From tactical outcomes to strategic questions.
Combat analysis, sustainment planning, and the evidence behind each decision.
The ARGUS perspective
ARGUS connects the two.
The whole platform
Start with the engagement. Examine the demands it creates. Ask what it takes to keep a force effective over time.
Bring combat estimates, wargaming, sustainment planning, and historical evidence into one analytical workspace. Keep sources, assumptions, and human judgment attached to the decision.
Explore the capabilities
Narration: “War isn’t fought in one domain. It’s fought in all of them. Sea. Air. Land. And every mile between. Cyber. Space.” Music accompanies views of Earth, a destroyer, a carrier launch, a logistics convoy, missile launches, radar, and a satellite.
On-screen titles read “One engine. Every consequence.” and “ARGUS. Combat Forecasting Engine.” The closing narration is “Anticipate. Analyze. Outmaneuver.” AI-generated concept film.
Build the operational picture.
Explore the alternatives.
Examine the assumptions.
Review supply and endurance.
Follow the evidence.
Compare the consequences.
Unclassified analysis · Human-led decisions
The ARGUS wargame
Develop a scenario, commit orders, inspect the adjudication, and review what happened. Explore alternatives with the assumptions and model status in view.
Logistics & sustainment
Every engagement draws on a finite force.
Fuel, ammunition, and resupply shape how long a plan can hold. Compare starting stocks and expenditure, identify projected shortfalls, and examine the assumptions behind the balance.
Planning questions
Identify the first projected shortfall and the supply class behind it. Keep fuel, ammunition, and other requirements distinct.
Compare starting stocks, resupply, and estimated expenditure to understand how planning assumptions change projected balances.
Keep source references and analyst assumptions with saved planning versions, so reviewers can follow the reasoning.
Adjust one assumption to see the projected balance change. These are illustrative inputs, not observed supply data.
Sample units
| Turn | Balance | |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 80 | |
| 2 | 60 | |
| 3 | 40 | |
| 4 | 20 | |
| 5 | 0 | |
| 6 | -20 |
First shortfall: Turn 6
A negative balance shows unmet demand. This illustrative planning example does not predict combat effects.
Carry the supply question into the wider decision: what must be replenished, replaced, or funded to sustain the approach?
Supply-chain expertise. Operations-research depth.ACE
What changes the outcome?
Explore force comparisons and the assumptions behind each estimate. Examine what changes the outcome before asking what it would take to sustain it.
The diagram follows a commander’s question through the ARGUS AI Analyst and scenario exploration to six model families: land, C4ISR/EW, logistics, air and ground-based air defense, autonomous systems, and the Naval Salvo Model.
The inputs shown include intelligence, geospatial data, order of battle, weather and ocean conditions, and rules of engagement.
The flow continues through a shared operational picture, validation and provenance, and an ARGUS assessment presenting probabilities, thresholds, sensitivities, and explanations.
Understand the model behind the result, the assumptions it uses, and the evidence supporting it.
Change an assumption and examine how it affects the estimate.
Follow the model and data record behind the analysis. Validation is specific to the model, domain, and question.
The connected workflow
Move from the map to the question,
and from the analysis to the brief.
Ask what happened, why an estimate moved, or where sources disagree. The ARGUS Analyst is designed to explain the evidence and help draft a brief with citations attached. The analyst reviews the work and retains decision authority.
Bring geography, forces, events, and approved live feeds together on a 3D globe. Terrain, weather, and maritime context belong alongside the scenario, with source and freshness visible to the analyst.
Develop missions and courses of action, define the order of battle, and review alternatives against declared criteria. Build decision briefs, exercise products, and after-action reports from the analysis record.
Connect ARGUS with the maps, scenarios, and data your team uses. Work with us to define integration and deployment around your operating environment and evaluation needs.
The ARGUS Combat Data Ecosystem
Twelve research databases and a naval system of record.
Built by historians and engineers, one source at a time.
