The United States military has a documented history of learning the hard way. South African engineers perfected the V-shaped mine-resistant hull in the 1980s, proven across two decades of bush war combat. The Pentagon knew the technology existed before the Iraq invasion. It went in anyway with flat-bottomed Humvees. By 2005, with Marines dying in Anbar Province, a brigadier general submitted an urgent request for 1,169 mine-resistant vehicles. Marine Corps bureaucrats stopped the request cold, declared the up-armored Humvee the best available option, and routed the paperwork to a logistics official with no vehicle experience. The request never reached a requirements council. A United States military team flew to South Africa mid-war to watch a Casspir cross a live minefield — while American troops were still riding in vehicles that couldn’t survive one. Defense Secretary Robert Gates finally forced a crash procurement program in 2007. The Pentagon later estimated that mine-resistant vehicles, once fielded, saved as many as 40,000 lives. The gap between knowing and acting cost hundreds of Americans their lives.
That history matters now because the Pentagon appears, for the first time in a generation, to be acting on a technological shift before a crisis forces the issue.
The fiscal year 2027 defense budget request includes $54.6 billion for the Defense Autonomous Warfare Group, known as DAWG — a 24,070 percent increase over the $225.9 million the program received in fiscal 2026. It is the largest single year-over-year budget increase for any defense program in modern history. The request is part of a $1.5 trillion total defense proposal, with the bulk of DAWG’s funding — $53.6 billion — allocated through a reconciliation vehicle rather than the base budget. Midterm elections are scheduled for November 2026, and that funding stream depends on congressional action that has not yet occurred.
DAWG absorbed the Biden-era Replicator drone initiative after Replicator missed its August 2025 fielding target by thousands of systems. The Congressional Research Service documented that only hundreds of autonomous platforms were delivered by the deadline. Technical failures, integration problems with existing command structures, and manufacturing bottlenecks plagued the program. The Trump administration kept what worked and changed what didn’t. DAWG was placed inside U.S. Special Operations Command — a deliberate institutional choice. SOCOM operates with acquisition authorities that bypass the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the multi-year procurement cycles that strangled the MRAP request in 2005.
Marine Lt. Gen. Francis L. Donovan was named DAWG director. Maj. Gen. Steven Marks directs the Drone Dominance Program running alongside it, with a target of more than 200,000 one-way attack drones fielded by January 2028. Pentagon comptroller Jules Hurst described DAWG’s operating model in April: testing systems live with companies, providing real-time feedback, building incremental capability rather than locking into a single baseline platform procured forever. On April 29, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the House Armed Services Committee the Pentagon would shortly announce a sub-unified command dedicated to autonomous warfare — a signal that this is not a program but a permanent restructuring of how the United States fights.
Ukraine made the argument the Pentagon could not ignore. Under Secretary for Research and Engineering Emil Michael stated at the Reagan National Defense Forum that the front lines of modern territorial conflict are now “robot-on-robot.” Ukraine’s maritime drone program rendered Russia’s Black Sea Fleet effectively combat ineffective — accomplished by a smaller nation deploying low-cost autonomous systems at volume against one of the world’s largest traditional naval forces. The lesson is not that large conventional forces are worthless. The lesson is that they can be denied, degraded, and delayed by an adversary willing to mass autonomous systems faster than the other side can respond.
Admiral Samuel Paparo, Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in April 2026 that a war of necessity over Taiwan is possible any time before August 2027, with a war of choice remaining possible after that date. He told The Washington Post he wants to turn the Taiwan Strait into what he called an “unmanned hellscape using a number of classified capabilities” — denying a Chinese invasion force for a month while the rest of the military response assembles. DAWG, at the scale now being funded, is the operational architecture behind that concept.
The risks are documented. Autonomous systems operating at mass scale historically increase pressure toward unconventional weapons — when conventional deterrence is neutralalized, adversaries reach for options that aren’t. The United States has not kept pace with treaty frameworks covering hypersonic delivery systems, and the failure to establish binding limits on what those platforms can carry represents a strategic gap that no drone swarm closes. These systems are also vulnerable to electronic warfare and countermeasures, a fact Russia’s adaptation in Ukraine demonstrates. The defense industrial base supporting DAWG must be capable of moving a new platform from concept to battlefield in weeks when adversaries develop effective countermeasures. That speed has not been demonstrated at scale.
The contrast with the MRAP history is institutional, not incidental. The Pentagon identified the threat, built the acquisition structure outside the bureaucratic channels that killed the 2005 request, committed a budget before a conflict forced the issue, and put the operational concept on the record in congressional testimony. Whether Congress understands what it is being asked to sustain — and votes accordingly before the reconciliation window closes — is the remaining question.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 