 Good morning, everyone. I'm Vince Fallascio, Managing Director in Accenture Federal Services, where I have the pleasure of leading our Navy and Marine Corps business unit. And Accenture is very proud and honored to kick off this morning's panel discussion. I'm sure that we're looking forward to insightful discussion moderated by Mr. Scott D'Alessio on improving readiness through technology. And some of you may have noticed it in the spirit of the baseball season starting this week. Scott is pinch-hitting for Abel McCollum, who was called off to a meeting with the vice chief this morning. I'm sure he's going to do a wonderful job for us. The US military and the maritime services are facing a readiness challenge that's resolved in nearly two decades of increased conflict and an unusually and extraordinarily high operating tempo. You've heard examples of some of the impacts on our readiness posture at this exposition, as well as in other venues, and in some cases, even in the press. And the increased operating tempo has impacted not only the readiness posture of our platforms and weapon systems, but also has placed an extraordinary strain on our sailors, service members, and their families. And the funding constraints mandated by sequestration have only served to exasperate the problem. Despite that, I'm encouraged that technology and the Navy's digital framework can offer new solutions and approaches to improve our readiness posture across the man-trained and equipped mission. The innovative use of digital technologies, such as virtual and augmented reality, artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, robotics, and analytics can be a true force multiplier. And there are many examples of digital being used today, both within our military and the commercial sector that I think we can learn much from. And with that, I'd like to hand it off to Mr. Scott D'Alessio, OPNAV N42, Strategic Mobility and Combat Logistics Division. Thank you. Thanks. Good morning. Just remember, pinch hitters often hit home runs. We have a great panel this morning. We're going to talk a little bit about how to get readiness through technology. And you might ask, well, why is that important? We have quite the away game. Everywhere we go in the world, we go there. They don't come to us. That's kind of impressive. And we want to kind of keep it that way. But that means we're always on our away game. As you can see from the panelists, and I'll introduce them here in a minute, we're going to tackle this problem from a lot of different directions. So we have Navy. We have Marine Corps. We have Coast Guard. And there's a reason for this mix of players, and there are more. And that is because it's a worldwide presence issue that we're dealing with. And everybody has a piece of it, and it has to be coordinated properly. Great panel. We have Rear Admiral Dave Hahn, who is our chief of Naval research. And I say our because we're all stockholders in the greatest Navy in the world. You actually pay our salaries. You do. It's not funny all the time. Brigadier General Terry Williams, Marine Corps Assistant Deputy Commandant for Installations and Logistics. Rear Admiral Michael Haycock from the Coast Guard. He's the Director of Acquisition Programs. And he's also the Program Director for all Acquisition Services. Mr. Ashley Johnson is the Tech Director at Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head, Explosive Ordinant Detachment Division. As you can see, we're building as we go. Colonel James Jenkins, Director of Science and Technology. He's with the Experiment Division and Rapid Capability Office for the Marine Corps. So what we're going to do, and I have to give you explicit instructions because we are between you and lunch. We're going to go with a short burst from each one of these folks. We're going to line it up for questions right after that. My job is to get you out of here at 12 so you can visit with Mr. Stackley for lunch. With that, Dave Hahn. Well, good morning. Scott, thank you very much. And thanks to the Navy League for hosting this and for these panel members to join us today and talk about something that's pretty close to my day job. So as the Chief of Naval Research, I am charged really to do one thing, and that's to plan, foster, and encourage scientific research to ensure that this nation never loses the competitive advantage we have in the maritime domain. So it spans both Navy and Marine Corps equities, it's naval research. When coupled with the away game set of forces that we are putting into play every single day around the world and a budgetary environment that causes the stress on that set of forces to go up and up and up, we have created for ourselves, as you've heard, probably more than once this week and over the course of the last several years, a readiness challenge. Our way out of that readiness challenge is not clear. And when I look at it from my perch as the Chief of Naval Research and that charge to plan, foster, and encourage scientific research to keep us where we need to be, we need to attend to the three different sets of naval forces that we've got. So today's forces, which are being ridden hard, sometimes beyond their capacity. Tomorrow's Navy and Marine Corps, the one that's really based on today's Navy and whatever evolutionary changes we can bring to bear. And then the Navy after next, those naval forces after next, Navy and Marine Corps after next that will be the leap that we get from some of this basic and applied research that goes on in my world. So in attending to all three of those, we have a temporal problem that gets exacerbated when we drive readiness to the place where it is today with our current force. And there's no clear way out of this. So there's no magic technology bean that we are creating inside of the Naval Research Enterprise that's gonna solve this problem. But there are a couple of threads that I think are important for us to pursue as we look at digging out and then applying it going forward. The first is that readiness by anybody's calculation really sort of revolves around two things. The ASABO, the platform, the operational availability and the proficiency of the operators who man those platforms. How able are they to exercise and use that thing that we have provided to them on at the rate and velocity that we need them to operate it? And in much of our experience, at least me growing up inside the submarine force, we were often and are still often very tightly coupled. The platform and the people generating operator proficiency is coupled very tightly with the platform. So one thread that we need to follow as we look to the near and the far future is decoupling our platforms and our people when it comes to that readiness equation. If we can decouple them, then both can be optimized because they are moving at different rates. Okay, and if we can do that, then we can attend to platforms the way platforms need to be attended to and people the way they need to be attended to. So I'm gonna pull on that thread a little bit. Our platforms are trying to talk to us, but we don't understand them. Okay, and this is the digital Navy that CNO is driving us to. We are very good at collecting data. We are very bad at doing something with that data. Just imagine if you have to go to a doctor and you have a problem with your