Defense Innovation Methods

The Pentagon is paying OpenAI $200M for a 12-month pilot. That $200M isn’t the prize - it’s the price of admission. If the prototypes work, OpenAI could find itself attached to some very large, very long-term government contracts. Which, historically, has been a good place to be if you’re a technology vendor. Just ask Palantir. Meanwhile, Anthropic already launched “Claude Gov” earlier this month, a suite of models custom-built for U.S. national security. Meta, Google, Cohere are also vying for a seat at the defense AI table. Why the rush? ▪️ Because the U.S. government isn’t just a customer, it’s THE customer. The DoD has $1.9 trillion in FY2025 resources, with $873 billion already mapped to programs and contracts - more than the combined military budgets of the next 10 nations. Of that, $186B is for external contracts - the pot AI companies are now fighting for. Talk about a TAM that doesn’t need to be inflated for a pitch deck. ▪️ AI spending is a tiny fraction of this pie, but growing fast. And this isn’t SaaS renewals territory. This is multi-decade, mission-critical infrastructure, where contracts can balloon into billions once you’re inside. A $200M pilot for OpenAI is a tiny slice today - but these awards can scale up rapidly as pilots become programs, and programs become core infrastructure. There’s a brief window to lock in as part of the U.S. government’s AI operating system. ▪️ Historically, selling to the U.S. government involves years of meetings, pilots, budget fights, and the slow death of your enthusiasm. But AI has shattered the government’s soul-crushingly slow sales cycles. Because in this race, delay doesn’t mean inefficiency. It means danger. ▪️ China’s AI sprint has raised the stakes. NYT reports that China’s spy agencies are embedding AI across their intelligence cycle - threat analysis, targeting, ops planning. After U.S. firms cut off access, they pivoted to homegrown models like DeepSeek AI. The U.S. can’t afford to move slow. OpenAI’s $200M contract is just the audition. The real game is becoming part of the U.S. government's AI operating system - the infrastructure of modern state power.

📰147 pages to increase NATO's operational readiness to respond to Cognitive Warfare 🧬The NATO Science and Technological Organization Human Factors and Medicine Exploratory Team 356 performed an assessment of the Science and Technologies required to mitigate and defend against Cognitive Warfare. 📠CogWar is not new but has evolved with technology and easy access to information. It takes well-known methods within warfare to a new level by exploiting facets of cognition to disrupt, undermine, influence, or modify human decisions. CogWar causes many security challenges due to its invasive, intrusive, and invisible nature. 📲Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Information Communication Technologies (ICT), neuroscience, biotechnology are being deliberately used by NATO's adversaries in the 21st century battlespace. 🕹️The ET-356 team proposed a Science and Technology roadmap to guide NATO and Allied Partners in future research activities and investments. 🖲️The task was focused on identifying and suggesting defensive S&T to strengthen the Alliance's deterrence against CogWar and improve NATO's and national resilience critical to NATO's core tasks to safeguard Allied nations, societies, and shared values. The report presents a summary of the key areas of S&T required to mitigate and defend against CogWar. The proposed S&T Road map is based on a House Model developed by ET-356, linked to the operational Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (OODA) decision cycle. It represents 7 main S&T knowledge areas and enablers that are cross-cutting: 🔹Cognitive Neuroscience, 🔹Cognitive and Behavioral Science, 🔹Social and Cultural Science 🔹Situational Awareness and Sensemaking 🔹Cognitive Effects, 🔹Modus Operandi 🔹 Technology & Force Multipliers This report provides guidance for future research within NATO STO, Allies, and national S&T investments for defence against current and future CogWar and to strengthen NATO's technological edge. 📖Enjoy the read ! NATO NATO Office of the Chief Scientist (STO-OCS) John-Mikal Stordal

