Fort Benning soldiers optimize drone capabilities at new innovation lab
'Alright, just go through the box there,' Sgt. Zakary Kinard instructs Pfc. Sebastian Kelleher, who is piloting palm-sized drone through an obstacle course.
Kinard and Kelleher both work with the U.S. Army's experimental force. Part of their mission is training with drone technology, as well as collaborating with Fort Benning's new Maneuver Innovation Lab.
An infantryman by training, Kelleher has adapted to working with his team but it was jarring at first.
'Being that I was mainly trained to have a weapon on ground and walk with my feet, having a drone in hand was completely new,' Kelleher said.
He joined the Army about a year-and-a-half ago, joining the experimental force after finishing his initial training. The job has involved plenty on-the-spot learning.
'A lot of this is experimental, so his [Kinard's] training is directly, like, applied to what you're going to be doing outside,' Kelleher said. 'You've got to trust your equipment, trust your team.'
Working with the Maneuver Innovation Lab, the experimental force tests drones and other technology, optimizing it for use by the Army.
The lab is a collaboration between soldiers, Columbus State University students, vendors, contractors and potential contractors, who work together to identify technology strengths and weaknesses and engineer solutions.
For drones, they're looking at everything from visuals and range to battery life and load-carrying capacity, which all impact usage in military operations.
'The purpose of, you know, the Black Hornet, all the different aerial assets that we have, is to, you know, gain situational awareness on the battlefield,' Kinard said. 'It minimizes the threat level to us ourselves and partnering forces.'
The Black Hornet is a short-range reconnaissance drone. According to Kinard, the Army can use it in place of a human to conduct surveillance and check hallways and rooms for signs of danger.
'We always want to put the technology in front of the forces just to eliminate casualties,' Kinard said.
But using drone technology in place of soldiers can still come with caveats.
According to Kelleher, the Black Hornet drone, specifically, is slow-moving and has a battery life of just 40 minutes. Its docking station has a battery life of three hours and a charge time of about an hour-and-a-half.
Drones are also unable to gather all of the same information a human would.
'As soldiers, we're trained to have, to use, all of our senses,' said Kinard. 'So, we're not necessarily getting all the feedback that we would if we had an actual soldier out there.'
Whether a soldier will go in person or use a drone to conduct reconnaissance depends on the situation and its risk level.
Kinard said, 'There's times that we would put a person out there. We just try to eliminate it as much as possible with the assets that we have.'
According to Kelleher, some recent suggestions the experimental force has made at the Maneuver Innovation Lab are already being implemented.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Epoch Times
5 hours ago
- Epoch Times
China's Mosquito Factory Releases Millions of Mosquitoes; Virologist Raises Alarm
China is fighting a mosquito-borne chikungunya outbreak by releasing millions of lab-modified mosquitoes into cities. Could this backfire? A former U.S. Army virologist weighs in. Amid high-stakes trade negotiations with the Chinese regime, the White House is looking to expand a deal involving U.S. companies selling to China. L...
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why the US military refuses to adopt bullpup rifles
For decades, the U.S. military has flirted with bullpup rifles — compact, futuristic-looking designs that put the action and magazine behind the trigger instead of in front of it. From the Austrian Steyr AUG to the Israeli Tavor, the sci-fi-looking FN F2000, and most recently the RM277 from the Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon program, the Pentagon has tested them all. And every time, the verdict has been the same: No thanks. So why does the military keep rejecting a rifle style that's seen service from Australia to Israel? What is a bullpup rifle? In a bullpup, the working parts, the chamber, bolt, and magazine, are located in the buttstock, behind the trigger group. This means you can run a full-length barrel in a much shorter overall package. For example, the M4 carbine is just under 30 inches long with a 14.5-inch barrel. The Israeli Tavor X95 is 26 inches with a 16.5-inch barrel. The French FAMAS is roughly the same size as the M4, but has a 19.2-inch barrel. That extra barrel length matters. Longer barrels usually mean higher muzzle velocity, better energy retention, and more reliable terminal effects from rounds like 5.56mm or 6.8mm. And in tight spaces like vehicles, helicopters, and urban combat, shaving a few inches off the gun's overall length makes a real difference. The advantages of a bullpup On paper, bullpups tick a lot of boxes for modern combat. Compactness without losing barrel length: Ideal for close quarters and vehicle crews. Better weight distribution: With the bulk of the rifle close to the shoulder, they can feel lighter and easier to hold at the ready. Suppressed use: Starting with a shorter rifle means a suppressor won't make it unwieldy. So if they look good on a spec sheet, why won't the U.S. use them? The dealbreakers The first problem is ergonomics. Bullpups require a different manual of arms. The magazine sits behind the pistol