health, you are not operating at normal operating speed. You're not at capacity. You're not at your optimal capability. And you have to communicate with your doctor and you can't speak. They can't read any of your test results. They just sort of have to hunt and peck around you to try to figure out what's wrong with you. That's not a very optimal solution, right? That's kind of akin to what we do with our platforms today. Not exactly, but when you think about the opportunity set that's provided by enabling our platforms with the appropriate sensors to get the data we need to attend to them and drive those down to the eaches, right? It's not just about the type of platform. We're very good at maintaining classes of, again, I'll go back to my roots, we're very good at maintaining classes of submarines, classes of equipment on submarines. It really comes down to the eaches, right? If we just looked at you and said, or us, and said we're going to worry about the men and the women and that's as far as we will think about your health, we'd probably get it wrong for each and every one of you. We'd certainly sub-optimize it. It's kind of where we are with our Navy today. We need to get down to the eaches and if we can find our way to unlocking our data properly through collecting the data and putting big data analytics on where it's appropriate, we can generate the outcomes we're after in terms of readiness because instead of managing our readiness and our maintenance in terms of hours or days or certain periodicities or condition-based based on an imperfect understanding of the conditions, we can get ourselves into a more perfected maintenance regimen that's appropriate for each and every one of our ships. And I would encourage you to go, if you have not, one company that's walked their way through this journey of digitizing their heavy industrial equipment is General Electric. And if you haven't had the opportunity to either hear that story or see part of that story or live part of that story, it's worth going onto the Google machine out there and just Google a Dr. Colin Parris or GE's digital twin and spend a couple minutes trying to understand how they took an existing fleet of equipment, much like the Navy has an existing fleet of equipment and they started to work their way towards a better understanding of how their equipment operates so they could attend to it better for their customer set. And that's a very analogous journey to the one that the Navy's embarking on right now. So that may help you as you sort of tune how do you get in step with us? And as a panelist the other day said, ride the wave that the Navy is currently thinking about. Second part is operator proficiency. If we're gonna decouple the platform in the operator and get the operator proficient, we have to do that a different way, all right? And again, I go back to my experiences, you grow up and you do a lot of individual schoolhouse training and a lot of team training in trainers and those are pretty good. We can do much better, right? So live, virtual, constructive training as we move from individuals to teams to forces and then how to employ those forces in a variety of theaters because the away game that we're playing is not a one away game, it's about four or five and we have to be ready for all of those all at the same time. We have to get ourselves into the world where we have modeling and simulation that supports that live, virtual and constructive training at each of those levels and we have to bring to bear the appropriate analysis tools to understand again, what is that system telling us about our operator proficiency? Otherwise we find ourselves tricked and we're really not ready. So my organization grew up based on the lessons of World War II, that's why we started, right? We started because we never wanted to have to, on day one of the fight, recognize that we weren't truly ready for the fight so we never wanted to lose that advantage again. Okay, we're in that condition right now. We need to be thinking about how do we make sure on day one we are ready for the fight and we don't know where it's coming from, we don't know exactly what it's gonna look like so we have to envision each of those fights in ways that we have never done before and we're gonna need your help doing that. I have brought with me today one of the entry points into my world in the Office of Naval Research who can provide any contact information that you may want. Tech Solutions is part of our organizations that deals with the Navy and Marine Corps of today. So if there's an idea you've got about, hey, here's how we can help today. Mass Chief, you wanna stand up real quick? Mass Chief Madison up here, Command Mass Chief, he is that guy, you can find him, he's wearing khakis and Master Chiefs have this unique way of telling you that you have a good idea or not. I know that because they've talked to me quite frequently. So please reach out and touch Mass Chief if you've got anything or and I'm always available and that's why I've got, looking forward to your questions this morning. Thank you. General Williams. Thank you, sir. I'm gonna take this in a little different direction and I'd ask you to hold on cause I'm gonna go fast and one of the things I have to do is I have to put it in context so you understand. You understand most of what I wanna talk about but when you put it all together, at least it gives you an understanding of kind of the world that we as Marine logisticians live in and how we can use technology to increase the readiness of our MAGTF, our Marine Air Ground Task Force. I'm gonna use notes, I'm not gonna read them but if I don't, I'll take all the time up and I don't wanna do that. So bear with me. And I go back to World War II. World War II, our infantrymen, 30 pounds, right? The Jeep 2400 pounds and it drank about 16 gas at 16 miles per gallon. A very survival vehicle, not as much as it is today but certainly light, easy to maintain and easy to manufacture. Today, Marines are carrying 100 pounds on their backs. We've got the Humvee Next which will probably weigh about 18,000 pounds and it'll be a gas guzzler at six miles per gallon which is out of control. The Desert Storm Desert Shield, the CH-46, it carried Marines personnel across the battle space. Today we have the V-22 and in the future it'll be the V-22, two times as fast, two times as far, carries two times the amount of people, drinks seven times the amount of gas. I think you're getting the picture there. We'll talk about the CH-53K and the F-35, great exquisite platforms which will bring a capability to the MAGTAF that is absolutely incredible but guess what? Logistically intensive to support from a logistic standpoint. So we're getting heavier. We're getting bloated and it requires more. On top of that, if you look at the marine operating concept which has us operating at greater distances, disaggregated across the battle space in smaller numbers, that also puts a strain on the marine logistician. And then on top of that, again, the world is getting more chaotic, more dangerous, more unpredictable. You throw all that together and you look at the marine air ground task force and the logistician who's got to support that and it makes us look at really a couple of things when we look at technology and how to get up readiness. And