Artificial Intelligence (AI):
Artificial intelligence is no longer a future capability — it is a current operational requirement. As the Army accelerates its data centricity framework and stands up the Army Data Operations Center, the central question is no longer whether AI belongs in military operations, but whether our policy, infrastructure, and operational architecture are aligned enough to employ it at the speed the threat demands. Three of the Army's most senior leaders in cyber, data, and network operations converge to separate the promise from the reality.
Artificial intelligence is reshaping the character of military operations faster than institutions can adapt. The Army has made significant doctrinal and structural investments — from its data centricity framework to the establishment of the Army Data Operations Center — signaling a clear institutional commitment to treating data as a weapons system. But commitment and capability are not the same thing.
This panel brings together three of the Army's most senior leaders across cyberspace operations, network enterprise, and defense information infrastructure to interrogate that gap honestly. Where is Army policy keeping pace with the AI demand signal? What does AI-enabled cyber operations actually require that current architecture is not yet delivering? And in a contested environment where adversaries actively target our data pipelines, how confident can we be in the integrity of the models driving consequential decisions?
This is not a panel about future programs of record. It is a frank conversation about where the Army stands today — and what it will take to close the distance between ambition and operational reality. Attendees will leave with a clearer, more grounded picture of AI's role in the fight right now.
Artificial intelligence is no longer on the horizon — it is inside the wire. Across cyberspace operations, network enterprise architecture, and defense information infrastructure, AI-enabled capabilities are being integrated into operational environments where the margin for error is measured in seconds, and the consequences of failure are strategic. The Army has responded with institutional urgency: a data centricity framework, a cloud-to-edge architecture, and the establishment of the Army Data Operations Center as a tactical data triage node designed to feed the AI-enabled force.
But institutional frameworks and operational reality do not always move at the same speed. This panel convenes three of the Army's most senior leaders — the architects of its cyber, network, and information infrastructure — to engage the hard questions that conference briefings rarely surface. Where is Army policy genuinely keeping pace with the AI demand signal, and where is it still catching up? What does AI-enabled cyber operations require today that existing architecture is not yet providing? And in an operational environment where adversaries are actively targeting data pipelines and contesting the integrity of the information our systems depend on — how confident can commanders be in AI-assisted decisions at machine speed?
The Army Data Operations Center sits at the intersection of all three questions — not as the answer, but as a critical enabling mechanism in a larger, more complex operational equation.
This panel does not offer easy assurances. It offers something more valuable: an honest, senior-leader assessment of where the Army stands, what remains unresolved, and what a credible path forward actually looks like. Attendees will leave with a sharper operational picture and a more grounded understanding of AI's role in the fight today.
Spectrum Warfighting:
The electromagnetic spectrum is no longer a background condition — it is contested terrain. As the Army's Cyber Center of Excellence has institutional ownership of both Spectrum Management Operations and Electromagnetic Warfare, the central question is no longer whether EW and spectrum management must integrate, but how that integration gets built, sustained, and scaled under fire. Two of the Army's most experienced operational leaders bring the lessons of the hard way to inform the path forward — and to signal where industry and academia must show up.
The electromagnetic spectrum is no longer a passive background condition — it is warfighting terrain that must be seized, held, and exploited. As threat systems grow cheaper, more proliferated, and harder to defeat, the integration of Electromagnetic Warfare and Spectrum Management Operations has moved from a doctrinal preference to an operational imperative. The Army's Cyber Center of Excellence now owns both missions under one institutional roof — and the question of how to architect that enterprise for the fight ahead is not yet answered.
This panel brings together two senior operational leaders who have lived the EW and spectrum management integration problem from different angles — one from the organizational design challenge of making distinct functions work together under pressure, the other from the kill chain execution reality of C-sUAS operations where EW, kinetic effectors, and spectrum management must converge in seconds. Their lessons are not theoretical. They are the operational ground truth that the CCoE, defense industry, and academia need to hear to build what comes next.
The electromagnetic spectrum is no longer a passive background condition — it is contested warfighting terrain that must be actively maneuvered, seized, held, and exploited. Across every modern conflict environment, the integration of Electromagnetic Warfare and Spectrum Management Operations has moved from a doctrinal preference to a tactical survival requirement. Cheap, proliferating unmanned systems have made the C-sUAS fight the sharpest edge of that demand — where EW, kinetic effectors, and spectrum management must be synchronized in seconds, not staff cycles.
The Army's Cyber Center of Excellence owns both Spectrum Management Operations and Electromagnetic Warfare under one institutional roof. The question of how to architect that enterprise — how to keep two distinct functions genuinely integrated without collapsing the expertise that makes each effective — is one of the most consequential force design challenges the Army faces in the electromagnetic domain. And it is not yet answered.
This panel convenes two senior operational leaders who have lived that challenge from different angles — one who ran the organizational design experiment and arrived at hard-earned conclusions about what distinct-but-integrated actually requires, and one who commands the C-sUAS mission where the theoretical integration meets an unforgiving kill chain. Their lessons are not derived from doctrine. They are derived from what broke, what worked, and what the force had to build or improvise when the system wasn't ready.
This is not a panel about what the Army intends to build. It is a frank conversation about what the operational environment is already demanding — and what the CCoE, defense industry, and academia must each contribute to close the distance between institutional design and tactical reality. Attendees will leave with a clearer understanding of where the EMSO fight is headed, what remains unresolved, and where the most consequential opportunities for partnership and innovation actually exist.
Learning Objectives: Upon completion of this session, attendees will be able to:
- Analyze the gap between current Army policy, information infrastructure, and the tactical requirements for employing AI capabilities at the speed of modern cyber threats.
- Evaluate the role of the Army Data Operations Center (ADOC) and data centricity frameworks in securing data pipelines and ensuring the integrity of AI models in contested environments.
- Explain the operational necessity of integrating Electromagnetic Warfare (EW) and Spectrum Management Operations (SMO) to seize and exploit the contested electromagnetic spectrum.
- Assess the synchronization of EW, kinetic effectors, and spectrum management needed to execute rapid kill chains in Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-sUAS) operations.
- Identify crucial opportunities for the Cyber Center of Excellence (CCoE), defense industry, and academia to collaborate and resolve structural challenges in electromagnetic domain force design.