Modernization Doctrine

Advancing the Development of Unmanned Intelligent Combat Forces with Systems Thinking

以系统思维推进无人智能作战力量建设

PLA Daily (解放军报) 21 June 2026

Summary

Three PLA authors — Du Jiyong, Zhang Hongwei, and Zhang Yue — lay out a doctrinal framework for developing unmanned intelligent combat forces organized around three dialectical pairs: offensive 'spear' versus defensive 'shield,' technological development versus operational employment, and tangible platforms ('surface') versus concepts and organization ('substance'), with specific prescriptions including swarm autonomous collaboration, cross-domain saturation attacks targeting adversary OODA decision nodes, and a 'human-machine co-deliberation' (人机共商) command mode that flattens hierarchies toward network-shaped structures. The article documents the PLA's ongoing effort to close what it explicitly names as a 'conversion bottleneck' between technological feasibility and tactical effectiveness — a recognized institutional gap, not a solved problem. The framing of 'countering swarms with swarms' (以群反群) and the call to integrate brain-computer interfaces and quantum computing as prospective disruptive technologies points to doctrinal ambition running ahead of demonstrated capability, though the article itself does not establish what units or programs are actually implementing these concepts.

Translation

Advancing the Development of Unmanned Intelligent Combat Forces with Systems Thinking

■ Du Jiyong, Zhang Hongwei, Zhang Yue

Introduction

At present, technologies such as artificial intelligence and autonomous collaboration are advancing continuously, reshaping the form of modern warfare with unprecedented breadth and depth. The development of unmanned intelligent combat forces is a comprehensive and profound systemic restructuring that encompasses military technology, operational theory, organizational form, and conceptual thinking. This demands that we break through traditional linear thinking, consciously apply systems thinking to master its complexity, and treat offense and defense, development and employment, surface and substance as a dialectically unified organic whole—planning holistically and designing in an integrated manner—so as to build an unmanned intelligent combat system that is technologically advanced, tactically innovative, and structurally adaptive, thereby consolidating advantages and seizing the initiative in future warfare.

Coordinating "Spear" and "Shield" to Achieve Mutual Reinforcement Between Offensive Forces and Countermeasure Capabilities

In future warfare, offensive unmanned intelligent combat forces and defensive countermeasure capabilities stand in mutual opposition and mutual reinforcement. It is necessary to apply philosophical dialectical thinking to drive the synchronized planning, synchronized development, and synchronized assessment of offensive and defensive capabilities, propelling the dynamic evolution and emergent capabilities of the offense-defense system.

Forging an asymmetric, penetrating intelligent offensive "spear." The key to developing offensive forces lies in forming an "asymmetric" advantage that the adversary finds difficult to counter. This requires breaking free from the traditional model of stacking equipment platforms and building a systematic, intelligent, and swarm-based combat system. First, build full-domain, multi-dimensional strike capabilities in a systematic manner. Transcend the limitations of single-platform capability enhancement; focus on building a cross-domain, functionally complementary unmanned equipment system with a mix of high-, medium-, and low-end assets; and, on the basis of maintaining strategic deterrence through high-end platforms, form low-cost, expendable, intelligent combat swarms that unify quantity and scale with quality and effectiveness. Second, intelligentize the core of combat operations. Focus on overcoming key technologies such as swarm autonomous collaboration, adaptation to complex environments, and human-machine intelligent fusion, enabling unmanned systems to share situational awareness, plan autonomously, reorganize dynamically, and collaborate intelligently—advancing unmanned intelligent equipment from an extension of tools to an upgrade as intelligent agents. Third, innovate disruptive operational employment paradigms. Explore and practice disruptive tactics such as distributed operations and cross-domain saturation attacks to directly strike the adversary's OODA loop—particularly targeting the cognition and decision-making nodes—achieving dual suppression effects at both the physical and psychological levels.