we see readiness in a much different way at the tactical level and I'll talk about that here as I start talking about some of the capabilities that we're looking at. So you take all that together, we call that in the Marine Corps a hybrid logistics error because we'll have new equipment and old equipment. We'll have new capabilities, old capabilities, new operational concepts and old operational concepts and having to support it all at the same time. Working across the range of military operations. So think about that and now I will tell you that there's some great technologies out there that we in the Marine Corps are focusing on because we think it will increase the readiness of the MAG TAF. One, added in manufacturing, 3D printing. I think everybody knows what that is. And for us, that is a game changer. I tell you, for us, that we call disruptive in a good way. It's got the potential to improve inventory performance. For us, that's absolutely important. Gives us lead time reduction. Again, that means readiness of equipment up faster. It gives us a way to overcome obsolescence, which we have a problem with. I'll just say the AAV, the Amphibious Assault Vehicle. One of our older platforms, Obsolete in many ways. Added in manufacturing, printing some of that Obsolete stuff is phenomenal. In addition to that, it will also allow us to print things in a less complicated way. So in other words, where we had five parts, you might be able to print things in one, making it much, much simpler. Production at or near the point of need. Now, you can't do it with everything and we understand that. But certainly, if you think about that, we've demonstrated you can print metals, and you can print mortars, and you can print, what do they call it, energetics, and you can print almost anything. And think about the power of that to the MAGTF at the point of need, especially given a vulnerable environment that we may find ourselves in. So added in manufacturing, 3D printing for us is huge as we look at that. The other thing is unmanned logistics vehicles. I think you've seen a lot of that. Folks talk about it as UASs and drones and so forth. From our standpoint, that once again revolutionizes the readiness of how we do business. Think about this again. You've got a Marine at the tip of the pointy spear. He has an ISR platform that's out. It's a drone, for lack of a better term. It goes down. In the old days, when we had robots, EOD, when I was in Iraq, that thing had to get evacuated back to Balad. If they couldn't fix it, it got evacuated back to the rear. But guess what? I can print one now. Almost everything, with the exception of maybe the electronics and the motors. And oh, by the way, I think we're getting close. You can print electronics into your print. So think about how that flattens the entire supply chain, increases the readiness and response time for those forces out there. So for us, we're looking at those two areas. I think Admiral Hahn talked a little bit about some of this what we call smart logistics. So think about this again. All of our platforms are talking to each other. They're able to diagnose themselves and say, hey, I'm going to break in a few minutes. If you don't change my oil, if you don't change my piston, and we can do it in a time that's optimized, not every 3,000 miles, you're going to pull this thing in and take it apart. Now it's optimized, and they're talking to each other. And so not only are platforms talking to each other, we're able to re-vector on their own because they know which one's going down and where we can use something. So those are three of the five areas. I know I don't want to take up too much time, but boy, there are some exciting things going on out there that we need your help with to increase the readiness of the MAGTF of the future. And I think if you look at those areas, and of course the one thing I have to say is, as you roll all that into place, it's going to be those information technology advances that are going to allow us to use the internet of things to be able to talk across all of those platforms, whether it's AM2 madding, I mean AM2 3D printing, or whether it's ULS unmanned logistics platforms, whether it's our smart logistics. And so I look forward to the questions you'll have. It's some exciting times for us, and I got to tell you, if I could talk for another hour, I would, but I won't. So thank you very much. Admiral Haycock. Well, good morning, I think it's still morning. I believe that really the value in these panels is the Q and A section that follows. And so I'm torn between using up a whole bunch of times so I can minimize the number of questions that happen later, or being brief and offering up more opportunity for questions. So I think I'm going to err on the side of providing time for questions. So what I'm going to do is I want to give just a few plugs for some acquisitions because I'm a program executive officer. I don't do that in the intent of shameless self-promotion as much as I do planning seeds for questions later on. Tell you a little bit about how some technology is really aiding our operations, and then I'll probably wrap it up and pass the mic so that we can get onto the questions you might have later on. So let me start by saying the Coast Guard has a number of acquisitions that are ongoing right now. I'll just go through a list of them real quick. We've got national security cutters. These are frigate-sized vessels we're building down to hunting and angles. Production line's hot, and we just commissioned number six, sevens in production, eights in production, and nine, the contract was awarded for production not too long ago. So that acquisition is hot and moving on. We're building fast response cutters. These are patrol boats, and these patrol boats are radically advanced compared to what they're replacing. That production line is hot. They're being built by Bollinger shipyards down in Louisiana in Lockport. Those cutters are kind of the workhorse of the fleet in terms of our inshore operations. We have an offshore patrol cutter acquisition that's ongoing. We recently awarded the contract for the detailed design for that. That's being done by Eastern Shipbuilding out of Florida. Our icebreaker acquisition is heating up, so there's opportunities for technology and innovation there. We recently awarded a bunch of contracts for industry studies, five of them here early in March, so that effort is ongoing and moving pretty quickly. In the aviation world, we are redoing the avionics suites on our H-65 helicopters. We're taking delivery of C-130s, and we're also basically revamping C-27s that have been out in the desert at the boneyard and bringing them back into service, so lots of opportunities for technology there as well. In the C-4ISR world, we're working a logistics information management system, we're working a financial management system, and we're working electronics C-4ISR systems and all the cutters. Those are all acquisitions we're working on that have potential for innovation and some creative solutions. That said, I have to temper that, and for those who don't have a lot of experience with the Coast Guard, we are a fraction of the size of our counterparts, the other armed forces. We do not have the budgets and the resources or the bandwidth that the other services have, so what