It’s hard to believe we’re already two-thirds of the way through our Future Land Forces 2025 conference in Warsaw.
Day Two was streams day, where delegates were free to pick and choose presentations split between four separate theatres, each with its own dedicated focus: battlefield digitalisation; future combat vehicles; training and wargaming; and winning the find-and-fires battle.
Those attending the opening session in Theatre B heard a presentation on how the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (dstl) was supporting the British Army’s future recce-strike vision into the 2030s and beyond.
The army’s 2023 new Land Operating Concept reaffirmed recce strike as a core tenet for land forces in a battlespace that is becoming increasingly observed and exposed. A desire to win stand-off battles “at every level” didn’t just mean seeing and striking further, the audience heard — it was also about outpacing the adversary’s kill chain.
Some of dstl’s current studies as part of its Integrated Capability Challenges include researching optimum weapons mixes and the most cost-effective munitions. Others take in planned demonstrator programmes over the next two years for UAS swarms and AI-enabled precision strikes, research into unattended ground sensors to aid recce-strike missions, and ways to boost power and data streaming to dismounted soldiers.
A later presentation expanded on the AI-enabled precision strikes aspect: typically, drone operators tend to instinctively target centre of mass, but this isn’t necessarily the most effective kill strategy, especially for lightweight drone platforms.
The dstl project, which is aiming to deliver a demonstrator by March 2027, seeks to use target recognition software to direct effectors to strike the most vulnerable part of any given target, effectively delivering a “mobility kill” instead.
The speaker suggested systems integration, and deciding on the correct point to hand across control from human to machine in any given kill chain, were likely to prove some of the more challenging aspects of the programme.
In the same theatre there was also a presentation on Task Force Maven, the drive to accelerate machine learning and data integration being rolled out via NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).
The speaker talked about effecting a “transformational change,” having described the allies’ former data situation as “a hot mess, isolated in silos.”
The talk took in how new third-party commercially developed capabilities, such as image recognition software to identify ships in the Russian shadow fleet, were being integrated into the common smart platform.
It also took in the “Fight Club” wargaming platform functionality being offered as part of the system. Speaking about formulating and testing battle plans, the audience was told: “The current existing processes are too slow, and it’s going to put people in harm’s way.”
With conflict in Ukraine teaching us that cycles of innovation are collapsing into matters of weeks, he went on: “We have to force ourselves to have the courage to adapt and change.”
He added modern front-line commanders needed the tools and agility to plan multiple strategies that could change on the hoof, akin to an American Football quarterback reacting to a shifting defense in the middle of a play: “Instead of one plan, we have a series of plans and alternatives.”
But he also sounded a note of caution, warning: “There is no perfect tool: we cannot be lazy and think AI will help us fight better automatically. It will help, but we still have to think for ourselves.”
Elsewhere, there was a presentation on Sweden’s plans to upgrade and acquire more Archer artillery systems, which are automatic loading ‘scoot-and-shoot’ platforms able to fire up to nine rounds per minute, with a 30-50km range and multiple round, simultaneous impact (MRSI) capability.
Delegates heard how Sweden was planning to augment its existing 24 6×6 platforms with a further 48 8×8 variants by 2030, placing significant production demands on the manufacturer BAE Systems Bofors — especially as a further 36 are scheduled to be delivered to Ukraine across the same timeframe.
Explaining the rationale behind acquiring the new platforms (and upgrading its current models) the speaker cited two reasons as being avoiding software and spare-parts obsolescence, and reducing lifecycle costs; just like cars, the older artillery systems get, the more they typically cost to maintain.
But other reasons included the need to adapt to new operational requirements, such as more frequent use in Arctic environments, and changing geopolitical realities.
The programme will also allow Sweden to take advantage of lessons learned from the use of those Archer platforms already donated to Ukraine, including the need for high mobility and seamless data-sharing to maximise operational advantage.
Other principles guiding the acquisition programme included starting from identified real operational needs to fill capability gaps; strengthened teamwork between the Armed Forces, the FMV and industry partners; interoperability factored in from day one; and consideration of lifecycle, not just procurement, with potential for future software upgrades built in.
Sticking with the Nordic theme, there was also a fascinating presentation on the work of the Swedish Defence Research Agency, the FOI.
The core topic was trends for future armoured vehicles; delegates heard how the FOI has a dedicated lab with a gas-powered gun capable of firing projectiles at armour at speeds of up to 5,000 metres per second — plus high-speed cameras to capture the details on what happens.
