[Editor’s Note: The T2COM OE Threat Assessment 1.0, Operational Environment 2024-2034: Large-Scale Combat Operations addresses a fundamental shift in the character of warfare, noting the increasing dominance of defensive capabilities in Large-Scale Combat Operations (LSCO). This challenge is further exacerbated by dense urban terrain:
“The United Nations projects that 68 percent of the world’s population will live in an urban area by 2050, increasing the potential for U.S. Army operations to take place in dense urban environments. Urban warfare presents several challenges as seen in the Russia-Ukraine war, the Israel-Hamas conflict, and the defeat of ISIS in Iraq. The ebb and flow of the war in Ukraine, in particular, shows that simply attacking urban areas will be insufficient…. Defenders can rely on existing infrastructure and population density to embed deep into buildings, subways, and other subterranean networks.
Normal warfare challenges will be exacerbated as urban and subterranean areas will make maneuver difficult. Road conditions, traffic, civilian populations, and building density will challenge freedom of movement and the ability to mass large formations. City blocks will create natural chokepoints, civilian vehicles become obstacles, and urban canyons will make it difficult to fly most aerial platforms. Searching and clearing will be obstructed by cover and concealment from skyscrapers, tunnels, and subterranean infrastructure.“
Today’s post by returning guest blogger Dr. John Rinquist explores how the U.S. Army can converge a number of technological capabilities to successfully execute urban breach operations and tackle the thorny Operational Environment challenge favoring the rise of defensive operations — Read on!]
“Until military tactics or technologies change to make an urban defense less advantageous to an armed force despite its objective comparative weakness, it will remain a dominant feature of the character of modern warfare…. The only current option is to identify, assault, and clear enemy fortifications in dense urban terrain.”1
The widespread use of landmines, artillery and aerially deployable mines, and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) challenges the skill and ingenuity of those who seek to defeat them in complex urban environments. The urban environment is where the terrain and obstacles will strip away an attacker’s advantage in numbers, armor, and systems. Rubble and the maneuver mayhem of modern infrastructure will predominate in future warfare as more people concentrate into cities for life and work. Future Large-Scale Combat Operations (LSCO) combined arms maneuver will require integrated force capabilities that provide a combat advantage over the adversary.2 The large number of variables involved with urban warfare confounds maneuver warfare decision cycles.3 Future urban warfare will amplify classical obstacle strategies employing landmines and IEDs with drone intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)/attack/targeting and electronic warfare. Time and ISR will be at a premium, and determine how and where to attempt obstacle breaching operations. Technology may offer options for defeating obstacles predicated on mines and IEDs.
Drones will be used by all sides in future conflicts, especially given their size, cost, and capabilities. Maneuver forces attempting breaches in any environment, should anticipate enemy drones and synchronized artillery to engage breaching forces before they can penetrate defenses. Fortunately for breaching forces in urban areas, new innovations like fiber optic drones will face significant challenges operating in urban and complex terrain due to power lines. In all cases, breaching forces should be prepared to engage enemy drones with anti-drone jammers. The challenge for combat engineers and drone operators will be the mix of technology and doctrine to defeat explosive threats. I suggest exploring new minefield/IED identification and breaching technologies should begin with drones, then progress to visualization/AI mapping, robotic solutions, and new breaching team technologies. Newer technologies provide capabilities that go beyond metal detection or discovery of subsurface voids where buried mines have been deposited.
U.S. urban breaching doctrine has evolved past the tactics, techniques, and procedures utilized in the Middle East during the Global War on Terror, but painful lessons inform contemporary experience. Urban breaching still will require forces to defeat altered mines or daisy-chained mines or IEDs, as well as mines that have been placed in unanticipated orientations or haphazard 
clusters. The same applies for subterranean areas or multi-story buildings.4, 5 Urban areas pose unique challenges to technology. TP 525-92-1 specifically identified the technological barriers that new technologies must bypass: blocked or denied line of sight communications; degraded signal strengths due to infrastructure composition and electromagnetic interference; airspace that must be deconflicted if multiple drones will operate; and a civilian populace that may actively engage drones.6 Future warfare will demand precision and tools to quickly, accurately, and decisively destroy obstacles. A solution to minefields and IEDs may be at hand.
