After World War II and the division into East and West Germany, the country was largely demilitarised and focused on economic reconstruction under the security umbrella of the United States and the Soviet Union, and later under NATO.

With the end of the Cold War, much of Europe came to believe that large-scale continental war was behind them. However, Europeans had a wake-up call, first with the conflicts in the Balkans, followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The war in Ukraine is a frozen conflict in its fourth year of devastation.

Europe’s rearmament is being driven by two major forces. Firstly, fear of an expansionist Russia and, secondly, growing doubts about whether the United States, under Donald Trump’s more isolationist approach, would fight on Europe’s behalf.

The age of European pacifism is ending. Germany, Poland, and other states are rearming, while France and the UK remain active military powers. Ukraine, forged by years of war, has become the continent’s most experienced military and a testing ground for 21st-century warfare.

With the US-Israel’s war with Iran, and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, the great powers of Europe hesitantly find themselves in the Indian Ocean with fleets and submarines.

Great Shadow Of The Military Industrial Complex

The world seems to be in a security crisis. Heads of state are being abducted or assassinated (Venezuela and Iran). The sovereign territory of one nation is being invaded and annexed by another (the Ukraine war). There are accusations of genocide or ethnic cleansing (Israel-Palestine). And, the fight for resources, especially energy, is entering a new phase. Global economies are bracing for $200 a barrel. But even in war, there is money to be made.

Defence spending in EU member states has risen from €218 billion in 2021 to €381 billion in 2025. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Europe accounts for around 21% of global military spending, which means more than one-fifth of the global military budget is now in Europe (a region that America took great care to ensure doesn’t rearm or militarise for the longest time).

It began as an emergency response to what was happening in Ukraine, a reaction to perceived Russian aggression. It quickly turned into structural rearmament as European governments grew more doubtful about the durability of US security guarantees.

Ursula Von Der Leyen, President of EU Commission, introduced REarm Europe on March 2, 2025, to EU member states. The new REarm Europe/ Readiness 2030 plan is an €800 billion framework in which members will push defence spending from 1.9% of their GDP in 2024 to 3.5% by 2030. The EU initiated a €150 billion loan programme titled ’SAFE’ (Security Action for Europe) to support joint weapons procurement, with projects generally requiring that no more than 35% of component costs come from outside the EU, the EEA-EFTA states, or Ukraine.

Additionally, €1 billion will be allocated to the European Defence Fund in 2026 for research and development, primarily for hypersonic missile defences, drone swarms, and next-generation tanks.

Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger told Reuters: “A new era of rearmament has commenced in Europe,” and that it brings “unprecedented growth opportunities” for the company.

Not too long ago, defence contractors in Europe struggled to convince governments to increase the budget and procurement. Now, supply chains and even politics can’t seem to keep up with the demand.

The Doves Slowly Turn into Hawks

The EU Parliament and think tanks believe that the EU’s defence budget has risen 63% since 2020. The estimate for 2025 was €381 billion, amounting to about 2% of the bloc’s GDP.

The EU spent around €88 billion in 2024 on equipment procurement. This number was at €130 billion in 2025, while R&D is said to have risen from €13 billion to €17 billion at the same time.

There have been accusations about Germany underspending for many years. Understandably so, because German militarisation was more frightening than a stingy defence budget for most of the world. However, Germany is now the biggest spender in Europe, and has answered its critics by sharply expanding its defence budget, with spending projected to rise to €162 billion by 2029. This would represent approximately 3.5% of GDP.

The Baltic and Scandinavian states are also splurging money to harden NATO’s eastern flank. They are especially energised because they share land borders with Russia.

On February 15, Ursula Von Der Leyen tweeted: “We need a surge in defence spending. Europe must bring more to the table. I will propose to activate the escape clause for defence investments. It will allow member states to substantially increase their defence expenditure, in a controlled and conditional way.”

There is a ’national escape clause’ in the bloc’s fiscal rules, which allows for an additional 1.5% of GDP to be spent on defence without budgetary constraints. Furthermore, the SAFE facility enables €150 billion in joint borrowing to finance cross-border projects and encourage European governments to purchase European weapons rather than ammunitions, drones, tanks, and missiles from the United States, Israel, or Japan.

