𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗚𝗿𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲. 𝗢𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗳 𝘄𝗲 𝗴𝗲𝘁 𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗳 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘄𝗮𝘆. Many nations can build and field unmanned systems. That's not our edge. Our edge is the velocity of change. Integrate a professional OPFOR and industry with real operational units, then iterate faster than any adversary can react, in peacetime and in war. I've seen what happens when we don't. I watched our OPFOR UAS Troop destroy every Command Post and artillery piece in a Brigade in training. And what did we learn? Absolutely nothing. It was ignored. The imaginary CUAS was 100% effective, and that unit gained ZERO training, because we had to show success on that rep. The next unit repeated the exact same mistakes. Ignoring it was a deliberate choice. That is us getting in our own way. And we're still training on one map sheet while the fight occupies three. The Louisiana Maneuvers were not run inside a post fence. They used whole-of-government land because scale and geometry were the point. The box was never the battlefield. "Our CTCs are not big enough" is the most honest sentence the institution has produced on this. It should have been an order, not a complaint. We will have acknowledged reality when a BCT fights in the box at NTC while the BCT main is at 29 Palms, and its Division commands and enables it from home station across real operational depth: distance, delay, signature, culmination, and all. The Agincourt memo says it plainly: "The goal is not a particular drone. It is a system built to adapt at scale." And: "Evidence will decide outcomes." That evidence gets built in the dirt. A free, realistic OPFOR that jams, hunts the CP, and learns. Industry engineers in the motor pool changing the kit between fights. Leaders who change the TTPs faster than the enemy's tech can adapt. Autonomous warfare has been around for over a decade. What do we have to show for it? We have the warriors. We have the industry experts. We have the grit. Now let's get out of our own way and drive this change like we've never seen before. @DOWAgincourt