Modern Targeting in European Militaries

RUSI | Robert Tollast, Noah Sylvia and Matthew Savill

European militaries are accelerating the adoption of digitalized command and control systems to dramatically scale up sensor-to-effector operational targeting capabilities. High-intensity operations like the 28 February 2026 US Operation Epic Fury against Iran demonstrated the operational necessity of cohering disparate intelligence data streams to sustain nearly 900 strikes within 12 hours.

Traditional staff workflows struggle to maintain such relentless strike rates without deep organizational adaptation and procedural overhaul. Crucially, scaling force output to thousands of targets daily introduces acute friction between decision speed and legal compliance under international humanitarian law. Armed forces integrating capabilities like the UK Digital Targeting Web must address organizational bottlenecks alongside raw technological upgrades. Human-machine teaming requires transparent governance frameworks to retain meaningful control over automated workflows. Speed creates friction. Decentralized command structures and adapted doctrine are vital to prepare Allied forces for high-intensity multi-domain warfare against Russian forces.

Comment

The deployment of the UK Digital Targeting Web shifts operational friction from intelligence collection to command approval at joint operational headquarters. Systems like Palantir's Maven Smart System compress sensor-to-decider timelines to seconds, but legal compliance checks under International Humanitarian Law remain bound to human decision cycles. In high-intensity operations like Operation Epic Fury, senior commanders risk becoming approval bottlenecks if delegation authorities are not pushed down to brigade level.

This delegation imperative reshapes headquarters doctrine across NATO Allied Land Command. Lower-tier tactical headquarters operating the UK Digital Targeting Web face increasing pressure to execute strike authorisations without continuous reachback to strategic leadership. Consequently, force survivability against Russian integrated air defence systems depends as much on pre-delegated targeting rules of engagement as on sensor density.

Strategic Question for Discussion

Which factor presents the greater bottleneck to sensor-to-effector timelines when deploying the UK Digital Targeting Web — the legal vetting required for International Humanitarian Law compliance or the delegation of strike authority within NATO Allied Land Command?

The available evidence points toward internal delegation of strike authority as the primary operational friction. While automated compliance tools within platforms like the Maven Smart System can expedite legal review, military command structures remain reluctant to delegate engagement authority below division level. Consequently, sensor-to-effector latency will likely be driven by command-and-control risk tolerance rather than algorithmic processing speeds.

Share your assessment in the comments below.

To read in details click here