The bond markets and investors are happy. Not so long ago, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) portfolios did not include defence. But now, because of hard security shocks, defence has been rebranded as a public good on par with environmental conservation.

Europeans, once again, are beginning to see war as an inconvenient necessity rather than an evil to be avoided.

War Is Good Business

Armin Papperger wrote on the company’s official X account: “Defence is now by far the most dynamic sector of German industry.”

Europe’s Aerospace and Defence Index has surged over the past year, reflecting investor enthusiasm for the sector. Fitch Ratings estimates that the eight largest defence companies are seeing at least a 15% increase in demand from 2024, and their combined cash flow is at a record-breaking €8 billion.

Germany’s Rheinmetall is acquiring US-based Loc Performance Products for $950 million. In France, Safran is buying the AI defence firm Preligens for around €220 million so that it can have better surveillance and data analysis capabilities.

Even startups like the Europe-based Helsing is raising €600 million in a Series D round for their state-of-the-art drone and electronic warfare systems, which are AI-operated.

Investment managers and law firms are jubilant as SAFE brings cheap credit to the European military-industrial complex, with experts expecting increased funding for missiles, armoured vehicles, and aircraft. Resources will also be allocated to neotechnologies, such as quantum secure communication, space-based surveillance, and autonomy.

This trend is projected to drive countless cross-border mergers and joint ventures well into the 2030s.

Too Slow To Make Bombs

Europe is throwing money at the problem, hoping to be prepared for an inevitable showdown with Russia. But money can’t make missiles, shells, and drones by itself. European factories are ramping up production, but there are bottlenecks and serious limitations to output capacity.

Economists at BNP Paribas believe that the bloc can transform its underutilised industrial capacity, which was once used for automotive and adjacent sectors, for defence production. The defence output would be raised by 0.5 percentage points to annual GDP growth in the mid-2020s. That growth is not just going to come from weapons, but also from metals, electronics, and machinery required to make them.

Additionally, the SAFE initiative, which demands procurement from within Europe, and investor enthusiasm might revitalise factories that were once closed for defence manufacturing.

The European Defence Fund has grand plans, but full-scale production won’t start until early 2030, even though Ukraine is running out of ammunition and drones at an unprecedented rate.

Europe is trying to buy off-the-shelf systems while setting up its own, while also scaling up its existing lines.

The Side Effects Of Defence Spending

There are conflicting opinions from economists on how increased defence spending will affect the economy.

Filippo Taddei, senior European economist at Goldman Sachs, told Reuters that extra defence spending will support European growth, in particular, support European industry at a time when they are particularly struggling.

Carsten Brzeski, ING’s global macro head, said: ’increased defence expenditure results in a negative multiplier effect on growth’ in the short term.

Klaas Knot, head of the Dutch central bank, said, “A temporary fiscal exemption for higher defence spending is justifiable, but warned that public debt in the EU remained excessively high.”

If you focus too much on war, you risk deprioritising other sectors (essential sectors such as education and healthcare). There is also the risk of inflation and higher interest rates.

Europe is infamous for its expensive welfare system and green transition programmes. If they pile up military outlays on top of that, the continent could see a backlash from voters who struggle to make ends meet.

There is also a lot of debate about the inequality within the bloc. Bruegel and other think tanks analysed ’Rearm Europe’, and believe that the move would largely benefit national governments instead of the EU as a whole. For example, rich nations like Germany and the Netherlands will borrow cheaply and aggressively invest in weapons manufacturing, while Eastern and Southern Europe will find themselves in unsustainable debts, or incapable of militarising at a pace on par with their wealthy counterparts.

Europe’s political and cultural rebranding of making defence an ESG-compatible investment is still on the debate floor.

Institutional investors are arguing that supplying democracies with weapons to defend against tyranny is ethical and consistent with the EU’s vision.

But, many are afraid of dual-use technologies that will later be exported to poor countries with questionable human rights records. There is already a lot of uproar towards sending weapons to Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The ethical complexity of the issue is likely to affect industrial growth, even though the weapons manufacturing sector is seeing a boom.

