Integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into military operations and planning processes has become a central focus in modern warfare.

The speed and complexity of modern warfare require a rapid, accurate, and adaptive planning process and decision-making capability. Tactical planning process (TPP) provides structured approach, offering guidelines and templates, however, in modern warfare classical planning process does not guarantee a strategic advantage. Conflicts in twenty-first century are thick of data, constantly streamed from various sources and sensors. The situation on the battlefield and emerging threats evolves in real time and space. At the same time, AI offers the ability to observe and analyse information, propose solutions, and assist in orders production. The integration of AI into TPP, therefore, offers both opportunities and challenges, raising questions about reliability, control and credibility.

To properly analyse these questions, two military theories provide valuable guidance. First, John Boyd’s OODA loop theory – Observe, Orient, Decide, Act – provides a structured way to analyse decisionmaking speed and effectiveness. Boyd’s theory of OODA loop enables the examination of the planning process as a perpetual cycle that necessitates both rapidity and adaptability [1]. By contrast, Carl von Clausewitz’s theory of “fog” and “friction” warns us that conflicts and battlefield always generate uncertainty and disruption, even in the best-laid plans [2].

Together, these theoretical frameworks facilitate the understanding and evaluation of the potential and limitations of AI in decision-making and planning processes.

This essay argues that while AI integration can significantly accelerate the Tactical planning process and enhance the tempo of Boyd’s OODA loop, Clausewitz reminds us that the fog and friction of war can only be reshaped – not eliminated. Therefore, AI should serve as a supportive tool – not as a replacement for human judgment, adaptability, and accountability.