# DECODING: AUKUS tests drone swarms — the revolution redefining warfare in the Indo-Pacific

> In June 2026, on the wet expanses of Salisbury Plain in England, Australian, American, and British soldiers put into action what may well represent a turning point in the history of modern warfare. Up to six simultaneous autonomous drones, programmed by military personnel from al

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Analysis
- Published: 2026-06-27
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/aukus-teste-les-essaims-de-drones-la-revolution-qui-redefinit-la-guerre-en-indo

## Introduction: On Salisbury Plain, the future of war was tested in the rain

### Six drones, three countries, one tactical revolution

In June **2026**, on the wet expanses of **Salisbury Plain** in England, Australian, American, and British soldiers put into action what may well represent a turning point in the history of modern warfare. Up to **six simultaneous autonomous drones**, programmed by military personnel from all three nations, swarmed through the woodlands of the region, using **artificial intelligence** to autonomously break down a sector, conduct reconnaissance, and relay images in near-real time to a shared command post. This was not a showcase demonstration: it was the **Army Warfighting Experiment 2026**, a key military component of **AUKUS Pillar II**.

On **June 22, 2026**, the Australian Ministry of Defence published a detailed account of this exercise — a sober, military text, devoid of fanfare, but whose strategic implications deserve careful decoding. What happened on **Salisbury Plain** is not a technological curiosity. It is a clear signal sent to anyone monitoring military developments in the **Indo-Pacific** region — and in particular to **Beijing**.

### AUKUS Pillar II: the technological dimension of the alliance that unsettles Beijing

To understand the significance of these exercises, one must recall what **AUKUS Pillar II** is. The **AUKUS** agreement — signed in **2021** between **Australia**, the **United Kingdom**, and the **United States** — has two pillars. **Pillar I**, the more widely known and covered, concerns the provision to **Australia** of **nuclear-powered submarines** — the famous SSN-AUKUS. **Pillar II**, less spectacular but potentially just as transformative, concerns the **sharing of cutting-edge military technologies**: artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, hypersonics, quantum capabilities, and undersea capabilities.

The drone swarm exercises of **June 22** fall under **Pillar II**. Even more significant: at the **Shangri-La Dialogue** in **Singapore** in early June **2026**, the defense ministers of all three countries announced the first "**Signature Project**" of Pillar II — the joint development of **payloads and enabling systems for unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs)**, with a British contribution of **£150 million**. These UUVs are designed to "**detect, deter, and deal with threats**" to undersea cables and pipelines.

*What strikes me about these AUKUS exercises is their dual nature: simultaneously real and symbolic. Real, because the technologies being tested — autonomous swarms, real-time data sharing, AI models refined through combat experience — are operational capabilities that will change the face of war. Symbolic, because conducting these exercises in Europe and publicly announcing the results is also a deliberate message addressed to Beijing: we work together, our systems interoperate, and our technological lead in autonomous systems is real.*

## The anatomy of swarms: how it actually works

### Algorithms and shared intelligence

Australian Lance Corporal **Kai Smith**, a participant in the exercise, described how it worked with a disarming simplicity: "**We use fairly simple AI software. The drones go to a location, use the swarm software to break down that sector, do their sweep and send the images back to the end user's device.**" The reality is more complex than it appears: this description understates the fundamental challenge of swarm technology, which is **autonomous coordination** among multiple agents without centralized command for each individual decision.

Engineer **Hing-Wah Kwok** from the Australian **Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG)** provided the key technical insight: "**Being able to leverage and retrain new models in the field and quickly exchange those models with AUKUS partners through common standards is a real force multiplier**. It allows AUKUS partners to capitalize on each other's models, building capabilities beyond what any individual country could achieve alone."

### The six-week progression: from two to six drones

One technical detail of the exercise deserves particular attention: the progression of operational complexity "**from two to six drones**" over the three-week experimentation period. This progression is not incidental — it reveals the learning curve of the AI used in swarm systems. The AI models were "**refined through repeated cycles of identification and confirmation**," improving their ability to distinguish targets in challenging conditions (the dense woods of Salisbury Plain in near-continuous rain).