An End To Reliance On External Security Umbrellas

Europe is beginning to understand that pacifism and reliance on external security umbrellas might not cut it. True safety and security come from self-reliance. The wars in Ukraine and Russia are stark reminders of a return to armament.

Despite throwing money at the problem and having the potential to have outstanding armies by the end of the decade, there are still several challenges that governments must navigate.

For starters, there are the industrial bottlenecks. Not all the money in the world can create missiles, artillery, and drones instantly. There are supply chain problems and production limits that are to be overcome gradually.

There is also the economic inequality and in-bloc politics that might arise because of a re-armed Europe, as Eastern and Southern states might find themselves drowning in debt, while nations like Germany and the Netherlands might make a profit through the rapid militarisation race.

Europe has long positioned itself as the most ethical society on earth. Making defence an ESG-compatible public good is highly controversial in European societies, and many see it as a means to pour government funds into the military-industrial complex.

Regardless, money is being poured into the military establishment, factories are reopening, and war looms on the horizon.

The post As threat of war looms, Europe hikes spending on military and defence equipment appeared first on International Finance.

The weapon system, named Bullfrog, isn’t just any machine gun; it’s designed to be autonomous, capable of knocking small drones out of the sky with precision only a robot can deliver. This development, though significant, makes one question how future battlefields will look and whether humans will still be the primary actors in times of conflict. Let’s dive into how this system works, its potential, and the ethical dilemmas it raises.

Growing threat of drone warfare

The use of small, agile drones as offensive tools has exploded over recent years, especially evident during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. These cheap, commercially available drones are transformed into deadly weapons, posing a significant challenge to modern militaries. In response, the US Department of Defence has rapidly accelerated the development of counter-drone technology.

American troops abroad face an evolving landscape of threats from these weaponized adversary drones—unmanned aerial systems that are agile, cost-effective, and relatively expendable. From buzzing around battlefields to serving as the eyes of an enemy sniper or even delivering explosive payloads, these small aerial threats have introduced a fresh level of complexity to ground operations. The Department of Defence (DoD) has therefore been seeking ways to combat these drones more effectively, without exhausting its supply of costly missiles or traditional munitions.

Introducing the Bullfrog: A technological leap

Enter Bullfrog, a new AI-enabled autonomous gun system developed by Allen Control Systems (ACS). Debuted during the Technology Readiness Experimentation (T-REX) event in August, the Bullfrog is essentially a 7.62-mm M240 machine gun mounted on a custom-designed turret equipped with electro-optical sensors and proprietary artificial intelligence. What sets it apart is its precision, accuracy, and autonomous capabilities—features that could radically change the way drones are dealt with on the battlefield.

“The Bullfrog Gun Turret is an autonomous system designed to detect, identify, and neutralise hostile drones, including Class 1 to Class 3 UAVs. Compact and lightweight, weighing less than 400 pounds, the system is well-suited for mobile operations or the protection of strategic sites, such as critical infrastructure. Operating on a standard 24V DC power supply, the Bullfrog integrates easily with NATO vehicles and can operate in passive mode to reduce detection risks during deployment,” Global Defence News explained about the product.

ACS’ Bullfrog uses computer vision and advanced robotics to lock onto and destroy targets, performing far beyond the capabilities of even highly trained marksmen. Instead of relying on human intuition and muscle coordination, it utilises an advanced system to precisely aim and fire, dynamically adjusting for fast-moving aerial targets.

According to ACS co-founder and CEO Steve Simoni, the impetus for Bullfrog was observing the proliferation of drones during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, when Ukrainian soldiers were seen firing traditional AK-47s into the air, trying to hit drones with limited success.

Simoni and his co-founder Luke Allen, both former Navy veterans, saw a gap—a robotics problem begging to be solved. They believed that by employing artificial intelligence and modern-day computer vision, they could build a system that consistently delivers pinpoint accuracy. After all, shooting a small drone out of the sky is not something any ordinary marksman can achieve. However, as ACS demonstrated, it’s precisely what a robot can do.