As of 2023, a mine detecting drone is available that can detect older generation metallic mines such as TMM-series anti-tank mines and IEDs made from military munitions.7 The commercially available Voliro drone’s lidar and a metal detector head can detect mines and munitions while the drone maneuvers with precision around obstacles to fly as low as a few inches above 
the ground. The Voliro transmits data to its handler that can be used to create a map of those explosive threats. The technology is adaptable to less sophisticated platforms as well — a Ukrainian teenager also built a similarly proficient mine detecting drone.8 Other detectors discover mines through chemical signatures. An Australian company has built a mine detector that identifies TNT and RDX explosives used in over 90% of mines today.9. 10 Finally, a Belgian company, Aerial Solutions, has created a quadcopter that possesses magnetometer and ground penetrating radar to find mines.11 All of these systems can deliver data and identify targets precision given time. The potential for landmine, bomblet, and IED detection is enhanced when paired with thermal imaging devices and AI mapping software.
A lesson learned from the war in Ukraine is the potential for drones to aerially map areas that have been contaminated by aerially deployed PFM-1 “butterfly” mines by measuring thermal differences between the munitions and the background terrain. Although hard to detect visually, the mines, like unexploded ordnance or IEDs, have thermal inertia, a property of retaining heat that can be detected by a drone capable of registering temperature differences. Analysts can utilize infrared wavelength imagery captured by a drone equipped with an infrared camera to find and map munitions. One camera system claims to be able to scan a 10m x 20m area in ten minutes.12 The U.S. Army’s engineers are also testing commercially available SkyRaider and Anafi quadcopters to carry an array of sensors including lidar. The data these drones gather is analyzed using the Office of Naval Research’s Standoff Radar Imaging Detection System (SORIDS) for mine detection and countermeasure operations.13 The resulting data can be mapped and a strategy created to destroy the munitions. Rather than humans searching in rubble, drones map and identify threats before anyone enters a contaminated area.
Detecting mines isn’t the end of the problem. Obstacles must be breached and munitions defeated. However, drones have made the massing of forces difficult. Drone swarms descend on grouped vehicles and dismounted Soldiers if they remain in one place too long. Consequently, attacking forces must consider swarm tactics or similar methods of dispersion and 
concentration according to the nature of the fight. When organizing for an obstacle breach, engineers must have the most complete knowledge of the obstacle as possible to avoid the potential for massing forces in one spot while the breach is considered. Breaching teams cannot assume that buildings will provide cover while they organize teams and confirm far side suppression; too many videos show drones entering enclosed spaces or trenches to conduct kamikaze attacks. Consequently tenants of engineer minefield breaching operations must now include thermal camouflage, obscuration against drone ISR, and protection for high-value and difficult to replace systems.14
Although explosive-carrying drones can engage mines or IEDs with their own weapons to neutralize threats, they can be very vulnerable, especially if weighed down with bombs or sensors. If local air superiority cannot be guaranteed and enemy forces are capable of striking at friendly drones, a ground solution may be warranted. Enemy forces must be identified and their locations known before a breach. That is a case for nano drones like the Black 
Hornet Nano. The Black Hornet offers breaching teams thermal still and video imagery from a platform measuring six inches from tip to tail and weighing just over an ounce. Its one-mile range and 25- minute operations time provide a small, portable ISR solution that can enter buildings, navigate tight spaces, and fly autonomously with pre-entered waypoints or under operator focus from a safe distance.15 Once ISR has confirmed obstacle placement and composition, it’s time to consider autonomous robots.