Shahed-136 MS001: a digital predator we weren’t ready for. In June 2025, a Shahed-136 MS001 drone was shot down over Sumy region. At first glance, it seemed ordinary — but inside was a glimpse into the future of aerial warfare. This isn’t just a modernized model. It’s a technological leap: artificial intelligence, thermal vision, hardened navigation, real-time telemetry, and swarm logic. This is no longer a munition carrier — it’s an autonomous combat platform that sees, analyzes, decides, and strikes without external commands. Shahed MS001 doesn’t carry coordinates — it thinks. It identifies targets, selects the highest-value one, adjusts its trajectory, and adapts to changes — even in the face of GPS jamming or target maneuvers. This is not a loitering munition. It is a digital predator. Most air defense systems are not prepared for this. Mass deployment of drones like MS001 isn’t just a threat — it’s a challenge to our entire doctrine of air defense. What was found inside the MS001: • Nvidia Jetson Orin — machine learning, video processing, object recognition • Thermal imager — operates at night and in low visibility • Nasir GPS with CRPA antenna — spoof-resistant navigation • FPGA chips — onboard adaptive logic • Radio modem — for telemetry and swarm communication MS001 operates in coordinated drone groups: adjusting paths, bypassing air defenses, persisting even under electronic warfare and partial loss of swarm members. Russia is already field-testing tomorrow’s combat AI. While we hold procurement rounds, they’re integrating tech into a single adaptive system. MS001 proves that wars aren’t won by budget — they’re won by integration. Since early 2024, Russia has shifted its strikes away from the front line to deep in the rear — energy, logistics, civilian infrastructure. In this campaign, Shaheds are not just tools — they are strategic actors. We are not only fighting Russia. We are fighting inertia. And if we don’t break it now — the next generation of drones will break it for us.

The DoD just dropped its FY26 RDT&E budget—and it’s a $179B North Star for anyone building the future of national defense. Here’s what’s hot (and heavily funded): 🤖 Unmanned Systems & Physical AI – The budget is stacked with programs for launched effects, ground robotics, SUAS, TITAN, and AI-enabled C2. This is the golden hour for anyone working in cyber-physical systems, autonomous platforms, and real-world AI at the tactical edge. 🧠 AI/ML & Autonomy – From soldier lethality to ISR and C3I, embedded AI is showing up everywhere. Physical + digital fusion isn’t hype—it’s a requirement. 🚁 Future Vertical Lift & Next-Gen Combat Vehicles – Army and Navy are doubling down on transformational platforms, from long-range assault aircraft to hybrid-electric tracked systems. ⚔️ Hypersonics, Precision Fires & EW – Rapid, smart kill chains are in. Big money flows to hypersonic weapons, integrated fires, and resilient spectrum ops. 🧬 Biotech & Materials Science – Quietly accelerating: synthetic biology, survivability-enhancing materials, and warfighter performance R&D. Big implications for dual-use founders. 🛰️ Tactical Space & Multi-Domain Sensing – LEO, PNT, ISR nodes—space is tactical now, and the budget reflects it. 💻 Digital Pilots & Agile RDT&E – Software-defined everything. Over $1B in funding for digital pilot programs and agile prototyping. If you’re building fast, the DoD wants in. This isn’t just a spending plan—it’s a mission set for innovators. If you’re in unmanned systems, autonomy, biotech, robotics, or defense software… the signal is clear: let’s go. #DoDBudget #RDTandE #DefenseTech #UnmannedSystems #PhysicalAI #Robotics #Biotech #FutureVerticalLift #Hypersonics #DualUse #AgileRDTandE #ISR #GovTech #NationalSecurity

The most interesting element of Israel’s overnight attack on Iran wasn’t the fire and fury – it was the stealth drone operation that took place just before it. According to a report in The War Zone, Israeli operatives covertly slipped into Iran ahead of Operation Rising Lion and used small drones to disable multiple surface-to-air missile and radar sites deep inside the country, paving the way for Israeli Air Force fighter jets to strike strategic targets like nuclear sites and military installations without having to worry about enemy air defenses. Sound familiar? It echoes Operation Spider’s Web, Ukraine’s long-planned incursion into Russian territory where FPV drones were concealed in wooden cabins on trucks, smuggled across the border, and then deployed to take out Moscow’s strategic bomber fleets parked at airbases across the country. We’re seeing a new playbook for drone warfare emerge. Covertly place low-cost drones behind enemy lines. Preemptively neutralize air defense or other critical military assets. Launch high-value follow-on strikes with minimal risk. Repeat, over and over and over. These operations are redefining battlefield access and timing, confirming that the traditional layers of air defense once seen as all but invulnerable can be surmounted by relatively inexpensive drones and shrewd planning. But this isn’t just a new tactic – it’s a new framework for projecting power. What we’re seeing is a shift away from traditional assumptions about time, distance, and defense-in-depth. When drones can be deployed from inside the wire, from hiding spots on civilian trucks or safehouses, the old perimeter no longer exists. That has massive implications for how we design bases, plan campaigns, and build countermeasures. It means logistics networks must now assume they’re battlefield terrain. It means strategic infrastructure – power plants, command centers, supply depots – can be targeted without warning. And it means that long-range strike is no longer the exclusive domain of nation-states with advanced bombers or missile programs. A disciplined team with off-the-shelf tech and a good plan can now reshape the air defense equation. Defense strategy needs to catch up to this new reality: - Anticipating and preparing for deep interior strikes by non-state actors and state proxies - Building systems that defend in 360 degrees with the versatility to adapt to new challenges as they emerge - Prioritizing automation, machine vision, and counter-drone precision over legacy air defense layers The lesson from Israel and Ukraine isn’t just that drones are evolving, but that operational art is evolving with them. The countries that treat this seriously are rewriting the rules in real time – and the ones that don’t are setting themselves up for disaster.