you'll find is the Coast Guard is not really a state-of-the-art leading edge performance sort of thing. We're not looking for that sort of technology. We are more of a state-of-the-market organization, and the reason for that, as I mentioned before, is some of that is resource and budget. We don't have the people to manage high-tech leading edge work, so we really try to leverage the work of our counterparts in the Navy for that. We have an R&D center up in New London, Connecticut, but its budget is probably 1,000th of what Admiral Hahn has to deal with for his R&D budget. So our R&D center works predominantly on those unique Coast Guard things that for law enforcement work and that sort of thing. So that's one of the things that we have to temper our appetite. As much as we'd like to have the latest and greatest, we recognize that there are logistics tails that follow on those things. You have to be able to support them and sustain them, and then there's a huge effort up front on the R&D and the capital acquisition side, and so we have to maintain a middle ground on that. That said, I'll throw out just a couple of C's for questions later on. National security cutters, I think you may have heard our commentant talk. National security cutters are in operations. They are in theater. They're doing counter-drug work predominantly, and they are, in my humble opinion, killing it. We are setting records for the last couple of years with the amount of drugs we are preventing from breaching our shores, and that is done because the national security cutters are new cutters with technologically advanced systems, and they are being fed by state of the art, or at least state of the market. State of the art is probably a stretch, but state of the market communications, ISR, things like that, and so we now have a much better idea where we need to go to stop the flow of drugs, and we've had some phenomenal results. Our FRCs, we've also been using for that purpose as well, and one of the things we find in the Coast Guard is when we get an asset, we find out, we kind of push these limits and find out all the things it can do. So we've been sending FRCs, our fast response cutters, out on missions that typically we wouldn't do. It's a little longer than we're comfortable with. Exploring the territory, you see what we can do with these things, and FRCs have had a couple of big drug busts here recently for both cocaine and marijuana. But the stuff that our Coast Guard cutters are stopping because of technology is enable us to get to the right spot at the right time, is sufficient if you're to take the market value that the drugs are stopping to actually buy most of the ships that we're actually buying right now. The one area I would say is right for some innovation, and I don't think we're alone in this, I think all the armed forces probably suffer from the same thing, and that's the cyber world. The adversaries in the cyber realm are insidious, they are persistent, it's a never stopping threat, and so that's probably an area we need to be on the leading edge of. And I think with that, I'm gonna throw that out for siege for questions. If any of you guys are interested and throw the questions our way, and I'll pass the mic. Mr. Johnson. Good morning, everyone. I wanna first thank the Navy League of course for putting this on, and the invitation from Sierra Space. It's a pleasure to be here. I'm told that my job is to talk and yours is to listen, so I will endeavor to finish my job before you finish yours. And so in that regard, my remarks will be fairly brief. A few thoughts and some observations from my perspective. I will come at you from another angle, and I hope they promote dialogue, some discussions, some situational awareness provocative. I hope so. And with that, I'll begin. So you may be wondering why I'm on this panel with what it is that is associated in our business. Those of you who know me are probably already wondering why I'm on this panel. But while the platforms and logistics in training are hugely important to maintaining military readiness, your energetics and related combat systems are critical components of war fighting and readiness. Energetic material systems determine range, speed, lethality, signatures, and the safety of our combat capability. You need these systems to be ready. Without them, RF-35 Next Generation Submarines and new combat vehicles are interesting siege weapons and battering rams. Energetic material systems are pervasive throughout our Navy and Marine Corps team. They're involved in every current naval weapon system. From missile propellants, naval guns, ground artillery, warhead explosives, just to name a few. They impact every war fighting domain and involve many scientific disciplines in order to make them reality. For example, it isn't widely known that every FNA-18 has over 120 separate energetic cartridge activated devices and propellant activated devices on it. For aircrew escape, ejection sequencing, storage release, and aircrew survival equipment, these systems impact ready basic aircraft on a daily basis. Maintenance activities, item obsolescence, and service life are all factors that affect these key systems and ultimately our ability to be mission capable. The previous example is only in one domain. We are not as ready as we need to be in all the other domains. And if I had time, I could give you other examples. We need technology support and development to improve our capability and readiness in the area of energetic material systems to affect overall readiness. During the development of new weapon systems, energetic components are often viewed as a commodity. I came to expecting electricity when you put a plug in the wall. It's just there. Obviously it's not magic. A great deal of planning and development were required to maintain that commodity. Unfortunately, view is often, we'll fit that warhead in whatever space is left over. Or we'll just use what was in the last system. Somebody does that, right? We need better awareness of the energetic's impact to our war fighting capability and readiness. Better synergy between our three circles of acquisition, technology development, and requirements development. In balance of influence from these elements can lead to and in this case has led to negative consequences. We haven't communicated well enough to understand the need for technology development. We haven't assessed the true capability and our ability to manufacture and acquire these systems. And we haven't understood the impact of the lack of a solid requirements on the realization of that combat capability delivered by energetic material systems. It's hard to break the squelch. It's hard to break the noise floor with so much other conversation going on at the platform level. I get it, but it still matters. Energetics are often viewed as technologically frozen or played out industrial age components. It's simply not true. We can achieve higher energy densities, improve effects, reduce signatures and lower sensitivities for safety. Opportunity exists right now to improve significantly our current systems readiness as well as performance in all domains, extending our advantage and our readiness. It's very clear from where we sit that the rest of the world thinks so too. They are investing in it and they're making improvements