The U.S. Army is working on a number of new breaching vehicles that can operate in urban spaces more easily than larger vehicles like bulldozers or the Army’s M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle.16 The past couple of years in Ukraine have demonstrated the lethality of drones to armored vehicles through top-
attacks. Although an urban environment may still be appropriate for larger breaching vehicles under certain conditions, a new range of unmanned robot vehicles can do the job with lower risk to human operators. The Army’s golf-cart-sized radio-controlled wheeled Small Multipurpose Equipment Transport (S-MET) and the unmanned tracked Expeditionary Modular Autonomous Vehicle (EMAV) can be modified to carry a rocket-launched minefield clearing explosive, the MICLIC.17 These breaching vehicles can exploit the information from drone imagery to carry minefield clearing charges to areas where there are identified IEDs, mines, or other munitions.
However, if the tactical situation doesn’t favor robot vehicles — with shifting rubble or surfaces too broken to support robot operations — humans can quickly deploy several systems to breach an identified obstacle belt quickly and with relative security. First, as with nearly all engineer breaching operations, obscuration must be obtained for the potential breach site. That can be provided by the man-portable Screening Obscuration Module (SOM) that measures 22in wide x 6.5in diameter x 24in high. The SOM can quickly generate smoke at the breach site while other members of the breaching team prepare another explosive breaching tool.18 Analysts assert when smoke is used in operations, drones have a greater degree of failure to hit targets — smoke may raise survival rates for Soldiers by over 30 percent.19 
Then, the man portable line charge (MPLC), a 35-pound backpack-sized line charge unit could be deployed to create a 14m wide x 100m long lane through obstacles while triggered by an operator from a concealed position.20 Despite the smoke and explosive charges, future breaching teams will also need some form of electronic warfare protection or portable “drone killing” weapon with the breaching teams. One candidate that the U.S. Army is testing is the “Sky Sweeper” laser system that can engage and destroy drones. However, it is a high value target and is most likely to be used to protect higher priority breaching assets.21 A less obvious and potentially valuable solution is the 8.8-pound, two-piece Dronebuster detection, tracking, identification, and mitigation capability (DTIM) that can detect and identify drones from over four miles away, track their activity, and then deliver an electro-magnetic burst to spoof signals and disable the drone. The DTIM unit provides the data and the Dronebuster “gun” neutralizes the drone.22 If that fails, shotguns are one ubiquitous solution that all sides have used in Ukraine.
Minefield and obstacle clearance in urban environments will be complicated by debris, ferrous objects, and damaged metallic objects across the battlefield. Further increasing the difficulty with breaching obstacles will be new threats like drones of various types that are synchronized with artillery and electronic warfare systems to prevent breaching teams from gaining intelligence about breach sites, obstacle overwatch forces, and possible complex explosive threats like daisy-chained command detonated mines or butterfly mines that visual sweeps may miss. Incorporating robots, UAS systems, and lighter breaching systems could provide options in an urban setting where mitigating casualties in one’s own forces as well as non-combatants will be necessary. The meatgrinder Russian tactics in Ukraine would not be tolerated by the United States military. Although bypassing obstacles still beats breaching them, in a city the choices may be limited to the latter. Perhaps AI will provide another way to bypass or penetrate obstacle belts with minimal casualties, but until then forces engaged in LSCO in urban areas need to take every advantage to defeat obstacles using the best technology available.
If you enjoyed this post, check out the T2COM G-2‘s Operational Environment Enterprise web page, brimming with authoritative information on the Operational Environment and how our adversaries fight, including:
Our T2COM OE Threat Assessment 1.0, The Operational Environment 2024-2034: Large-Scale Combat Operations
Our China Landing Zone, full of information regarding our pacing challenge, including ATP 7-100.3, Chinese Tactics, T2COM OE Threat Assessment 1-1, How China Fights in Large-Scale Combat Operations, 10 Things You Didn’t Know About the PLA, and BiteSize China weekly topics.