Featured research
Historical engagements, forces, equipment, and outcomes — with the source evidence behind them.
Study individual engagements with traceable sources, evidence gaps, and differing accounts in view. Built to support quantitative research and model calibration.
Ask about this collection
Unit records linking campaign chronology, forces, and outcomes.
Campaign chronology, unit organization, strength observations, and operational context connecting individual engagements to the wider campaign.
Ask about this collection
Opposed landings: forces, terrain, sea state, and outcomes.
A historical research collection for comparative study of amphibious operations, with traceable operation records and source-linked research tables.
Ask about this collection
Fleet engagements, ship-level outcomes, and damage records.
ARGUS naval research connects historical collections, reference data, and source evidence in one system of record. Dataset evidence and modeled outcomes retain their distinct status.
Ask about this collection
Campaign research
The Battle of the Bulge at division and daily resolution: strength, losses, posture, position, and supply.
A unit-day research program connecting both sides of the campaign through dated observations and source evidence.
Ask about this collection
Campaign research
The southern pincer at Kursk, division by division and day by day. A record for studying attrition and tempo under prepared defense.
Daily unit observations, force and loss records, operational context, and the source material behind the reconstruction.
Ask about this collection
Contemporary history
Conflict identities from 1990 onward linked to event records and case studies, including research on Ukraine since 2022.
Connects conflict-level context, event observations, and engagement research while retaining each source’s coverage and limitations.
Ask about this collection
Conflict research
Insurgencies, interventions, and stabilization operations, organized around actors, external support, sanctuary, and outcomes.
Examine multi-party conflicts through source-based records that distinguish documented events from interpretation.
Ask about this collection
Air effects research
Sortie, strike, and damage records alongside related ground engagements.
A research collection examining air activity alongside observed effects and source evidence. Coverage and release status are available from the team.
Ask about this collection
Terrain and context
Urban and conurban engagements studied alongside open-terrain cases to examine duration, casualties, and outcomes.
Compare engagements across different environments, with clear selection criteria and limits on what the evidence can explain.
Ask about this collection
Prisoners and surrender
Prisoner-of-war and capture records across scales of engagement, preserving the context of surrender and force collapse.
Compare documented captures and surrender events with their original sources in view. Historical observations remain distinct from model estimates.
Ask about this collection
Human factors research
Command episodes connecting leaders, units, and outcomes, with training, experience, and organizational change over time.
Research on leadership and human factors. Discuss sources, coverage, and access with our team.
Ask about this collection
Forces through time
Formations, subordination, equipment, and strength over time. The organizational record of who was there, with what.
Trace formations, equipment, and strength across historical records, with the documents and citations behind each account.
Ask about this collectionDiscuss research coverage, sources, and access for your study with the ARGUS team.Collection artwork is illustrative, not archival evidence.
Explore historical researchThe people behind ARGUS
Platform builders, data architects, operations researchers, and historians. A team working across disciplines to make complex evidence useful.
Chief Executive Officer & Co-Founder
A veteran and retired law enforcement officer with a master’s degree in public administration, Keegan brings a career of public service to ARGUS. He leads product development, platform engineering, and company strategy, connecting practical experience with the research and technology that help decision-makers evaluate complex problems.
Chief Data Officer & Co-Founder
Brings 25 years of IT and business intelligence leadership, with expertise in data modeling, database architecture, forecasting, and geospatial analytics. Holds an MBA in supply chain management and logistics.
Program Manager & Modeling and Simulation Lead
An operations research analyst and program manager with more than 30 years of experience across military domains. His background includes NATO, joint staff exercises, and large simulation programs.
Director of Historical Research & Strategic Analysis
A military historian and strategic analyst whose work spans archival research, irregular warfare, and geopolitical analysis. Previously served with the U.S. Army Center of Military History.
The next decision
What must be replenished? What must be replaced? What can be afforded repeatedly?
Bring your operational question or force concept. Walk through the relevant models, evidence, and assumptions with the ARGUS team.
Talk directly with Keegan