8 – Key Findings and Recommendations to NATO Mountain Warfare Units
Estimated reading: 5 minutes
20 views
8.1 – Key Findings
The workshop confirms a reality that is no longer emerging, but already established. Unmanned systems are not simply adding a new layer to the battlefield; they are reshaping its fundamental dynamics. Their impact extends well beyond technology, influencing how forces observe, decide, act, and ultimately survive.
The first and most immediate consequence of this transformation is the shift toward persistent observation. Units can no longer assume that exposure is temporary or manageable. Detection is increasingly continuous, and once achieved, engagement follows rapidly. This compresses time, reduces reaction windows, and forces a reconsideration of what survivability actually means. Protection is no longer primarily achieved through physical measures, but through dispersion, mobility, and the reduction of signatures across all domains.
At the same time, the widespread availability of drones has driven a decentralization of capability. Functions that were once centralized—reconnaissance, targeting, and even strike—are now available at company level. This increases the autonomy of tactical units and accelerates decision-making, but it also introduces a new layer of complexity. As capabilities spread downward, the need for coordination increases upward. Battalion-level structures, in particular, emerge as critical nodes for integrating multiple systems and maintaining coherence.
A third major finding concerns the growing gap between operational reality and institutional adaptation. The battlefield evolves through rapid experimentation, continuous feedback, and immediate adaptation. In contrast, doctrinal development, procurement cycles, and training systems operate on longer timelines. This mismatch does not reflect a lack of capability, but a lack of alignment. Without addressing it, even advanced systems risk being employed below their potential.
Another defining element is the transformation of the electromagnetic environment. GNSS denial, communications disruption, and electronic warfare are no longer exceptional conditions. They are part of the baseline. This fundamentally changes how systems must be designed and employed. Dependence on stable connectivity or precise positioning becomes a vulnerability unless mitigated through redundancy, adaptability, and alternative solutions.
Within this context, Counter-UAS emerges not as a specialized capability, but as a core condition for survivability. The ability to detect, disrupt, and mitigate the effects of enemy drones is no longer confined to dedicated units. It must be understood and applied across the force, at all levels, and integrated into everyday operations.
Taken together, these findings lead to a clear conclusion: once again, the challenge is no longer to introduce drones into existing structures, but to adapt those structures to a battlefield in which drones are already central.
8.2 – General Recommendations
The implications of these findings are not abstract. They translate into a set of practical directions that require action across doctrine, training, organization, and capability development. These are not long-term ambitions, but necessary steps to ensure relevance in the current operational environment.
Doctrine represents the first area of adaptation. It must evolve to reflect the fact that unmanned systems are not supporting elements, but integral components of all warfighting functions. This requires moving beyond platform-centric approaches and recognizing drones as part of a broader system that connects sensing, decision-making, and effects. Planning processes must incorporate unmanned capabilities from the outset, while procedures must address the realities of operating in a saturated and contested airspace. Equally important is the need to treat UAS and Counter-UAS as interconnected elements of the same operational framework.
Training must follow the same logic. Exposure to drone-enabled environments can no longer be limited to specialists or isolated courses. It must become a routine part of training at all levels. This includes not only operators, but commanders and staff, who must be capable of managing information flows, coordinating multiple systems, and making decisions under conditions of degraded connectivity. Training must also reflect the realities of the electromagnetic environment, preparing units to operate without reliable GNSS or communications.
Force structure represents another critical area. The distribution of capabilities must align with their operational role. At company level, units require organic unmanned capabilities to maintain situational awareness and support maneuver. At battalion level, the focus shifts toward integration. Dedicated elements are needed to coordinate systems, manage data, and link sensors to effects. At the same time, Counter-UAS capabilities must be distributed, ensuring that survivability does not depend on a single node, but is embedded across the force.
Procurement and innovation require a more fundamental shift. Traditional acquisition models are not suited to technologies that evolve rapidly and require continuous adaptation. A more flexible approach is needed, allowing units to experiment, adapt, and iterate based on operational feedback. This implies a greater degree of decentralization, where innovation is not imposed from above, but emerges from interaction with real-world problems.
The electromagnetic domain must be addressed explicitly. Operations must be designed from the outset to function in a contested spectrum. This means reducing dependence on GNSS, developing alternative navigation methods, and adopting communication architectures that can adapt to disruption. Resilience cannot be added later; it must be embedded in both systems and procedures.
Finally, the management of low airspace must be recognized as a core operational function. As the number of systems increases, so does the risk of interference and fratricide. This requires the adoption of simple, scalable coordination measures and a clear definition of roles across echelons. Integration must be achieved without creating excessive centralization, balancing control with flexibility.
Across all these areas, a common principle emerges: adaptation must be both distributed and coordinated. It must occur at the lowest levels, where problems are experienced directly, but it must also be captured, structured, and shared to ensure coherence across the Alliance.