Our Russia Landing Zone, including T2COM OE Threat Assessment 1-2, How Russia Fights in Large-Scale Combat Operations and the BiteSize Russia weekly topics. If you have a CAC, you’ll be especially interested in reviewing our weekly RUS-UKR Conflict Running Estimates and associated Narratives, capturing what we learned about the contemporary Russian way of war in Ukraine in 2022 and 2023 and the ramifications for U.S. Army modernization across DOTMLPF-P.
Our Iran Landing Zone, including the Iran Quick Reference Guide and the Iran Passive Defense Manual (both require a CAC to access).
Our North Korea Landing Zone, including Resources for Studying North Korea, Instruments of Chinese Military Influence in North Korea, and Instruments of Russian Military Influence in North Korea.
Our Irregular Threats Landing Zone, including TC 7-100.3, Irregular Opposing Forces, and ATP 3-37.2, Antiterrorism (requires a CAC to access).
Our Running Estimates SharePoint site (also requires a CAC to access) — documenting what we’re learning about the evolving OE (including Russia’s war in Ukraine war since 2024 and other ongoing competitions and conflicts around the globe). Contains our monthly OE Running Estimates, associated Narratives, and the quarterly OE Assessment Intelligence Posts.
Then review the following related Mad Scientist Laboratory content…
Urban Combat:
A Chinese Perspective on Future Urban Unmanned Operations
Brian Train on Wargaming Irregular and Urban Combat
TP 525-92-1, The Changing Character of Warfare: The Urban Operational Environment, April 2020.
War in Ukraine: The Urban Fight is Happening Now and its associated podcast, and Ukraine: All Roads Lead to Urban and its associated podcast, with MAJ John Spencer (USA-Ret.)
Current and Future Operations in Megacities Conference: Observations and Recommendations, facilitated in Tokyo on 16-19 July 2019
Megacities: Future Challenges and Responses, documenting key insights from the Multi Domain Battle (MDB) In Megacities Conference, facilitated at Fort Hamilton, New York, on 3-4 April 2018
Dense Urban Environments (DUE): Now through 2050
Dense Urban Hackathon – Virtual Innovation
Battlefield Automation:
Ukraine Conflict UAV Evolution, by Colin Christopher
Death From Above! The Evolution of sUAS Technology and associated podcast, with COL Bill Edwards (USA-Ret.)
Jomini’s Revenge: Mass Strikes Back! by proclaimed Mad Scientist Zachery Tyson Brown
Insights from the Robotics and Autonomy Series of Virtual Events and associated videos
On the Ground and In the Air in Ukraine, and associated podcast, with Wolfgang Hagarty
Asymmetric Warfare across Multiple Domains, by Ethan Sah
Unmanned Capabilities in Today’s Battlespace
Revolutionizing 21st Century Warfighting: UAVs and C-UAS
The PLA and UAVs – Automating the Battlefield and Enhancing Training
About the Author: Dr. John Ringquist is a retired military officer of thirty-five years Army service. He writes about technology, security, and military topics, and is working on a book about new technologies and the future of war.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, or the Transformation and Training Command (T2COM).