Building a multi-layered, integrated comprehensive defensive "shield." There is an inherent "speed gap" between the generation of countermeasure capabilities and the evolution of unmanned intelligent technology; in response, we must accurately perceive change, respond to change scientifically, and proactively seek change, building a multi-layered, integrated comprehensive countermeasure system. First, develop wide-area intelligent sensing capabilities by building a multi-dimensional integrated detection network that uses artificial intelligence technology to achieve early warning, detection, signature identification, and threat assessment of targets characterized as "low, slow, small, stealthy, swarming, and intelligent" (低、慢、小、隐、群、智). Second, integrate hard-kill and soft-kill intercept means to form a tiered capability configuration combining electronic jamming, cyber offense and defense, directed-energy destruction, and traditional kinetic intercept, enhancing the ability to collaboratively jam, navigation-spoof, and conduct low-cost intercept against unmanned combat forces. Third, build a dynamic and resilient countermeasure system. With an eye toward operational modes such as unmanned swarm attacks and covert infiltration strikes, break the traditional point-to-point defense model and drive a shift in defensive concepts from "fixed-point static defense" to "mobile resistance, multi-domain linkage, and system-level protection," building an agile countermeasure architecture with inherent resilience and enhancing dynamic reorganization and adaptive combat capabilities.

Establishing a "mechanism" (制) for capability evolution in which spear and shield are mutually intertwined. The "spear" and the "shield" do not develop in isolation; rather, they mutually test and mutually reinforce each other through offense-defense confrontation. First, establish a normalized adversarial exercise-training and assessment mechanism. Conduct live-force adversarial exercises in which opposing sides test each other under complex electromagnetic environments and high-intensity confrontation conditions approximating actual combat; use extreme stress-testing to verify the reliability of attack chains and the completeness of defensive systems, exposing the weak links of the combat system in real confrontation. Second, form a closed-loop feedback mechanism based on adversarial data. Deeply mine and analyze the massive data generated in adversarial exercises to precisely locate deficiencies in attack strategies and vulnerabilities in defensive systems, and use these findings to inversely drive the optimization and upgrading of attack algorithms and the iterative innovation of defensive tactics, forming a virtuous cycle of "using offense to test defense and using defense to promote offense." Third, build a dynamic and open technical architecture. The unmanned intelligent combat system, based on an open system architecture and standardized interface protocols, shall possess the characteristic of functional upgradeability, ensuring that new technologies, new equipment, and new tactics can be rapidly integrated into the existing system and fused with existing combat capabilities, thereby sustaining the continuous evolution of the combat system.

Connecting "Development" and "Employment" to Drive Synchronized Technological Innovation and Tactical Application

Systems thinking emphasizes the unity of structure and function, requiring that "development" and "employment" advance together. The development of unmanned intelligent combat forces is difficult to build and even harder to employ. To write the "second chapter" of unmanned intelligent combat force employment, there exists a conversion bottleneck from "technological feasibility" to "tactical effectiveness." To achieve deep coupling between "development" and "employment," technological innovation and tactical application must be placed within the same closed loop, achieving resonance between the two and driving the emergence of combat effectiveness.

Operational requirements pull "development." Technological development must always serve the generation of combat capabilities. First, deepen research on the form of intelligentized warfare (智能化战争) and the mechanisms of victory. Strengthen the leading role of military theoretical research and operational concept development; based on deep insight into the form of intelligentized warfare, prospectively depict typical operational scenarios for unmanned and counter-unmanned operations, and conduct in-depth analysis of combat capability requirements. Second, translate capability requirements into technical specifications and verification standards. Refine forward-looking operational concepts into quantifiable, assessable, and verifiable technical specifications, and use these as rigid constraints and key criteria guiding research project initiation, equipment development, and capability assessment. Third, establish a dynamic requirement-updating mechanism. Dynamically adjust the technical requirements list based on developments in unmanned intelligent technology, threat evolution, and exercise-training practice, ensuring that technological research and development always serves the most urgent and most cutting-edge operational problems.

Technological innovation drives "employment." Technological breakthroughs are the material foundation for capability leaps; the focus must be on achieving autonomous control and generational advantage. First, overcome key core technologies. Focus on technical domains including foundational artificial intelligence algorithms, autonomous control systems, advanced sensing technology, and high-reliability communications to achieve autonomous control, laying a solid foundation for building asymmetric advantages. Second, drive integrated technological innovation. It is necessary not only to achieve breakthroughs in individual key technologies but also to emphasize the integrated application and fusion innovation of multiple technologies. For example, to address the compatibility contradiction between the collaborative requirements of the countermeasure system and the heterogeneous status of existing systems, advanced sensors, communication modules, and intelligent algorithms can be integrated into legacy platforms to enable them to function effectively. Third, lay out disruptive technologies. While keeping a close eye on real-world military requirements, prospectively explore disruptive technologies such as brain-computer interfaces, quantum computing, and bio-convergence to drive capability leaps in unmanned intelligent combat forces.

