“This was really the first year that all of our capabilities are in a multilateral environment where our partners are using those warfighting applications and tools with the US and we have a single COP to conduct warfighting,” Brig. Gen. Michael Smith, director for command, control, communications, computers and cyber at Indo‑Pacific Command, said at the TechNet Indo‑Pacific Conference.
PACOM Mission Network: a single common operational picture
Officials at Indo‑Pacific Command (PACOM) describe 2026 as a milestone year in which the command moved from largely bilateral information-sharing arrangements toward a multilateral, data-centric environment. The system at the center of that shift is the PACOM Mission Network, which allows U.S. forces and partner militaries to share data and mission‑planning tools securely and across classification boundaries so they can jointly conduct operations or prosecute targets.
Scale and exercise validation: 17 exercises, nine hosts, 35 countries
Lt. Gen. George Rowell, PACOM’s deputy commander, said the mission network was used in “several major exercises” over the last year and noted that PACOM conducted 17 exercises across nine host nations that incorporated 35 countries. He framed the operational takeaway not in single events but in the networked behavior those exercises produced: common tools, common data flows and language translation enabling collaboration at scale.
This site is the portfolio.
OSINTSights runs on Cloudflare Workers, D1, R2, and Vectorize, with an AI pipeline on Hetzner ARM. Nubivance designed, built, and operates it. We do the same for clients.
See what we buildTechnical posture: multilateral, data‑centric, zero trust‑enabled
Brig. Gen. Smith and other officials emphasized three technical attributes of the environment: multilateral access, a data‑centric architecture, and zero trust enablement. Smith contrasted the new approach with legacy bilateral systems, saying “we’ve had a lot of legacy bilat[eral] systems and networks. Some of those still exist, but now we have a common operational environment that’s multilateral, data‑centric, zero trust‑enabled.” The claim signals an intent to move both identity and information control into a shared, policy‑based framework rather than relying purely on stovepiped links between pairs of partners.
Maven Smart System and partner integration—Japan’s first operational use
Officials provided a concrete example of partner integration: for the first time, Japanese partners used the Maven Smart System, an artificial‑intelligence‑enabled platform embedded in the mission network for planning and targeting. According to Smith, “Using Maven, Japanese are contributing to joint strikes and close kill chains,” an operational detail illustrating how a single planning/targeting tool can be shared within the multilateral environment.
Deterrence and assured command and control
Rowell tied the technological and procedural changes to a strategic effect: deterrence. “This deterrent capability becomes credible when we prove to any potential adversary that our commanders can execute without missing a beat, even when primary systems are jammed or disabled,” he said, adding that “assured command and control is inseparable from the concept of deterrence here in the Pacific.” He also highlighted the logistical challenge PACOM faces in the region’s distances, calling attention to “the evolving science of the pipes connecting everything across that vast tyranny of distance.”
What this means for technologists, policymakers, and partner forces
- Technologists and security teams: The emphasis on a data‑centric, zero trust‑enabled multilateral environment means engineers and cyber teams will need to focus on interoperable data models, cross‑classification handling, and policy enforcement that works across national domains rather than only between bilateral links.
- Policymakers and defense planners: The operational validation through 17 exercises and the integration of tools such as Maven provides evidence that multilateral mission partner networks can be exercised at scale, raising questions for planners about doctrine, rules of engagement, and the governance of shared targeting data.
- Partner militaries (including Japan): The Japanese use of Maven underlines that partners will not be passive recipients of U.S. systems; they can be active contributors to joint strikes and “close kill chains” when given operational access to shared tools and data.
PACOM officials framed 2026 as the year the Pacific moved from bilateral patchworks toward a shared operational fabric: a single common operational picture, multilateral tools, and exercises that stress the network as much as the platforms. Yet even as leaders celebrate a shared COP and the operational contributions of partners, they acknowledge legacy bilateral systems remain and that the network must prove itself under contested conditions. The central question urged by the command’s own language is operational and political at once — can the PACOM Mission Network sustain assured command and control at the scale and resilience Rowell and Smith describe when primary systems are degraded or denied?