Precision at a cost: The Bullfrog’s capabilities

The Bullfrog’s design revolves around a rotating turret that can pinpoint and track fast-moving targets using electro-optical sensors. Unlike traditional gun turrets like the Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS), the Bullfrog was designed with precision and efficiency in mind. This system isn’t about saturating an area with bullets—it’s about targeted strikes.

During the Technology Readiness Experimentation 2024 (TREX 24-2) event, held by the United States Department of Defence (DoD) at Camp Atterbury, Indiana, from August 19–26, the Bullfrog showcased its capabilities. It emerged as the only system in the DoD arsenal capable of autonomously detecting, tracking, identifying, and neutralising drones while completing the critical kill chain with precision. The integration of advanced artificial intelligence, computer vision, and Allen Control System’s proprietary software enabled the Bullfrog to effectively utilise the standard M240 machine gun while maintaining a low size, weight, and power profile (Low SWaP).

The system uses advanced Linux-based software, supporting integration with third-party command-and-control (C2) systems and radars. This open architecture enables bidirectional data and target track communication. Using a database trained on millions of annotated images, the system ensures exceptional detection accuracy with a false negative rate of less than 2%.

Footage from the Bullfrog’s trials shows the system mounted on a truck, precisely locking onto small drones and taking them down with only a few well-placed shots. ACS claims that their system can knock a drone out of the sky with just two shots from 200 yards away—a feat impossible for human soldiers.

This makes the Bullfrog unique compared to the bulky 15-foot-tall Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS), primarily designed to deliver a “cloud of bullets” at incoming missile threats. The Bullfrog, by contrast, relies on pinpoint accuracy and uses minimal ammunition, making it a cheaper and more efficient solution.

“Demonstrations included engagements against multiple drone swarms at various distances, capturing the attention of over 30 key stakeholders, including members of Congress, DoD officials, and senior representatives from special forces, the Marines, and counter-drone programmes. The consistent performance of the Bullfrog at TREX generated significant interest from government stakeholders, indicating potential for expedited operational deployment. Notable attendees included Congressman Greg Pence, the Honourable Heidi Shyu, Under Secretary of Defence for Research and Engineering, and senior representatives from Army Futures Command and the Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office,” Global Defence News reported.

Cost-effectiveness and flexibility

A key advantage of the Bullfrog over other solutions is its cost-effectiveness. The system uses standard 7.62-mm rounds to target drones, making it a more affordable option compared to costly anti-air missiles or directed-energy weapons. While promising, directed-energy systems like high-powered lasers and microwaves are still experimental and rely on complex technology.

According to Steve Simoni, the cost-per-kill ratio associated with the Bullfrog is comparable to those of laser and microwave systems, without the demanding maintenance and logistical concerns that accompany directed-energy weapons. In other words, Bullfrog could be the Pentagon’s most cost-effective solution for eliminating masses of cheap, small drones.

Moreover, the Bullfrog is lighter, weighing less than 400 pounds, compared to the hulking CIWS. Its small size gives it flexibility, making it suitable for moving tactical vehicles like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), thus providing mobile defence against aerial threats. This versatility is crucial, particularly in today’s conflict zones, where the ability to quickly adapt and relocate resources can be the difference between mission success and failure.

Keeping a human in the loop

Despite the remarkable capabilities of the Bullfrog, its development brings up questions that military planners, lawmakers, and ethicists have long pondered—should machines be allowed to make life-and-death decisions without human intervention? This ethical conundrum has been a point of significant debate as autonomous systems become increasingly prevalent in the defence sector.

Currently, the Bullfrog has been designed to maintain a human “in the loop.” In other words, while the system autonomously tracks and aims at targets, it requires human authorisation to pull the trigger. However, ACS officials have confirmed that the Bullfrog could operate fully autonomously if required, leaving open the possibility for future use in scenarios where direct human oversight may not be practical.

The Pentagon’s existing policy on autonomous weapons emphasises human control over lethal decision-making. But as technology advances, the temptation to remove human operators entirely becomes stronger, particularly when considering the speed and precision required to intercept a fast-moving, unpredictable drone. With adversaries also investing in autonomous systems, there is mounting pressure to reduce response times—something that may be achieved only by removing human delay.

