.
The close fight would have looked familiar to veterans of the Global War on Terror, by that same account [16]: Bradleys engaging at range while dismounted infantry cleared buildings, each covering the other, with soldiers warning that vehicles which outpace their infantry get shot by dismounted anti-armor teams [12]. One enemy team got close enough to pop a turret and register a destroyed Bradley [13]. Soldiers also spent the rotation managing what the Mojave heat did to them and to their equipment [14], which is the sort of constraint no software release addresses.
The limit on the whole finding is stated in the source itself: soldiers were integrating drones and software, but not at the scale combatants in Ukraine are [11]. Fort Irwin therefore produced evidence about how fundamentals hold at low drone density and none about how they hold at high density. Keeping the environment legible protected the quality of this summer's training [10]; it also leaves the density question for a later rotation to ask.
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
At the Army's Project Convergence Capstone exercise at Fort Irwin, California, this summer, close to 10,000 soldiers gathered to experiment with new weapons and technology while fighting a mock war.
Enemy forces in the exercise consisted of troops from Fort Irwin's 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, known as "Blackhorse".
The simulated city, which the Army calls Razish, was sprawling, with winding streets, buildings of different heights, underground tunnels and hidden positions; two key objectives for the assault forces were the jail and a large palace at the centre of the city.
Soldiers were integrating new technologies, including drones and software, to determine whether these systems made a difference in how they saw, sensed and engaged the enemy.
Traditional warfighting skills remain central to combat operations.
Inside a building, a unit commander asked a drone operator flying a Black Widow quadcopter to assess vehicles pushing into the city; the drone could fly up to four kilometres away, extending the unit's view beyond what soldiers could see from the ground.
Distinct publishers with included, body-backed reporting in this cluster.
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
leadership
Army transformation loses both its top champions within the same year1 distinct publisher
product
Army buys prototypes, not a blank sheet: Hanwha's wheeled K9 wins up to $262.9M for M777 successor1 distinct publisher
product
Vigor unveils USAV Craney Island, and the Army's landing craft plan finally has a hull1 distinct publisher
product
Army puts last-mile autonomy on the clock: six vendors, 24 prototypes, one 2027 verdict1 distinct publisher
Evidence-backed comparisons of source perspectives and observed adoption signals. Read the methodology
Which Builder, Operator, and Investor concerns the observed source mix emphasized—not a truth score.
Evidence, demonstrated adoption, hype gap, incentives, and confidence are assessed independently, each on its own current evidence. How these are measured.
One reporter on the ground, naming most of her sources
Everything rests on a single embed. The load it carries is mostly first-hand: a turret rising on a killed Bradley, a quadcopter launched from inside a building, a general explaining on the record why he limits how much equipment enters the fight. The weakest link is the soldier who said the command network was mostly unusable, who is anonymous and whose account is never checked against Army data or a second outlet.
Equipment present, sparingly used
The gear was on the ground and largely stayed quiet. The Black Widow earned its keep before the breach and flew only occasionally afterwards, the NOMAD never entered the assault, and the prototype network worked for one soldier and dropped for another. Ten thousand participants measures the size of the exercise, not uptake of the technology inside it.
Billing runs ahead of the paragraphs
A headline about preparing for high-tech war sits above an account in which drones taper off indoors, a ground robot stays home and the battlefield network drops. The body does not oversell; the distance is between the framing and the reporting, and it stays small because the most prominent voice in the piece is the general arguing for less equipment rather than more.
Access on the Army's terms
The reporting happens inside an event the Army convenes, stages and explains, and the service's framing turns anything that breaks into proof the experiment is working. That position is defensible and it also makes a mixed result impossible to fail. No vendor or industry partner behind the command-and-control prototype is named, so whatever commercial interest was in the room stays off the page.
Solid on what happened, thin on what it proved
Sequence and texture are about as reliable as eyewitness reporting gets, and the numbers are modest enough to be trusted. What cannot be drawn from this account is effect: no comparison against a unit without the equipment, no outcome measure for the assault, no follow-up on what the Army did with the feedback.