CDR Salamander - Old & Busted: Unmanned Systems -- New Hottness: Robotic Autonomous Systems

Words matter. Clarity matters. Consistency matters.

I don’t think anyone has been happy with how we describe “drones”, “unmanned”, or the cringy reactionary-woke “uncrewed” phraseology. Don’t even get me started with the “kamikaze drone” and other such kludges.

OK, I may be nine months late to the game, but it appears we may be moving past the awkward and tiresome, “Do we call it unmanned, uncrewed, or something else that starts with a ‘u’? I’m tired of being yelled at.” stage.

Have you noticed something seeping into the…drone?…space recently?

From what I can tell—and if you can find earlier official uses please let us know in comments—what brought this acronym to the front was a memo by then-SECNAV Phelan on September 3, 2025.

In accordance with the Secretary of Defense’s Memorandum dated 10 July 2025, “Unleashing U.S. Military Drone Dominance,” I am establishing the positions of Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Robotic and Autonomous Systems (DASN (RAS)), Program Executive Office for Robotic and Autonomous Systems (PEO RAS) and Portfolio Acquisition Executive for Robotic and Autonomous Systems (PAE RAS). The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition (ASN (RD&A)) is directed to immediately conduct a focused 30-day analysis (the “sprint”) to develop an implementation plan.

I don’t hate it.

If I may extend the concept:

• Surface RAS = SRAS. Pronounced, “S-Rass”

• Air RAS = ARAS. Pronounced, “A-Rass”

• Underwater RAS = URAS. Pronounced, “You-Rass”

• Ground RAS = GRAS. Pronounced, “G-Rass”

That works.

I think this new phrasing may stick. On Monday, the GAO put out, Robotic Autonomous Systems: Navy Needs to Address Leadership and Organizational Challenges to Meet Urgent Needs, a document that should be getting more attention.

Recent conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East prove that robotic and autonomous systems (RAS) are disrupting naval warfare and challenging traditional naval superiority. To provide more adaptable, dispersed operations, the Navy intends to shift away from its World War II-era operating model, which was based on closely knit battle groups comprised of several traditional platforms, such as planes, ships and submarines.

According to Navy strategic documents, a hybrid fleet is necessary to enable this shift and would incorporate smaller, more numerous, and distributed capabilities—including RAS capabilities—as a complement to larger, more individually powerful, traditional capabilities. In this context, RAS capabilities could allow naval forces to take on greater operational risk while maintaining a tactical and strategic advantage. The Navy plans to spend billions of dollars on researching and developing enabling technologies for RAS.

In March 2025, GAO found that the Navy had not taken steps to address key challenges to developing RAS capabilities quickly despite critical needs for RAS implementation.

We need to ditch the “hybrid fleet” silly talk, but the RAS? Not bad.

With expanding operational systems nearing IOC…we should firm up our lexicon.

I haven’t seen better.

Leave a comment

Share

View the full article