Feature: Tactical AI


Resilient AI-enabled infrastructure for modern defence operations


By Anthony Soares, Defence Lead, EfficiencyIT T


oday the battlefield is more data-driven than ever before. A digital backbone must operate reliably in all environments,


from arctic cold to desert heat, whilst supporting a continuous sense-decide- effect cycle. Real-time data from sensors and intelligence sources inform key decisions and enable the rapid deployment of platforms, personnel and autonomous assets. Yet, despite ambitious goals and


investments, the UK’s defence sector is not AI-ready. The House of Commons Defence Committee has highlighted a gap between rhetoric and reality, urging the Ministry of Defence to address this without delay. The main obstacle is not technology or skills, but infrastructure.


The reasons traditional infrastructure falls short The integration of AI into defence operations requires a fundamental rethinking of mission-critical and digital infrastructures: Most existing defence IT systems were designed for conventional computing workloads, not the extraordinary demands of modern AI applications. According to McKinsey research,


average power densities have more than doubled in just two years, rising to 17kW per rack from 8kW, with projections suggesting this could reach 30kW by 2027 as AI workloads increase. Advanced AI training workloads may require 100-200kW per rack or more. Legacy data centres – the secure, scaleable and critical IT infrastructure that sits behind the battlefield – simply


20 July/August 2026 www.electronicsworld.co.uk


can’t deliver this density without a comprehensive redesign. Traditional facilities also face


scaleability limitations. Conventional data centre builds take 18 to 36 months from planning to initial operational capability, which is incompatible with the rapid evolution of AI technologies and the urgent pace of military operations. For the UK military, infrastructure


must not only deliver exceptional performance but satisfy stringent security requirements whilst operating in diverse, often challenging environments. The lack of infrastructure compliant with utmost security standards and frameworks such as the Surreptitious Threat Mitigation Process (STaMP), for example, presents a significant, often critical vulnerability.


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44