This capacity to refine models under real operational conditions — what computer scientists call **reinforcement learning** — is one of the most transformative promises of military AI systems. It means that swarms deployed in a real combat environment can improve their accuracy and performance across successive missions. A swarm that has operated in a given environment becomes more effective in that environment than the same swarm at initial deployment.

*I want to be honest about one important limitation of what these exercises demonstrate: going from two to six drones on Salisbury Plain is not yet the same thing as deploying swarms of hundreds of drones in the Pacific against sophisticated Chinese anti-drone defense systems. There is a considerable distance between proof of concept and large-scale operational capability. These exercises validate the approach — they do not guarantee the approach will work under the most demanding conditions.*

## The Indo-Pacific maritime context: why drones change everything

### The Chinese navy and the race to autonomous systems

To assess the strategic significance of the **AUKUS** exercises of **June 22**, they must be placed in the context of the autonomous naval arms race that characterizes the **Indo-Pacific** in **2026**. **Beijing** is not behind in this race — it is leading it in certain domains. **China** presented at the **World Defense Show 2026** its **Wing Loong X** drone as the world's first autonomous aerial anti-submarine warfare platform — capable of "**detecting, tracking, and engaging**" submarines independently.

According to **Bloomberg** on **June 24, 2026**, **China** leads global investment in maritime drones — surface and undersea — and is testing reconnaissance and combat drone swarms. These capabilities are primarily intended to operate in strategically sensitive zones: the **South China Sea**, the **Taiwan Strait**, and beyond. The threat these systems pose to American, Australian, and Japanese naval forces in the region is documented and taken seriously by military planners.

### Ukrainian drones in the Indo-Pacific: the Magura as an operational precedent

A remarkable development from **June 24-25, 2026**: the **United States** tested Ukrainian **Magura** naval surface drones in the **Indo-Pacific** for the first time — in the **Philippines**, during an unannounced exercise documented by **Bloomberg** and **UNN**. These drones, which demonstrated devastating effectiveness against the Russian **Black Sea Fleet** — sinking several frigates and warships — were used to attack a decommissioned target vessel during the exercise. Footage of the attack was shown to **Bloomberg News**.

The decision to import a naval drone technology developed in the context of the war in **Ukraine** into the **Indo-Pacific** theater is symbolically and operationally significant. It reveals an American acknowledgment that the lessons learned from the Ukrainian conflict are directly applicable to deterrence against the Chinese navy. It also underscores the growing importance of **unmanned surface vehicles (USVs)** in American naval doctrine — a quiet revolution transforming the conception of war at sea.

*The fact that the United States is testing Ukrainian drones in the Pacific is, for me, one of the most interesting signals of recent weeks. It is a cross-domain operational validation: what works against the Russian fleet in the Black Sea is being studied for what might work against the Chinese fleet in the Indo-Pacific. It says something important about how Ukraine is transforming global military innovation — with consequences neither the Ukrainians nor the Americans initially anticipated.*

## AUKUS and the new architecture of naval security

### The UUV Signature Project: drones under the sea to protect cables

At the **Shangri-La Dialogue** in June **2026**, the defense ministers of the three AUKUS countries announced the first flagship project of **Pillar II**: the joint development of **unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs)** equipped with "**advanced payloads and enabling systems**." These UUVs are designed for missions including the **protection of undersea cables and pipelines**, as well as surveillance, reconnaissance, and precision strike missions.

This choice of priority is not coincidental. **Undersea cables** are among the most critical and most vulnerable infrastructures of the global economy: they carry more than **95 percent of international internet traffic**. **Russia** has demonstrated, in the **Baltic** and the **North Atlantic**, both the capability and the willingness to threaten their integrity. **China**, in the **Indo-Pacific**, possesses similar capabilities. Autonomous UUVs capable of patrolling and protecting these infrastructures represent an effective asymmetric response to this threat.