Yet, it’s this “uncharted territory” that worries many experts. The removal of human oversight in lethal operations introduces the potential for errors in identification, accidental engagements, and ethical violations. One of the primary concerns is determining friend from foe accurately. Mistakes in identifying targets could result in friendly fire incidents, civilian casualties, and violations of the laws of war.

Pentagon’s Replicator initiative and the Bullfrog’s role

The timing of the Bullfrog’s debut aligns with the Pentagon’s broader efforts to counter aerial threats. The Replicator initiative, launched by the Pentagon, aims to enhance US military drone and counter-drone capabilities, particularly in anticipation of conflicts involving powerful adversaries like Russia and China. The initiative focuses on deploying low-cost, attritable drones and improving defence capabilities against small unmanned aerial systems.

Bullfrog could play a crucial role in this vision, providing a practical solution for ground units to defend themselves against small drones. The system’s simplicity in design—with fewer moving parts than missile systems or directed-energy platforms—makes it an ideal candidate for deployment in a range of combat situations. Mike Clementi, a former congressional defence appropriator, noted that systems like the Bullfrog that can be integrated across various platforms and employ existing rounds could offer a significant advantage over other high-maintenance solutions.

Emerging counter-drone arsenal

The Bullfrog is far from the only counter-drone technology being tested or deployed by the US military. The Army has pursued various avenues to make small arms more effective against unmanned airborne threats. These approaches range from rifle-mounted GPS and radio frequency jammers, which disorient incoming drones, to enhanced ammunition designed to replicate shotgun effects—a proven method of countering drones in Ukraine.

Other ongoing initiatives include larger-calibre solutions like the XM914 30-mm chain gun, missile systems such as Raytheon’s Coyote interceptor, and more exotic directed-energy weapons. Directed-energy weapons, such as high-energy lasers and high-powered microwaves, are particularly promising because they offer near-instantaneous destruction at an incredibly low cost per shot. However, they remain experimental and their effectiveness under different conditions, such as in cloudy or dusty environments, has yet to be fully validated.

Given this crowded field of counter-drone options, the Bullfrog’s potential lies in its ability to provide an effective balance between cost, simplicity, and reliability. Rather than requiring complex energy systems or additional personnel training, it represents an extension of the traditional machine gun into the autonomous era. Its adaptability makes it particularly valuable—it can be used on different platforms, integrated with other counter-drone defences, and function in conjunction with electronic warfare systems that jam drone signals.

The future of battlefield autonomy

As the Bullfrog enters the spotlight, ACS envisions an even more ambitious future. The company plans to further enhance the system, incorporating longer-range capabilities and the ability to track and shoot drones moving in more complex acceleration patterns. ACS aims to create a layered defence network where multiple Bullfrog systems can operate together, providing comprehensive coverage for military convoys and outposts.

In the future, we might see a battlefield where most of the combat is executed by autonomous robotic systems. A convoy of vehicles, each equipped with Bullfrog turrets, could use AI-driven coordination to efficiently deal with incoming aerial threats, regardless of the terrain or movement of the convoy. These systems would focus on drone defence while freeing up soldiers to concentrate on other mission-critical activities.

This vision paints a picture of the battlefield of tomorrow—one where robotics and AI work in tandem, transforming the nature of warfare into a contest between autonomous systems. ACS’s Steve Simoni even suggests that future conflicts will involve “autonomous robots like ours shooting each other,” reducing the need for direct human engagement.

Robot Dogs armed with AI-enabled rifles

When it comes to redefining 21st century warfare, the United States Army, along with the Bullfrog experiment, is also working on another project, where a “Robot Dog,” armed with an AI-enabled gun turret, is currently getting tested in the Middle East as a fresh counter-drone capability for US service members.

Photos published to the Defence Visual Information Distribution Service in in November 2024 showed a Ghost Robotics Vision 60 Quadrupedal-Unmanned Ground Vehicle, or Q-UGV, armed with what appears to be an AR-15/M16-pattern rifle on a rotating turret undergoing “rehearsals” at the Red Sands Integrated Experimentation Centre in Saudi Arabia in mid-September as part of a recent counter-unmanned aerial system exercise.