Actual combat testing evaluates "effectiveness." The degree of match between structure and function must be tested and adjusted in practice; in complex confrontation, technological advantages must be converted into tactical superiority. First, construct realistic adversarial environments. Build a comprehensive experimental and training environment that simulates strong electromagnetic jamming, cyber attacks, complex meteorological and terrain conditions, and high-dynamic confrontation scenarios to conduct extreme testing of unmanned intelligent combat systems and determine their capability boundaries. Second, establish a combat-realistic assessment system. The focus of assessment should shift from "whether functions are realized" to "whether they are effective in confrontation," establishing an assessment indicator system oriented toward metrics such as mission completion rate, system contribution rate, and survivability and recoverability, to objectively measure combat effectiveness. Third, accelerate the iteration of tactics and technology. Establish a feedback loop among equipment technology research and development, testing, training, and operations; rapidly transmit technical problems and tactical insights arising from practical employment to the research and development end, supporting tactical and operational innovation through technological improvement.

Integrating "Surface" and "Substance" to Advance Conceptual Upgrading and Equipment Upgrading in Tandem

Systems thinking emphasizes the unity of "surface" (表) and "substance" (里). Unmanned platforms, intelligent chips, and data links are the tangible "surface" of the system, while thinking concepts and organizational forms constitute the intangible "substance" of the system. The key to maintaining long-term competitive advantage and evolutionary momentum lies in the depth and vitality of the "substance."

Drive the upgrading of thinking and concepts. The primary task in accelerating the development of unmanned intelligent combat forces is to complete a revolution in thinking. On one hand, establish a human-machine symbiotic view of warfare. Shift from "platform-centric" thinking toward thinking centered on "networks, data, and algorithms"; deepen understanding of the combat value of intelligent agents; explore new models of hybrid intelligent decision-making based on "data + algorithms + the human brain"; and share cognition and divide labor collaboratively with intelligent agents. On the other hand, innovate the methodology of intelligentized operations. The focus of research must shift from attention to platform and firepower attrition toward attention to data flows, information entropy, algorithmic confrontation, and system resilience; gain insight into the evolutionary mechanisms of high-end weapons platform deterrence and low-cost large-scale attrition; and innovate the methodological path of "countering unmanned with unmanned, controlling intelligence with intelligence, and countering swarms with swarms" (以无反无、以智制智、以群反群).

Advance the reshaping of organizational forms. Advanced weapons and equipment require compatible organizational forms to carry and release their effectiveness. First, explore a "human-machine co-deliberation" (人机共商) command mode. Drive the transformation of command structures from "tree-shaped" to "network-shaped," grant forward tactical units greater autonomy, achieve a dynamic balance between decision-making speed and quality, and ensure that the command system efficiently adapts to unmanned intelligent combat requirements. Second, innovate a modular capability composition mode. Break the constraints of traditional service branches and fixed establishments; organize unmanned intelligent combat units based on capability modules that can be dynamically combined; and flexibly "tailor" and "embed" them as needed according to mission requirements. Third, improve the intelligentized combat support mode. The high-intensity employment of unmanned intelligent equipment depends on efficient and precise combat support; new support modes and standardized procedures such as intelligent maintenance and rapid resupply must be established to match it, ensuring the continuous operation of the combat system.

Solidify the innovation ecosystem support. A system exists within an environment and draws nourishment from it. For the unmanned intelligent combat system, the most important "nourishment" is high-quality data and an open innovation ecosystem. On one hand, strengthen the strategic management of data resources. Systematically plan and build to a high standard a military data resource system covering the full process of research and development, testing, training, and operations; improve mechanisms for data standards, management, sharing, and security assurance; and provide high-quality "nourishment" for the training, testing, and evolution of unmanned intelligent combat systems. On the other hand, cultivate a deep culture of tolerance for failure. Establish an orientation that embraces intelligent technology, makes good use of data-driven decision-making, and encourages innovative exploration; encourage bold exploration of tactical and technological innovation on the premise of adhering to basic safety norms; and permit trial and error in training and simulation with rapid learning and evolution.

