16 October 2026

Techquisition: The Pentagon’s New Autonomous Warfare Command

Maggie Gray | Maggie Gray, David Rothzeid

Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memo on September 30th titled Project Agincourt, Pathway to the Autonomous Warfare Command, initiating a framework to establish a new functional combatant command focused on autonomous warfare. Defense acquisitions expert Bill Greenwalt joined podcast hosts Maggie Gray and David Rothzeid to discuss the initiative, which aims to address shortcomings in Western acquisition systems highlighted by the war in Ukraine.

The proposed entity intends to secure directive manpower, budget, and acquisition authorities while creating dedicated career pathways. Combatant commands differ from services in that services organize, train, and equip forces, whereas combatant commands direct them in operations. The last combatant commands created from scratch were U.S. Special Operations Command and U.S. Transportation Command in 1987. Project Agincourt is currently an aspirational pathway led by the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems and will require both departmental planning and congressional legislation.

Comment

Project Agincourt directly targets the structural disconnect between legacy military acquisition and the iterative development cycles demonstrated by units like Magyar's Birds in Ukraine. By leveraging the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems to lay the groundwork for a dedicated combatant command, the Pentagon is attempting to bypass sclerotic procurement paths that prioritize exquisite platforms over attritable autonomy. Establishing such a command requires carving out distinct authorities and career pathways currently monopolized by the military services.

Strategic Question for Discussion
How does shifting operational control of autonomous systems to a functional combatant command alter the traditional organize-train-equip monopoly held by the military services?
The pattern suggests that a dedicated autonomous warfare command would bypass traditional service gatekeepers, directly dictating capability requirements to industry. This institutional friction points to a prolonged bureaucratic struggle over acquisition authorities and Major Force Program funding streams.
Share your assessment in the comments below.
πŸ’¬
Ask me
Ask Strategic Study India New chat ×