and they're demonstrating that with systems that provide us less comparative advantage than we have enjoyed for decades. Missile propulsion, undersea technology, lethality, critical chemicals. We see advances happening outside the United States. As you can imagine, researching and developing new and effective and safer energy and materials is a high-risk activity with tremendous startup costs and facility requirements. Fundamentally, a neatly military business with limited commercial leverage, not participation leverage. The resulting ecosystem was never large or robust in comparison to something like the electronics or other component technologies that we depend upon. It's smaller now and everything we've developed in the past is significantly older, including the people doing the work. You're looking at living proof barely and so our intellectual readiness to mitigate and reverse those trend lines in energy is shrinking rapidly. We must do the work to transfer knowledge to our next generation energetics warriors. Expanding the US comparative advantage requires continuous devotion, discipline, proficiency and technical rigor. Talent, novel concepts, capability and capacity are available within the DOE industry and academia. To quote Monty Python, I'm not dead yet. I'm working with OPNAV, the PEO's O and R, the intelligence community, to reinvigorate naval energetics. We have strong industry partnerships. Our academic collaboration is productive and compelling. We're ready for an energetics renaissance. Our warfighting readiness depends on it. Thanks for your time. I was gonna call you jinks, but I'll call you Colonel Jenkins. You call me jinks. Hey, so it's good to be the boot on the panel because I get to rely on the crutch of slides and nobody expects more of me, so if you could go to the next slide. I wanna, maybe, I wanna take some time today and really focus on Admiral Hahn's second aspect of readiness because I think in general, when we talk about readiness today in the DOD, we think about it from a material perspective and I don't wanna denigrate the material perspective and the importance of it, but what I wanna talk about is this idea of the democratization of technology and so you have videos there which are not playing, but which basically have put a 17 year old with an AK-47 and a less than $1,000 UAV purchased off of Amazon on par with an infantryman in the Marine Corps whose mission is to locate and close with and destroy the enemy. And so at the same time, Admiral Haycock talked about the state of the market and then frankly we have trouble achieving state of the market even in this current day and age in that particular, that particular aspect, so I am very reliant on the capability of that individual young Marine to act in the absence of orders, understanding commanders intent, understanding multiple levels above him in terms of what his actions or her actions look like or don't look like and then responding appropriately in order to meet the mission. Next slide. So where do I wanna use technology to improve the readiness of the individual Marine? And first off, unmanned systems in general we think of as dull, dangerous, dirty that they're gonna replace or at least displace Marines who are tasked to do those jobs and that is important, but what I would say is that has led us much like the higher systems that Admiral Hahn and others have talked about to very exquisite, expensive unmanned systems that end up being assets that I have to protect instead of tools that I can use to accomplish the mission. So in general I think we wanna work towards small, smart, cheap and abundant systems that feed that individual Marine that help him accomplish the mission and let him go forward. On the maintenance side, same thing. Not sexy, I'm not killing people but if I can make use of augmented virtual reality to help those maintainers understand what's happening inside those more exquisite systems and get after that in a manner that really teaches them as they're doing the mission from an augmented or as they're doing the maintenance from an augmented reality perspective I'm gonna be more successful. With use of the augmented virtual reality in training it's really I think it's critical and where this virtual reality environment really enables us to be successful is this idea of mental, moral and physical stress. Video games today can put you under that mental stress. I think we're not far away from developing the moral and physical stress along with that and if you've gone out to ComElect and some of those other environments, the gaming industry has put you in a place where you really believe you're in a certain environment inside those virtual realities and what that will enable us to do then is get that 10,000 hours that Malcolm Gladwell talked about or Commandant calls it sets and reps but it's really focused on professionalizing that individual Marine and what does that mean to me? It means just like a professional athlete that 100th of a second can make a difference between success and failure and literally between life and death. So I can put them in an environment where they get to practice their trade, their profession over and over. I put them in an environment where they can practice their trade and their profession in their off time, in their barracks and then I put them in a position where their leadership can take them back and walk them through step by step, watch the game films, just like any other professional athlete would do and show them how they could have done things better, where they could have adapted, where they could have changed in order to be more effective. And then the last thing I'll highlight there is the idea of this analytics, the big data that others have talked about as well. To me, what that will do is allow me as a commander, allow me as a staff to develop courses of action quickly, to war game those courses of actions almost instantaneously to develop what I think is the best course of action and act on it quickly, which generates tempo for that young Marine who's at the point of the spear and tempo and training equals more sets and reps, tempo and combat equals victory and I believe all these systems are the most important part of readiness. I'm looking forward to your questions, thank you. So as you get your questions ready, mics are up here, don't be bashful but please do me one favor. Last night we had a panel, the gentleman asked a question and he didn't pick his target. So we wasted five minutes trying to pick a target and then all of them had to answer the question, we got one in. So pick your target, please. Pick a target. That must be mine. Udo Lu. Admiral Hahn and the general Williams. The CNO has said we're in a winter take all race and we're marginally ahead and our challenge is right behind us. There are these enabling technologies that we have. Additive manufacturing is a big one. The digital threat concepts are big, big enablers. What I fail to see is that an introspective perspective on this, on how we're going to radically change the process by which we make decisions on how to fund and resource a statement. The pointy end of the spear is always sexy but when you can't get a part for an aircraft and it's down, you can't deliver coordinates on target. So what I'm asking essentially is how are we gonna