### The Philippines as an advanced test bed: drones and surveillance

The **Philippines** is becoming a crucial testing ground for new autonomous naval doctrines in the **Indo-Pacific**. On **June 23, 2026**, the Philippine navy received **four Triton Autonomous Underwater and Surface Vehicles (AUSVs)** made in the United States, with a total value of **754 million Philippine pesos (approximately $13 million)**. These solar-powered autonomous vehicles can operate for up to **30 days** on and below the surface, with missions covering surveillance, anti-submarine detection, undersea cable patrol, and counter-illegal activities in the **South China Sea**.

These equipment transfers fit within a context of growing tension with **China** over disputed reefs and waters in the **South China Sea**. The American decision to transfer these systems to the **Philippines** is simultaneously an alliance gesture and a capabilities demonstration: a message to **Beijing** that its regional adversaries now possess persistent autonomous systems capable of monitoring its movements without any direct human presence.

*The AUKUS approach in the Indo-Pacific strikes me as broadly sound — building shared and interoperable capabilities in the face of China's naval rise is an appropriate strategic response. What concerns me is the relative pace: China is investing massively in its own autonomous capabilities and advancing rapidly. The West cannot afford to fall behind in this race, and the exercises on Salisbury Plain, as promising as they are, remain at the proof-of-concept stage rather than established operational superiority.*

## Military artificial intelligence: between promises and risks

### AI models refined in the field: a revolution whose full implications we do not yet control

One of the most remarkable features of the **AUKUS** exercises of **June 22** is the description of the process of **refining AI models under real operational conditions**. Australian **DSTG** engineers worked alongside soldiers to "**evaluate swarm behaviors, improve assisted target recognition, and strengthen collaborative detection**." This process of continuous improvement, applied to autonomous weapons systems, raises important ethical and strategic questions that the exercises themselves did not — and could not — resolve.

The central question is that of **human control over the decision to strike**. The swarms tested in the Salisbury exercises were dedicated to reconnaissance and target detection — not to automatic armed engagement. But the transition from reconnaissance to autonomous armed engagement is technically shorter than official statements suggest. The current military doctrine of all three AUKUS nations maintains the principle of "**human in the loop**" — a human being must authorize any strike decision. Operational pressure to accelerate decision cycles could, over time, erode this principle.

### The race for military AI and its implications for regional stability

The AUKUS exercises and parallel Chinese investments in autonomous drones are unfolding within an autonomous armament dynamic whose implications for **regional stability** are not yet fully understood. Several risks deserve to be named. First, the **proliferation of autonomous capabilities** reduces the time available for de-escalation during a crisis: if drone swarms can be launched and operate semi-autonomously, the risk of unintended incidents triggering unwanted escalation increases.

Second, the **growing interoperability** between AUKUS systems — illustrated by the sharing of AI models and the "**shared command hub**" in the exercise — means that military decisions made in one country can have immediate implications for the other two. This integration is a tactical advantage but also a source of escalation risk: if an Australian drone identifies a target in a disputed zone, the shared command chain that enables operational efficiency can also complicate de-escalation.

*I support the development of AUKUS capabilities in the face of China's rise. But I want to flag a blind spot in the enthusiastic coverage of these exercises: no one talks enough about the risks of misidentification of targets by AI systems under real combat conditions. The AI models refined on Salisbury Plain were trained on specific targets in a controlled environment. In an actual conflict, with decoys, camouflage, and electronic countermeasures, the precision of these systems is not guaranteed. And a mistaken strike in the Indo-Pacific can have serious diplomatic consequences.*

## Naval doctrine in transition: from carriers to swarms

### The surface warship as a vulnerable platform in modern warfare

The AUKUS exercises fit within a deeper reassessment of the **power projection naval doctrine** inherited from the **Cold War**. The aircraft carrier — the symbol of American naval supremacy since **1945** — is increasingly perceived as a costly and vulnerable target in an era of hypersonic anti-ship missiles and long-range maritime drones. **China** has developed ballistic anti-ship missiles specifically designed to threaten American carriers within a **2,000 km** zone around its coasts.