“The specialised gun turret, which features a large electro-optical targeting system with “Lone Wolf” emblazoned across the side, appears to be the same artificial intelligence-enabled system that the Army recently put through its paces during Operation Hard Kill, a separate counter-UAS exercise led by the service’s Combat Capabilities Development Command, or DEVCOM, and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, New York, in August,” Softonic stated.

A US Army Central spokesman told Military.com that the armed Robot Dog was one of several “non-counter-sUAS” systems tested alongside 15 counter-drone platforms at Red Sands during the September test and that the gun engaged several static ground targets, but declined to elaborate on its potential applications.

The Department of Defence has been steadily integrating Robot Dogs into its operations over the past few years. Q-UGVs now perform a range of tasks, including explosive ordnance disposal, enhancing perimeter security at sensitive installations, and boosting intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance capabilities for US service members deployed in challenging environments.

While still relatively new technology, Robot Dogs have already proven capable of going places inhospitable to human troops and performing tedious jobs such as perimeter patrols longer, without taking rest.

Beyond these operations, the Pentagon has increasingly experimented with mounting weapons systems on Robot Dogs. The Marine Corps has tested quadrupedal robots outfitted with both Onyx Industries’ SENTRY remote weapon system and the M72 LAW anti-tank rocket launcher, while the Army has considered outfitting mechanised canines with the new 6.8mm XM7 rifle the service recently fielded under its Next Generation Squad Weapon programme to replace the M4 carbine.

Challenges and controversies

Despite the promise of AI and robotics, the deployment of autonomous weaponry remains controversial. Fully autonomous systems could provide unprecedented levels of precision, but they also risk dehumanising the battlefield. If systems like Bullfrog were allowed to operate without any human intervention, it could open up a Pandora’s box of moral and ethical issues.

Without human judgment, AI systems can make mistakes that have devastating consequences. For instance, determining whether a drone is a friend or a foe is a complicated process that requires understanding the context—something AI currently struggles with.

Factors like electronic interference, environmental conditions, and the lack of reliable identification signals could lead to tragic outcomes. The question of accountability also looms large—who is responsible when an autonomous weapon system makes a mistake? Is it the operator, the manufacturer, or the military command?

Moreover, autonomous weapons have the potential to increase the likelihood of war. Nations might be more willing to engage in conflict if their human forces are not directly at risk. The lower perceived cost of conflict could lead to more frequent skirmishes or even full-scale wars, fundamentally changing international relations.

The Bullfrog represents a significant step forward in counter-drone technology—one that could revolutionise how militaries around the world handle the growing drone threat. Combining traditional firearms with cutting-edge AI, bridges the gap between conventional warfare tools and futuristic autonomous capabilities.

However, as the world grapples with this new frontier, there’s a critical need for a balanced approach. Military innovation must be tempered by ethical responsibility and sound judgment. While the prospect of autonomous weapons is undoubtedly exciting, the complexities they introduce require careful consideration. The future of warfare may be fought with robots, but humanity must remain accountable, especially when lives are at stake.

As the Pentagon continues to evaluate its arsenal in light of emerging threats, the developments of Bullfrog and Robot Dogs could serve as a turning point in modern warfare. It reflects both the promise and the perils of autonomous systems in military operations, urging us to rethink how we approach conflict, defence, and, ultimately, the value we place on human oversight.

The post Bullfrog & Robot Dogs: Gun warfare gets AI push appeared first on International Finance.

According to publicly available imagery posted to the department’s Defence Visual Information Distribution System media hub, the US Defence Department has been gradually integrating what appear to be variations of the Freedom of Movement Control Unit (FMCU) handsets as the primary control units for a variety of advanced weapons systems over the past few years.

The United States Air Force’s MRAP-based Recovery of Air Bases Denied by Ordnance (RADBO) truck uses a laser to clear away improvised explosive devices and other unexploded munitions. The Army’s new Manoeuvre-Short Range Air Defence (M-SHORAD) system, which is armed with FIM-92 Stinger and AGM-114 Hellfire missiles and a 30-mm chain gun mounted on a Stryker infantry fighting vehicle, is also considered a vital anti-air capability in a potential conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe. Finally, the Marine Corps is currently testing the Humvee-mounted High Energy Laser-Expeditionary (HELEX) laser weapon system.