Original Chinese

以系统思维推进无人智能作战力量建设 ■杜继永张宏伟张玥引言当前，人工智能、自主协同等技术不断发展，正以前所未有的广度与深度重构现代战争形态。无人智能作战力量建设，是一场涉及军事技术、作战理论、组织形态和思维理念的全面而深刻的系统性重构。这要求我们必须突破传统的线性思维，自觉运用系统思维驾驭其复杂性，将攻与防、建与用、表与里作为辩证统一的有机整体，通盘运筹、一体设计，构建技术先进、战法创新、结构适配的无人智能作战体系，进而在未来战争中筑牢优势、赢得主动。统筹“矛”与“盾”，达成进攻力量和反制手段互促未来战争中，进攻性无人智能作战力量与防御性反制手段相互对立、相互促进，需要运用哲学辩证思维，推动实现攻防能力的同步规划、同步建设和同步评估，驱动攻防体系的动态进化与能力涌现。锻造非对称、穿透性智能进攻之“矛”。进攻力量的建设，关键在于形成对手难以应对的“非对称”优势。这就要求摆脱装备平台堆砌的传统模式，构建体系化、智能化、集群化的作战系统。一是体系化构建全域多维打击能力。超越单一平台能力提升限制，着力构建跨域协同、功能互补、高中低搭配的无人装备体系，在保持高端平台战略制衡的基础上，形成低成本、可消耗、智能化的作战集群，实现数量规模与质量效能相统一。二是智能化升级作战行动内核。着力攻克集群自主协同、复杂环境适应、人机智能融合等关键技术，使无人体系能够共享态势、自主规划、动态重组和智能协同，推动无人智能装备从工具延伸升维为智能载体。三是创新颠覆性作战运用范式。探索实践分布式作战、跨域饱和攻击等颠覆性战法，直接破击对手“OODA”循环，特别是针对认知与决策环节，达成物理与心理的双重压制效果。构筑多层次、一体化综合防御之“盾”。反制能力生成与无人智能技术演进存在天然的“速度差”，对此要准确识变、科学应变、主动求变，构建多层次、一体化综合反制体系。一是发展广域智能感知能力，构建多维一体的探测网络，运用人工智能技术实现对“低、慢、小、隐、群、智”等目标的预警发现、特征识别与威胁研判。二是集成软硬复合拦截手段，形成电子干扰、网络攻防、定向能毁伤、传统火力拦截相结合的梯次化能力配置，提升对无人作战力量的协同干扰、导航诱骗和低成本拦截能力。三是构建动态弹性反制体系，着眼无人集群式攻击、隐蔽渗透式袭击等作战样式，打破传统点对点防御模式，推动防御观念从“定点固守”向“机动抗击、多域联动、体系防护”转变，构建具备内生韧性的敏捷反制架构，提升动态重组与自适应作战能力。建立矛与盾相互交织的能力演进之“制”。“矛”与“盾”并非孤立发展，而是在攻防对抗中相互检验、相互促进。一是建立常态化的对抗演训与评估机制。在近似实战的复杂电磁环境和强对抗背景下，开展互为对手的实兵对抗演练，通过极限施压检验攻击链路的可靠性与防御体系的完备性，暴露作战体系在真实对抗中的薄弱环节。二是形成基于对抗数据的闭环反馈。深度挖掘和分析对抗演练中产生的海量数据，精准定位攻击策略的不足与防御体系的漏洞，反向牵引攻击算法的优化升级与防御战术的迭代创新，形成“以攻验防、以防促攻”的良性循环。三是构建动态开放的技术体制。无人智能作战体系基于开放式系统架构和标准化接口协议，具备功能升级的特性，能够确保新技术、新装备、新战法快速融入现有体系，实现与既有作战能力的融合，进而支撑作战体系持续演进。贯通“建”与“用”，推动技术创新和战术运用同步系统思维强调结构与功能的统一，要求“建”与“用”并举。无人智能作战力量重在建设，难在运用。要做好无人智能作战力量运用的“下篇文章”，存在着从“技术可行性”到“战术有效性”的转化梗阻，为实现“建”与“用”的深度耦合，需要将技术创新和战术运用置于同一闭环内，实现二者同频共振，推动作战效能涌现。作战需求牵引“建”。技术发展必须始终服务于作战能力生成。一是深化智能化战争形态与制胜机理研究。