The central question of this series is a simple one. Is the U.S. Army transforming, or is it acquiring new equipment and calling that transformation?

The two are not the same. A force can buy drones by the hundreds of thousands and still fight the way it did a decade ago.

It can also change how it organizes, trains, sustains and commands itself while much of its equipment stays the same.

The Association of the U.S. Army’s Annual Meeting and Exposition, held October 12–14 in Washington under the theme “America’s Army: The Foundation of the Joint Force,” was a useful place to test that question. The show floor was full of drones, interceptors, lasers and robotic vehicles.

But the more revealing material came from the speeches, panels and announcements that described how the Army intends to change as an institution.

The meeting took place under unusual circumstances. Adam Telle spoke as acting secretary after Dan Driscoll’s resignation at the end of August, and Gen. Christopher LaNeve spoke as acting chief of staff after the departure of Gen. Randy George. Industry wanted to know whether the reform agenda of the past two years would survive the change in leadership.

The answer from both men was yes, but with a sharper sense of limits and priorities.

What follows are seven takeaways from the press coverage of the meeting, organized around the series question.

Some point to real transformation. Others show how much remains intention rather than practice.

Takeaway One: The Army Is Redefining Its Purpose in Plain Terms

Telle’s opening keynote was striking less for its announcements than for its tone. Defense News described it as “sermon-like.” He argued that the Army had lost the ability to explain itself. “We’ve drowned ourselves and the public in buzzwords, strategies, slideshows, government acronyms and bureaucratic doublespeak,” he said, adding that “the Army’s value proposition is actually too fundamental for goofy corporate jargon.”

His own statement of that value proposition was about land. “Our ability to control and secure that piece of dirt is the ultimate deterrent,” he said. “And that’s why the Army is the foundation of the joint force, because all strategic power begins and ends where humanity lives, on the land.”

The intellectual framework behind this is LaNeve’s “How the Army Fights” guidance, released on October 7, just before the meeting. The 46-page document organizes land power around four elements: convergence, strike, close battle and endurance. LaNeve was careful to say that the guidance “is not a departure from Multi-Domain Operations.” He presented it instead as a way for every leader to understand his or her role within that concept.

This matters for the transformation question. A doctrine built around four functions gives the Army a basis for deciding what to buy and what to stop buying. It also gives commanders a common language for describing what their formations are for.

Whether it changes behavior depends on whether investment decisions actually follow it. That is the subject of the second takeaway.

Takeaway Two: Modernization With Triage

LaNeve’s Eisenhower Luncheon address on October 13 was aimed squarely at industry. He told the audience that the Army was not walking away from modernization: “In fact, quite the opposite — we are sprinting toward it.” In the same speech he said that “resources are not endless,” which “means making thoughtful decisions over where investments are made.”

He then laid out three categories that industry should expect to see applied to its programs. The Army will “divest legacy equipment with the intention to unburden our units as fast as we can from the old and failing equipment that distracts us from meaningful training.” It will “purposely invest in our enduring capabilities that halve the bridge time for us to get the modern equipment into the force.” And it will “make intentional investments for modern capabilities that can be scaled and directly contribute to how the Army fights within the joint force.”

The guidance itself puts the point more bluntly. “Our investments must strengthen the Army as a collective warfighting system rather than attempt to make every platform technologically superior or equip every formation with every capability,” it says. “The Army cannot and should not modernize everything at once. The answer is focused modernization.”

There was evidence that this is more than rhetoric. Defense One reported that the Army has revived “night court,” the program-by-program spending review first used under Mark Esper and Mark Milley in 2018. The latest round began with science and technology accounts and found a little over $100 million that could be realigned with portfolio priorities. Reviews of foreign military sales and sustainment costs followed. Brent Ingraham, the Army’s acquisition chief, said portfolio acquisition executives can now see the whole portfolio, including operations and maintenance and science and technology dollars, not just procurement and research accounts.

The structural change is significant. Telle described the move from thousands of acquisition “fiefdoms” to a small number of portfolio acquisition executives as the way to make “difficult trade-offs around speed, manufacturability and supply chain realities early, often and together.” He called the result “compound soldier interest,” which he set against the “compound self-interest” of bureaucratic risk avoidance.

The limit on all of this is money. Ingraham was candid that scaling depends on “where the budget lands, what a top line looks like, whether it’s a reconciliation or not.” Triage is a sign of seriousness. It is also an admission that the Army cannot afford everything it says it needs.