A 2023 Navy contract states that the FMCU will be essential to the functioning of the AN/SAY-3A Electro-Optic Sensor System (also known as “I-Stalker”), which is intended to assist the service’s future Constellation-class guided-missile frigates in tracking and engaging inbound threats. The FMCU has also been used on several experimental unmanned vehicles.

Measurement Systems (MSI), a British defence contractor subsidiary that specialises in human-machine interfaces, has been manufacturing the FMCU since 2008. Its rugged design protects its delicate electronics from any hostile environments that US service members might encounter. The FMCU’s form factor is comparable to that of a standard Xbox or PlayStation controller.

According to data compiled by federal contracting software GovTribe, MSI, a longtime developer of joysticks used on various US naval systems and aircraft, has worked as a subcontractor to major defence “primes” like General Atomics, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and BAE Systems to provide the handheld control units for “various aircraft and vehicle programmes.”

According to Ultra, “[Ultra] has continued to make the FMCU one of the most highly adaptable and capable controllers available today with the vision to foresee the form factor that would be most accessible to today’s warfighters.”

The infinitely adaptable FMCU is not entirely a novel technological advancement: The system, according to Ultra, has been in use since at least 2010 to run the Ground Based Operational Surveillance System (GBOSS), which the Army and Marine Corps have both used during the global war on terror, as well as the now-owned Navy’s MQ-8 Fire Scout unmanned autonomous helicopter.

However, the recent widespread use of the handset across highly advanced new weapon platforms is indicative of a growing trend in the US military toward controls that are not only distinctively tactile or ergonomic in their operation, but also naturally recognisable to the next generation of prospective warfighters before they even enlist.

An Air Force spokesman told WIRED that “with RADBO, the operators are often a considerably younger audience.” Thus, using a controller similar to the FMCU, which is a PlayStation or Xbox type, seems like a logical step for the gaming generation.

Even so, it should come as no surprise that the US military is implementing custom-made controls on video games: For a long time, the different service branches have been experimenting with console handsets that are available commercially to operate new technologies. For over ten years, the Army and Marine Corps have been using Xbox controllers to control tiny autonomous vehicles. These include airborne drones and ground units used for explosive ordnance disposal, as well as bigger vehicles like the M1075 Palletised Loading System logistical vehicle.

Simultaneously, the Navy’s new Virginia-class submarines, which formerly had periscopes, now have “photonics masts” instead, and both the service’s Multifunctional Automated Repair System robot and surface warships use the same low-cost Xbox handset for various tasks, including shipyard maintenance and in-theatre battle damage repair.

Those in the military sector who are vying for new Pentagon contracts likewise follow this trend: Look no further than the BlueHalo-developed LOCUST Laser Weapon System, which serves as the Army’s Palletised-High Energy Laser (P-HEL) system. Similar to the service’s earlier forays into laser weapons, this system specifically uses an Xbox controller to assist soldiers in targeting incoming drones and burning them out of the sky.

Tom Phelps, an iRobot product director at the time, told Business Insider in 2013 that the business adopted a standard Xbox controller for its PackBot IED disposal robot because “by 2006, games like Halo were prominent in the military. Thus, in order to standardise and popularise the idea, we collaborated with the military. The fact that younger soldiers with a lot of gaming expertise could adjust fast made it a huge success.”

Outside of the US military, commercial video game consoles have also shown popularity. Examples include the British Army’s remote-controlled Polaris MRZR all-terrain vehicle and Israel Aerospace Industries’ Carmel battle tank, whose controls were developed based on input from teenage gamers who reportedly preferred a standard video game console to a traditional fighter jet-style joystick. In a more recent development, Ukrainian troops have directed machine gun turrets and armed unmanned drones against Russian invaders using Steam Decks and PlayStation controllers.

The Marine Corps stated that the new Navy-Marine Corps Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System (NMESIS) launcher, a Joint Light Tactical Vehicle-based anti-ship missile system developed to fire the new Naval Strike Missile that’s essential to the Marine Corps’ plans for a hypothetical future war with China in the Indo-Pacific, also uses a controller similar to one from a video game.