Quantum Computing and Defense: The Next Strategic Frontier Quantum computing presents major implications for future military and defense technology. Based on available public and government data, five nations are leading global investment in quantum research with dual-use (civil and defense) potential: 🇨🇳 China ↳ Estimated $15 billion in national quantum R&D funding ↳ PLA-linked institutes developing quantum communication and sensing ↳ Quantum satellite demonstrations for secure communication ↳ Leads globally in quantum patents and publications 🇺🇸 United States ↳ Multi-billion-dollar investment through the National Quantum Initiative ↳ Coordination across DOE, NSF, DOD, and NIST ↳ Defense projects via DARPA and Air Force Research Lab ↳ Focus on quantum cryptography, simulation, and sensing systems 🇪🇺 European Union ↳ Over €10 billion committed by EU and member states collectively ↳ Quantum Flagship (€1 billion) drives collaborative R&D ↳ Focus on dual-use sensors, communications, and aircraft systems ↳ Partnerships across Germany, France, and the Netherlands 🇬🇧 United Kingdom ↳ £2.5 billion (≈ $3 billion) through the National Quantum Strategy ↳ MOD projects in quantum radar, navigation, and timing ↳ Strong collaboration between government, academia, and industry ↳ Clear pathway toward operational defense applications 🇨🇦 Canada ↳ CAD 360 million through the National Quantum Strategy ↳ Partnerships between universities and the Department of National Defence ↳ Research focused on secure communications and quantum simulation ↳ Active contributor within NATO’s emerging tech discussions These investments reflect each nation's strategic priorities in next-generation defense capabilities. The data shows substantial government commitment across all five countries, with varying approaches to implementation. What trends do you see in your country's technology investments? Share your thoughts on defense technology development ♻️ Repost to help people in your network Follow me for more defense technology analysis

The best defense is a good (funding) offense. Investors, governments, and builders are all in on defense tech. In recent weeks, we saw major deals and announcements including Anduril's oversubscribed $2.5B Series G, Anthropic's release of defense-specific models, and Impulse Space's $300M Series C. 🚀 Defense tech is having a breakout year – on track for a record-breaking year with projected investor participation up 31% YoY to nearly 1,000 unique investors. This surge represents the highest level of investor interest ever recorded in the sector. The momentum is particularly striking given broader venture market headwinds, signaling that defense tech has become a must-have allocation for institutional portfolios. 💸 The investor base is diversifying beyond traditional defense-focused funds, with generalist VCs like a16z and 8VC developing specific theses in the sector. These investors bring Silicon Valley playbooks — rapid iteration, software scalability, and platform thinking — to an industry historically dominated by slow-moving defense primes. This cross-pollination is accelerating innovation cycles from years to months in critical areas like autonomous systems manufacturing. 🌏 Geopolitical tensions and the Ukraine conflict have validated the strategic importance of defense tech, driving both government and private capital allocation. Earnings call mentions of "defense" reached an all-time high in Q1 2025, while major tech companies and the hottest AI startups are forming consortiums to compete for DoD contracts. This mainstreaming of defense tech reduces reputational risk for investors and opens institutional capital pools previously unavailable to the sector. In chatting with Justin Fanelli (CTO, Department of Navy), it is clear that the increased investor and builder is fueled by the government's increasingly innovation-forward appetite. "Investors and founders who have backed this sector and mission have moved the needle for national security, even while we've been slow, reluctant buyers. We are now overhauling the way we buy at scale. We have shifted many buyer orgs from program offices to more flexible portfolios. This is one of several ways we're putting far more emphasis on impact and value. Innovation adoption and commercial-first pushes have already made us more adaptive and resilient. We want a wider base of high performers. What's better than competition to serve those who serve all Americans better? Recent AI and raise news shows there's more room to make bigger impacts. If we nail this, I think it's fair to expect impact and investment will continue to grow." Curious about the defense tech markets and companies seeing the most interest? Explore the data and insights for *free* in the comments.

