As part of our ongoing PESCO Highlight series, we turn the focus on the rapidly evolving world of unmanned ground systems.
The project, which has successfully closed, is the Integrated Unmanned Ground System.

In this special Q & A, project coordinator Ats Janno from Estonia’s Ministry of Defence, shares his insights. 

The iUGS project aimed to develop an unmanned ground system capable of manned-unmanned and unmanned-unmanned teaming with other robotic platforms, as well as manned vehicles to provide combat support, and combat service support, to ground forces. The outcome of the development was a modular system equippable with different payloads, sensors and mission capabilities, such as mine clearance, electronic warfare or casualty evacuation. The successful outcome of the iUGS project has led to the second phase: Integrated Unmanned Ground System 2 PESCO project.

1. What contributed to project successes, and what was the added value of developing it within the PESCO framework?

There were several factors that contributed to the success of the first phase of the project. One was an early alignment of the operational requirements amongst participating Member States. This enabled convergence towards a common modular architecture and avoided fragmented national development pathways. We also placed a strong emphasis on open, standards-based integration which allowed heterogeneous industrial contributions to be combined into a scalable and interoperable system. Iterative demonstration-driven developments across multiple operational environments hereby ensured continuous validation of concepts, such as Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) support, casualty evacuation (CASEVAC), and patrol and logistics missions throughout the project development. Estonia’s role as coordinator also helped to maintain coherence in a technically complex, multinational setting.

The PESCO framework provided critical added value by creating a structured environment for capability harmonisation and facilitating trust-based collaboration between armed forces and industry. For us, this ended up directly contributing to European strategic autonomy in autonomous land systems. Without the PESCO framework, achieving a commonly agreed modular UGS architecture across ten Member States would likely have resulted in nationally siloed capability development.

2. Are there any specific deliverables that you are particularly proud of?

Particularly notable outcomes include the development of a modular multi-mission Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV) architecture capable of integrating transport, ISR, electronic warfare (EW) and CASEVAC payloads and developments within these sub-categories such as:

• Developments on an EW-resilient networking C3 solution, enabling multi-channel communications and navigation in GNSS-denied environments;
• Progress on a cyber-secure autonomous navigation stack, integrated with command-and-control systems;
• Emphasis on the design and implementation of a swarming architecture supported by 3D simulation environments;
• Initial integration of Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) concepts into mechanised infantry simulation and deployment scenarios.

These deliverables collectively represent a shift from platform-centric to system-of-systems capability development.

3. Which lifecycle phase of the project was the most challenging?

The integration and testing phase of autonomous functions proved to be one of the most challenging aspects. This phase required hard work within very challenging areas. We had to combine autonomy algorithms while ensuring the persistence of cyber-secure modular software architectures and also integrating autonomy with legacy and emerging command and control systems. All of this had to be done while maintaining operational safety and interoperability across multiple national technology stacks.

Additionally, evolving operational concepts such as swarming and MUM-T introduced scope adaptations that had to be managed without compromising the delivery timelines.

4. What lessons did you learn?

For me, there were several key lessons. Given the nature of iUGS, we found that autonomy must be treated as a system integration challenge, not solely a software development task. Personnel rotation in long-term multinational programmes often poses a real risk to knowledge continuity and requires structured knowledge-transfer mechanisms. Within the multinational context, we also found that effective multinational capability development requires a dedicated management function to handle coordination complexity. Within a digital context, for us, open architectures are essential for lifecycle capability management and futureproofing against rapid technological change.

5. How do you envision unmanned ground systems being operationalised in the future?

Given the nature of iUGS, for us future operationalisation will probably occur across multiple roles as mentioned previously. The main operational areas will likely be:

• Logistics and resupply in contested environments to reduce exposure of personnel;
• ISR and perimeter security in both conventional and SOF missions;
• CASEVAC and support to dismounted infantry through autonomous transport;
• Integration into Manned-Unmanned Teaming constructs within mechanised formations;
• Enhanced situational awareness through integration with Battlefield Management Systems.

UGS are expected to evolve into a central enabler within multi-domain operations rather than remaining niche support tools.

6. How do you plan to exploit the results of iUGS in the implementation of the iUGS2 project?

For starters, the iUGS project provides a validated technological and conceptual baseline for iUGS2 and we plan to build on the experience gained to further the development of the modular open system architecture and to operationalise human-machine teaming concepts. We also see potential in a deeper integration with existing battlefield management systems and Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems, especially given the progress of resilient communications and the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS). We further see benefits in expanded testing, evaluation, verification and validation processes through scenario-based trials and by leveraging simulation and digital twin environments for training and maintenance. These approaches ensure continuity from demonstrator-level capabilities towards deployable operational systems.

7. Is there anything else you would like to add?

The iUGS project demonstrated the feasibility of aligning technological innovation with multinational operational requirements within a European framework. Sustaining this momentum through follow-on initiatives such as iUGS2 will be essential to translate demonstrated capabilities into operational advantage and to maintain Europe’s competitiveness in autonomous multi-agent land systems.

From my perspective, the iUGS project has demonstrated the value of multinational capability development within the PESCO framework. As project coordinator from the outset, Estonia has witnessed how early alignment of operational requirements and a commitment to open, modular architectures can translate into tangible progress in interoperability and autonomous systems development. While the integration of autonomy and coordination across a large consortium presented challenges, the project ultimately established a validated technological and conceptual baseline for future operationalisation of unmanned ground systems. The lessons learned and capabilities developed under iUGS now provide a strong foundation for the second phase of the project and for advancing Europe’s ability to deploy cyber-secure, interoperable UGS solutions in increasingly complex operational environments.

More information on the iUGS project can be found here.