change ourselves to accommodate this reality of flying aircraft well beyond their design life when parts are failing that were never expected to fail? I'll leave it there. That's a great question and that's the reason that Admiral Cullum is not sitting right here where Scott is today. So I will tell you that at least inside of the Navy conversation inside the Pentagon that's going on now between the OpNav staff and the secretariat, we're having exactly that conversation. What is it about our behaviors, about our choices, about our processes that lead to choices for resourcing that we keep reliving this nightmare? And as Secretary Mattis has laid in, the focus right now is to get out of this readiness hole. So apply the resources smartly to attend to our Navy, Marine Corps, our services of today and fix that readiness hole. But that's not enough. As we approach our decision-making about investing in platforms, for example, we don't wanna find ourselves in the same pickle that we're in right now where we can't afford the people which is really the most expensive part. And we can't afford the maintenance and the logistics associated with every one of these things. So we are as we approach potentially a larger Navy focusing on what's the life cycle ownership cost really. And if we can't afford it, we don't buy it because we'll just find ourselves right back in the same spot. That's a tough conversation to have when numbers of ships and numbers of planes are the easy things to go by. They're the easy targets. They're also the things that move the economy along because they employ people. So there are a lot of forces at work in this one. We're only part of the problem. We're certainly a large part of the solution and we're trying to instill that discipline inside of our own processes. Lots of work to be done. So that's the Navy angle. Yes, sir. And so I would have to just ditto what the Admiral said. We too are looking at that. We're looking at our own processes. We think big data will help us at least nug down where we put the right dollars against the right parts or platforms. But it is bigger than us. But we know that we're working. We're getting at it. We too have internal folks working to figure out where to put, for example, we're looking at the top 25 cost drivers for all of our major combat platforms to figure out how we spend our money. Is it better to spend it at the depot or is it better to spend it in the field or at intermediate level? So we're doing those things now to try to get a better process. But I think big data, which allows you to do some of this nug work much, much quicker, would be incredibly valuable. And that's what we're looking at and we're trying to use as we do our part. And hopefully that answers, tries to get at part of your question. It does. Thank you. Big data is fantastic. Big data analytics. But right now we have disparate databases. So in logistics, we may have nine, 10 databases, all of which are incomplete. So we not only need to be able to mine that data and analyze for it, but we need access to it. Yeah, sure. Just as a side, when we were looking to fly the V22 link, additively, manufactured link, collecting that data just to do the analysis took us almost six months. That's unacceptable. We need instant access to that. That alone would drive our logistics costs down. Can I jump in? I was just gonna say, so you are absolutely right. One of the things that I talked about us looking at is this whole information technology piece. One of our challenges is we have a number of systems in the logistics field, a number of systems, a number of programs, all disparate, some talk, some don't talk. And we're looking for that master data management, that platform as a service, that software or whatever it is that can go out to each one of these things, bring them together, and some folks are working on some pretty neat artificial intelligence that will then allow you to, even with unclean data, kind of give you a better picture so that folks can make some great decisions. So that's a top priority for us. We understand what it can do for us, and so we're working towards that way. If I could jump on that one a little bit. Let's talk about the competition for a second, right? So the competition that C&O talks about is competition with the adversary. Some of the challenges that we have in unstructured data or access to data is because you are all in competition with each other. Sometimes we're in competition with you. If we're gonna compete against each other and we're gonna compete and we're gonna compete, then we're gonna spend all our time circling that drain and we're gonna lose the big race. So what I'd ask you is when do we start collaborating? And I get it if it can go a little bit to collaboration, I get it, I understand where your competitive advantage is in your industry, your business, your pursuit, whatever it is, but at some point we have to achieve a different balance so that we can get at these things and not spend our time fighting inside the family, if you will, right? So all of our behaviors must change, right? Thanks. I'd like to jump in as well. I may be an acquirer in my present job, but my trade in the Coast Guard has been as a maintainer, sustainer, a guy that repairs ships and keeps them in operations. So this is kind of near and dear to my heart. In addition to some of the stuff that my colleagues have mentioned, I think we can use your help, okay? The shiny new ship and the shiny new aircraft is cool. It's nice, but the problem is it becomes, it's like the shiny ornament on the tree, right? It gets your attention and then people forget about it, right? The note in the refrigerator has been there for a year sort of thing, all right? So where I think we need your help is one, is when you're proposing solutions, okay? Give us a good return on investment, a good business, show us how in the long haul we can afford to continue to use that system, all right? And the other piece is encouraging the people that provide the resources, stakeholders, Congress, that sort of thing, is make sure they understand that, I'd love to win the Lamborghini on the slot machine, but I can't afford the insurance. I can't afford the parts. I can't afford to operate it, you know? So you're not doing me a service by providing it to me, yet you gotta follow on with all the O&M and the Coast Guard, what we call OE cost, the cost to actually operate the thing. That's something I think you guys can help with. Is lay it out clearly in your proposition. Here's how you can run this for the long haul, all right? And then help us get the resources to actually do it. Gentlemen, anything else down this end? Sir. Hi, my name is Kevin Green. I'm with Robertson Blodgett. Today, when we hear the term hardening, it normally is associated with cyber hardening of those kinds of systems. During the long Cold War, the term hardening was often and more frequently used to deal with the reality of the requirement for the Joint Force to operate in a nuclear environment. That has not been a popular issue of common discussion in recent years. But given the behavior of the Russian military and there's a pod exercise series in Europe, given the behavior in East Asia as well, it would seem that being prepared to operate in a nuclear environment, including EMP, is extremely