1 John Spencer, “The Eight Rules of Urban Warfare and Why We Must Work to Change Them,” Modern Warfare Institute, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-eight-rules-of-urban-warfare-and-why-we-must-work-to-change-them/
2 John Spencer and Liam Collins, “Twelve Months of War in Ukraine have Revealed Four Fundamental Lessons on Urban Warfare,” Modern Warfare Institute, February 23, 2023, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/twelve-months-of-war-in-ukraine-have-revealed-four-fundamental-lessons-on-urban-warfare/
3 Jocelyn Garcia, “The Russo-Ukrainian War and the Principles of Urban Operations,” Small Wars Journal, November 11, 2022, https://smallwarsjournal.com/2022/11/11/russo-ukrainian-war-and-principles-urban-operations/
4 Anthony C. Funkhouser “Breaching Around Corners: Engineer Operations in Urban Environments” Engineer Magazine, July-September 2003,
5 “ATP 3-21.51, Subterranean Operations,” 2019, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, DC, November 1, 2019, https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/ATP3-21.51-Audiobook/Index.html
6 “TP 525-92-1, The Changing Character of Warfare: The Urban Operational Environment,” Department of the Army, Headquarters, U.S. Army, Fort Eustis, Virginia, April 9, 2020, 21-22, https://adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/pamphlets/TP525-92-1.pdf
7 Evan Ackerman, “Metal-Detecting Drone Could Autonomously Find Land Mines,” March 21, 2023, https://spectrum.ieee.org/metal-detecting-drone
8 Maragret Osborne, “A Ukrainian Teenager Invents a Drone That Can Detect Land Mines, Smithsonian Magazine, September 23, 2022, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/a-ukrainian-teenager-invents-a-drone-that-can-detect-land-mines-180980826/
9 “MRead’s sensors transmit radio frequency pulses to detect explosives and drugs,” https://www.mread.com.au/technology
10 Abbie O’Brien, “The Australian first that could save thousands worldwide,” May 31, 2025,
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/the-australian-first-that-could-save-thousands-worldwide/h484dpugp
11 Inna Chefranova, “Belgian Innovation in Drone Technology Revolutionizes Mine Detection, September 5, 2024, https://eutoday.net/belgian-innovation-in-drone-technology-revolutionises-mine-detection/
12 Sid Perkins, “Heat signatures help track down old and still deadly land mines,” April 30, 2019, https://www.snexplores.org/article/heat-signatures-help-track-down-old-and-still-deadly-land-mines
13 “Standoff Radar Imaging Detection System (SoRIDS) Demonstration Quicklook,” Explosive Hazard Defeat Office of Naval Research, Code 32, September 2021, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1174381.pdf
14 Matthew Holbrook, “Engineer Lessons Learned From the War in Ukraine,” The Engineer, January 1, 2024, https://www.lineofdeparture.army.mil/Journals/Engineer/July-24-Engineer/Lessons-Ukraine/
15 “The Incredible Engineering of the Black Hornet Nano Drone,” Engineering.com, July 24, 2023, https://www.engineering.com/the-incredible-engineering-of-the-black-hornet-nano-drone/
16 U.S. Army “Clearing Scary Minefields With Advanced M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle,” DefX Army, YouTube, 1:06-11:27, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH8ONZzn3a4
17 Sam Skove, “Mine-spotting drones and tracked robots: The Army’s efforts to breach minefields with tech,” January 9, 2024, https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2024/01/mine-spotting-drones-and-tracked-robots-armys-efforts-breach-minefields-tech/393228/
18 Becki Bryant, “The Return of Smoke,” The Dispatch, Vol5, No 6, June 2019, https://ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/AA/00/06/26/30/00050/06-2019.pdf
19 Louis Saillans, “Drone Success Rates and Survival Factors,” Askalon Industries, June 4, 2025, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/louis-saillans_i-spent-over-100-hours-compiling-and-analyzing-activity-7336063693018857472-rhmm?utm_medium=ios_app&rcm=ACoAABabqBAB-IKHSvnN4dn-gaKUNrQuaQVG3OM&utm_source=social_share_send&utm_campaign=gmail
20 U.S. Army, “H-56: Man Portable Line Charge,” Army Techniques Publication ATP 3-21.8 Infantry Platoon and Squad, Department of Defense, Washington D.C., April 2016, https://infantrydrills.com/fm-3-21-8/appendix-h-obstacle-reduction-and-employment/h-56-man-portable-line-charge/
21 Kyle Miizokami, “The Army Finally Fielded Its Drone-Killing Laser Weapon. It Could Reshape Today’s Battlefield,” Popular Mechanics, October 11, 2023, https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a45500360/army-first-laser-unit/
22 Kapil Kajal, “U.S. first drone killer suit that zaps UAVs 4-mile away with Terminator-like gun revealed,” Interesting Engineering, February 19, 2025, https://interestingengineering.com/military/us-first-drone-killer-suit
