A four-legged robot dog prowled the floor of the Army's largest annual conference in Washington, D.C., this week. Nearby a handheld weapon promised to knock drones from the sky without firing a shot, and a new interceptor was built to chase down the faster, deadlier versions coming next.

The displays offered a glimpse of a battlefield changing at a pace that is forcing the U.S. military and defense industry to race not only to develop new weapons, but to keep them from becoming outdated as quickly as they arrive.

"It's always a cat and mouse game, and we do have to be looking down the field," Eric Brock, CEO of defense technology company Ondas, told Fox News Digital in an interview at the Association of the United States Army's (AUSA) annual meeting.

That race was hard to miss at the AUSA expo this week, where drones, counter-drone weapons and autonomous systems crowded the show floor as the Army looks to rapidly incorporate lessons from conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East into its battleplan.

"If you walk around the hall at AUSA, it'll give you a good indication of the Army's priorities. Our priorities are reflected in what we're procuring," Army Under Secretary Mike Obadal said ahead of the conference.

On the ground, Ondas demonstrated a huge piece of that shift: Scout, a four-legged robotic system designed to move ahead of troops into buildings, tunnels and other potentially dangerous areas while sending imagery back to an operator.

"The whole concept is that if the Scout takes fire, it's better than the soldier," Brock told Fox News Digital during the demonstration.

The Army's new autonomous systems command is part of a wider Pentagon effort to organize around unmanned warfare, while War Secretary Pete Hegseth said at AUSA this week that the department is working toward a four-star-led Autonomous Warfare Command.

Obadal predicted an "immense number" of drones and counter-UAS systems at the show, saying their prevalence reflected procurement and budget priorities across the Pentagon. Ukraine, he said, had "cemented" counter-UAS as a critical part of modern operations.

The Army is reorganizing around that reality. This month it announced a new Futures and Autonomous Systems Command tasked with accelerating autonomous capabilities across formations including aviation, armor, fires, sustainment and reconnaissance. At AUSA, the service also expanded drone and counter-drone marketplaces designed to allow the U.S. and its allies to purchase pre-approved systems in days rather than months.

For Brock, one of the clearest lessons from the recent war with Iran was the sheer number of threats defenses could be forced to confront.

"It's more about mass," he said. "So we have to make these affordable, low cost, returnable systems, and we have to produce this to scale."

Ondas has rapidly expanded its own role in that push. Its Mistral subsidiary has secured more than $240 million in orders under the Army's $982 million Lethal Unmanned Systems contract, including an additional order worth more than $50 million announced in August.

The company also acquired DZYNE Technologies this summer in a deal valued at roughly $875 million, adding a portfolio of drones and counter-drone weapons that includes the IonStrike kinetic interceptor and handheld Dronebuster demonstrated for Fox News Digital at AUSA.

IonStrike is designed to physically intercept incoming drones, including Shahed-class one-way attack drones. Brock said newer versions of the threat are becoming faster and increasingly difficult for defenses built around earlier, slower drones to defeat.

"The faster moving [Shaheds] now need more autonomous systems," Brock said during a demonstration of the interceptor. "So this system is designed to be very fast." The system uses onboard guidance to pursue a detected threat and is designed to be deployed in numbers when multiple drones are approaching. But no single weapon can address the growing range of unmanned threats.

Ondas also demonstrated its handheld Dronebuster, which uses electronic warfare to jam or spoof communications and navigation links rather than physically destroying an incoming drone. The company recently unveiled a longer-range version under contract for delivery to the Office of Naval Research for testing and evaluation.

Those tools illustrate the increasingly layered approach to counter-drone warfare: electronic attack may be enough against one type of drone, while another operating without a vulnerable radio link could require a physical interceptor. And each adaptation can prompt another.

Brock pointed to Ukraine, where defenders have developed increasingly effective ways to counter the Shahed-type drones Russia has used in attacks across the country. Russia and its suppliers, in turn, have worked to make those weapons faster and harder to stop.

That rapid cycle is putting pressure on a Pentagon acquisition system historically accustomed to developing major weapons over years or decades. The Army used AUSA itself to hunt for more affordable interceptor technology, offering up to $20 million through a competition focused on defeating air and missile threats at a more sustainable cost. The challenge is also moving beyond individual drones and interceptors.

Ondas has partnered with Palantir on software aimed at connecting sensors, drones, robotic platforms and command systems so they can operate as part of a larger autonomous network. Its SkyWeaver system uses Palantir-powered AI as part of an architecture designed to link intelligence, mission planning and autonomous operations across multiple domains.

"We're moving from each platform being individually autonomous platforms to mission autonomy," Brock said.

That could mean connecting intelligence gathered by high-altitude balloons and long-endurance unmanned aircraft with smaller drones, ground systems and other sensors closer to the fight, including in environments where traditional communications are degraded.

For Brock, keeping pace will increasingly depend on whether the U.S. can manufacture autonomous weapons and defenses in the numbers a future conflict could demand. "I think that's the bigger challenge," Brock said.

"Technology is not really a challenge. We can build fast interceptors. We can build autonomy. That technology is there. It's ready." "Can we produce this en masse as our adversaries are?"