grip, often under the shooter's armpit or mixed up in body armor. Speed reloads and malfunction drills are harder, especially for troops who've spent years training on the M4/M16 family. Next is trigger feel. With the trigger up front and the firing mechanism in the rear, bullpups rely on a long mechanical linkage to connect the two. That linkage adds friction and flex, resulting in heavier, spongier pulls that aren't ideal for precision shooting. Left-handed shooting is another hurdle. Many bullpups eject to the right by default, which means lefties risk brass in the face unless the rifle is reconfigured, something you can't do mid-fight. Then there's modularity. The M4 has plenty of rail space for optics, lasers, lights, and grips. Bullpups have a shorter fore-end, which means less real estate for accessories without crowding the muzzle or ejection port. Top Stories This Week News Airman arrested for death that prompted Air Force-wide safety review of Sig M18 Airman arrested for death that prompted Air Force-wide safety review of Sig M18 By Jeff Schogol News Soldiers who stopped Fort Stewart gunman recognized as 'the best among us in the Army' Soldiers who stopped Fort Stewart gunman recognized as 'the best among us in the Army' By Patty Nieberg Culture Laura Loomer unites vets from both sides of aisle after Medal of Honor rant Laura Loomer unites vets from both sides of aisle after Medal of Honor rant By Matt White Finally, logistics and doctrine. Adopting bullpups would mean rewriting training manuals, changing qualification standards, redesigning load carriage systems, and retraining hundreds of thousands of troops across every service branch. Unless a bullpup offers overwhelming advantages, that level of disruption just isn't likely to be seen as being worth it. The U.S. has tried In 1985, the Pentagon put the Steyr AUG through its paces. What they found were all of the above shortcomings and decided not to purchase them, but that didn't stop U.S. Customs and Border Protection from adopting the rifle from 1988 to 2007 before replacing them with AR-style rifles. The Belgian FN F2000, tested by U.S. special operations, offered fully ambidextrous, forward-ejecting operation in a compact package. But its spongy trigger, bulky profile, and incompatibility with existing accessories killed its chances. Most recently, the General Dynamics RM277 was proposed as part of the Army's Next Generation Squad Weapon program. It is a suppressed, polymer-cased 6.8mm bullpup that, despite impressive ballistics, lost to SIG Sauer's then-XM7, an AR-style rifle that felt more familiar to soldiers and fit better into existing logistics. Other countries made it work… sort of Israel fields the Tavor for infantry and urban ops, but many troops still carry M4s depending on the mission. The country is currently looking to replace the Tavor with a home-built AR-style weapon. France ditched the FAMAS for the HK416. The UK stuck with the SA80 but spent decades and millions fixing its flaws. They're also currently looking for a replacement, and none of the candidates are bullpups. Austria and Australia have stuck with the Steyr AUG, but they operate on a smaller scale and with different mission profiles than the U.S. The bottom line Bullpups aren't bad rifles. In some environments, they're excellent. But they don't offer enough benefit to make the U.S. military scrap its entire small arms ecosystem. They're harder to reload, have less modularity, and often deliver a worse trigger feel. And in a force this large, familiarity and interoperability matter as much as performance. For now, the Army's next standard rifle, the M7, sticks with the AR-style layout. Bullpups will keep showing up in gun shop display cases and in the hands of foreign forces, but for the U.S. military writ large, they remain too weird to issue. We dive into this in more depth in this week's YouTube video, which you can check out here.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
BigBear.ai Stock Plummets on Uncertainty About Government Contracts
Key Takeaways lowered its revenue guidance and withdrew its adjusted EBITDA outlook on government contract uncertainty. The artificial intelligence data analytics company said it would be affected by changes in the Army's data architecture. posted a bigger loss and lower revenue than expected in the second (BBAI) shares lost a quarter of their value Tuesday, a day after the artificial intelligence data analytics firm slashed its revenue outlook and withdrew its profit forecast on uncertainty about government contracts. The company now anticipates full-year revenue in the range of $125 million to $140 million, down from its earlier estimate of $160 million to $180 million. Its previous guidance for adjusted EBITDA had been "in the negative single digit millions." CEO Kevin McAleenan said while is optimistic about future investments and growth opportunities, "we have also seen disruptions in federal contracts from efficiency efforts this quarter, most notably in programs that support the U.S. Army, as they seek to consolidate and modernize their data architecture." Along with questions about Army contracts, the company expects increased spending in the second half of the year. In the second quarter, posted a loss of $0.71 per share, about 12 times more than analysts from Visible Alpha were looking for. Revenue slumped 18% year-over-year to $32.5 million, also well short of forecasts. Shares of had entered Tuesday up nearly 60% this year. Read the original article on Investopedia