In this context, **unmanned systems** — surface drones, autonomous submarines, aerial swarms — offer an attractive alternative: less expensive platforms, with no human crew at risk, capable of operating in highly contested zones where sending crewed vessels would be extremely dangerous. Australian Defense Minister **Richard Marles** put it plainly in an opinion piece published on **June 22, 2026**: "**No number of drones, HIMARS or tanks could stop an adversary that cuts our maritime supply chains during a conflict.**" But submarines — and the autonomous systems that complement them — could.

### Interoperability as a force multiplier

The capability demonstrated during the **Salisbury** exercises — sharing mission data and sensor information in near-real time between Australian, American, and British systems via a "**shared command hub**" — may be the most strategically significant result of the exercise. This interoperability goes far beyond what **NATO** allies can generally achieve with their heterogeneous systems.

Engineer **Kwok**'s statement that sharing AI models between AUKUS partners "**allows partners to capitalize on each other's models, building capabilities beyond what any individual country could achieve alone**" describes a dynamic of **military network effect**: the system's value for each member increases with the number and quality of contributions from the other members. This is an alliance architecture fundamentally different from traditional military equipment sharing — it operates at the level of data, algorithms, and collective cognitive capabilities.

*The interoperability of AI models between military forces from different countries is a conceptual innovation I find fascinating and whose long-term implications are difficult to fully evaluate today. It is a form of shared intelligence that goes beyond traditional military cooperation. The question I keep asking: is this deep interoperability reversible if the political interests of the three countries diverge in the future? I have no certain answer.*

## Beijing's reaction: condemnation, race, and adaptation

### China's critique of AUKUS and what it actually contains

**China** has condemned the **AUKUS** partnership since its announcement in **2021**, accusing it of "**stoking a regional arms race**" and threatening stability in the **Indo-Pacific**. These criticisms have an obvious rhetorical dimension — **Beijing** opposes any security arrangement that strengthens the military capabilities of countries it considers potential adversaries. But they also contain a factual core: **AUKUS** does effectively accelerate the development of military capabilities that will change the naval balance of power in the region.

**Beijing**'s practical reaction is not purely rhetorical: it is also industrial and technological. The Chinese government is investing massively in its own naval and aerial autonomous systems in direct response to AUKUS developments and Ukrainian demonstrations. The **Wing Loong X** presented at the **World Defense Show 2026**, the naval drone swarms tested in the **South China Sea**, and the autonomous submarine capabilities under development all illustrate this strategy of symmetrical technological response.

### Japan, South Korea, the Philippines: regional allies in the equation

The impact of **AUKUS** extends beyond its three founding members. **Japan**, which is cooperating ever more closely with the three AUKUS countries, allocated approximately **$600 million** in **2026** for its own maritime autonomous systems. **South Korea** is developing its own naval drone capabilities. The **Philippines**, as noted, is receiving transfers of American autonomous equipment. This regional network of investment in autonomous systems is creating a distributed security architecture that did not exist five years ago.

This distributed architecture is both a strength and a complexity. A strength, because it multiplies presence and surveillance points across the region. A complexity, because coordinating autonomous systems developed independently by different countries — with different employment doctrines and command chains — represents a considerable interoperability challenge. This challenge is precisely what AUKUS aims to resolve with its common "**model interchange**" standards — but at the scale of four or five regional allies rather than just the three founding members.

*I genuinely believe that AUKUS is the most intelligent and best-suited collective defense initiative for the strategic challenges of the Indo-Pacific in decades. It combines American power, British technological depth, and Australia's geographic position in a way that makes strategic sense. What I want decision-makers never to forget: its strength lies not in announcements or exercises on Salisbury Plain. Its strength will come from its ability to deploy these systems operationally, on time, in the zones that matter.*

## The implications for broader NATO naval doctrine

### From Ukrainian lessons to AUKUS exercises: the same ground-level revolution

It is no coincidence that the **AUKUS** partnership is unfolding in a context where the war in **Ukraine** has produced the most convincing operational demonstrations of the utility of naval and aerial drones in real combat. Ukrainian **Magura** naval drones have sunk Russian warships in the **Black Sea**. Ukrainian aerial drones have shifted the balance of forces across hundreds of kilometers of front line. These concrete results have accelerated investment and planning in autonomous systems across all **NATO** navies — including those without direct access to the **Indo-Pacific**.