The speaker talked about the tendency for new platforms to become ever-heavier with more and more capabilities, but stressed it was important to assess their viability in terms of networked combat systems.
They likened the desire to add capabilities to a single platform to a child wanting to overburden a Christmas tree with more and more decorations: “It’s very common that you want to add more and more technology… but we want a more balanced approach. Look at what is needed, not just what you want!”
They also added that assessing effectiveness was also about changing tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP): “If you get a new tool, you might not use it the same way.”
The wide-ranging presentation also touched such diverse areas of research as utilising flow chemistry techniques to enhance the effectiveness of explosives; acoustic mixing of compounds inside sealed artillery shells for increased safety and homogeneity of internal explosives; and additive manufacturing techniques for engine propellants to increase range and/or speed.
Another active FOI programme involves teaming with the NATO Science and Technology Organisation (STO) to research vehicle mobility in Arctic conditions. Deep snow hides obstacles, and fresh falls behave very differently to snow which has been through a freeze-and-thaw cycle, presenting different challenges when trying to traverse Arctic and High North terrain.
This research will have particular relevance for next-generation vehicles that are likely to either be fully uncrewed or at least offer driver-assistance functionalities.
And another strand of research is looking at future power needs and the challenges of using lithium-ion batteries in extreme conditions. Extreme cold can make lithium-ion batteries more unstable and prone to overheating and internal damage, potentially leading to thermal runaway and fire.
In fact, the speaker admitted, one FOI testing facility had actually burned down! The organisation is currently assisting in research looking at developing lithium-ion battery architectures that can withstand temperature ranges from -50C to +50C.
It’s also looking at how hybrid drives can help satisfy the increasing power demands put on next-generation vehicles likely to feature capabilities including directed-energy weapons (DEW) and adaptive camouflage.
One of the afternoon’s early presentations took in the Polish Military Institute of Armament
Technology’s perspective on smart armour and countermeasures for combat vehicles, particularly with reference to the war in Ukraine.
Delegates heard how Russian main battle tanks (MBTs) had become increasingly vulnerable to FPV drone attacks from the rear, where their armour was weakest. The frequency of such attacks rose from single figures in the early months of the war in 2022, to 1,000+ per month by February 2024, and now in the hundreds daily.
To counter this, Russian tank armour has evolved from frontal protection to 360-degree systems as a matter of necessity. Early crew-designed measures were largely ineffective and served chiefly only to reduce visibility.
As time went on, armour became better designed, more effective and standardised, using a mixture of passive measures — such as nets with steels nodes and/or metal strands — to more sophisticated active and reactive measures including counter-projectiles.
Doctrine changed too, with a greater emphasis on camouflage, dispersal, and limited movement to minimise drone targeting. However, MBTs remain vulnerable to drone attack, especially given the relatively exposed nature of much of the battlespace.
In Stream D the day was rounded off by a thought-provoking presentation on modernisation in military training and combat from Finabel, the European Land Forces Commanders Organisation founded back in 1953 to promote interoperability.
There was discussion of how modernisation could shift from an advantage to a vulnerability without proper oversight, and how industry should be focusing on producing new technologies that were easier to operate, rather than ones that were infinitely more complex.
And the tension between interoperability and protection of intellectual property was aired, with the speaker suggesting militaries needed to be unambiguous at the procurement stage in specifying that, for example, ammunition produced by one firm should be able to be fired by systems fielded by other allied nations.
Three key recommendations for future integration were identified: invest in cyber resilience and training, keep humans in decision-making loops, and establish ethical and interoperability frameworks for AI and autonomous systems.
Delegates were told how there was currently a kind of “vacuum” that needed to be filled when it came to legislation governing how AI could operate in a military setting.
The speaker was quizzed on whether a useful analogy could be drawn between AI models and the companies that devised them, and parents being blamed (or holding themselves accountable) for the poor behaviour of their children? And if so, could and would AI systems reach ‘adulthood’ and be held accountable themselves?
He responded: “As long as we see an AI as being a ‘gun’ that we use, there is always a soldier responsible. What if AIs are capable to think for themselves? … And if it kills and is wrong, who is responsible? And how can we punish a robot?
“The law is not ready for AI and the use of AI.”
This was an intriguing and thorny question on which to end a day full of useful discussions and insights. Our final day will see another morning in streams before we come together for a closing plenary session. We are sure tomorrow will prove equally rewarding!