Thinking of entering defence? Good. But read this first, or get crushed. You’re not building a startup. You’re entering a war zone with Excel sheets instead of bullets. And here’s the first landmine: Defence doesn’t care about you. Not until you matter. And by the time you matter, it might be too late. So here’s your brutal, field-tested playbook 👇 🔻 1. Run a Dual-Use Strategy or Die Trying Don’t “pivot into defence.” Don’t “add military as a target customer.” Build something with teeth in both markets — or you’ll starve while waiting 24 months for a MoD reply. Dual-use = survival. Omni-use = dominance. 🔻 2. Your Actual Competitor? Paper. You're not fighting primes. You're fighting outdated workflows, 94-page requirement PDFs, and evaluation committees who’ve never used the tech. You’re not selling innovation. You’re selling the idea that innovation should exist. 🔻 3. Never Ask for Feedback — Ask for Budget Lines Everyone will “love” what you’re doing. They’ll invite you to panels, workshops, incubators. None of that pays your team. Ask: “Which budget pays for this in Q4?” If they can’t answer, walk. 🔻 4. Find a Uniformed Insider, or You’re Screwed No matter how good your pitch is, you need a believer inside the system. Someone who speaks procurement and can say, “This solves my mission.” Without that: enjoy limbo. 🔻 5. If You’re Not Testable, You’re Not Real Defence doesn’t buy PowerPoints. You need a testable MVP fast. No test = no traction. No traction = no procurement route. No route = you're just theatre. 🔻 6. The First Deal Will Break You It’s slow. It’s painful. It’ll take months, maybe years. But once you break the wall once, you become “pre-approved.” Then the real business begins. 🔻 7. Ignore All of This If You're Building Slideware This advice is only for builders. For founders ready to live in uncertainty, raise from niche VCs, and get 50 no’s before one test flight. If you're not all-in: stay in SaaS. This is the most misunderstood opportunity of our time. Europe is waking up. The U.S. is doubling down. And the next industrial revolution will wear camouflage. Startups who learn the terrain will dominate. Speed. Testability. Dual-use. Insider access. That’s your survival kit. Use it. #DefenceStartups #DualUse #InnovationInDefence #OmniUse #MilitaryTech #InsiderIntel #BoldMovesOnly #WakeUpEurope

My Navy mobilization is coming to a close: during the year, I recorded a few observations with implications for the tech community. TURNOVER. The constant drumbeat of personnel turnover is brutal. Every month we would lose familiar faces/gain new ones, putting us in a constant cycle of training. IMPLICATION: If your tech solution takes longer than a day to get basic proficiency, it is highly unlikely to be implemented at scale. Yes, there are exceptions to that rule - but you should not expect to be the exception. SOLUTION: Prioritize intuitive interfaces, simplify/streamline training wherever possible, drill your field service reps (FSRs) to be proactive and constantly walk around their command asking if anyone needs help. NETWORK REALITY/KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT. We had to regularly access 6x separate networks (!!) depending on the classification and whether we were shore-based or at sea. Each network had its own email, SharePoint, and other file storage/sharing applications. It required a constant shell-game of uploading/downloading files to make sure we had access wherever we were. Network speeds were…poor. IMPLICATION: At its core this is a DoD issue (e.g., Commands need unambiguous/enforced policy about KM application use). But while we work through those issues, we have to work with what we have now: new tools must be built for network reality, not network aspirations. SOLUTION: Build your tools with the following questions in mind. Is my tool compatible with other applications (e.g., easy data upload/download, open APIs)? Is my application “lightweight” and functional for users with minimal bandwidth (ships, forward operating bases)? Can my user access my data/tools without internet? CHAT. This observation was true across CENTCOM and EUCOM: whether leaders like it or not, chat applications are the (yes, THE) backbone of DoD operations. For those unfamiliar, action officers have chat room applications for situational awareness/quick communication with other teams. We use chat for exercises, operations, day-to-day functions…everything. IMPLICATION: There is a huge amount of valuable unstructured data sitting in chat rooms (mostly ChatSurfer) on classified networks. SOLUTION: This space is ripe for LLM support. In my view, this could become the kernel of a solution for knowledge management long-term: users clearly find chat applications are the most intuitive, and I can imagine a world where users exclusively interact with chat rooms, with LLMs drafting emails/visual products/summary reports. Tech sector, this would require a horde of LLM experts/trainers/devs WITH CLEARANCES sitting with everyday users to build and iterate on these products. DoD, this would require giving data access to those hordes and selecting “trial users” to build the first round of applications. Certainly not a comprehensive list of reflections, but a snapshot. Thank you to all my active duty friends who taught, mentored, and supported me.