important. And I won't ask, is the Joint Force ready to operate in that kind of environment? What I would like to ask Admiral Hahn and Colonel Jenkins is what role do you play? And what efforts, what approaches do you use to ensure that the Joint Force, in particular, your services are well prepared to operate in what is essentially an unrestrained operational environment? Thank you. That's a great question. So this is akin, I think, to Ashley's conversation that he had with you. The investment in technology flipped a couple decades ago, right? So it used to be that when my organization was started that, and one of the underlying themes was the investment by government in technology will bleed over and be used by commercial markets and that will give us, as a country, a competitive advantage. That investment and the lead-follow relationship flipped a couple decades ago and we're now the minority investor, if you will. So inside of my space, we look very hard at which areas require us to lead and where we need to be fast followers so that we can adopt what's going on in the commercial marketplace. Those things that are not being invested in by the commercial marketplace tend to be under-invested in our world. Energetics is one. Hardening, rad hardening and other things, EMP hardening is another because it's not, there's no return on that investment. And it's hard for us to generate the interest at lots of different levels. So inside of my space, we have identified some unique national naval responsibilities where that investment in exactly these kinds of technologies are required and we have to lead that investment. It's not enough. So we're gonna need your help there in beating the drum on those things where you see under-investment and you know it's not being attended to by some other marketplace. And we do have a couple problems here that don't have easy answers. And that's on the technology end, Janks. Sure, thanks. I guess the only thing I would add to that and I agree in terms of the investment flip is that we are always gonna be in the business of balancing most likely and most dangerous. And certainly from a Marine Corps perspective, while the nuclear scenario is very, very dangerous it's relatively unlikely to just the kind of business that we send Marines to do day to day, year in and year out that's really ranging from HADR to combat operations like we're doing in Syria and Afghanistan. And that's not to say we won't have to be ready for it but I think it's something that we're always gonna have to balance in terms of requirements writing and fielding systems again of how exquisite do I make it to be sustainable in that most dangerous course of action when frankly from a Marine Corps perspective once we get into that world, it's not my job anymore. And I probably wanna step back and let the more strategic forces handle that threat. And so can I take risk there in order to get more systems more available, less exquisite in order to train and do my mission day in and day out? Ramagat from AECOM, I have a question about mindset at your end and our end and Admiral Han I agree with you 100% that you said that we are very good at collecting data. I've been also collecting data for the last 30 years. You know, metallurgy and material sciences. I would dare say and I don't wanna offend moves at a somewhat slower pace than where we're going with those things that are driven completely by Moore's law although Moore's law is driving that too. And the combat system gives us some unique challenges and I see Betsy DeLong sitting back there and as we look at the way we grew up with these systems, we did not do a very good job of taking a complex problem and simplifying it. We made it more complex. When you add in the external threats, call it cyber if you will, as well as the assurances you want that your things are gonna work reliably, we're in a fine kettle of fish with this one. And our way out of it is not to do the same things that we've done before. Our way out of it is to take in a blank approach to this and try to wrap it all together. So let's just say, as an example, that instead of trying to parse this out and try to solve your reliability and your maintenance problems with your switched network and separately try to keep the bad guys out of it and thirdly, try to keep the insider bad guy out of it and fourthly, try to keep the sailor who is well-intentioned but not necessarily exquisitely trained out of it at the right spot so that your system can operate when it needs to at machine speed, right? Let's just say that instead of trying to solve each of those problems, we just have a parallel system running that we keep in a perfect condition, right? And the behaviors of our existing in-use system can always be compared against our parallel system that we just keep running, right? We have our gold standard and we have our in-use system. I think we should be able to figure out how to detect an issue there and then how do we drive that to the root cause and go solve it? We should be able to do that. So I think there's ways that we need to think about these problems and wrap them together instead of providing each's solution. So what I'd ask you all to do is step back from the problem and don't listen to what we're telling you, right? Try to listen to the rhythm of what we're telling you and not the individual notes because we do a bad job of articulating the problem. You guys do a great job of listening to that and then we end up I think exacerbating it because we have hundreds of perfect solutions to hundreds of problems and we haven't gotten the outcome we're after. So I appreciate the question. I appreciate the fact that there's someone under the age of, I won't say it, but that's great. I'm glad that you're here and that you're engaged in this problem so thank you for everything you're doing every day. Thanks. Thank you sir, I'll make sure not to listen to you. So if I can, I feel compelled to add because I want to bring your attention back to another layer of that in condition based maintenance. If I bring you down one more level lower than the combat system, let's talk about the ordinance. Let's talk about what goes in the combat system. What's the condition based maintenance strategy if you will for that stuff? I'll tell you what it is. A lot of times it's a log book written in pen and ink that's thrown in the container with the missile. Where's your big data analytics there? Many times that stuff even doesn't get lost. What do we do? We take these rocket motors back and we saw them in half. Yeah, we saw them in half and we take a look at the propellant, we examine it with chemical analysis, physical properties, all that kind of things to determine whether the thing that we just saw in half, it's brothers and sisters that are still out there. Actually you want to continue to use and we do that with stuff that's 30, 40, 50 years old. I think we can do better in terms of our understanding of how to sense that material in real time and be able to make better and faster condition based maintenance decisions on stuff that we desperately are trying to last one year longer every year. Another angle. At least your log book is cyber secure. So, yeah. Last question. So we got that going for us. One quick question for General Williams and the admiral. In the