The defense autonomy ecosystem is entering a phase where the limiting factor is no longer technology maturation or conceptual alignment, but the practical conditions required to field autonomous systems at scale.
The policy environment has shifted from “if” autonomy will be integrated into mission sets to “how fast” it can be delivered, sustained, and sourced under domestic or allied supply requirements. That is the backdrop for this year’s AUVSI Defense forum — a gathering focused on industrial base readiness, autonomy integration across domains, and the realities of procurement strategy in a rapidly changing security landscape.
What differentiates this forum from a typical defense conference is not the subject matter, but the level of candor it is designed to enable. As Casie Ocana noted in our conversation, “This is very much a thought leadership forum that focuses on bringing together senior leaders from government and industry to have alignment on the conversations that need to happen now — those that will shape both future procurement strategy and development strategy.” The event operates under Chatham House rule, which is increasingly rare at a time when most defense gatherings tilt toward public presentations, technology showcases, and outward messaging. The premise here is the opposite: the most consequential discussions in autonomy right now are not about platform specifications, AI capabilities, or even mission alignment — they are about what can realistically be sourced, manufactured, certified, and delivered in the time windows that matter for defense acquisition.
A defining dynamic of this moment is the concurrency between funding acceleration and industrial base constraint. Record levels of federal investment are being directed toward autonomy and uncrewed systems, but capital alone does not convert into deployable capability unless the supply chain beneath it is structured to absorb and deliver at scale. The forum is taking place at a time when defense primes, OEMs, and Tier 2 and Tier 3 suppliers are under growing pressure to demonstrate not only innovation, but production credibility. For companies participating anywhere along the autonomy value chain — sensors, propulsion, batteries, semiconductors, communications, AI/ML, or integration platforms — this is not simply a matter of engineering competitiveness. It is a matter of being aligned with how the Department of Defense is redefining readiness in the autonomy era.
Over the past 24 months, the migration from platform-first thinking to outcome-first acquisition has accelerated. Instead of an emphasis on whether a capability is delivered by a drone, a ground vehicle, or a maritime system, the framing has begun to shift toward what the capability must accomplish across domains, and whether it can be modular enough to follow mission requirements rather than hardware lineage. That shift has significant downstream implications for industry planning: it changes how companies prioritize development, how they structure bill of materials around NDAA compliance, and how they interpret early budget signals that indicate where fiscal-year allocations are likely to concentrate.
One reason this forum is drawing heightened interest — even under the added friction of a government shutdown — is that companies are looking for clarity on how acquisition offices are interpreting this strategic shift internally. The autonomy community is no longer waiting for a distant moment of doctrinal certainty; the decision horizon has moved forward. The next 12 to 18 months are a high-leverage window in which alignment with industrial base expectations, sourcing rules, and multi-domain applicability will determine which solutions are fieldable and which remain aspirational. As Ocana emphasized, “The goal is to have the conversations that bridge the gap from requirements to actuality — not just what the requirements say today, but how they’re being thought about moving forward.”
Another emerging theme is the increasing interdependence of autonomy across air, land, and maritime domains. Multi-domain autonomy is no longer an abstract doctrinal aspiration; it is a budgeting and industrial base reality. Components that can be deployed across more than one platform type reduce fragility in the supply chain and strengthen the case for modular system families rather than standalone platforms. This shift also affects how smaller and mid-tier suppliers position themselves: those that can show adaptability across mission sets will be better aligned with how the Department of Defense is moving toward outcome-based capability planning.
What’s different? Traditional conferences tend to deliver insight only after requirements are fully formed, leaving industry to infer backward from official posture. AUVSI Defense is intentionally configured earlier in the cycle, in the period when strategic priorities are still being interpreted and stress-tested. That proximity is part of why attendance has remained strong. As Ocana put it, “Even with the shutdown and competing priorities, we’re seeing growing attendance because these discussions are needed — this is the moment where alignment matters.”
At a moment when autonomy is on the verge of shifting from programmatic interest to operational infrastructure, this year’s AUVSI Defense forum represents an opportunity to move from awareness to execution — not by forecasting the future of autonomy, but by understanding the groundwork required to reach it.
Join the conversation at AUVSI Defense and help shape how autonomy moves from concepts to capability: https://www.auvsi.org/events/auvsi-defense/