强化军事理论研究和作战概念开发的先导作用，基于对智能化战争形态的深刻洞察，前瞻描绘无人与反无人作战典型作战场景，深入剖析作战能力需求。二是将能力需求具象为技术指标与验证标准。将前瞻性作战概念细化为可量化、可评估、可验证的技术指标，并将其作为指导科研立项、装备研制和能力评估的刚性约束与关键依据。三是建立需求动态更新机制。根据无人智能技术发展、威胁演变和演训实践，动态调整技术需求清单，确保技术研发始终服务于最紧迫、最前沿的作战问题。技术创新驱动“用”。技术突破是能力跃升的物质基础，要着眼实现自主可控与代际优势。一是攻克关键核心技术。聚焦人工智能基础算法、自主控制系统、先进传感技术、高可靠通信等技术领域，实现自主可控，为构建非对称优势打造坚实底座。二是推动技术集成创新。既要突破单项关键技术，也要重视多项技术的集成应用与融合创新。如，针对反制体系协同需求与系统异构现状的兼容性矛盾，可将先进的传感器、通信模块与智能算法集成于传统平台，使其发挥作用。三是布局颠覆性技术。在紧盯现实军事需求的同时，前瞻探索脑机接口、量子计算、生物交叉等颠覆性技术，驱动无人智能作战力量实现能力跃升。实战检验评判“效”。结构与功能的匹配度需在实践中检验与调适，要在复杂对抗中推动技术优势向战术胜势转化。一是构设逼真对抗环境。构建模拟强电磁干扰、网络攻击、复杂气象地形及高动态对抗场景的综合试验训练环境，对无人智能作战系统进行极限测试，摸清其能力边界。二是建立实战化评估体系。评估重点应从“功能是否实现”转向“在对抗中是否有效”，建立一套以任务完成度、体系贡献率、生存恢复力等为指向的评估指标体系，客观衡量其作战效能。三是加快技战术迭代。建立装备技术研发、试验、训练、作战之间的反馈回路，将实践运用中的技术问题与战术创见，迅速传导至研发端，通过技术改进支撑战术战法创新。融合“表”与“里”，实现理念升维和装备升级共进系统思维注重“表”与“里”的统一。无人平台、智能芯片、数据链路等是系统有形之“表”，而思维理念、组织形态等则是系统的无形之“里”。要保持长期竞争优势和演进动力，关键取决于“里”的深度与活力。推动思维理念升维。加快无人智能作战力量建设，首要任务是完成思维革新。一方面，要确立人机共生战争观。从“以平台为中心”的思维，转向“以网络、数据和算法为中心”，深化对智能体作战价值的认识，探索基于“数据+算法+人脑”的混合智能决策新模式，与智能体共享认知、分工协作。另一方面，要创新智能化作战方法论。研究重点要从关注平台与火力的消耗，转向关注数据流、信息熵、算法对抗与体系韧性等方面，洞察高端武器平台制衡与低成本规模化消耗的演化机理，创新“以无反无、以智制智、以群反群”的方法路径。推进组织形态重塑。先进的武器装备需要适配的组织形态来承载并释放其效能。一是探索“人机共商”指挥模式。推动指挥结构从“树状”向“网状”转型，赋予前沿战术单元更大自主权，实现决策速度与质量的动态平衡，确保指挥体系高效适配无人智能作战需求。二是创新模块化能力编成模式。打破传统军兵种和固定编制的束缚，组建基于能力模块、可动态组合的无人智能作战单元，根据任务需求灵活“剪裁”、按需“嵌入”。三是完善智能化作战保障模式。无人智能装备的高强度运用依赖于高效精准的作战保障，要建立与之配套的智能维修、快速补给等新型保障模式和标准化流程，确保作战体系持续运转。强固创新生态支撑。系统存在于环境之中，并从中汲取养分。对于无人智能作战体系而言，最重要的“养分”是高质量数据和开放创新生态。一方面，要加强数据资源战略管理。系统规划、高标准建设覆盖研发、试验、训练、作战全流程的军事数据资源体系，完善数据标准、管理、共享和安全保障等机制，为无人智能作战系统的训练、测试与进化提供高质量“养分”。另一方面，要厚植容错文化底蕴。树立接纳智能技术、善用数据决策、鼓励创新探索导向，鼓励在遵循基本安全规范的前提下，大胆探索战术与技术创新，允许在训练和模拟中试错并快速学习进化。