Takeaway Three: Autonomy Becomes an Institution

The most concrete organizational change announced at AUSA was the creation of the Army Futures and Autonomous Systems Command, or FASCOM. Telle signed the memo establishing it on October 1. On October 13 LaNeve announced that the existing Futures and Concepts Command, led by Lt. Gen. Mac McCurry, had been redesignated as FASCOM. “This goes beyond drones,” LaNeve said. “FASCOM will pioneer operational concepts that harness autonomous capabilities across all warfighting functions.”

FASCOM will integrate the work of Combat Capabilities Development Command, Medical Research and Development Command, the 75th Innovation Command, Joint Modernization Command and the Transformation Decision Analysis Center. Its commander will also be the Army’s first portfolio acquisition executive for autonomy. It will serve as the Army component of the Pentagon’s planned Autonomous Warfare Command, much as Army Cyber Command supports U.S. Cyber Command.

What makes this more than a renaming is the set of experiments attached to it. Each of the Army’s corps has been given an autonomy mission. I Corps will test an autonomous fires battery and an autonomous watercraft company. III Corps will test an autonomous armored reconnaissance company. V Corps gets an autonomous breaching company. XVIII Airborne Corps will test autonomous aerial reconnaissance and lift companies. Eighth Army will pair crewed and uncrewed rotary-wing aircraft. LaNeve also designated Fort Rucker as the Army’s UAS Autonomy Center of Excellence.

The people side is moving too. On October 2 the Army named its first ten 390A robotics technicians, warrant officers in a new specialty. At a Defense One event alongside the meeting, Maj. Gen. Jason Slider of the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School explained that the Army is not building pilots. “What we’re building is a soldier that can adapt a piece of robotic kit to the mission, to the enemy, to the terrain,” he said.

The most important line of the week on autonomy came from LaNeve: “We’ve got to change our approach from bolting on technology to rethinking how we fight.” McCurry made the same point from the concept side. “Too often, we jump right to material, so I’m kind of focused on the mission,” he said. “What are the missions we want autonomy to do? How do they contribute to the combined arms team and winning the fight?”

That is exactly the distinction this series is concerned with. The corps experiments and the new specialty are attempts to change formations and people, not just inventories.

The cautions were also on the record. Brig. Gen. Tony Gibbs, the Army’s senior autonomy program officer, reported that one in five robot missions in recent tests ended in an emergency stop. Critics noted that the Army shut down a 600-soldier experimental drone battalion in the 173rd Airborne Brigade in August, less than a year after standing it up, and lawmakers from both parties had questioned that decision.

At the Pentagon level, the picture is more ambitious and less defined.

On the final morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the service secretaries discussed the planned Autonomous Warfare Command, set to activate by October 1, 2027. Hegseth is seeking roughly $50 billion in reconciliation funding to scale autonomous and robotic systems, which he described as a one-time investment. He predicted “hundreds of thousands of one-way attack systems this year and into the millions in years to come.” He defended the four-star design: “Let’s put rank where we need it to ensure we can drive change quickly.” And he added, “We should have done it 10 years earlier, but at least we did it.”

Defense One‘s reporters observed that the panel offered few details on what the command would look like or how it would accomplish its mission.

Congress has yet to approve either the command or the money.

The Army’s own approach, which starts with corps-level experiments and a training pipeline, looks more grounded than the joint-level vision it is meant to support.

Takeaway Four: The Industrial Base Is Treated as a Warfighting Function

Telle’s headline announcement was a “Manufacturing Rodeo” in early 2027, an event in which industrial-base suppliers will compete under stress. “We’re going to stress test the supply chain, the manufacturing processes, and see where it breaks,” he said. “We’re going to learn by doing, not by sitting around postulating at the Pentagon; we’re going to find the weak links. We’re going to make them stronger, and we’re going to keep iterating.”

That language is worth noting because it mirrors the logic of a good exercise. The aim is not to validate a supplier base but to find out where it fails before a war does.

The drone marketplace offers a working example of a faster acquisition model. Telle said the Army’s online store had done $800 million in transactions, and he credited it with helping troops on the southern border respond quickly to cartel drones. On October 13 eight more countries (Albania, Canada, Croatia, Egypt, Japan, Kuwait, Morocco and Panama) signed statements of intent to join the drone and counter-drone marketplaces. A process called “FMS Fast Lane” lets partners order pre-cleared systems in days rather than months. The Army says 29 partners are now in the framework.