The joint statement released at the **Australia-UK AUKMIN summit on June 10, 2026** is revealing of this cross-learning: both governments agreed to "**support Ukraine's three priorities: drones, air defense, and long-range 155mm munitions**." This is not merely support for Ukraine — it is also the incorporation of Ukrainian operational lessons into both allies' own defense doctrine.

### Naval defense of cables: an emerging collective challenge

AUKUS's decision to make the **protection of undersea cables** the first flagship project of Pillar II reflects a collective awareness of the vulnerability of critical undersea infrastructure. Recent incidents in the **Baltic** — involving Russian vessels suspected of damaging communication cables and pipelines — demonstrated that this threat is real and active. Similar cables structure the connectivity of the **Indo-Pacific**, linking **Australia** to the **United States**, **Japan**, **Singapore**, and the **Philippines**.

The fact that the first autonomous AUKUS UUV is designed to protect these cables rather than conduct direct combat missions is also a political message: the priority is **infrastructure resilience**, not escalation. It is a declaration of intent that limits the threatening aspect of the program in the eyes of regional countries that are not AUKUS members and might fear the technology could be deployed offensively.

*The vulnerability of undersea cables is one of the most serious blind spots in Western strategic thinking. Billions of financial transactions, government communications, intelligence data transit daily through these cables that few people know about. An adversary power that cut cables in the Indo-Pacific during a crisis would strike the global economy well before firing a single shot. AUKUS is right to make it a priority.*

## The limits of the exercise: six drones do not make a fleet

### The gap between proof of concept and operational capability

It is essential to maintain a critical eye on what the **June 22, 2026** exercise actually demonstrated. Six drones on Salisbury Plain, in challenging but predictable weather conditions, with engineers and technicians on hand to troubleshoot — that is an important step, but it is far from a deployable operational capability in the **Indo-Pacific**. The Chinese navy possesses air defense and anti-drone defenses far more sophisticated than the conditions of an exercise on an English plain.

The Australian officers who participated in the exercise were themselves careful in their assessments. Colonel **Jake Penley** declared that **autonomous systems** "are **no longer experimental, they are moving to the core of how land forces operate, particularly in contested environments**" — a statement that reflects a real trend without claiming the technology is mature. Lance Corporal **Smith** concluded that the work needed to "**keep progressing**" and that specific capabilities would be developed incrementally.

### What exercises cannot test

There are dimensions of real combat that peacetime exercises cannot, by definition, faithfully simulate. **Adversary electronic warfare** — a sophisticated enemy's attempt to jam, hack, or take control of drone communications — is extremely difficult to replicate in an exercise that must minimize risks to equipment and personnel. **Sensor saturation** in a dense combat environment, with countermeasures, decoys, and electronic confusion systems — all of this plays out differently in an actual conflict.

**DSTG** engineers and their American and British counterparts know this. Exercises like the one on **June 22** are a necessary but insufficient step in the development of credible operational capability. The next step — integrating these systems into more complex multi-domain exercises, with adversaries simulating real countermeasures — will be decisive in measuring the true robustness of AUKUS swarm capabilities.

*I refuse both uncritical enthusiasm and reflexive skepticism. AUKUS is doing good work developing autonomous capabilities that are relevant to the real challenges of the Indo-Pacific. But we are still at a stage where six drones on an English plain represent a remarkable advance. China will not be deterred by six drones. It will be deterred by hundreds of integrated, interoperable, and realistically tested systems deployed in strategically relevant positions. There is still a long way to go.*

## Drone swarms and the anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) strategy

### How swarms circumvent Chinese A2/AD defenses

The **anti-access/area denial (A2/AD)** strategy developed by **China** rests on the idea of making any American or allied naval power projection prohibitively costly within zones close to Chinese shores. Systems such as the **DF-21D** anti-ship ballistic missile (nicknamed the "carrier killer"), **Type 093** class submarines, and **YJ-62** coastal missile batteries form a shield designed to deny access to the strategic maritime zones around **Taiwan, the Spratly Islands, and the Paracels**.