8 – Key Findings and Recommendations to NATO Mountain Warfare Units
8.1 – Key Findings
The workshop confirms a reality that is no longer emerging, but already established. Unmanned systems are not simply adding a new layer to the battlefield; they are reshaping its fundamental dynamics. Their impact extends well beyond technology, influencing how forces observe, decide, act, and ultimately survive.
The first and most immediate consequence of this transformation is the shift toward persistent observation. Units can no longer assume that exposure is temporary or manageable. Detection is increasingly continuous, and once achieved, engagement follows rapidly. This compresses time, reduces reaction windows, and forces a reconsideration of what survivability actually means. Protection is no longer primarily achieved through physical measures, but through dispersion, mobility, and the reduction of signatures across all domains.
At the same time, the widespread availability of drones has driven a decentralization of capability. Functions that were once centralized—reconnaissance, targeting, and even strike—are now available at company level. This increases the autonomy of tactical units and accelerates decision-making, but it also introduces a new layer of complexity. As capabilities spread downward, the need for coordination increases upward. Battalion-level structures, in particular, emerge as critical nodes for integrating multiple systems and maintaining coherence.
A third major finding concerns the growing gap between operational reality and institutional adaptation. The battlefield evolves through rapid experimentation, continuous feedback, and immediate adaptation. In contrast, doctrinal development, procurement cycles, and training systems operate on longer timelines. This mismatch does not reflect a lack of capability, but a lack of alignment. Without addressing it, even advanced systems risk being employed below their potential.
Another defining element is the transformation of the electromagnetic environment. GNSS denial, communications disruption, and electronic warfare are no longer exceptional conditions. They are part of the baseline. This fundamentally changes how systems must be designed and employed. Dependence on stable connectivity or precise positioning becomes a vulnerability unless mitigated through redundancy, adaptability, and alternative solutions.
Within this context, Counter-UAS emerges not as a specialized capability, but as a core condition for survivability. The ability to detect, disrupt, and mitigate the effects of enemy drones is no longer confined to dedicated units. It must be understood and applied across the force, at all levels, and integrated into everyday operations.
Taken together, these findings lead to a clear conclusion: once again, the challenge is no longer to introduce drones into existing structures, but to adapt those structures to a battlefield in which drones are already central.
8.2 – General Recommendations
The implications of these findings are not abstract. They translate into a set of practical directions that require action across doctrine, training, organization, and capability development. These are not long-term ambitions, but necessary steps to ensure relevance in the current operational environment.
Doctrine represents the first area of adaptation. It must evolve to reflect the fact that unmanned systems are not supporting elements, but integral components of all warfighting functions. This requires moving beyond platform-centric approaches and recognizing drones as part of a broader system that connects sensing, decision-making, and effects. Planning processes must incorporate unmanned capabilities from the outset, while procedures must address the realities of operating in a saturated and contested airspace. Equally important is the need to treat UAS and Counter-UAS as interconnected elements of the same operational framework.
Training must follow the same logic. Exposure to drone-enabled environments can no longer be limited to specialists or isolated courses. It must become a routine part of training at all levels. This includes not only operators, but commanders and staff, who must be capable of managing information flows, coordinating multiple systems, and making decisions under conditions of degraded connectivity. Training must also reflect the realities of the electromagnetic environment, preparing units to operate without reliable GNSS or communications.
Force structure represents another critical area. The distribution of capabilities must align with their operational role. At company level, units require organic unmanned capabilities to maintain situational awareness and support maneuver. At battalion level, the focus shifts toward integration. Dedicated elements are needed to coordinate systems, manage data, and link sensors to effects. At the same time, Counter-UAS capabilities must be distributed, ensuring that survivability does not depend on a single node, but is embedded across the force.
Procurement and innovation require a more fundamental shift. Traditional acquisition models are not suited to technologies that evolve rapidly and require continuous adaptation. A more flexible approach is needed, allowing units to experiment, adapt, and iterate based on operational feedback. This implies a greater degree of decentralization, where innovation is not imposed from above, but emerges from interaction with real-world problems.
The electromagnetic domain must be addressed explicitly. Operations must be designed from the outset to function in a contested spectrum. This means reducing dependence on GNSS, developing alternative navigation methods, and adopting communication architectures that can adapt to disruption. Resilience cannot be added later; it must be embedded in both systems and procedures.
Finally, the management of low airspace must be recognized as a core operational function. As the number of systems increases, so does the risk of interference and fratricide. This requires the adoption of simple, scalable coordination measures and a clear definition of roles across echelons. Integration must be achieved without creating excessive centralization, balancing control with flexibility.
Across all these areas, a common principle emerges: adaptation must be both distributed and coordinated. It must occur at the lowest levels, where problems are experienced directly, but it must also be captured, structured, and shared to ensure coherence across the Alliance.