Munitions were a second theme. Lt. Gen. Frank Lozano, the Army’s fires portfolio acquisition executive, said the long-standing goal of 2,000 Patriot interceptors a year may be exceeded. “When we start talking about overall missile output and we start looking at numbers — is it 4,000, is it 6,000, is it 8,000 — we’re looking at a diverse set of capabilities,” he said, stressing the need to “fight on a cost curve that’s affordable.” Lockheed Martin announced a $300 million expansion of its Grand Prairie, Texas, plant to support production of PAC-3 MSE, THAAD, PrSM and other missiles.

The vulnerabilities were also visible. Army Materiel Command officials said companies will feel “some impact” from the January 2027 deadline under Executive Order 14415 to stop using critical minerals from China, Russia, Iran and North Korea. Mapping supply chains back to raw materials, one official said, “is no easy task.”

A forum on the Strategic Capital Initiative showed the Army trying to bring private capital into the depot and arsenal system. Lt. Gen. Gavin Lawrence set out four conditions for successful partnerships: clear requirements and communication, respect for statutory guardrails, mutual understanding of value, and boundaries that do not stifle innovation. The examples cited, including a Hadrian battery line at Red River Army Depot and Siemens work at Anniston, are small. But they suggest a recognition that endurance in a long war depends on industrial capacity the Army does not own.

Takeaway Five: The Pacific Makes Endurance the Hard Problem

The most sobering remarks of the meeting came from Lt. Gen. Matt McFarlane, the I Corps commander. He described his central challenge as the “tyranny of distance and disruption.” In the Pacific, he said, “at the corps level it’s command posts in Honshu in Japan and in Brisbane in Australia.”

I Corps has begun a deliberate rollout of the Army’s Next Generation Command and Control system, supported by about $93.6 million in application awards to nine companies. McFarlane said he is fielding only what was validated during Project Convergence Capstone 6. “Things that weren’t working or weren’t ready, we are not rolling out at I Corps,” he said. He explained that at the corps level, the system’s job “fundamentally pivots from the tactical to the operational level,” orchestrating “theater-wide multi-domain campaigns” and managing “operational endurance” across “thousands of miles of maritime domain.”

Endurance came up repeatedly. Maj. Gen. E. Darrin Cox of the 18th Theater Medical Command explained that the “Golden Hour” standard for casualty care is difficult to maintain across Pacific distances. His command is exploring autonomous systems for patient monitoring, resupply and evacuation, working with partners on blood storage and sharing, and training medics in prolonged field care.

The Army Reserve made its case as the backbone of that endurance. The Reserve met its annual recruiting goal for the first time in a decade. Lt. Gen. Robert Harter’s mantra for the Reserve’s relationship to the active force is “You go, we go,” because the Reserve holds much of the Army’s sustainment, medical, signal and engineer capacity. Maj. Gen. Frederick Crist of the 8th Theater Sustainment Command called the Reserve “the foundation for the active component Army.”

This is where the gap between acquisition and transformation is widest. Drones and interceptors can be bought quickly. Command networks that work across thousands of miles of ocean, medical systems that can hold casualties for days, and sustainment formations that can move with the force take years to build. The Pacific is the real test of whether the Army’s changes amount to a new kind of force.

Takeaway Six: Air Defense and Counter-Drone Dominate the Market

On the show floor, the clearest sign of demand was in air and missile defense. Lockheed displayed a full-scale model of its PAC-3 Edge entry for the Future Interceptor competition. Anduril revealed its Steelfin family of interceptors, Raytheon showed a rocket-powered Coyote, and BAE Systems unveiled a Multi-Domain Artillery Cannon System and a high-power microwave system. Startups were prominent. Powerus showed a fully autonomous Guardian 3 interceptor and is aiming to produce 5,000 a month. Kongsberg-owned Zone 5 debuted a reusable interceptor called Eclipse.

The Army’s own counter-drone organization was also on display. Brig. Gen. Matthew Ross of the Joint Interagency Task Force 401 discussed layered sensors, AI-enabled decisions and scalable interceptors for defending bases and infrastructure.