The **naval drone swarms** tested under **AUKUS** respond directly to this logic. A swarm of **100 to 200 drones** dispersed across a wide maritime area is far harder to engage than a single surface vessel, however sophisticated. Each anti-ship missile fired against a drone costs between **$500,000 and $2 million**, while the drone itself costs only tens of thousands. This economic asymmetry is at the heart of the new naval doctrine of **INDOPACOM (US Indo-Pacific Command)**.

### The Ukrainian experience as a laboratory for swarm doctrine

The conflict in **Ukraine** has provided invaluable data on the use of drones in naval operations. Ukraine's repeated attacks against the **Russian Black Sea Fleet** with **surface drones (USVs)** demonstrated that a power with limited naval capabilities can inflict significant losses on a conventionally superior fleet. Several Russian vessels were damaged or sunk by these low-cost drones, forcing the Russian fleet to retreat to its ports.

The **US Navy** and its **AUKUS** partners have studied these engagements in detail. The **Salisbury** exercises test similar concepts in an Indo-Pacific context: multi-platform coordination, saturation of adversary defense systems, and exploitation of blind spots in surface radars. This transfer of doctrine from the **Black Sea** to the **Indo-Pacific** is one of the most concrete contributions of the Ukrainian conflict to Western strategic planning.

*The war in Ukraine has changed something fundamental in Western naval thinking: it proved that cheap drones can terrify a major fleet. AUKUS took note. And Beijing did too.*

## Artificial intelligence at the heart of swarms: promises and risks

### AI for coordination and autonomous decision-making

What distinguishes a **military drone swarm** from a simple fleet of small unmanned vessels is the level of **distributed artificial intelligence** that allows the swarm to function as a coherent organism without constant human intervention. Each drone shares position, threat, and status data with the other swarm members in real time. **Emergent behavior** algorithms allow the swarm to reconfigure its formation, disperse its units under threat, or concentrate an attack on a priority target.

The **AUKUS** tests on Salisbury Plain notably evaluated the swarm's ability to operate in degraded mode — that is, to maintain tactical coherence even when **30 to 40 percent of its members had been neutralized**. This resilience is critical under real combat conditions, where adversary electronic jamming systems attempt to disrupt swarm coordination.

### The risks of autonomy: errors, escalation, accountability

The **growing autonomization** of weapons systems raises ethical and legal questions that current military doctrines have not yet resolved. Who is responsible if an autonomous drone engages a civilian target following an AI misidentification? The existing legal frameworks of the **law of armed conflict** — the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians, the principle of proportionality — presuppose a human actor capable of moral judgment. An algorithm carries no moral judgment.

The **AUKUS** naval forces formally maintain the principle of human oversight for any lethal decision — the so-called **"human in the loop"** doctrine. But in practice, the speed of a modern naval engagement makes this human oversight increasingly theoretical. Decision timelines are measured in seconds. It is this tension between official doctrine and operational reality that military ethics experts at **NATO** and the **UN** are attempting to resolve, with little success so far.

*We build machines that decide faster than we do, then say a human decides at the end. That is a comfortable operational fiction. The real question is not "who decides?" — it is "who answers when it goes wrong?"*

## Taiwan as a test scenario: why the Indo-Pacific is the central theater

### The Taiwan Strait and the logic of defensive swarms

The **Taiwan Strait** is **160 kilometers** wide at its narrowest point. A Chinese **amphibious invasion** would require the passage of a massive fleet — between 1,000 and 2,000 vessels according to military estimates — through these shallow waters, under the threat of Taiwanese defenses and allied interdiction forces. **Surface and undersea drone swarms** represent an asymmetric access-denial capability that Taiwan could deploy at scale to make this passage prohibitively costly.

