Airbus has publicized that it is working on a Project Maven style project with France's DGA [0][1].
Thales also publicly launched and demonstrated SkyDefender a couple days ago [2].
Mistral AI also announced in January 2026 that it is working with the DGA to productionize it's models for military applications [3] - ironically similar in manner to how the DoD was using Claude but is now using Gemini and GPT.
No country is going to leave networked, autonomous offensive and defensive capabilities on the table.
That's not really what they meant. They meant that the weapon is guided by software that decides which targets to pick and autonomously makes that decision without a human in the loop. The device seeks you instead of you going to it.
A landmine has no friend-or-foe-or-noncombatant decision engine, it will kill you or maim you just like it will kill or maim the guy that laid it or any other passer by.
You missed the point. The Mk 60 Captor is not a "land" mine. It is guided by software and autonomously makes the decision to launch a homing torpedo without a human in the loop.
A homing torpedo/release mechanism is not AI by the normal definition of the word. You're welcome to redefine words as much as you want but it's a bit silly. We also don't use that term for heatseekers or for line followers.
The 'signature' bit is interesting, but I'd still not label that AI, and neither does anybody else. It is a loitering munition, I'll give you that, and I think that that brings it closer to the 'mine' definition of things than the 'AI killbot'.
No, it obviously does not only apply to LLMs. It just does not apply to loitering munitions from decades ago. And I'm pretty sure nobody ever labeled that thing AI before you did.
I understand the point you are trying to make here.
But to be very clear, the mine still has to be placed. What's happening now is that step is also automated, and may be automated by a system controlling many other weapons at the same time, across land/sea/air.
It's not remotely the same thing in terms of the scope and scale of what is being done with the networked weapon systems.
Maybe if you tied several hundred of them together with different weapon effects, sensors and capabilities operating across thousands of km at once you would start to get close.
I'm talking about weapon systems that know what color clothes the target is wearing and where his kids go to school.
You know the statement that the "network is the computer"?
Same applies here. We've connected sensors and weapon systems and LLMs together with data sources.
This is already a past station, just not at Airbus.