Ground combat programs reflected the same pressures. Brig. Gen. Troy Denomy said open system architecture will be a formal criterion in the XM30 infantry fighting vehicle selection between American Rheinmetall and General Dynamics Land Systems. General Dynamics will deliver four prototypes of its PERCH 2.0 system to the 1st Cavalry Division by the end of October; it launches Switchblade loitering munitions from Abrams tanks and Strykers.

This is the area where acquisition is moving fastest, and for good reason.

The war in Ukraine and the conflict with Iran have shown that drones and missiles are now the dominant threat to ground forces and bases alike.

The question is whether these systems get integrated into a coherent air-defense architecture or remain a collection of point solutions.

Takeaway Seven: The Homeland Is Underweighted

Most of the discussion in Washington centered on the Indo-Pacific and acquisition. The homeland appeared mostly at the margins.

It did appear, however. Telle cited the use of the drone marketplace to counter cartel drones on the southern border. And at an AUSA panel, National Guard leaders said state demands on Guard troops had become unsustainable and needed to stop. They pointed to equipment-readiness and training problems, particularly because funding had not followed the deployment of units and equipment.

This is the gap the first two articles in this series addressed. In Nevada, Brig. Gen. Randy Lau’s Desert Forge 2026 exercise used a domestic scenario to test command and control, communications, sustainment and medical support under pressure. It started from the mission rather than from a list of equipment. It used friction to find weak links, the same logic Telle described for the Manufacturing Rodeo. And it tested the endurance functions that LaNeve’s guidance puts at the center of land power. Nevada will host the Northern Command-led Vigilant Guard 27-2 homeland-defense exercise in June 2027, which will test the same habits at a larger scale and across federal, state and private partners.

The Army leadership’s framework applies to the homeland as much as to the Pacific. But the institutional energy on display at AUSA was directed overwhelmingly outward. If the Army is the foundation of the joint force, it is also a foundation of homeland defense, and the Guard is where much of that mission rests.

A Note on Aviation

Aviation news reinforced the autonomy theme.

The Pentagon reprogrammed $200 million into the MV-75 Cheyenne II program after Bell’s parent Textron spent its own funds to keep development on schedule. Bell described the Army-directed open systems architecture as the aircraft’s “revolutionary” feature.

Sikorsky presented its Black Hawk Next upgrade plan as a partner to the MV-75 and a hub for drones.

The Eighth Army experiment in crewed-uncrewed rotary-wing teaming and the Fort Rucker autonomy designation point toward an aviation force built around teaming rather than individual platforms.

Measuring Transformation

What did AUSA 2026 reveal about the Army’s evolution?

The evidence points in two directions.

On the side of real transformation:

• A warfighting framework, “How the Army Fights,” that gives the Army a basis for setting priorities.
• An acquisition structure built around portfolios rather than programs, with a revived review process to move money.
• A new autonomy command tied to corps-level experiments that will change formations, not just equipment.
• A new warrant officer specialty designed around adaptation rather than operation.
• An industrial-base approach that treats stress-testing as a way to find failure before war does.

On the side of intention not yet realized:

• The Autonomous Warfare Command remains undefined, and neither it nor its funding has been approved by Congress.
• The drone battalion shut down in August and the one-in-five emergency stop rate show how hard fielding autonomy actually is.
• Modernization depends openly on a budget top line that has not been settled.
• The command, medical and sustainment systems needed to operate across Pacific distances are in early rollout.
• The homeland mission, and the Guard’s strain in carrying it, received far less attention than its importance warrants.

One commentator, writing after the meeting, argued that the Army has identified many of the right problems but left critical questions unanswered: how the smallest dispersed units will operate, how collaborative autonomy will reach fieldable systems, and whether low-cost systems can truly be produced at scale.

That critique is fair.

The best test of whether the Army is transforming will come from the field, not from Washington.

It will come from the corps experiments, from I Corps’ fielding of command and control across the Pacific, from the Manufacturing Rodeo, and from exercises like Desert Forge and Vigilant Guard that expose what a formation does not yet know it needs.

As Lau put it in the first article in this series, adaptation is built, not briefed.

AUSA 2026 showed that the Army’s leaders understand that.

The coming year will show whether the institution can act on it.