Furthermore, these controllers have peculiar non-military uses as well: The most notorious example is the OceanGate submarine, which, as CBS News noted at the time, was using a Logitech F710 joystick to handle its fatal implosion on a dive to the Titanic wreck in June 2023.

“They have a far lower fear of technology and are far more prepared to experiment…Optimising the controls of the Carmel tank for younger operators is something” that Israeli Defence Forces colonel Udi Tzur told The Washington Post in 2020, while adding, “It comes to them naturally. It’s not quite like playing Fortnite, but it’s similar, and they quickly elevate their abilities to a functional level. To be honest with you, I didn’t anticipate it would happen so soon.”

Operating cutting-edge military weaponry with inexpensive controllers reminiscent of video games has obvious benefits. First, it has to do with control: In addition to being more ergonomic, video game consoles have buttons and joysticks arranged to provide tactile feedback that is not typically possible from, for example, one of the US military’s now-ubiquitous touchscreens. Following the 2017 collision between the Arleigh Burke-class destroyer USS John S. McCain and an oil tanker off the coast of Singapore, the Navy had to learn this the hard way.

As a result, the service replaced the touchscreens on its bridges with mechanical throttles throughout its fleet of guided-missile destroyers after the National Transportation Safety Board reported that sailors preferred the latter because “they provide[d] both immediate and tactile feedback to the operator.” Although it may not be possible for a US service member to use an Xbox controller with a “rumble” feature, several studies seem to support the idea that video-game-style controllers, such as the FMCU, offer considerable tactile (and tactical) advantages over dynamic touchscreens.

However, as military officials and defence contractors have pointed out, the Pentagon benefits from the controllers since they are known to the average US service member. According to a yearly report from the Entertainment Software Association trade group, as of 2024, over 190.6 million Americans of all ages, or approximately 61% of the population, played video games.

Meanwhile, data released in May by the Pew Research Centre shows that 85% of American teenagers say they play video games, with 41% indicating they play every day.

Regarding specific video gaming platforms, the ESA analysis shows that Gen Z and Gen Alpha, two groups that may end up participating in America’s next major conflict, are the biggest fans of consoles and their unique controllers.

According to military technologist Peter W. Singer, the Pentagon is “free-riding” off the video game industry, which has spent decades educating Americans on a set of controls and ergonomics that are standard across most game systems (sorry, Wii remote—the Army considered using it for bomb-disposal robots almost two decades ago). At least since the PlayStation introduced elongated grips in the 1990s.

In an interview from March 2023, Singer said, “The gaming companies spent millions of dollars designing an ideal, intuitive, easy-to-learn user interface, and then they went and spent years training up the user base for the US military on how to utilise that interface. These designs are not accidental; the military draws from the same pool that they do for their clientele, and the training is essentially pre-completed.”

Exactly how many US military systems use the FMCU is unknown at this time. The Pentagon referred the US-based media outlet to the respective military branches for further information after confirming the system’s use on the NMESIS, M-SHORAD, and RADBO weapons systems when contacted for comment. The Air Force reaffirmed the handset’s usage with the RADBO, while the Marine Corps verified its use with the GBOSS. The Army did not reply to queries for information. The Navy said that the service does not currently use the FMCU with any existing systems.

It is unclear to what extent the FMCU and its commercially available versions will permeate the US military. However, once introduced, controls that successfully convert human inputs into machine action typically last for decades, after all, since the beginning of military aircraft, the joystick, also referred to as the “control column” in the military, has been an essential component. Hopefully, by the time the next major conflict arises, the Pentagon hasn’t already moved on to the Power Glove.

The integration of video game-style controllers like the FMCU into advanced military systems highlights a shift toward leveraging familiar, intuitive designs for next-generation soldiers. These controllers not only offer ergonomic and tactile advantages over touchscreens but also capitalise on a user base already skilled in their operation, thanks to decades of video game industry development. As more weapons systems and vehicles adopt these familiar control interfaces, it’s clear that the military is reaping the benefits of pre-trained personnel. It suggests a future where intuitive and cost-effective solutions continue to shape military technology.

The post Video game controllers: New instruments of death appeared first on International Finance.