marketplace, I think our Coast Guard brethren hit it pretty succinctly in that DOD is no longer truly the market driver. And especially when it comes to IoT, the Internet of Things, the network, DOD does not own the national network. So how do you compete against what is in industry, the Internet of Things? And how do you change your acquisition so that you can streamline and compete better with the UPS, Amazon? You know, the things that are on the network today as network disruptors with their big data analytics. Because frankly, DOD is far less than those commercial entities. So I'm not an acquisition specialist. So I'll just give you my layman's thoughts on that. It is too slow. And folks are working to get that thing sped up. There are some parts of the DOD who have acquisition practices that allow them to have an accelerated capability. And so we're looking at how they do business there as well. But at the end of the day, it's slow. We all know that. There's some good reasons for it. But when you're competing up against Moore's Law, so if it's gonna take you seven years to get a capability that's information-based, so it's computerized in some way, you're already behind the power curve a year and a half, two years after you've started the process. You haven't even gotten the capability. So we know there's a problem there and it's being worked. But I couldn't give you the details on exactly how we're getting at that. I think my brother to my right who is an acquisition specialist probably can. I'll give it a shot. So I think the answer is everything done by the acquisition is too slow, right? Because ultimately we all have a mission and we need what we need when we need it. But the problem is there's great risk in the development. And if you're not careful about how you do it, you can end up with something that's not supportable. I'll give you an example. We buy small boats. And in the past we haven't done a good job of making sure that small boats has a logistics package that goes with it, right? But we got it fast. So we've got all these different classes of small boats out there to do coast guard missions. But when they break or when they need maintenance, we don't have a system in place to handle it, right? So now we have an asset that doesn't work, right? Which is equally useless, right? So the acquisition process is designed to take some of the risk out. And frankly, we are where we are in acquisitions because we've been driven there, right? Every time there's a failure in an acquisition process and it hits the press, it becomes kind of the issue de jour, right? And there's gonna be some acquisition reform to fix that. And so we add more requirements to it. So now you have to do a lifecycle cost estimate say every year, right? And all this documentation has to be updated and it has to be vetted and that sort of thing, which takes time, right? Which is great for the people out in the world that develop the acquisition documents, right? It's putting food on their table, but it's slowing the process down, right? So I think we need to figure out a way. And I had a conversation with our chief engineer last week or a couple weeks ago at a conference. And one of his comments was, our acquisition documents, it's almost like we measure their effectiveness by the pound, right? Yeah, if you give me a study report that's this thick, that's clearly better than this, right? But his comment was, is where's the beef, right? Where's the meat in that? Where's the useful information? And so I'm at a point where I'm almost gonna tell our crews that we're gonna put page limits on these things. And there may be weight limits as well, right? If you can't say what you have to say in 50 pages or so, then look, it's a self-licking ice cream cone, right? You're not helping anybody, all right? Sure it looks good when the auditors come in and say, oh, look at this, the acquisition, the analysis of alternatives for this, took two years to develop and it cost three quarters of a million dollars and it's three inches thick, it must be good, right? But in the end, how much value do we get out? So I think we have got to figure out a way of beating down some of those things. There's well-intentioned regulations designed to reduce the risk, but we've become so risk adverse. I think we need to bring that back into it. It's an example in the cyber world because of the threats. We're shutting things down, right? When a threat comes in, a cyber commander may shut things down. We need to make sure we have conversations with the operational commander and say, okay, are we balancing the operational risk with that, right? Same thing in acquisitions, are we balancing the operational risk? And I think that's the key. I don't have a silver bullet for you. This is something that's near and dear in my heart and something I've been a lot of thought to and I need to tackle in the next two years my next job. We've got to deliver capability to the sailors and the marines and the coast guardsmen. We need to do it faster and it's got to be sustainable so that we're not delivering something that's just going to break the next day and we don't have anything in place. And so I'd say one last piece to this is, so understanding the environment we're operating in, it's slow, it's cumbersome, there's, the answer is we've got, Is that your cue? That was my cue. We've got to talk more. You've got to understand that was one of the reasons why I laid out kind of the operating environment that as a logistician in the Marine Corps, we're looking to try to solve. It's understanding that and then partnering with us in a way that you guys are providing us your thoughts on, hey, we think we can help you solve this, here's a way. At least that gets us a little closer and I think we've been doing very good at that. A lot of folks come in talk and try to understand what we need. And I think that's working given the restraints we have. Okay, I've got to throw one more thing out. This something happened to me, kind of shocked me not too long ago. So as you know, we are going to Windows 10, okay? And that's for information assurance and cyber purposes, right? Boy, it would be nice if a manufacturer of a system that's providing systems to the Coast Guard and I assume the Navy and the Marines as well, would come forward and say, hey, we see you're migrating to 10, all right? And we have something in place to migrate our system to 10. Let's talk, okay? It shocks me that I would have to go to a manufacturer and say, hey, we're migrating to 10. What are you doing? And the answer is, I'm not migrating to 10. There's no need for me to migrate to 10. I'm like, are you not seeing the demand signal, right? It's going to happen one way or the other. So it'd be great if industry were to come to us and say, hey, we can read the tea leaves here. You've got something coming up and I've got a solution for you. So if I was a moderator that I should be, the music would have been timed a little better. Came in a little early, but it was entertaining. Hey, let's thank the panel, our sponsor, Accenture. Thank you. And Navy League, thank you. And get your questions ready for lunch. Mr. Stackley, be ready for them. Make sure you practice a couple. And thank you very much. Yeah, that's okay. That's for sure. We're better served over here. That is for sure.