Bibliography

Adams, Matthew. “In First Public Speech as Acting Army Secretary, Telle Highlights Continued Work to Streamline Acquisition.” Stars and Stripes, October 12, 2026. https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2026-10-12/acting-army-secretary-telle-ausa-conference-23134806.html

Bradt, Johnnie. “AMCOM, CCAD, LEAD Showcase Depot Capabilities at AUSA.” Army.mil, October 16, 2026. https://www.army.mil/article-amp/296175/amcom_ccad_lead_showcase_depot_capabilities_at_ausa

Building Our Future. “AUSA’s Unfinished Answers.” Substack, October 16, 2026. https://buildingourfuture.substack.com/p/ausas-unfinished-answers

Cazarez, Adan, Lt. Col. “One Team: How Army and Reserve Integration Delivers Endurance.” Army.mil, October 14, 2026. https://www.army.mil/article/296102/one_team_how_army_and_reserve_integration_delivers_endurance

Cohen, Rachel S. “Army Creates New Formations to Test Autonomous Warfare.” Federal News Network, October 14, 2026. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/defense-main/2026/10/army-creates-new-formations-to-test-autonomous-warfare/

Defense News. “AUSA Annual 2026 Panel: Stopping the Swarm.” Sponsored content (Leonardo DRS), October 12, 2026. https://www.defensenews.com/native/Leonardo-drs/2026/10/12/ausa-annual-2026-panel-stopping-the-swarm/

Defense News Staff. “Recap: Autonomy Dominates the US Army’s 2026 Conference in Washington.” Military Times, October 16, 2026. https://www.militarytimes.com/recap/ausa/2026/10/16/recap-autonomy-dominates-the-us-armys-2026-conference-in-washington/

Everstine, Brian. “Pentagon Backfills $200 Million for MV-75 Program.” Aviation Week, October 12, 2026. https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/pentagon-backfills-200-million-mv-75-program

Everstine, Brian. “Sikorsky Outlines New Black Hawk Upgrade Plans.” Aviation Week, October 12, 2026. https://aviationweek.com/defense/aircraft-propulsion/sikorsky-outlines-new-black-hawk-upgrade-plans

Gully, Megan. “American Ingenuity at Work: The Army’s Strategic Capital Initiative.” Army.mil, October 16, 2026. https://www.army.mil/article/296173/american_ingenuity_at_work_the_armys_strategic_capital_initiative

Harper, Jon, and Drew F. Lawrence. “As Army I Corps Gets Parts of NGC2 Ecosystem, ‘Tyranny of Distance and Disruption’ in the Pacific Are Top of Mind for Commander.” DefenseScoop, October 13, 2026. https://defensescoop.com/2026/10/13/army-i-corps-next-generation-command-and-control-ngc2/

Hodge Seck, Hope. “‘We’ve Drowned Ourselves in Buzzwords’: Acting US Army Secretary Gives Sermon-Like First Speech.” Defense News, October 12, 2026. https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2026/10/12/weve-drowned-ourselves-in-buzzwords-acting-us-army-secretary-gives-sermon-like-first-speech/

Insinna, Valerie. “As Critical Mineral Deadline Looms, Army Expects to Feel ‘Some Impact.'” Breaking Defense, October 15, 2026. https://breakingdefense.com/2026/10/as-critical-mineral-deadline-looms-army-expects-to-feel-some-impact/

Lacdan, Joe. “SECARMY: Army Drives the Success of the Joint Force.” Army News Service, October 12, 2026. https://www.army.mil/article-amp/296068/secarmy_army_drives_the_success_of_the_joint_force

Marrow, Michael. “Zone 5 ‘Found a Spot’ in Drone Interceptor Market with New Eclipse: CEO.” Breaking Defense, October 16, 2026. https://breakingdefense.com/2026/10/zone-5-found-a-spot-in-drone-interceptor-market-with-new-eclipse-ceo/

Myers, Meghann. “Army Brings Back ‘Night Court’ Audit of Programs, Shifting More Than $100M.” Defense One, October 12, 2026. https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2026/10/army-brings-back-night-court-audit-programs-shifting-more-100m/416547/

Myers, Meghann. “Army Re-evaluating Munitions Procurement Goals as Iran War Continues.” Defense One, October 13, 2026. https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2026/10/army-munitions-procurement-iran/416567/

Myers, Meghann, and Patrick Tucker. “Hegseth, Service Secretaries Discuss ‘Generational Change’ of Autonomous Warfare Command.” Defense One, October 14, 2026. https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2026/10/hegseth-service-secretaries-discuss-generational-change-autonomous-warfare-command/416586/

