I respectfully disagree with the Lt Col. The military services do not need a robotic systems TYCOM equivalent, the combatant commanders do not need a robotic systems functional component, or a stand-alone dedicated robotics force. Autonomous and uncrewed systems are a crew concept, not a warfighting domain. They will provide the existing functional components with warfighting capabilities across the operational functions (C2, ISR, fires, movement and maneuver, protection, sustainment, information) and should be integrated at the lowest level possible. Stand-alone organizations create isolation rather than integration, and make capabilities more esoteric and less accessible to the warfighter. For example, segregating uncrewed aircraft of a particular type/model/series in a stand-alone squadron is entirely reasonable. However, that squadron should be integrated into a carrier air wing along with other crewed and uncrewed squadrons organized by TMS, train together throughout the readiness cycle, be attached and integrated aboard the carrier, and then the larger strike group. Some missions may involve only uncrewed systems based on risk or complexity, some may require remote oversight from distance, and some may require human-uncrewed teaming with aircrew in close proximity to the uncrewed aircraft. Uncrewed and autonomous systems cannot be a “bolt on” late in the training cycle, and should not operate solely in isolation. The systems should be built to accommodate the unique unit-level administrative and support challenges of autonomous and uncrewed systems, but allow the “significant human oversight” to happen at the tactical edge with the O-3 flight lead or NCO JTAC – not the three-star staff level. The Marine Corps is LESS integrated as the ground component of a combined naval force since 1947; space and cyber capabilities are more esoteric and isolated from the warfighter with four-star service and component ADCON/OPCON/TACON. Please don’t let that happen with autonomous and uncrewed systems.