**AUKUS** exercises explicitly integrate scenarios of this type into their planning. The goal is not to replace the conventional American naval presence, but to complement it with a layer of distributed capabilities that saturate adversary command and control systems. By multiplying potential attack vectors, the swarm forces the adversary to disperse its defensive capabilities and reduces the effectiveness of each individual defense system.

### The Spratly Islands and the challenge of maritime access control

Beyond Taiwan, the **Spratly and Paracel Islands** in the **South China Sea** are the theater of constant competition for control of maritime routes. **China** has transformed several reefs into artificial islands equipped with airstrips and weapons systems, creating forward positions in zones claimed by **Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei**. **AUKUS** naval drones represent a potential tool for monitoring these installations and, in the event of conflict, contesting them without risking human lives.

The **Philippines**, a US ally, has shown growing interest in naval drone capabilities in the context of its recurring tensions with the **Chinese Navy** around **Second Thomas Shoal**. The integration of regional partners such as the **Philippines and Japan** into the **AUKUS** swarm doctrine is one of the avenues being explored during the strategic discussions of **2026**.

*The Indo-Pacific is not just another region. It is where this century's balance of power will be decided. And drone swarms may be the first military tool genuinely suited to the geography of this space — dispersed, maritime, and vast.*

## Regional partners: Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea in the swarm doctrine

### Japan as the technological pivot of expanded AUKUS

**Japan**, while not formally a member of the AUKUS partnership, is a privileged partner in its technological extension — the so-called **"AUKUS Pillar II"** framework that opens certain technology-specific cooperations to third countries. The **Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF)** has developed its own naval drone programs, with a particular focus on **undersea surveillance** around the Ryukyu Islands and in the straits separating Japan from mainland China.

Technological cooperation between **Japan** and AUKUS partners on drone swarms has been accelerating since Japan's defense policy shift in **2022-2023**, which for the first time authorized the export of military equipment to allied countries. Discussions are under way to enable the sharing of drone surveillance data among the **US Navy, the Royal Australian Navy, the JMSDF, and the Royal Navy** in a distributed surveillance network covering a large part of the northern Indo-Pacific.

### The Philippines as the front line: a real-world use case for naval drones

The **Philippines** have been subjected to **repeated harassment by the Chinese Coast Guard** around **Second Thomas Shoal** since 2023, with incidents involving water cannons, lasers, and intimidation maneuvers. **AUKUS** naval drones represent for Manila a maritime presence-assertion option that reduces the risk of direct human escalation: sending a drone to monitor a disputed zone is less escalatory than sending a crewed vessel.

President **Ferdinand Marcos Jr.** has publicly expressed interest in acquiring drone surveillance capabilities under the **Mutual Defense Treaty** with the **United States**. Ongoing discussions in **2026** notably concern real-time data sharing between American drones operating in the zone and Philippine naval forces, creating a common operational picture in friction zones.

*For the Philippines, drones are not a futuristic technology. They are eyes that can see without being sunk. In a context where every maritime incident can trigger an escalation, that matters enormously.*

## Funding and industrialization of swarms: who produces, who sells, who controls

### The industrial ecosystem of naval drones

Behind the military exercises lies an industrial reality. **Naval drone swarms** require not only the platforms themselves but an entire ecosystem: **secure communications systems, AI coordination software, coastal maintenance infrastructure, and operator training**. In the AUKUS world, the main industrial players include **Anduril Industries, L3Harris, and Shield AI** on the American side, **BAE Systems Maritime** on the British side, and **Austal and EOS Defence Systems** on the Australian side.

The industrial competition for naval drone contracts is fierce. The **United States** announced in **2025** a "**Replicator Initiative**" program aimed at deploying thousands of autonomous drones in the Indo-Pacific by **2027**, with an initial budget of **$1.5 billion**. **Australia** has allocated **$4.1 billion Australian dollars** to its SSGN program within the AUKUS framework, but surface drones represent a less-publicized but potentially equally strategic complementary investment.