Nevada Commission on Homeland Security. “Meeting Minutes.” February 6, 2026. https://www.oem.nv.gov/siteassets/oem.nv.gov/public-meetings/public-meetings-2026/homeland-security-2026/nchs-meeting-minutes-02-06-2026.pdf

Oliverio, Natalie. “Pentagon Needs $50B for Mass Drone Production, Hegseth Says.” Defense News, October 14, 2026. https://www.defensenews.com/news/pentagon-congress/2026/10/14/pentagon-needs-50b-for-mass-drone-production-hegseth-says/

Olson, Wyatt. “LaNeve Assures Defense Industry Leaders That Army Remains on Modernization Quest.” Stars and Stripes, October 13, 2026. https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2026-10-13/laneve-army-modernization-ausa-23147540.html

Roque, Ashley. “Hegseth Uses AUSA Spotlight to Push Autonomy, ‘Generational’ Defense Investment.” Breaking Defense, October 14, 2026. https://breakingdefense.com/2026/10/hegseth-uses-ausa-spotlight-to-highlight-autonomy-generational-defense-investment/

Stassis, Cristina. “Blood Supplies, Autonomous Systems Shape US Army’s Indo-Pacific Combat Care Plans.” Defense News, October 16, 2026. https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-military/2026/10/14/blood-supplies-autonomous-systems-shape-us-armys-indo-pacific-combat-care-plans/

Scanlon, Michael. “Lockheed Invests $300M in Texas Plant to Feed Missile Surge.” Defense News, October 16, 2026. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2026/10/15/lockheed-invests-300m-in-texas-plant-to-feed-missile-surge/

Task & Purpose. “In First Public Speech, Acting Army Secretary Promotes Amazon-Like Drone Marketplace.” October 12, 2026. https://taskandpurpose.com/news/acting-army-secretary-drone-marketplace/

Timotija, Filip. “Top Army General Reassures Defense Industry After Driscoll, George Exits.” The Hill, October 13, 2026. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6146278-ausa-army-defense-industry/

Toof, Russell. “U.S. Army Reserve Highlights Transformation Efforts at Annual AUSA Meeting and Exposition.” Army.mil, October 14, 2026. https://www.army.mil/article-amp/296109/us_army_reserve_highlights_transformation_efforts_at_annual_ausa_meeting_and_exposition

Tucker, Patrick. “The Real Job of the Army’s New ‘Robotics Technicians’ Is Constant Adaptation.” Defense One, October 16, 2026. https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2026/10/army-robotics-technician–adaptation/416651/

U.S. Army Public Affairs. “Army Hosts International Signing Ceremony for UAS and Counter-UAS Marketplaces at AUSA 2026.” Army.mil, October 13, 2026. https://www.army.mil/article/296087/army_hosts_international_signing_ceremony_for_uas_and_counter_uas_marketplaces_at_ausa_2026

U.S. Army Public Affairs. “Future Focused: Vice Chief of Staff of the Army Details Army Autonomy Advancements.” Army.mil, October 13, 2026. https://www.army.mil/article/296083/future_focused_vice_chief_of_staff_of_the_army_details_army_autonomy_advancements

Welch, Carley. “GDLS Exec: New Loitering Munitions Platform to Be Delivered to Army by End of Month.” Breaking Defense, October 13, 2026. https://breakingdefense.com/2026/10/gdls-exec-new-loitering-munitions-platform-to-be-delivered-to-army-by-end-of-month/

Welch, Carley. “LaNeve ‘Redesignates’ Army’s Futures and Concepts Command as New FASCOM Autonomy Command.” Breaking Defense, October 13, 2026. https://breakingdefense.com/2026/10/laneve-redesignates-armys-futures-and-concepts-command-as-new-fascom-autonomy-command/

Welch, Carley. “Open System Architecture Will Be ‘Hyper Important’ in Downselect of Army’s XM30: Senior Official.” Breaking Defense, October 16, 2026. https://breakingdefense.com/2026/10/open-system-architecture-will-be-hyper-important-in-downselect-of-armys-xm30-senior-official/

Williams, Lauren C. “Fast-Flying Shahed Drones Spur New Class of Interceptors.” Defense One, October 16, 2026. https://www.defenseone.com/business/2026/10/fast-flying-shahed-drones-spur-new-class-interceptors/416643/