Doctrine Shift
When reach and persistence stop being scarce
Most defense doctrines were built around the limits of platforms.
Range was expensive. Persistence was rare. Coverage was episodic.
As a result, doctrine evolved to optimize the use of scarce, high-value assets rather than the continuous execution of missions. That logic is increasingly misaligned with modern operational demands.
The constraint has moved
Modern missions are often constrained less by sensing, data, or autonomy than by how capability is distributed and sustained over space and time.
When reach collapses faster than threats disperse, forces compensate with larger platforms, higher unit costs, rationed presence, and gaps between deployments. These compensations often reflect doctrinal legacy rather than strategic necessity.
Distribution changes the problem and the solution
When sensing and operational presence can be distributed and sustained, coverage is no longer tied to a single platform, persistence no longer depends on crew endurance, and missions scale with geometry, not asset count.
From platform-centric to mission-centric thinking
In platform-centric doctrine, assets define missions and economics dictate restraint. In mission-centric doctrine, missions define systems and economics enable scale.
Doctrine follows capability
History is consistent on this point: History suggests that doctrine rarely leads capability; it more often codifies it after the fact. When reach, persistence, and integration become abundant rather than scarce, doctrine adjusts to exploit them.
This is the level at which we work.