### Technology transfer and industrial sovereignty questions

The sensitive question in defense partnerships is always that of **technology transfer**. **Australia** insists that AUKUS contracts include a significant component of local manufacturing and intellectual property transfer, so as not to remain entirely dependent on American and British suppliers. Difficult negotiations have taken place over the level of Australian content in naval drone programs, with tensions over **cybersecurity and supply chain** questions.

In parallel, **China** has accelerated its own naval drone program, with exercises involving **USVs (Unmanned Surface Vehicles)** in the **Yellow Sea** and the **Taiwan Strait**. The naval drone race is already underway, and the side that industrializes fastest — not necessarily the one with the best technology — will have the decisive strategic advantage over the next five years.

*The next naval war will not be won by the country with the best ships. It will be won by the country that can produce the most drones, the fastest, at the lowest cost. It is an industrial race as much as a technological one. And in that race, production speed matters more than the perfection of each individual unit.*

## Conclusion: The swarm revolution is underway — tempo is the key

### What the June 22 exercise means for Indo-Pacific security

The **AUKUS** drone swarm exercises of **June 22, 2026** represent a significant step in the development of autonomous military capabilities among the three allies. They demonstrate the **technical feasibility** of AI system interoperability between military forces from different countries, the **operational value** of model reinforcement under real conditions, and the **political will** of all three governments to invest seriously in these capabilities through Pillar II.

In a context where **China** is developing its own naval drone swarms, where the **Russian navy** is weakened but continues to pose undersea and surface threats, and where the undersea cables structuring global connectivity are potential targets, the development of interoperable autonomous systems among democratic allies is a strategic necessity. **AUKUS** is right to prioritize them. The question is not whether these capabilities are needed — they are. The question is at what pace they will be developed and deployed.

### Tempo as the decisive factor

Military doctrine has always known that **tempo** — the speed of adaptation to a changing combat environment — is often more decisive than raw power. In the race for naval and aerial autonomous capabilities, the **Indo-Pacific** of **2026** is characterized by a very high pace of innovation on both sides. The **AUKUS** exercises of **June 22** help maintain that tempo on the Western side — but they will need to be followed by acceleration in the deployment and maturation of systems if the **alliance** is to maintain its technological advantage against adversaries who take no pause.

*The swarms tested on Salisbury Plain are not yet war. They are rehearsal. And when the rehearsal is over, the world we live in will be defined by those who have mastered these tools — not by those who merely heard about them.*

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [Australian Ministry of Defence — AUKUS partners test drone swarming tactics — June 22, 2026](https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2026-06-22/aukus-partners-test-drone-swarming-tactics)

- [UK Government — Australia-UK Ministerial Consultations: joint statement, June 2026 — June 10, 2026](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/australia-uk-ministerial-consultations-joint-statement-june-2026/australia-uk-ministerial-consultations-joint-statement-june-2026)

- [Australian Ministry of Defence — Opinion Piece: The Case for AUKUS — June 22, 2026](https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/statements/2026-06-22/opinion-piece-case-aukus)

- [International Business Times UK — UK, US And Australia Launch Advanced Undersea Drone Project — June 21, 2026](https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/uk-us-australia-underwater-drone-aukus-1800009)

### Secondary sources

- [Bloomberg — Sea Drones Emerge as Crucial Weapon to Counter China's Power — June 24, 2026](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-24/sea-drones-emerge-as-crucial-weapon-to-counter-china-s-power)

- [Defense News — Philippines deploys US-made Triton naval drones — June 25, 2026](https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2026/06/25/philippines-deploys-us-made-triton-naval-drones-in-its-western-waters-to-scout-for-intruders/)

- [UNN — Ukrainian naval drones become a new factor in deterring China in the Indo-Pacific — June 25, 2026](https://unn.ua/en/news/ukrainian-naval-drones-become-a-new-factor-in-deterring-china-in-the-indo-pacific-region-bloomberg)

-

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/aukus-teste-les-essaims-de-drones-la-revolution-qui-redefinit-la-guerre-en-indo